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

November 19, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Nov-19 vol. A (PDF)

L210A - Thu 19 Nov 2020 / Jeu 19 nov 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 19 November 2020 Jeudi 19 novembre 2020

Orders of the Day

2020 Ontario budget

Members’ Statements

Rosemary Harden

Bruno Gendron

Post-secondary education

Trans Day of Remembrance

Winter highway maintenance

Conservation authorities

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Events in Richmond Hill

Events in Scarborough–Rouge Park

Albert Besteman and Frank Filice

COVID-19 fatalities

Question Period

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

College standards and accreditation

College standards and accreditation

Winter highway maintenance

Conservation authorities

Flu immunization

Student safety

Opioid abuse

Tourism

Long-term care

COVID-19 response

Conservation authorities

Business of the House

Reports by Committees

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Standing Committee on Estimates

Introduction of Bills

Improving Access to Health Care Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur l’amélioration de l’accès aux soins de santé

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Housing Day / Journée nationale de l’habitation

Petitions

Community planning

Autism treatment

Conservation authorities

Services for people with disabilities

Climate change

Health care

Water extraction

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Affordable housing

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour mieux servir la population et faciliter les affaires

Consideration of Bill 61

Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour mieux servir la population et faciliter les affaires

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

2020 Ontario budget

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 5, 2020, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It is always a pleasure for me to rise in this House; it’s actually an honour for me to rise in this House and represent the people of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. We’ve said it in this House—all of us—and I will say it again, that I couldn’t be more proud of the people in my riding, the people that step up, that have done nothing but look out for one another to try and keep themselves safe, their neighbours safe, their families safe.

I, in my constituency office, as many of you, I’m sure, will get lots of calls and emails, and I get stopped quite frequently by people who have serious challenges. But at the heart of everything that they’re talking about is a fundamental desire to make sure that they help one another and that they improve the lot for people in our community. So, again, I just want to say to the people of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, I’m proud of you, and I will continue to stand up and fight for what’s right on behalf of you and all of the people across Ontario.

That brings me to the budget motion that’s before us. The budget was tabled two weeks ago now, I believe. At the time that it was tabled, we were saying in the opposition that it, really, already was coming up so short to provide the kinds of things that people needed in the face of the pandemic, in the face of the challenges and the struggles that people were having in Ontario.

Since that time, things have gotten so much worse. It was two weeks ago, but it seems like a lifetime ago, because what we have now is a pandemic that is continually growing, and the numbers and the projections that we’re hearing now are nothing short of frightening. I mean, we now are looking at the possibility of upwards of 6,500 cases a day in Ontario. It’s almost unthinkable. And the contrast between this looming economic and health disaster and this budget couldn’t be more stark. At the time, two weeks ago, we questioned the budget and said, “Where is the sense of urgency?

Where is the sense of the need to act now?” We couldn’t believe at the time when we looked at the budget that this was the government’s response to what people had been suffering for nine months.

We looked at this budget and said it just seemed like the Premier and the government had given up the fight on COVID-19, hoping, in fact, that people could survive this on their own with very little support from this government.

This budget, and the budget motion before us, is telling families and workers in this province, particularly workers in the health care sector, people who are PSWs who are continually on the front lines now—telling those workers, telling the hundreds and hundreds, the hundreds of thousands, of small businesses across the province of Ontario that have struggled to remain open, struggled to keep themselves safe, their customers safe—this budget was telling them that they’re on their own, because there was nothing in it to help people in their communities.

The government made clear that they don’t want to pay for smaller class sizes. They certainly don’t want to invest in public health measures that will keep people safe and have been keeping people safe. Clearly, there’s no money in this budget to hire PSWs, or in fact to pay them what they deserve, to pay them the kind of wage, the kind of benefits and to offer them the kind of employment conditions that they deserve. They deserved it before this pandemic, and they certainly deserve it now, when we see the heroic efforts that they have been making to keep people safe in long-term care.

Really, given the fact that there’s almost no—I’m going to say there are no direct supports to small businesses in this budget, in the budget motion; none are in here, despite months and months of hearing from small businesses about what they needed, about how they are so valiantly trying to keep their doors open, trying to keep their staff employed, and hoping that eventually the government would heed them, hoping that their patience would pay off in a budget that would finally provide relief. But instead, what we can see here is the government has said to small businesses, “You’re on your own.”

It really is shocking, Madam Speaker, that this government doesn’t share as well the kind of sense of urgency that we share, and so I would like to make clear that we felt then, at the time, that this government, by not putting these protections in place, by not putting these measures in place, were really gambling with people’s lives.

We were concerned that if the government didn’t get ahead of the second wave, didn’t put the protections in place, we were going to be risking deeper, longer lockdowns, and certainly that’s what we’re seeing now; the fact that we have now seen a government that had to, I’m going to say, flip-flop on the colour-coded protections that they provided for the province. After it became clear that the government was found out and not listening to all of the experts, they had to change the parameters by which they declared red zones.

I can only imagine that that was in order to cover or to justify their lack of investment, their lack of action in this budget. But now we see the evidence was clear, the cases were irrefutable, that this government had to change those orders to protect people, but they haven’t done anything to change the budget. They go hand in hand. You cannot have a healthy economy without the health of the people of Ontario, and vice versa, and so this government has failed on both accounts. They failed to keep people safe by acting quickly, and they clearly are failing to keep people employed, to keep businesses open, because of the lack of investment that we see in this budget.

What I would say, for the people in my riding—the businesses, particularly, in my riding—the thing that I hear most is that they continue to be confused. The government changes orders all the time and doesn’t provide clear direction to businesses. They struggle to do the right thing. They’re trying to do the right thing. This government doesn’t communicate clearly, in time and in an adequate way that will help businesses do the right thing.

You only have to look at the fact that we have had, over the course of the summer and into the fall, the standing committee on finance hearings, and every single business that came before us said, “We need clear, concise information in order to do the right thing.” They’re trying to do the right thing. They want to comply. But this government’s lack of clarity is making it very, very difficult for that to happen.

The budget that’s laid out—where do you begin with the shortcomings of this budget? But I think where we will begin is with the health crisis that is before us. How is it possible that, in a budget presented by this government in the middle of a pandemic, they do not provide enough funding for our hospitals in Ontario to even cover the deficit that they have incurred over the pandemic period? How is that possible?

Ontario hospitals have amassed a deficit of about $850 million. They don’t have the money to pay that, and this during a time when this government continues to sit on billions of dollars—billions of dollars—on the sidelines, stashed away in contingency funds and reserve funds, at a time when this needs to be deployed. This money needs to be in the field now—if not for businesses, for our health care sector.

The MPP from Willowdale likes to talk a lot about saving for a rainy day. Well, Madam Speaker—

Interjection: It’s raining.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: —it is raining. I don’t know what the government needs to hear about the disastrous circumstances that we are in—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Member from Willowdale.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: The member for Willowdale speaks up now, but I wish he had spoken up at the time when this budget was being prepared, to protect the people of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I feel that the government is particularly sensitive today, this morning, and that’s most likely because this budget landed like a lead balloon in the province of Ontario. It disappointed small businesses. It disappointed workers on the front lines. It disappointed business owners in areas that are non-traditional, that struggle to stay open. Black-owned businesses, Indigenous people, people of colour have all been left out in this budget, and my sense is, this morning, that that’s what they’re very sensitive about.

What we see here is, we’ve got a budget that doesn’t match up with the words of the Premier and of this government. This government seemed to make—we presented, numerous times, as the opposition, as New Democrats, a bill to ensure that people living in long-term care in the province of Ontario received a minimum four hours of hands-on care. The government supported this bill. It’s the right thing to do. They supported it. Maybe the people of Ontario thought, “Well, look at that. The government finally saw reason that this is what we need.”

But guess what they didn’t do? They paid lip service to it, but they didn’t put their money where their mouth is, because there isn’t any money in this bill to fund the kind of staff that we need to ensure that residents receive four hours of hands-on care. It’s that kind of contradiction—I struggled with my word there, Madam Speaker—that is the reason why people are so cynical about this particular government. They’re starting to understand that the words, the tough words and saying the right words, don’t matter when it comes to action.

In this budget, we don’t even see—it’s really, actually, identical to the budget that we saw in 2019. It doesn’t even come close to undoing the cuts we saw from what has been termed a slash-and-burn budget in 2019. It doesn’t do much. If you factor in population growth, if you factor in inflation, this budget continues to, in fact, be underfunding for the services we need most in the province: health care, education.

There are no emergency supports, as I said, for small businesses during COVID. There’s no allocation for home care and community care. We know the continuum of health care, if we want to keep people in their homes longer—which is what most people wanted; it’s just the healthiest choice for them, in many cases—we need to support home care. It’s not in this budget.

It doesn’t help the hospitals with the deficits that they have acquired and that they will continue to acquire. The Ontario Hospital Association has been ringing this alarm bell for years now, and the bell is getting louder and louder with COVID-19. With the fact that this government has done nothing to address hallway health care—layer on top of this COVID-19—it’s no wonder that hospitals across the province are having to take patients and put them into hotels across this province. How is that a thing in this province?

In the city of Hamilton, we have a hotel that is now being filled up with patients, essentially because hospitals are not able to meet the capacity of COVID-19, of ongoing routine surgeries for children in Hamilton. McMaster Children’s Hospital is struggling to provide the kinds of treatments and surgeries that young kids need.

The tragedy of that, Madam Speaker, is it’s very time-sensitive. Children need surgeries at a time when they need it in terms of their growth and their maturity, and we’re seeing that children are now not able to access the surgeries and the treatments that they need to keep them healthy at a time when the government is sitting on billions and billions of dollars and hospitals in Hamilton are moving patients to hotels. How is that a government that sees a sense of urgency or sees that it is their responsibility to keep people safe in this province?

One of the very first things that this government did was to eliminate two paid sick days—thank you very much, MPP from London–Fanshawe. You’re a lifesaver. Thank you very much. Water is life, which I will actually be talking about in a little while.

Two paid sick days is what people asked for in this province—two paid sick days. But this government considered that excessive, that people didn’t deserve that. At the time, we argued that that was really short-sighted and a little mean, to be honest with you, and that the fact that there was a requirement for staff who are sick to get a doctor’s note—these are common-sense practices that we, at the time, thought would ensure people were kept safe and were able to keep their workplaces safe, and they felt that they were able to stay home.

Now, during COVID-19, what are we telling people? If you are sick, don’t go to work. But if you are sick and you can’t go to work, “Guess what,” this government is saying, “you are on your own. No paid sick days for you. Thank you very much.” This is such a simple common-sense practice that would keep people safe in the province of Ontario that is missing from this budget.

If you actually strip away the billions and billions and billions of dollars in contingency funds and in reserve funds put away for a rainy day, if you strip out time-limited, one-time payments, strip those out, there’s very little here. If you actually look at the $6 billion-plus that this government is spending every single year to subsidize private hydro, that’s a huge cost. Now, I stand here and I will be corrected, but I believe that is currently now the fourth-highest cost in the government’s budget. I look forward to being corrected, but if it’s not the fourth highest, it’s certainly one of the largest expenditures in the province to subsidize privatized hydro.

This government ran on the promise to fix the hydro mess. Do we remember that? Does anyone remember that? It was clear. And we agree with you: Hydro was a mess. Hydro was a mess.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Still is.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It’s actually still a mess, as my colleague would say, but I would actually argue that it’s messier than it was then, because now the taxpayers are on the hook for this mess. Every year, taxpayers have to pony up six-plus billion dollars to subsidize this system.

But the second promise that this government ran on, and I’m sure we will all remember—we all remember the Premier saying, “We are going to reduce your bills by”—what was the percentage?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Twelve.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Twelve per cent; I know all of you remember that. And guess what? My constituents remember that as well. But what’s happened? Have bills gone down? No, Madam Speaker. Residential hydro bills in this province continue to go up. People are struggling to pay their mortgages, to pay their rent, to buy food. They’ve lost jobs. If they haven’t lost jobs, they have reduced hours. Businesses are shut down; they’ve lost revenue, all at a time when they could use a break on their hydro bill. But, instead, they get to pay for hydro twice now in the province of Ontario.

They get to pay for hydro on their increased bills every month—and the government can say what they want, but my constituents can read a bill, and they know those costs are going up—and now they get to pay for it on their tax bill, because that $6.5 billion hasn’t gone to give them a break at all. In a time when the government could have offered something to individuals, to actual individual people in the province of Ontario, like a break on their hydro rates, that hasn’t happened in this budget.

It really, really is such a disappointment for this government not to seem to understand the precarious situation the people in the province of Ontario are in. There’s very, very little here to help people. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: We hear the Premier get up every day and say all the right words, all his kind of hokey expressions and his tough talk. But do you know what? If you follow the words and the actions, they don’t match, and the people of Ontario are starting to see through this.

There is nothing in this budget to keep our kids safe in school—nothing. And the cases, the outbreaks in schools are alarming. We have been saying that not providing a 15-student cap in schools in the province of Ontario meant that teachers and children and education workers of all kinds were at risk. We warned the government that this was not a safe return to school and that they needed to fund a healthy and safe classroom for our teachers, our students and for parents.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: A youth worker just died yesterday—a child and youth worker.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Sadly, and tragically, the MPP from London–Fanshawe has reminded me—and it is an absolute tragedy—that an education worker in this province has died. This was an entirely, entirely preventable death. If the government had taken to heart warnings that came, not just from us, but from education workers, from health care experts, that their plan was unsafe—this was a preventable death. It’s an absolute tragedy, and it can be connected directly to the lack of investment on the part of this government in this budget to make sure that our schools were safe.

How can this not be a priority for the government? I don’t understand how keeping our kids safe isn’t a priority for our government.

In my riding, in fact in one of my little relative’s schools, there’s a classroom of 30-plus kids—30-plus kids. And we know—it’s common sense—that there is no social distancing in this school, none at all. At the same time, because of this risk, because of the fear, because of the evidence that outbreaks are starting to occur—I think we’re at well over 2,000 infections in schools, well over that—parents are starting to take their kids out of classrooms. Instead of taking this opportunity for the government to retain smaller class sizes, they’re collapsing classes. They’re making them even larger. So now it’s getting worse in terms of what we provide for our kids to be safe.

If the government really doesn’t seem to take to heart the moral obligation to keep our kids safe, that’s their choice, but they might want to consider the economy, because if there isn’t a safe place for families to take their children, to leave their children, people won’t be able to go to work. We’ve been saying that for years and years about safe daycare spaces, and it is now true about schools. So it is an economic argument as well as a moral obligation, and the government, with this budget motion, has failed entirely.

The Minister of Education likes to stand up and talk about the money that they’ve invested, but let’s be clear, let’s parse through that: The money that they’re allowing for in this budget actually comes from the reserves of school boards across the province. Just like they like to take credit for the billions of dollars—almost 97% of the investment that is COVID-related came from the federal government—they now like to take credit for the reserves of the school boards as a contribution from this government. We could strip that away, as well. Schools, Madam Speaker—our students are still on their own, as evidenced by the investment in this government.

That brings me to public health. How are we having a conversation about underfunding in public health, in the middle of a global pandemic? But apparently, we are. There’s no new, significant money for public health. And we know what public health does. We know; most people in Ontario now know, if they didn’t know before. I’m sure the Premier understands now that public health does more than put little stickers on restaurants. I’m sure that he at least now understands that they are absolutely on the front line of public health. We saw that with Dr.

Sheela Basrur during SARS, and we’re seeing evidence of the public health officers that are showing true leadership in this province. So we understand the critical role of public health.

But public health is struggling to keep up. They’re struggling to do the testing. We all know it still exists. This government’s testing regime was an abysmal failure. People waited days, and weeks and weeks. They’re still waiting to get tests and to get the results back. That still goes on, despite outcries to improve it. And so many public health units are not able to, and don’t, do the kind of contact tracing that we would expect, because they don’t have the resources. They don’t have the funding that they need to do their work.

We still also have, on the table, mergers of public health units across the province. You would think that the government would at least say, “You know what? We’re going to take this off the books right now to allow you to focus, absolutely, on the crisis that’s before you.” But that is still on the table. The public health units continue to operate in an environment of unpredictability, uncertainty and underfundedness, if that is a word, at a time when they should have all of the support that they need.

We just heard the Minister of Long-Term Care. It was really just mind-boggling that the Minister of Long-Term Care would stand up and download the responsibility to public health to keep people safe in this province, that it’s their job, in terms of people in long-term care. How is that possible? How is the Minister of Long-Term Care now, after all these months of not providing public health with the response and resources they need—how is this minister now saying, “Well, actually, we’re going to download the actual responsibility. It is the job of public health, not this ministry,” and clearly, then, by extension, not this government?

In addition to this budget motion that provides no significant resources that public health needs, the Minister of Health continues to announce more Ontario health teams. More Ontario health teams have been announced. This was a highly controversial move. It was not clear to communities how this was going to roll out. It was a reorganization that was very, very confusing.

In my community of Hamilton, it’s still unclear what Ontario health teams are funded to do, what roles they’re taking on. There are agencies that thought that they would be part of the process, and not clear what their role is. I imagine this confusion of changing roles and responsibilities—if that’s happening in Hamilton, no doubt this is happening in cities and public health regions all across the province. Is this what we need public health to be focusing on, in the middle of a pandemic? I think not, Madam Speaker.

Those are the areas that people are most concerned about right now, and rightfully so: keeping our kids safe, keeping people in hospitals safe. There’s also the failure, the ongoing failure, of this government to protect our seniors in long-term care. It is nothing short of shameful. We had a first wave where we saw over 2,000 deaths in long-term care, and we thought we had learned lessons. We thought we understood what we needed to know about long-term care in this province. We had the heartbreaking report from the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard from the government’s own panel the need to invest in more PSWs.

Experts agree, we agree, apparently the government agrees that we need to fund four hours of hands-on care in long-term care. We knew the second wave was coming; I don’t know about the government, but we knew. And you did not take the opportunity then to hire PSWs in long-term care, and you haven’t done it now in this budget.

The province of Quebec hired 10,000 PSWs; BC, 7,000 PSWs. How many PSWs has this government budgeted for in this budget motion before us? My feeling is that the people of Ontario, if they knew there was nothing in here—there’s absolutely no human resource plan; there’s no budgeting for it. The tens of thousands of PSWs that we need, the army of PSWs that should be on the ground now protecting our seniors—they’re not provided for in this budget.

But as we know, instead, we have Bill 218 that the government prioritized, which is a bill that will protect for-profit long-term-care operators—corporations—from any accountability for deaths that happened in long-term care. So rather than putting an iron ring, as the Premier talked about, around long-term care—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Where is it?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Well, there is an iron ring, but it is around the for-profit corporations, the CEOs, the lobbyists, the insiders. They have benefited from an iron ring while we have continued to leave our vulnerable residents and our workers exposed during this pandemic.

You know, Madam Speaker, it’s almost too difficult to discuss, to be honest with you, because deaths are happening every single day in the province. I had a long-term-care town hall just last week, and people were almost in tears. I had a worker in long-term care who started by saying that she loved her job, that she loved working with the residents. She’s worked for many, many years. She likes knowing their stories, their families.

She loved her job, but then she was almost in tears by saying that she feels sick that she can now no longer provide her residents—her people, she actually called them—the care that they deserve, because they’re so, so dangerously understaffed. They call it “working short.” They cannot provide the basic services—feeding, bathing, even just spending time with the residents—that they expect in normal circumstances.

Now we see instances where we have ward rooms, where there are still four-bed ward rooms in this province in long-term care. In this budget bill, is there money in there for that? No, it is not there. So really, this budget tells staff and tells residents and their families that help’s not coming this year, not in this budget. They were on their own in wave 1, and they’re still on their own.

Let me just say, Madam Speaker, that a budget from this government that really continues to underfund the public services that people rely on is not a surprise. The cuts that we saw in 2019 have not essentially been undone in this budget, shockingly. But do you know what I’m not shocked about, Madam Speaker? I’m not shocked about a Ford government omnibus bill that sneaks in another attack on our environmental protections. What would a government bill be without trying to furtively sneak in a

schedule that continues to water down the protections that we have in this province for our environment? If we didn’t know before, this budget motion continues to be disturbing proof of the reality that Ontarians face with this government: that we have a Premier who is dragging us backwards when it comes to our environment and the climate crisis. This budget motion tells it, but this is absolutely nothing new.

We’ve seen all of the previous assaults on our environment and our environmental protections. The list goes on and on. Let’s start with tearing out charging stations on 400-series highways. If that wasn’t vindictive, I don’t know what that was. Ending programs that would encourage purchasing of electric vehicles: That flies in the face of any of the things that the government is saying now. And then, right now, they’re tearing down windmills. These cost hundreds of millions of dollars that taxpayers will have to pay for these cancelled contracts.

We know also that the Premier can’t take his eye off the greenbelt, but not in a good way. He has tried to pave it over not once, not twice; three times he has tried to pave over the greenbelt, but he has been stopped on that.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Stop the—well, the clock isn’t on, but stop the clock.

I recognize the member on a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Speaker, I just want to talk about motive and relevance here—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry, I am unable to hear a member who is raising a point of order because of the side conversations.

I am sorry. Back to the member.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you, Speaker. I just want to raise a point of order on relevance, as well as motive, with the member opposite.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I hear your point of order. I disagree that there was a comment about motive, and I will remind all members that we’re debating the budget bill; anything to do with budgetary policy is fair game.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The budgetary motion—I beg your pardon—and therefore it’s fair game. I return to the member.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yes,

schedule 6 in the budget motion is a furthering of previous actions on the part of this government to attack our environment. You don’t have to take it from me; we had the Auditor General who weighed in on this, who weighed in on the government’s past practices. Currently, with

schedule 6 before us, we see that this is a pattern from this government.

Schedule 6 essentially is going to take away the ability of conservation authorities across the province to protect our wetlands, to protect our flood plains. That’s what they were put in place for. There was a good reason for this, and they are doing a good job to protect not just our wetlands, not just our protected watersheds, but they’re also protecting infrastructure. The work that they are doing protects infrastructure in this province.

When I said earlier the government is putting away for a rainy day—let’s talk about rainy days in the province of Ontario. We have seen so many extreme weather events that have caused flooding, that have damaged not only people’s homes—for people in my riding, in Dundas, Dundas was practically under water downtown at one point because of an extreme weather event.

People understand the role of the wetlands to protect their homes, to protect their streets. That’s a natural, natural function of wetlands. If that is eroded, not only do people have to pay the price—people have to pay for flooded basements, being denied on their insurance claims or not being able to get insurance to protect against future events; individual residents have to pay out of their pocket for these flood events, and that is the role of the conservation authority, to prevent that.

Flooding is also a huge cost to taxpayers through infrastructure degradation. We know that we have shoreline degradation. We know that we have culverts that are overrun. We know that in agricultural communities they struggle with their bridges because of water damage. They struggle with roads that have been washed out. These costs are borne by who? These costs are borne by municipalities and municipal taxpayers.

If, as in

schedule 6, we diminish the role of conservation authorities to protect our wetlands, to protect our communities and our municipal infrastructure—if we do that, who pays the price? Who pays the price are taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

Wetlands are important not just as flood plains, and to protect them—and conservation authorities also do that work. But they’re really important, that we rely on to protect biodiversity in our community. These are things that people value. The vast majority of people in the province value biodiversity. They value our green spaces. They value our environment. The conservation authorities are on the front line of that. So why does this government have this bill attacking the conservation authorities? That’s a question that the government is going to have to answer and hasn’t answered adequately at all.

I would say that Environmental Defence has provided a rationale as to why this government, in a budget bill intended to protect people from COVID, instead has taken an opportunity to attack the conservation authorities and our environment. Environmental Defence had this to say: “These provisions, long demanded by developers, will allow the accelerated destruction of wetlands, forests, wildlife habitat and natural spaces. These changes will increase flood risk, and reduce oversight over illegal dumping of toxic soil ... at a time when we need natural spaces to help protect us from the growing effects of climate change.”

Madam Speaker, that’s what people think. People think that the reason that the government has

schedule 6 in here is because they want to ensure that developers have a speedier and direct path to build on our protected spaces and our wetlands. We know that the greenbelt continues to be a prize for this government, and this is just a small step in that direction.

I had a town hall in my riding previously, and it was about the role of water and protecting the water. It was actually called the Water is Life Town Hall. At that, on a Sunday afternoon, there were hundreds of people—200, 300 people came, because they know that this is an important issue. I also want to tell the government that this move to attack our environment is so unpopular. It’s so unpopular.

Who spoke at this town hall was Chief Arvol Looking Horse. Chief Arvol Looking Horse is the spiritual leader for Standing Rock. He’s the 19th generation of spiritual leaders in his community, and he was in Hamilton. We were blessed to have him there speaking to all of us. His speech was that Standing Rock is everywhere. By that it means that we all, no matter where we live, have a responsibility to protect our water.

Schedule 6 in this bill does exactly the opposite. It endangers our water.

Let me take a few minutes to share some of the wisdom that Chief Arvol Looking Horse shared with us that day in my riding in Hamilton. He said, “Standing Rock is everywhere. Our collective water has been assaulted for many generations to the possible point of no return.

“Our elders foretold of a Black Snake and how the Water of Life—’Mni Woc’oni,’ which is our first medicine—would be affected if we did not stop this oncoming disaster. Mni Woc’oni is part of our creation story, and the same story that exists in many creation stories around Mother Earth.

“When we say ‘Mni Woc’oni’—Water of Life—people all over the world are now beginning to understand that it is a living spirit: It can heal when you pray with it and die if you do not respect it. We wanted the world to know there have been warnings in our prophecies and, as we see it, those warnings are now taking place. It was said water would be like gold. It was said that our spirit of water would begin to leave us.”

Those are words of wisdom from a spiritual leader, but I share with you that the notion that we have an obligation to protect our environment and to protect our water is shared by the vast majority of people in the province of Ontario. This attack in

schedule 6 is something that the government will live to bear, to wear, because the sum total of their attack on the environment—they do something small here, and they bury another attack here and there. The sum total of what they’re doing is telling on the fact that you don’t respect the environment, that you value development over our environment, over our waters and over what people value in terms of our green space and our environmental protections.

But if you don’t want to protect the environment because it’s something that people value, you need to understand that there is an economic argument as well, and that is another thing that this government has failed to understand. We have clear evidence that conservation authorities also are at the forefront of good, green infrastructure and good, green development. That’s what we need in this province. We need innovation.

We know that a green recovery could be one of the greatest economic opportunities facing us in the province of Ontario, and by taking away the role and diminishing the role of conservation authorities and prioritizing the interests of developers over people that protect our environment, it’s so very short-sighted. It takes us backwards in the role in the province of Ontario that we would like to play in being part of a green strategy, a green revolution that’s happening around the world, whether this government wants to get on board or not.

If they want to bury their heads in the sand—if there’s any clean sand left for them to bury their heads in—this is happening around the world.

I would like to share with you that Green Infrastructure Ontario has just put forward a report in April 2020 and talked about the 2018 impact of green infrastructure in the province of Ontario. I’ll just read some of the highlights: “In 2018, Ontario’s green infrastructure sector generated $8.6 billion in gross output (revenues), $4.64 billion in direct GDP, and employed 84,400 people.

Comparatively, the green infrastructure sector in 2018 was larger than Ontario’s wood product manufacturing sector ... the pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing sector ... and the computer and electronic product manufacturing sector.” So this is a significant sector, and conservation authorities innovate and play a role in this.

In Hamilton, the conservation authority has developed at Saltfleet—they’re creating a natural diversion in the wetland to prevent flooding. In Hamilton, there’s an escarpment. Here’s my geography lesson, but the escarpment is the same escarpment which Niagara Falls flows over. It’s the Niagara Escarpment. It’s a beautiful, biodiverse area. But when there’s flooding, the water runs down the Hamilton escarpment and floods businesses and streets and residences in that neighbourhood of Hamilton. So the conservation authority has spent millions of dollars, funded by RBC—they provided a contribution.

Industries understand that this is an important innovation and they would like to see it move forward, because it saves money: It saves insurance costs, it saves municipal infrastructure costs; it saves residence costs. That’s the kind of work the conservation authority is doing in Hamilton and doing across Ontario.

But instead of that, the government thinks that they know best and that they will take away the authority of conservation authorities. Further weakening the power of the conservation authorities just risks further flooding, further hazards, further degradation to our protected areas. Really, it’s clear evidence of a government that was wanting to politicize development approvals. They just want to be able to fast-stream development approvals. It’s a government that has shown itself to listen to their insiders and their lobbyists more than they do to the people of the province of Ontario.

There’s no environmental case for this, and there really is no business case except for the business case, perhaps, of private interests. The only reason I can think of, and that people can think of, is that Ontario is really beholden to private interests, because common sense is being thrown out the window with this move. It makes no sense.

I would say that the most difficult part of this government trying to pull a fast one in the province of Ontario by slipping this into a budget bill—while people are busy trying to protect themselves from COVID-19, while people are, in good faith, doing what they need to do in the community, while they’re looking the other way, the government sticks this in a bill that didn’t do anything to help them but certainly is clearly providing favours. The worst part of this, Madam Speaker, is that it actually contravenes the environmental protections that the people have in the province of Ontario.

It goes exactly against the Environmental Bill of Rights that the people of Ontario are proud of and that they use.

You don’t need to take my word for it, Madam Speaker. We had an Auditor General’s report that was just released yesterday, and the Auditor General slammed this government on their role in the environment. Essentially, this bill does not put notice for people on their Environmental Bill of Rights, and that is precisely, among other things, what the Auditor General has said about this government and this ministry’s role when it comes to the environment, conservation and parks. She said they need to lead by example. This is certainly not leading by example.

Again, don’t take it from me. Let’s hear what the Auditor General has to say about this. The Auditor General said that “the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks needs to do more in leading by example on the environmental front by supporting, promoting and administering the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR Act) in a more fulsome manner.” This is what she concluded in the recent report.

“The report found examples by multiple government ministries of non-compliance with their responsibilities under the EBR Act that prevented its effective operation in 2019-20. The report states some ministries are still not posting environmentally significant proposals on the Environmental Registry or giving the public enough time to respond when they do.

“‘The ministries,’” and this government, “‘have an obligation to embrace this legislation and include Ontarians in the decision-making process. The EBR is critical in ensuring meaningful public participation and better decisions affecting the environment.’”

The government has lost many lawsuits in court. Their cap-and-trade program that they cancelled was ruled by courts to have been illegal—and now in this bill, this government is evading their legal responsibility to provide notice to people about a change that is significantly important to our protected wetlands. It is possible that the government doesn’t really understand their role. In fact, that is what, at some point, the Auditor General does say: that the government has failed on their responsibility to educate and inform residents of Ontario about their rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

So it’s quite possible that the reason they failed to inform Ontarians is maybe because they themselves don’t understand that they have an obligation. It’s clear they don’t seem to understand, or if they do understand, they’re evading; they’re non-compliant in their obligations—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): You’re walking a fine line, to the member’s earlier point. I’ve been listening very carefully, and I would say that the member has to be very careful not to suggest that she knows what the government is thinking or their motives. Please continue.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Really, I wouldn’t suggest to have any idea what the government’s thinking.

But clearly the Auditor General has weighed in on this. This is clearly connected to the bill, to

schedule 6 in the bill. It really speaks to ministerial zoning orders that this government is newly liking to take over, evading their responsibility to put things—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m going to encourage the member to stop using that word.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Which word?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m not going to say it. It suggests an untoward motivation.

I’m going to have the member continue.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: “Avoiding” their obligation? One letter—oh, no, more than one. Yes. I know, yes—avoiding their obligation under the Environmental Bill of Rights. These were put in place for a reason. They were put in place for a reason, and so I don’t understand why the government does not feel it’s their responsibility or their obligation to follow the law in the province of Ontario. This bill is clear evidence of a pattern on the part of this government to use budget bills, omnibus bills and now COVID-19 as cover to attack the environment and to provide opportunities for people who have the ear of this government.

What I would like to say is that not only are people hugely disappointed by what this government has not done in this budget—people are now well into the second wave of this pandemic, and any hope that they had that this government would understand their struggles has clearly, clearly evaporated. What we have now is a budget that in so many ways leaves so many people out.

Small businesses: Let’s just talk about the failure of this government to support small businesses. We have heard—time and time again, we said it in the House; in the summer and into the fall, extraordinary amounts of consultations with small businesses. And what did they ask for? They asked for direct funding, direct support. They explained that nine months into the pandemic now, businesses have done everything. They have done their part; they have done everything they can to keep their doors open and to keep people employed. They availed themselves of the loans that were offered by the federal government.

They availed themselves of any programs that were available, slim as they were and difficult as they were to access—and confusing. They’ve done their part. They have used up their lines of credit. They have no cash reserves. Some businesses are using credit cards to fund their programs.

Their concern is making payroll, and that is always a fundamental concern of small business, because small business, as we know, while it is the backbone of the province of Ontario and employs the vast majority of people in the province of Ontario—they operate on such slim margins. During this time, the government has listened, held all kinds of consultations, but people are now disappointed to see that what they have been patiently waiting for is not in this budget at all. It’s not here.

Where is the sense of urgency from this government? Businesses are closing up now—closing up now, Madam Speaker, as we speak. We hear a lot about people who grew up in convenience stores, as their families ran a convenience store in this province. But the Ontario Convenience Stores Association just shared with us at finance committee last week that five convenience stores a week are closing their doors. Five convenience stores a week: That’s a lot.

The thing about convenience stores: As a small business, they are such a vital part of the community. We know convenience stores, they often—they live in the community. We know their family; they know our family. We know the stories of their struggles and we share with them news of our family and what’s going on in our community. Five a week are closing up in the province. But you wouldn’t know that; you couldn’t tell that from this government’s budget. There’s no support there for them. I mean, there’s a $1,000 grant for PPE, but that falls so short of what people need for PPE in this province.

One of the businesses in my riding one time did a thorough cleaning of their business, and that one cleaning alone cost $4,000.

The government is not providing direct funding to keep these businesses open. Businesses know, in a time of uncertainty, that they can’t even weigh the risks. They can’t even make a sound business decision as to whether they should close or stay open in this time of uncertainty. The government’s own public health advice is essentially, “Everything’s open, but stay home.” So businesses are really supposed to open at limited capacity, but then the government is saying, “Stay home.

Make your own choices.” I heard that was an answer, that people have to make their own choices, but so do businesses, small businesses, and their choices are, “If I open, with the cost to open, I’d survive nine months. I can’t access any more credit at all.” Banks and financial institutions see that we’re in a risky time to extend credit. They’re rolling back, tightening up the parameters by which they will extend credit or loans.

Businesses in this uncertain time I’m sure would have appreciated one solid piece of help from this government, to help them make the decision as to whether they should stay closed, open or fold up altogether. As we know, entrepreneurs take on risk, and that’s why we love them. Small business owners work their tails off, as the Premier likes to say, day and night. But they need from this government some help. They need from this government some clear direction. They need to hear that this government understands their pleas, and this budget clearly shows that they do not.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to end by saying that we had an opportunity here, with a budget like this, to offer hope to the people of Ontario that the struggle that they have had for nine months was not in vain, that while they struggled, while businesses struggled, they could have expected that help would have been on the way. But it is not here on the way.

The government again started by offering tax deferrals. Other levels of government, the federal level of government, as we know, provided almost all of the support. Governments knew that’s what they were provided, and they said, “Well, deferrals and loans still have to come due one day,” and so they were concerned about that. And now, with the tax breaks that the government is offering, what essentially the government is saying to businesses is, “Listen, we’re not going to help you right now, but if you can make it on your own to the end of the year, then we’ll offer you a tax break.” But people needed help now.

Businesses needed help now. Education workers needed help now. Long-term-care employees needed help now. We don’t see it in this bill.

I would urge the government to take the time to go back and think about what you heard and take the time to respond to the urgent needs of the people of the province of Ontario. It’s your responsibility, and it’s not too late to put it into this budget.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Stan Cho: It’s my 896th day since my election, and I’m sitting here listening intently to the member opposite’s debate. I can’t help but be reminded of my inaugural speech. In fact, I believe you were in the chair when I said it’s a privilege to serve here, and I still hold that. It’s an honour to stand here every single day to debate and to talk about the important policies that affect Ontarians.

I still understand the opposition’s job is to be critical of the government, but today, I can’t help but be disappointed. In this time of crisis, in this time of great need for the people of this province and around the world, I wish we could hear less rhetoric. I wish we could hear more ideas, solutions. How about some figures from the budget? But we don’t hear that, Speaker.

It’s clear that the member opposite hasn’t read the budget. She asked in her comments to be corrected, Speaker, and I heard dozens of places she can be corrected, but I’m going to pick five. I’m going to pick five corrections to the member’s comments about the budget. Let’s start with, “The government is sitting on billions of dollars.” I believe she referenced $9.3 billion in unused funds when the people of this province need it. So I’d like to refer the member’s attention and remind her that she was briefed on this in the technical briefing in the budget lock-up on November 5. But I’d like to direct the member’s attention to page 173.

If she could follow along. Table 3.4 on page 173: About two thirds down the page, there are three line items. One reads, “Drawdown of the standard contingency,” “Drawdown of the COVID-19 health contingency,” “Drawdown of the support for people and jobs.”

If we go to page 187—this is where those figures sort of tie in—and we look at the bottom of the page, it says, “Total remaining balances” on the contingency: $2.6 billion. Speaker, this government has invested the contingency in an adaptive way as we move through this very uncertain situation. The objective evidence is here that we are not sitting on billions.

Another false assertion from the member is that there have been cuts to long-term care. This is nothing but political game-speak, because it is categorically false. Let’s start with page 194. If you go to page 194—please follow along—you see in comment number 9, it says, “For presentation purposes in the 2020 budget ... COVID‑19-related spending has been included separately”—separately—“instead of within the ... Ministry of Long-Term Care.... This change in presentation does not impact ministry allocations.”

This is important, because now, if we go to page 173 and we look at the actual spending—actual spending—in the long-term-care sector, we will see increases every single year, including this fiscal, next fiscal, to every out year for the next four years. Categorically false.

In correction number 3—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Stop the clock. The House will come to order.

I would remind the members that while they are welcome to state facts on the record, challenging those of other members or what has been stated is not allowed. So let’s just keep things parliamentary, folks. Thank you.

Mr. Stan Cho: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will refer to page 183, then. Instead of saying it’s categorically false, I will say—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Stop the clock.

I would ask not to be challenged. I think that’s a fair ask. Thank you.

Please continue.

Mr. Stan Cho: Okay, Madam Speaker.

On page 183, we see that the spending—and this is the third assertion that the member made, that this government is cutting health care. I would like to direct her attention to page 183, to table 3.9, which says that the actual spending in the health care sector for 2019-20 is $63.7 billion. If we look at the 2020-21 year, we are at $64.6 billion. If we look at 2021-22, the spending in health care is $67 billion. If we look at 2022-23, the spending in our health care sector is $68.5 billion. These are increases every single year.

Let’s also take into consideration the note that I have on page 183, on bullet number 2, which reads, “For presentation purposes in the 2020 budget ... health sector expense of $3.1 billion,” as it relates to COVID-19, and the health contingency of $5.3 billion, have not been included in the ministry allocations.

Once again, we have evidence that there is increasing spending in the health care sector separately bucketed from the spending set aside for contingency. Speaker, these are figures. These are figures that we are looking at right now. These are real, tangible figures. They are an absolute proof that we are not cutting in health care; we are not cutting in long-term care.

The other assertion that the member made around hydro was that rebating hydro is the fourth-largest expenditure. Yet again, we have evidence to the contrary. Going back to the line expenditures on pages 172 and 173, we see that is also false. The top four expenditures in this province are health care, education, social services, and the fourth, unfortunately, because the NDP sat and supported the Liberals as they racked up an incredible debt, is interest on the largest subnational debt on the planet. It is not rebates—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What’s your deficit this year?

Mr. Stan Cho: Here we have the member from Timmins criticizing what our deficit numbers are. On the one hand, they’re saying that we’re not spending anything and we’re cutting services and funding, and on the other hand, he’s claiming that we’re spending too much. They’re speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The House will come to order. Stop the clock. The member will withdraw.

Mr. Stan Cho: I withdraw, Speaker.

In yesterday’s debate, the member opposite said that these numbers that I had referenced, and I am paraphrasing her debate from yesterday—she had alleged that the government numbers were false, that they were somehow made up in this budget. I’m wondering why on earth she would make that assertion. Who is she calling a liar? Is she calling the officials who worked on this budget—tireless, tireless efforts for months and months, thousands of hard-working, non-partisan officials, public sector union employees who worked on these figures; is she asserting that they are lying?

Speaker, this government has had three clean Auditor General reports in a row, something that the last government cannot claim. These numbers are worked on carefully because we take every fiscal responsibility that we have in this province with the utmost seriousness. That’s why I sit here on nearly my 900th day in government, and I find myself quite disappointed in the debate we’re having with the members opposite. The job is to criticize, but the job must be to criticize based on fact, and so I’ve corrected the record of the member five times—five times—based on the figures that have been presented.

I was also very disappointed to hear the member opposite refer to this budget as, I think—yes, I wrote it down—she is saying that it is a lead balloon. She even referenced my family’s personal story, which I’m very proud of, Madam Speaker. When you were in the chair and I was talking about my parents and their hard-working little convenience store and talking about saving for a rainy day, I wasn’t expecting any member to take my personal story and treat it out of context, saying that I talked about saving for a rainy day. But she didn’t listen to the story.

What I’ve said repeatedly is that the rains are here, and the government must spend to protect the health and safety of those we serve. We are absolutely spending to protect that number one priority.

I also want to talk about how the member has unfortunately not mentioned her story. I’ve heard her talk about how she sat on the board of a credit union. In fact, she stood next to me at receptions advocating and saying that she would continue to promote the credit union sector. We’ve had some important legislation in this budget around credit unions. We’ve updated

an act that hasn’t been updated significantly in nearly three decades.

We all know that credit unions serve very important rural communities throughout this province, provide amazing services to their members and are going to be a crucial part of our recovery plan when we move out of this pandemic. She has not mentioned those initiatives once—once—and I find that incredibly disappointing. It makes me question, will she be voting against this budget and saying that she doesn’t support the credit unions? These credit unions are sophisticated financial institutions—I’ve heard that out of the member’s own mouth—who deserve to have expanded business powers for their very members. I haven’t heard a single peep about that.

I find myself continuously hearing the debate from the members opposite, and I cannot help but be disappointed, because we are not debating on the numbers that have been presented. I didn’t hear a single figure quoted, not from the pages of this budget. There are 239. It leads me to ask: It’s either that the member doesn’t understand how these government finances work—and I mean this earnestly. I am happy to sit down with the members or any member opposite and walk through those very figures with them. I am happy to do that. We did it during the budget lock-up and I’m happy to do that again. Or—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Stop the clock. I see the member, on a point of order.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I would like the member to return to the budget motion before him rather than impugning my skills and my ability—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I don’t agree that he was impugning motive. We are discussing the budget motion. Anything to do with budgetary policy is fair game, as was my ruling earlier when you were speaking.

I return to the member for a very short period of time before members’ statements.

Mr. Stan Cho: Thank you. I realize we’re running short on time, Madam Speaker, so I’ll conclude my comments by saying, in all earnesty, for any member opposite, I am happy to sit through and talk about this budget based in the facts, because we either need to do that or the members opposite are simply misleading Ontarians, and I—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member will withdraw. You cannot suggest that the—the member will withdraw.

Mr. Stan Cho: Withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Seeing the time on the clock, it is indeed time for members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Rosemary Harden

Mr. Joel Harden: Rosemary Harden, my mother, was born on this day in 1949. Speaker, let me tell you about her.

My mom is a community leader through her love of the arts and care for others, which is one of the most powerful combinations I believe human beings can achieve. For decades she has worked tirelessly to create wonder and magic through holiday concerts, community choirs and piano and vocal teaching. Our family house was literally a hub for music education throughout my whole life, and it still is today.

My mom has always been there for others. Growing up, it was common to have people staying in our home, often for weeks at a time, when they needed help. But, Speaker, I’ll also tell you this about my mom: She’s fierce. Do not stand in the way of her children, grandchildren, students, friends or pets, or expect to hear about it.

She believes queer and transgender people should be faith leaders if that is their calling. She thinks and acts on our obligations as treaty people in Canada. She has supported students in our small hometown of Vankleek Hill who have been organizing Black Lives Matter protests. Yes, Speaker, I know what you’re thinking and you’re right: The apple in our house doesn’t fall very far from the family tree.

By any measure, my mom’s life has been an enormous success. It reminds me of three lines from the great American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson, who once wrote that to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to leave the world a little bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know that even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.

You’re a success, mom. Thank you very much.

Bruno Gendron

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: It is my honour to rise today to share a true example of the Ontario spirit. Ottawa police detective constable Bruno Gendron, who also spent 17 years as a paramedic, tragically passed away recently after a cardiac issue. His funeral is being held today.

This news was especially devastating as he had championed the campaign to equip Ottawa police with automated external defibrillators, saving a number of lives.

His police and paramedic colleagues have come up with a touching tribute to turn this negative into a positive and honour his legacy. They’ve started a memorial “pup raiser” to cover the cost of training certified service dogs to help children with autism, veterans, first responders with PTSD and in some cases victims and staff at police stations or courthouses. The training will be done by National Service Dogs in Cambridge, who have previously donated a facility dog named Canine West to the Ottawa police. One colleague said of this initiative, “We see it as a way to empower others through helping paws.”

After meeting their goal of sponsoring one puppy, a corporate donor agreed to sponsor another and told them to keep going. This fundraiser will continue until December 8. Thank you to Detective Constable Gendron for your many years of service in our region. My condolences to your family and friends. Thank you to his colleagues for honouring his legacy through this fantastic initiative.

Post-secondary education

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Students who enter post-secondary education do so to better themselves, to build a life and a future. Part of that equation is meaningful employment.

I rise today to tell our House about a commitment to students, employers and our community. I recently met with principal Dave Malloy and dean Joe Henry from King’s University College in my riding. They just launched the King’s Promise. They re-envisioned post-secondary education, emphasizing career building from first year, starting in 2021, so that students will better understand their talents and competencies while actively engaged in understanding how their gifts, talents and training translate into the world of work.

King’s gathered feedback from students and partnered with the London Economic Development Corp. to design their innovative program, where students will undertake co-curricular career development activities each year while developing their portfolio.

What sets this program apart is the commitment. King’s guarantee to students ensures those who do not gain employment six months after graduation will receive additional undergraduate courses and career preparation for up to one year post-graduation, free of charge. That’s a solid pledge, a concrete promise to students, their families and our community.

I look forward to the stories of success and accomplishment from the signature learning experience, this unique tailored approach to student success before and after graduation.

Well done, King’s University College.

Trans Day of Remembrance

Ms. Jane McKenna: More than 20 years ago, the transgender community came together to advocate for a national day to commemorate and mourn those who have lost their lives as a result of transphobic violence. To this day, transgender and gender-diverse people are still subjected to violence and prejudice because of their gender identity and expression. More devastating still, every year, many will lose their lives due to anti-trans prejudice worldwide.

Ontario’s freedom and tolerance is a beacon to the world. Our diversity is a strength and provides a foundation of equality and acceptance for all. Bigotry and hatred have no place our province.

On November 20, the Trans Day of Remembrance, we reflect on and mourn deeply those lives that have been cut short. This year, we cannot do a flag-raising, but it is still important to remember the flag, which symbolizes awareness and respect.

To the trans community, their families and loved ones: Our government mourns with you. We say to all Ontarians, let’s continue to work together to ensure that everyone can feel proud of who they are, be free to express themselves and safe to live their lives. Today and every day, we must remember and work to build a society where we treat one another with respect, regardless of gender expression and identity, and where hate has no place.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Michael Mantha: Every now and again, all of us meet with that special person, that one who lights a flame into your heart and your gut and makes you do the job that we do that we all love in this House.

I met Kennedy Quade. She’s a beautiful young lady from Manitouwadge. She prepared this petition. She collected almost 1,500 signatures. It reads, “Manitouwadge 614 winter maintenance. To ensure that our highway is properly plowed, salted, and sanded, I am requesting on behalf of the community of Manitouwadge—full time winter road care.”

The reason why she did this is her locker buddy, who was Kobe Rochon—they used to play chess, Battleship. They used to listen to Ozzy Osbourne while they were in high school, and they were great locker buddies. They both grew up. In adulthood, they become teachers. They started teaching in Pic Mobert First Nation, the community just down the highway. Each and every day, they’re required to take that highway, along with 50% of this community who have to take this highway. That one morning, in a matter of 30 seconds, an accident happened. Kobe passed away. It was directly related to the conditions of this road.

I’ve taken up this issue with the previous government. I’ve taken up this issue with this government. The winter road service agreements in northern Ontario are not working. People are dying on those roads, and we need to change that. It needs to be addressed. The biggest problem for this community is that the plow has been taken out of the community and assigned to Marathon. We need to fix that. Everybody knows that. Let’s fix it.

Conservation authorities

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I’m honoured to rise to speak on behalf of my constituents of Scarborough–Guildwood who have expressed serious concern to me about the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act in

schedule 6 of Bill 229. One constituent wrote, “It’s very frustrating to see the Premier waging a war on the organizations that were set up to protect our environment while COVID-19 is raging.”

This government is continuing on its path of weakening environmental protections by opening the door for the minister to override decisions taken by conservation authorities, all under the cover of the COVID pandemic.

This government’s track record on environmental protection is shameful. The Auditor General has just confirmed this. They’ve cancelled rebates for electric vehicles and moved to open up our natural green spaces and wetlands for development. Some 95% of Ontarians live in watershed communities like Scarborough–Guildwood, which require careful and considerate environmental protection and management.

“Without these powers and the same powers as the provincial officers, TRCA is unable to effectively stop significant threats and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and hazardous lands (e.g., flood plains), such as illegal large-scale fill operations.” This is a quote from the TRCA.

This government is continuing on its path of weakening environmental protections by opening the door for the minister to override these important decisions taken by our conservation authorities for political reasons, and it must stop.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Last week, the Oakville Community Foundation released its Oakville Resiliency Report. This report shared the impact of COVID-19 on Oakville and outlined the great work that charities in Oakville do to better our community.

One of the lessons of COVID is how important it is for all levels of government, for charities and for businesses to work together in times of crisis. During the lockdown, the Oakville Community Foundation began distributing over $625,000 to front-line charities through the Oakville Resiliency Fund. These funds were raised through donations from community members and played a major role in supporting vulnerable individuals, families and seniors and the organizations that help them. Some of the organizations who benefited from this funding included the Canadian Caribbean Association, Halton Women’s Place and the Kerr Street Mission.

Our government knows how important it is to support municipal programs and social services, which is why we are investing $200 million in social services relief funding to help and protect our province’s most vulnerable people. This funding helps support shelters, food banks, emergency services, charities and non-profits, while also providing emergency assistance to families and individuals who didn’t qualify for federal emergency benefits.

Thank you to the Oakville Community Foundation for supporting our community during this unprecedented crisis.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: COVID-19 is spreading throughout northern Ontario. Over the summer and into the fall, cases remained extremely low, but that’s quickly changing. Almost overnight in Thunder Bay, we have over 50 cases, with one person in the hospital and an outbreak in a long-term-care home. Our local public health units and hospitals in Thunder Bay have done an excellent job containing the virus—but there is only so much they can do.

Frankly, this government needs to step up. The province needs to provide sufficient resources for contact tracing, rapid testing, quarantining—and also give clear instructions based on public health recommendations. We also need this government to focus more on northern Ontario, where we have far less health resources than the south. I hear about this from constituents calling and emailing my office every single day.

The province must lead—and not leave it up to local officials to figure things out the best they can, with insufficient resources. This is not a good strategy, especially as cases are rising. We can and must do better for the north, for Thunder Bay and Atikokan, and for all of us across this province. This government must take active steps to contain and end the COVID crisis.

Events in Richmond Hill

Mrs. Daisy Wai: COVID-19 has created many challenges in our economy and our daily lives, but when handled with a positive attitude and creativity, we can overcome it.

The city of Richmond Hill organized two successful events last week, despite the challenges of the pandemic.

The Richmond Hill Entrepreneurship Finance Conference was held last Wednesday, delivered virtually by the Richmond Hill Small Business Enterprise Centre. They connected entrepreneurs with the sources of capital available through the federal and provincial governments, as well as banks, investors and other financial institutions. BDC also gave a good analysis of our economic outlook and gave professional advice. They stressed on the increase of online sales and encouraged everyone to take advantage of technology. These are good pointers for our businesses.

Last Saturday, we had our first Santa’s Workshop Drive-Thru that replaced the Santa Claus parade. Not only was it safe, with proper social distancing, families with children and seniors were warm inside their car, driving through, waving and singing carols. Yes, if we keep a positive attitude, using creativity and innovation, we will come out of this pandemic stronger and better.

Events in Scarborough–Rouge Park

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: While we live during this pandemic, many of the things we often take for granted are suddenly things we no longer can do. This is especially hard for children and youth.

This incredible constituent of mine, D’Arcy, discovered this when her son was about to celebrate his birthday, but could not have a traditional party with friends and family. D’Arcy turned this predicament into something that now spreads joy to children all over the West Rouge neighbourhood. She organized a car parade to celebrate her son’s birthday, and continues that practice across her community. The West Rouge drive-by birthday parade now organizes celebrations for children every weekend, with up to 50 cars participating, rain or shine.

On top of that, D’Arcy and her team also organized car parades over the summer for graduating students and supporting those in long-term-care homes. They truly embody the Ontario spirit that we have seen across Ontario in this challenging time.

Thank you, D’Arcy, and everyone that participated in these car parades. Our community is truly a better place because of all of you.

Albert Besteman and Frank Filice

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I am very pleased to report to the House that today we have some special guests, and I draw the members’ attention to the Speaker’s gallery.

We are being kept safe and secure today, in part, by our security officer, Albert Besteman. Many of you, I’m sure, will know Albert very well. After working here for more than 32 years, today is Albert’s last day before he starts his retirement. In 1988, when Albert began his career here, he worked for the Ontario Government Protective Service, which provided security to the Legislative Assembly at the time. In 1997, the Legislative Security Service was created, and Albert transferred so he could continue working at the Legislative Assembly. He has been a dedicated, courteous professional throughout his tenure.

We will miss you, Albert. On behalf of all the members of the assembly, we thank you for your service here and we wish you all the very best in your well-deserved retirement.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery is a very familiar face to all of us, Frank Filice. Frank started his employment with the Legislative Assembly on April 6, 1975, and served as the barber for 33 years full-time, but he wasn’t quite ready for retirement, as he had planned, and the rumour has it that it was because his Toronto Maple Leafs were not doing very well at the time and he needed a distraction and had to come back. So he returned on a contract to work part-time, two days a week, until March of this year—45 years in total at the assembly.

Earlier this year, when many of our functions had to be suspended due to COVID-19 health restrictions, Frank decided to retire again. He has been quoted in an issue of the assembly staff newsletter, the Green Gargoyle, as saying, “What is said in the barber’s chair stays in the barber’s chair.” And I am sure he’s heard it all—some truths, some embellishments, but this being a Parliament never, ever a lie. He has served in the assembly during the tenure of nine Premiers and way too many members of provincial Parliament to count.

Frank, thank you for your service to the assembly, and enjoy your retirement for this second time.

Applause.

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

COVID-19 fatalities

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence to honour the lives lost to COVID-19.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment’s silence to honour the people who have lost their lives as a result of COVID-19. Agreed? Agreed.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question this morning is to the Premier.

This morning, the head of Ontario’s hospital association reports that, “As of this morning there are now 150 patients in ICU with COVID-19 related conditions. All Ontario regions reporting increases in admissions not only GTA and central.”

Speaker, 150 patients in ICU had been the threshold that would necessitate the cancellations of surgeries and other life-saving procedures in our hospitals.

The Premier has announced that he plans to have a plan tomorrow for the surging second wave of COVID-19. But why has the government yet again waited until this crisis point before taking action?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, we have been taking action since this pandemic began. Last year we increased the capacity of hospitals. We added to them a 5.5% increase, the largest increase they’ve had in over a decade. We also added $341 million earlier this year, to add 500 acute-care beds and 100 critical care beds. We’ve added another 139 more critical care beds and 1,349 beds, and most recently spent another $116 million to create another 700-plus beds. We’ve added over 3,130 beds since the beginning of this pandemic.

We’re prepared to do more and expand more spaces if we need to, because we know that it’s very important to continue to accept the COVID-19 patients. But we also want to keep going with the surgeries and procedures that were postponed during wave 1.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier wants to blame someone for the devastation that has been caused by COVID-19. He does that every day. He should start by looking in the mirror and taking some responsibility himself. It was the Ford government that refused to ramp up testing capacity and tracing through the summer. It was the Ford government that not only reduced public health measures as cases started to spike, but claimed their reckless plan was actually backed by experts, who really opposed it.

Is the Premier prepared to take any responsibility for the government’s confused, erratic, delayed and underfunded response?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: I’ve been in front of the people of Ontario every single day since this pandemic—numerous occasions. I take full responsibility for anything that goes on with COVID-19.

I just love the question from the Leader of the Opposition.

As of today, we have tested 5,737,000 people. That’s more than all the provinces combined. We never took the foot off the pedal. As a matter of fact, we’ve increased it to 50,000 tests a day. That’s our capacity right now. We’re going to continue testing. We have about 40% of the population, but again, we’re well over 50% of the testing.

I give all the credit to the folks out there, be it public health or Matt Anderson at Ontario Health. They’re doing an incredible job. We’re going to continue ramping up. Our government is investing $1.376 billion to enhance and expand efforts to test, trace and isolate new cases of COVID-19. But thank you for the compliment, Leader of the Opposition.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families have risen to the occasion in this pandemic. They’re living with daily health risks, lockdowns and economic uncertainty, and they’re ready to do whatever it takes to crush this virus. But they need a government that works with them, steps up with supports and tells them the truth about expert advice, not a Premier who ignores expert advice, shouts at and blames Ontario in daily campaign events and only acts when things reach a crisis point.

Will the Premier commit today to lifting the gag order on experts from the health sector, expert health advisers, and let the public of Ontario know exactly what was recommended by them, and where the Premier is refusing to follow expert advice?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I have never once, ever, from the beginning of this pandemic, disagreed with Dr. Williams or our health team. As a matter of fact, to the contrary, every measure that he’s put forward we’ve implemented.

On the testing, we’ve received about 98,000 ID NOW tests from Ottawa and we’re expecting another shipment very soon. We also have the Panbio tests; we have 70,000 tests that we’re implementing and we’re rolling out as we speak right now into the most vulnerable areas: long-term care, the health sector and our First Nations communities.

We’re going to continue rolling out these tests and continue being a leader in the country when it comes to testing and tracing.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier.

The Premier has indicated that new COVID-19 measures will be announced tomorrow, weeks after New Democrats, front-line doctors and health experts first called for them. If new measures are going to be effective, small businesses will need concrete, direct financial support now to pay the rent and to protect their staff. A tax break next year won’t make a difference if you close next week.

Will the Premier be announcing new business supports tomorrow to ensure that businesses can stay afloat while government plays catch-up with the second wave?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister responsible for Small Business and Red Tape Reduction.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: This government, since the start of this pandemic, has been committed to supporting small businesses. That’s why we introduced new support programs, $300 million, for businesses in the areas of Peel, York and Toronto that have been impacted by these new measures. They support those with property tax payments, energy payments, but on top of that, in the piece of legislation, the budget that we’ve put forward, we’ve introduced record supports to support them in the future to help them recover, to get back on their feet.

Whether it’s $1.3 billion in reductions to hydro rates, this government will always remain committed to supporting small businesses, whether it’s before the pandemic, during the pandemic or in their recovery.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s more clear than ever that essential workers are particularly vulnerable in the second wave. The people who go to work every day in communities like Scarborough and Brampton keep Ontario running so that others can stay home. They deserve our thanks and, more importantly, they deserve protection on the job.

Paid sick leave would make it possible to actually miss work to get tested and quarantine, if necessary. Will the Premier be announcing paid sick leave tomorrow to ensure that working people can afford to protect themselves and all of us if they fear they have become infected with COVID-19?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond? The member for Burlington, the parliamentary assistant.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Thank you so much for the question. Just to recap, on July 16, Premier Ford joined with the federal government in the historic $19-billion Safe Restart Agreement. The deal includes $1.1 billion, which includes 10 paid sick days.

Unlike our government, which continued to work through COVID-19 for the people of Ontario, the federal government prorogued the House. I clearly understand your frustration as we have been waiting for months. It’s still in the Senate. We will keep you posted when we finally get an answer.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: So far, not so very good: zero for small business, zero for essential workers.

I’m going to try again: Any measures that are announced tomorrow must address the unfolding crisis that’s happening yet again in long-term care. Another 17 people lost their lives just yesterday, people that we mourned just a minute ago with our unanimous consent motion. While the Minister of Long-Term Care desperately denies that there’s a crisis in these homes, staff on the front line report clearly that, once again, exhausted co-workers are forced to do the work of at least two people and sometimes more.

To quote one PSW from a COVID-ravaged facility in Scarborough, “They go on camera every day and it’s lies, lies, lies.” That’s what she said. Will the Premier be announcing tomorrow an immediate—

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

Hon. Steve Clark: Come on, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I don’t need any assistance with this. Thank you very much.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw, Speaker.

As you can see, PSWs are extremely frustrated. They’re worried sick about themselves, the people they take care of and their co-workers. So will the Premier be announcing tomorrow an immediate PSW recruitment plan—something that should have happened in the summer—with increased wages and increased training to actually start addressing the staffing crisis that they have ignored for months and months and months?

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

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Indeed, we have been working on the staffing strategy ever since the Ministry of Long-Term Care was created as a stand-alone ministry to demonstrate our government’s commitment to staffing, whether it was Justice Gillese’s recommendations, whether it was our expert panel that reported, whether it is getting the support that is required for the recruitment of PSWs, the return of service.

The funding for return of service for our PSWs is $10.3 million; the training funds for PSWs, $14 million; $461 million to increase PSW wages by $3 an hour, and that’s not including the pandemic pay that preceded that; $405 million to help with operating and staffing and PPE issues in long-term care. That was part of a $540-million package added to the $461 million, added to the $243 million. We have been taking steps this whole time, not only addressing the long-standing issues left behind by the previous government, but taking urgent actions—

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

COVID-19 response

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. This question is for the Premier.

On November 3, Ontario schools were reporting about 2,300 cumulative cases of COVID-19. Just over two weeks later, and those numbers are up to 3,626 and growing by about 100 new cases a day.

On Tuesday, the minister signalled that closures might be coming here as well, but yesterday he announced they would remain open, but without any additional support for our students. With the recent flip-flop—up, down, sideways—on regional restrictions, parents and education workers are watching very closely. They want to know that all decisions about schools are being driven by public health advice, not political considerations.

My question to the Premier is this: What changed between Tuesday and Wednesday, and was this decision made by Dr. Williams or Dr. Ford?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the decision point and the context of looking around the holidays to make sure our kids remain safe, that decision was made on the advice exclusively of the Chief Medical Officer of Health and the public health tables. That is a matter of fact.

In the context of what we’re doing in this province and the context of our schools, we have put in place a plan, fully supported by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, fully funded by our province and evidence-informed. The evidence that underpins our plan demonstrates it’s keeping kids safe: the fact that 99% of kids are COVID-free, the fact that 99.5% of staff are COVID-free, the fact that 85% of schools have never had a COVID case. It underscores that we’re doing something right in this province, led by our teachers, by the sacrifice of our parents and by our public health leaders, and we are proud of each and every one of them.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: While the minister tries to justify his government’s underfunding with these cold stats, I want him to remember that these numbers are people. Each worker or student case impacts a whole family, a whole school, a whole community. No case of illness or death is acceptable.

Speaker, New York City just closed its schools, citing a positivity rate of 3% in the community as the threshold for risk. Toronto’s positivity rate is double that. We need our schools here to stay open, but we need them to stay safely open. Classes are still being combined into larger ones. Itinerant teachers are still moving between as many as eight schools. New custodians are still unaccounted for.

In the interest of complete transparency, will the Premier make public the advice he has received from Dr. Williams and the ministry’s new in-house adviser?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Dr. Williams and the command table are accessible to the public multiple times a week, and I look forward to that question being posed to him, because he will affirm, as he advised myself and members of cabinet, that our plan in this province stands alone as one that is keeping kids safe. That is the position of Dr. Williams, Dr. de Villa, Dr. Dubey, Dr. Silverman, Dr. Chagla, Dr. Yaffe, and the list goes on, because there is a consensus in this province.

The plan we have unveiled, informed by the best medical science in Canada, is keeping students safe. Those data points instill confidence in parents, that 99.95% of students are COVID-free. They may be inconvenient facts for you, member, but they provide confidence to people on the front lines, sending their kids every day to school. We are confident in our teachers. We are confident in our nurses, in our doctors and in everyone working together to reduce the risk of community transmission in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I will remind all members to make their comments through the chair.

The next question.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: My question is to the Premier. Last year, before the onset of COVID-19, our government began an ambitious project to significantly improve the care Ontarians receive and finally put an end to the hallway health care crisis in our province. We moved quickly to set up the first group of Ontario health teams. It was a new concept of integrated care, designed in consultation with the health care sector. I was proud to join the Minister of Health in announcing the Ottawa health team.

When the pandemic hit, this new model became all the more important. In fact, we are already seeing the results from these early initiatives. These health teams are working together to combat outbreaks in their community and coordinate support across long-term-care homes, hospitals, family doctors’ offices and home care partners.

Can the Premier please share with my constituents further information about the Ontario health teams and the support our government is providing during this crucial time?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for the great question and the great work he’s doing up there.

I’m proud to announce we’re investing to support 13 more Ontario health teams across the province. That brings the total to 42 health teams right across our province, everywhere from Toronto to Rainy River, that people can rely on—24/7 care, around the clock. When all these teams are fully up and running, that’s 86% of Ontarians will be covered—better and connected care. We’ve added a $2.4-million investment that will support these teams in the response to COVID-19, help maintain hospital capacity through the programs and link hospital, primary care, home and community care, long-term-care homes and other congregate settings and services.

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

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Thank you for that response, Premier. I know that my constituents are incredibly excited about the future plans for Ontario health teams. Through these organizations, patients will experience easier transitions from one provider to another, including, for example, between hospitals, home care providers or long-term-care homes, with one patient story, one patient record and one care plan.

Premier, I know that a robust testing infrastructure is key to our province’s strength in addressing the second wave of COVID-19. Our government and yourself in particular continue to be champions for our front-line health care workers in hospitals and long-term-care facilities. This has included strong advocacy on rapid testing systems to identify and stop COVID from spreading.

Could the Premier please elaborate further about the status of rapid-testing products from the federal government for all Ontarians?

Hon. Doug Ford: I thank the member for the question. Yes, we’re number one in the country when it comes to testing, bar none, over anyone. I’m so proud of that. Again, I want to congratulate the people out there doing the testing.

As I said earlier, we received 98,000 ID NOW tests that are out the door and going to long-term-care homes, health care workers, northern remote areas and First Nations communities.

We have also received approximately 70,000 Panbio tests which are going out the door. Again, I want to thank the federal government, but we need more of these tests. We’re delivering to areas, as I mentioned, all over the province, putting a priority with health teams. That’s the number one priority. We’re also planning on sending these rapid tests to areas that don’t get the testing turnaround as quickly as we’d like to see.

This is a game changer, and we’re going to continue changing the game here.

College standards and accreditation

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Premier. Each day brings more and more serious questions about this government’s decision to give the Premier’s long-time ally and unapologetic bigot Charles McVety the right to grant university degrees at his Canada Christian College.

During the 2018 PC Party leadership race, the Premier used Mr. McVety’s college boardrooms to get people to vote for him. Now, this isn’t just a sign of the cozy relationship between the Premier and Mr. McVety; it’s a violation of elections law and charitable tax law.

Can the Premier explain why the supposedly non-partisan charity was using space to help him become the PC leader?

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

Hon. Ross Romano: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and again address an issue that is of significant importance. And do you know what that issue is, Mr. Speaker? It’s what our job as legislators is. It’s to be procedurally fair. It’s to create processes that we can all respect. That is the job we have as legislators. It’s a job we take very, very seriously.

The members opposite continually heckle and hiss and play politics with an issue of grave importance.

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Oh, my gosh. Did you just say that?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Ross Romano: I can listen to the member from Ottawa South and his continual, constant lack of understanding of what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands for. It stands for something extremely important, very important, and I would love to continue to explain it. I will continue to explain it to the members opposite, because what we believe in is procedural fairness. It is what is guaranteed in our laws in this province. It is what makes us a democratic and free society, and we’ll continue to fight for our democracy.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Back to the Premier. Our job in this House is to not legislate hate. That is our job in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have written to—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Mr. Speaker, I have written to Elections Ontario to investigate why the Premier’s financial returns have no payments to Mr. McVety’s college, and I’ve asked Revenue Canada to review why Charles McVety’s college, a registered charity, didn’t report this political activity.

The Premier can’t ignore Mr. Charles McVety’s hateful rhetoric, and he can’t sweep this scandal under the rug. While these investigations take place, will the Premier do the right thing, pull

schedule 2 from Bill 213, which gives Charles McVety an even bigger platform to spew his bigotry and hate, and assist Elections Ontario with any investigation that they may decide to launch?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Colleges and Universities to respond.

Hon. Ross Romano: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I won’t speak to the status of investigations because it’s inappropriate to interfere with processes. That’s what we’ve continually referred to time and time again.

Let’s see if I can—in the most respectful way possible to this House and to everybody who has stood before us in this House: Any individual, any institution is allowed to apply for a licence or a designation of this nature. Anyone can. They apply directly to an independent body. That independent body is called PEQAB. We’ve taken that independent process—and we’ve also indicated that once that process is complete, they would therefore have the benefit of legislation to be proclaimed into force if an independent process is completed.

That is what we’ve created, Mr. Speaker: an independent process that is accountable and a transparent process in this House, open to everybody to debate.

College standards and accreditation

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: My question is for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday, my colleague from Ottawa South asked the Premier to stand in this House to disavow the vile Islamophobic opinions and remarks of Charles McVety. The Premier did not do that. Instead, the Premier gave an answer that was the equivalent of, “Some of my best friends are Muslims.”

Whether the Premier behaves decently to an individual Muslim man or woman, whether he is polite to individual lesbian, gay, trans or queer individuals is irrelevant. If the Premier continues to support the bigotry of Charles McVety, then his kind words about one Muslim, one lesbian, one queer person ring hollow. The Premier’s actions speak much louder than those words. His actions signal bigotry, hatred and rejection of every Muslim child, every Muslim family and every LGBTQ+ person in Ontario—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): No. The member must take her seat, and she must withdraw that unparliamentary attack.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: Withdraw.

Will the government withdraw

schedule 2 from Bill 213 and send a message of inclusion?

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

Hon. Ross Romano: Just last week, I responded to the member opposite, and we discussed the importance of independent processes. We discussed the importance of not interfering with processes—much like the member presided over a government who did on a regular and consistent basis. There were numerous scandals. I can get into those in the supplemental.

What I really want to focus on here is the fact that we have continually indicated that there is absolutely no place in the province of Ontario for Islamophobia, homophobia, hatred, racism, discrimination of any kind.

But it’s imperative that, as leaders, we stand by the rule of law, the rules that require fairness, the rules that require procedural safeguards in every process. You cannot interfere with any individual putting forward an application. It goes to an independent body, it’s reviewed, and it’s in a transparent process here in this House.

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

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said in this House a number of times, I am not talking about the PEQAB process. I am talking about the legislation that has been brought in by this government that, in fact, protects a bigot. Charles McVety is a homophobe, a transphobe and an Islamophobe. That is what I’m talking about. I know that the minister is going to continue to hide behind the PEQAB process, but that is beside the point, and he knows it.

I had a chance to talk with some members of the executive of the College Student Alliance yesterday, and they’re worried about a whole lot of things. They’re worried about cuts to OSAP. They’re worried about mental health in their colleges. But they also spontaneously raised the issue of Charles McVety. They are worried about the message that this government is sending to the LGBTQ+ students on their campuses. These are young people who are in an extremely stressful educational environment right now.

Will the government remove

schedule 2 from Bill 213 and send a message of inclusion to those students and every child in this province?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Colleges and Universities to respond.

Hon. Ross Romano: Mr. Speaker, I have so much respect for the member opposite. All of the things that she’s accomplished in her profession—it’s outstanding. I was there when her portrait was unveiled, as the first female Premier in Ontario. I remember that she was an educator herself before stepping into the political arena.

I’m going to ask that the member opposite please listen—as she did many times as an instructor and a teacher herself—to what we’re trying to say here. Please don’t play games with the politics. Please listen to what we continually say.

The PEQAB process is independent. The PEQAB process is part of the legislation. The legislation is simply there to provide an open forum for us to be able to demonstrate that if the independent process is done, then it would be proclaimed into force. It is independent. It is accountable. It is transparent.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Jim McDonell: The winter season poses challenges to Ontario drivers in every corner of the province. Safe winter driving has been discussed in this Legislature many times. I understand the members of the official opposition have raised the issue in the past, particularly on behalf of northern Ontarians, who face the most challenging and harshest winter conditions. Road safety is indeed a priority for every member of this House, and there’s always more work to do to ensure that Ontario roads remain among the safest in the world.

Speaker, can this minister share the latest news on how we’re supporting Ontario drivers during this winter season?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There’s no cell service up north.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Timmins: Come to order. You can’t shout across the floor like that.

I apologize to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you, Speaker—track the location of snowplows and find rest stops along our provincial highways. We understand the responsibility to support Ontario drivers during the winter season. With the launch of the 511 app winter updates, our government is making it easier for drivers to plan ahead before they get behind the wheel.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you to the minister for her response. This is both exciting and relieving news to hear, as I know it will help alleviate many winter driving stresses. We need to make sure that drivers have the right information at the right time. These updates to the 511 app are the means to do just that, so could the minister share more about the resource that drivers now have at their fingertips?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: We brought in the Ontario 511 app at the beginning of the pandemic to help truckers, and today we’re announcing that we’re launching it for all drivers across Ontario because it has been such a success and help to Ontario truck drivers. The Ontario 511 app includes an easy-to-use map view and a drive mode that provides hands-free audio alerts for safe driving. It also provides images from over 600 cameras and includes up-to-date highway information on construction, collisions and road closures.

Speaker, I want to remind Ontarians that the 511 website is also a resource for drivers to learn more about road and weather conditions in real time.

We all have a part to play in keeping Ontario roads safe, and I’m confident that this news will significantly help Ontarians navigate safely during the wintertime. I want to encourage all drivers to take advantage of these resources and to plan ahead, and don’t forget to put your winter tires on.

Conservation authorities

Mr. Ian Arthur: Speaker, through you, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Changes in Bill 229 rewrite the rules for conservation agencies that protect Ontario’s watersheds and allow developers to skip checks and balances, undermining conservation authorities and recklessly endangering communities. The scope and powers of conservation authorities will be limited to the point that no meaningful integrated watershed management will be possible.

Schedule 6 is clouded with uncertainty, as is much of the detail, particularly in relation to setting out the scope of programs and services. Standards and requirements and other important matters will be left up to future regulatory development.

The opposition to this lobby-driven

schedule is coming from every corner of Ontario. Among many others, the mayors of Halton joined together in a letter that asked the government to stand the

schedule down. Can the minister explain how this government’s approach to locally driven cost-effective conservation efforts is not a failure in protecting our parks, our wetlands and our communities?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks very much for that question. I’m glad it was asked, because I can dispel some of the myths that the member opposite was spreading in this Legislature. There are no checks or balances that will be overlooked during the changes of the legislation—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the minister to withdraw the unparliamentary comment—

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Okay. I’ll withdraw. Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): —and conclude his answer.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Listen, the legislation does not change any sorts of checks and balances that are in the system. In fact, it’s strengthening the role of the conservation authorities, to ensure that they’re able to focus in on their core mandate services while including accountability and transparency to the municipalities.

We put in a provision of an appeal. I don’t know if the members opposite don’t believe in an appeal process in this province, but we are going to go to the LPAT to ensure that decisions may be appealed, like every other government agency in this province has.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this will ensure that transparency and accountability. I’m not sure what the member opposite has against having accountability and transparency between municipalities and conservation authorities.

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

Mr. Ian Arthur: It’s actually municipalities themselves that are most opposed to this. As I stated in the first question, they have been voicing their displeasure with this

schedule for weeks now. But I’m really not surprised by the answer from the minister, because, frankly, this

schedule speaks to a pattern of dislike for local governance—a pattern that dismisses environmental protections and the well-being of future generations.

But don’t take my word for it. Yesterday the Auditor General released a scathing report detailing the government’s environmental failures. Note that the AG provides value-for-money reports, and it still was damning, pointing to systematic non-compliance by ministries. The government’s poor view of the environment and Ontario’s bill of rights is on every single page. Ministries haven’t collected the data needed to track progress. The government will miss its own weakened GHG targets.

My question is quite simple, Speaker: How is this minister going to explain to the next generation his role in the development of legislation that undermined their safety and damaged the world that they’re going to inherit?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: There was a lot in that question, but I’m going to address another issue the member mentioned, about local autonomy and respect. This government is probably the strongest government to return local autonomy to municipalities throughout this province. The former Liberal Party, supported by the NDP, took away the rights of municipalities in siting green energy projects. We returned that, Mr. Speaker. We’re giving municipalities the right to deny landfills built in their locations if they do see it, Mr. Speaker. We’ve given the rights to municipalities to turn down permits to take water going forward.

Again, the NDP were against each and every single movement we’ve done to give autonomy to municipalities, so don’t lecture me on the local economies of municipalities. This government is working with municipalities and giving them the autonomy they do deserve in order to run their—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The independent members will come to order.

The next question? The member for Ottawa South.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: Yes, don’t lump us all together, please.

Flu immunization

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, pediatricians raised concerns this September about the increased difficulty for children under five getting their flu shots this year. It’s particularly difficult because doctors’ offices are closing and public health units are stretched and not able to do what they’ve done in previous years, so it’s a particular challenge for two-to-five-year-olds.

There is a simple solution to this, though: The Ontario College of Pharmacists has proposed a regulation change to allow pharmacists to vaccinate two-to-five-year-olds, and Ontario’s pharmacists are ready and willing to do this. So, Speaker, through you: Can the minister commit today to making this regulation change and allowing pharmacists to vaccinate two-to-five-year-old children?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member for the question. I know this has been an issue of concern to you.

But first, I would like to advise that this has been the most successful flu campaign in Ontario’s history. Long before we knew that COVID was on its way to us, we ordered over 5.5 million doses; 5.2 million have already been distributed. Usually by this time, by about mid-November, about 500,000 flu shots have been administered by pharmacies; this year, they have administered 1.4 million doses. So we are very pleased about that, and I want to thank all Ontarians who have stepped forward. We are receiving another 142,000 doses of the vaccine from Sanofi.

However, I do recognize the concern with respect to children. Up until this point, children age two to five have only been able to receive flu shots through their primary care offices. I will have more to say in my supplemental on your specific issue.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Well, I look forward to the supplemental. I’m in suspense right now whether it’s yes or no. But I do want to say that this is important, because we need to do this right now for the two-to-five-year-olds and all those families. That’s why I’m asking you to do this.

But as my colleague from Orléans said the other day, we’re going to go into another set of vaccinations in the next year and Ontarians need to have confidence that we’ll be able to move quickly and nimbly to do the things we need to do—like change regulations, adapt—to be able to make sure we deliver that vaccine to everybody as quickly and as safely as possible.

So I’ll just ask my question again: Minister, can you commit today to making sure that this regulation change happens so that two- to five-year-olds will be able to have their vaccinations at Ontario’s pharmacies?

Hon. Christine Elliott: What I can say is that I know in the past, any vaccines were given by primary care rather than in pharmacies because there was some concern about very young children being vaccinated by the pharmacists, that they were concerned about that themselves. I understand that the situation has changed now, that the college of pharmacists and pharmacists in general would be very pleased to, with perhaps some additional training, be able to administer the flu vaccine and, hopefully, the COVID vaccine, when one comes forward, to children between the ages of two and five.

I can tell you that we are in serious discussions right now with the college and with pharmacists, with a view to bringing forward that regulation. I can’t say today that it’s happening today, but I can tell you that we’re in serious discussions on that matter.

Student safety

Miss Christina Maria Mitas: The Ontario College of Teachers is a critical institution, as it governs the profession of teaching here in Ontario. As a member myself, I believe we can all agree that it is important that Ontario families have confidence in the OCT and in its members. All parents want to know that their child will feel respected and that teachers will help students to reach their utmost potential. The OCT, in its role of licensing, governing and regulating the practice of teaching, takes this and many other responsibilities on.

Can the Minister of Education please share with us what the government is doing to strengthen governance within the OCT and address issues of equity?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member from Scarborough Centre for her advocacy, both as an educator and mother and as a member in this House. It is quite clear the Ontario College of Teachers requires some reform. The independent report commissioned under the former government in 2018 called for significant reform to their governance to deal with issues of advocacy and the say of parents. We have taken action to empower parents by reconstituting the body to have an equal number of parents or the public and educators, nine and nine, to better balance the public interest that needs to be at the heart of the regulator of the profession, Speaker.

In addition, in the context of equity and in the context of combatting very legitimate and, in some regions, escalating levels of racism and discrimination that is arising within our schools, we have for the first time made it clear by regulation that any professional misconduct dealing with a racist nature—remarks or actions—will finally now have a clear, transparent and effective accountability mechanism to hold those individuals to account, to inspire a better culture within our schools and to combat racism in Ontario.

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

Miss Christina Maria Mitas: Thank you to the minister for that answer. These changes will certainly benefit the OCT and further increase public confidence in the teaching profession as a whole. I know that our government has also been focused on making changes to the College of Early Childhood Educators that strengthen protections for all of our students, which is very welcome news and shows a true commitment to seeing Ontario students thrive.

But truly, nothing is more important than the safety and well-being of our kids. Can the minister outline how our changes will protect Ontario students, as well as how they will provide support for students who have, heartbreakingly, been victims of sexual abuse?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: It’s quite obvious, I think, for all members of the House, that the priority for us all is the