Further questions?

Further debate?

I was intrigued by the comments from the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. I’m an optometrist. I have a small-town private clinic. I sell some of my patients glasses and/or contact lenses. Using her logic, because I support my family that way and I bill OHIP, it sounds like she’s intimating that I’m somehow gouging people. I would just like her to give clarity to optometrists across the entire province of Ontario who operate their own private clinics, billing OHIP and also selling people optical goods, whether they’re good people or bad people, from her logic.

It’s great to stand and talk to this bill.

One of the things that we were first electing on in 2018 was reducing hallway health care. Obviously, with COVID, there were some changes that had to happen, some things that we had to do differently. Let’s be honest, there were 214 countries dealing with it, and they all had to do things in a different way.

Now that we’re transitioning out of COVID—it’s not the pandemic; it’s become more of an endemic—we can get back to dealing with some of the challenges that we had. But COVID did do something that created a negative for us, as well, and that was to increase the backlog of surgeries. One of the things that we did earlier on was to increase funding to hospitals, to their operating rooms, to try to clear up some of that backlog. I’m going to give you some statistics on it, and I’m kind of averaging and rounding it—not giving the total number, but an average of what they were. Roughly 260,000 surgeries is what we had as the backlog; prior to COVID, we had a backlog of about 200,000. We’ve brought that back down to about 200,000. It has taken almost three years to bring that down. So about 20,000 extra per year is what we can handle under the current system. That means it would take a decade to clear the backlog that we currently have under status quo. I’m not a rocket scientist, but I can look at it and say that 10 years is not realistic—status quo cannot remain.

I’ve heard some of the opposition members talking about this, and they’ve thrown these scare tactics out—“Oh, my goodness, the sky is going to fall if the ophthalmologist who does the surgery in the hospital does that same surgery someplace other than the hospital.” What we’ve heard from ophthalmologists is that they can do more surgeries in the same length of time if they’re not using the hospital operating room. We’ve heard the opposition say, “Well, they’re only going to do the easy surgeries.” Yes, that is correct. They are only going to do the surgeries that do not require hospitalization after surgery.

If you think of it from a common-sense approach—common sense doesn’t seem to be something that I’m hearing an awful lot from the opposition on this—would you want to have a surgery outside of the hospital if you were going to have to be hospitalized directly after the surgery? The answer to that would be a resounding no. But, if you’re going to have a surgery that’s going to take roughly 20 minutes, and 15 minutes after the surgery you’re in a condition that you could go home, wouldn’t you prefer that? Wouldn’t you rather come to the clinic, have your surgery fairly quickly, go through the appropriate processes to make sure there aren’t any side effects, and then go home? Or would you rather go into the hospital; spend some time waiting, prepping; go into the surgery room; leave the surgery room or the operating room; and follow the hospital’s protocol, which is probably closer to an hour? You’re going to spend roughly a three-hour time frame for a 35-minute process that wouldn’t be at the hospital. To me, it makes logical sense. If I only have to spend 35 minutes someplace to accomplish exactly the same thing, I’m going to want to do that. And if I only have to spend 35 minutes instead of three hours, wouldn’t that tell you that more surgeries could actually be completed?

It seems like this is something that’s a stretch for the opposition, and I truly do not understand why, because the same doctor who would operate on you in the hospital is the doctor who’s going to operate on you in the clinic. They’ve said things like, “Oh, my goodness, it’s going to cost millions of dollars more to do that.” The doctor gets paid the same, whether they’re in the hospital or their clinic for the surgery portion of it. And then they say things like, “Oh, my goodness, you’re doing this instead of doing it in the hospital. We should be opening it up so it can be done in the hospital.” Obviously, they have not read the legislation or, conveniently, they skipped over parts of the legislation, because nowhere in the legislation does it say the hospital can’t apply for this. Nowhere does it say, if a hospital has extra capacity and wants to do it and has the staffing to do it, they can apply for this and do it—nor does it say that they can’t; the reality is, they can.

I then turn to my opposition friends and say, what’s the issue? If the hospital can do it and the hospital says, “We can do it,” and the hospital applies to do it, they get approved to do it. But if the hospital says, “Right now, we’re at capacity and we can’t,” or “We have some higher-risk surgeries that we need to get completed, so we would like to have some of those low-risk things moved out so that we can have the capacity to do things like a valve replacement surgery”—as one of our colleagues has had done to him. Or perhaps they’re looking at it and saying, “Our backlog for cancer surgery is too long. We could do more cancer surgeries if we take these non-invasive, non-medically critical surgeries and move them out.” Wouldn’t that be something to which the average person would say, “This is a good idea”? Those who need medical intervention, those who need to have hospitalization after their surgery, those who have those critical illnesses that are more complex that should be done in a hospital will have faster access to it. Don’t you think the average person is going to say, “That’s a good idea”?

Now the sky is going to fall because your OHIP card is going to be used to pay for this someplace else—because that doctor who is doing the surgery in the hospital suddenly is an evil person for doing that same operation someplace else and getting paid by OHIP. Where they were getting paid by OHIP to do it over here, it’s evil for them to get paid by OHIP to do it over here—and if we only kept status quo, nobody would be evil. Of course, our backlog would take a decade to get cleaned up. I’ve had a number of people reach out to my office and say that’s just not acceptable. They want service.

I find it so ironic that the opposition members stood up last term and presented all kinds of petitions to save eye care, because those evil optometrists, as my seatmate described, who get paid by OHIP to do eye exams, were selling glasses to those people or selling contacts to those people—we can’t trust those doctors because they’re getting paid by OHIP and they’re selling something as well. Perhaps what we should have been doing is having petitions by the opposition saying, “Optometrists should never be able to sell glasses to people because OHIP is going to fund them to do the eye exam, and they should only ever do eye exams, and we should have glasses sold someplace else because they can’t be in the same building as each other, because that would be evil if we were to do something like that.”

The logic the opposition has put forward just doesn’t make any sense. At the end of the day, you’re getting the care you need, when you need it, where you need it, and you’re paying for it with your OHIP card.

With that, Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

Thank you to our member for that wonderful presentation. The government seems to think that privatization of health care gives Ontarians choices. But really, it gives choice to those who have the deep pockets to be able to take advantage of private care. I’m wondering if the member can express how this broadens the gap between the haves and have-nots in terms of access to health care, where it seems that the healthy and the wealthy are at the front of the line. They’re at the top. But where are those who don’t have? Where are they?

I have here a long list of people who have already been extra-billed substantial amounts of money for various surgeries in for-profit clinics: $8,435, plus $150 for a checkup, for cataract surgery, upsold; in Lindsay, $5,300, private cataract clinic, upsold—this already happened in 2019—a private eye clinic, another one, $58,000.

I wonder if the member from Ancaster—

Interjection.

Thank you for the member opposite’s presentation. When it comes to your health, the status quo is no longer acceptable. Our government is taking bold action to eliminate surgery backlogs and reduce wait times for publicly funded surgeries and procedures. By boosting this availability of publicly funded health services in Ontario, our government is ensuring Ontarians currently waiting for specialized surgery will have great access to the world-class care they need when they need it.

My question is simple. Will the member of the opposition support their constituents by supporting this bill to ensure that Ontarians are not waiting too long for surgeries and procedures?

My question is really about the state of health care right now. We know that the system is in crisis. We have ORs that are not up and running. They’re actually tired, largely because there is a shortage of health care workers.

Does this legislation do anything to bring the nurses back into the field? Does it do anything to retain health care workers? Does it do anything to address the shortage of primary care providers across the province?

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, I’m sure you’ll find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6.

Mr. Smith has moved that the question be now put. I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred to the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Ms. Bowman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 50, An Act to amend the Securities Act to require certain issuers to adopt and make publicly available written policies respecting their director nomination process / Projet de loi 50, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières afin d’exiger que certains émetteurs adoptent et rendent publiques des politiques écrites concernant leur processus de mise en candidature des administrateurs.

Further debate?

First, I’d like to start by thanking the member for Don Valley West for bringing attention to this important issue. The topic of diversity on corporate boards and executive positions is one that the Ministry of Finance has been engaged in for some time. Also, this is a topic that is very important to the minister himself.

While it may seem like a small part of the corporate world, the makeup of boards of public companies is important to their leadership and to potential investors. In an increasingly competitive marketplace, Ontario needs a modern, dynamic capital markets sector that puts Canadian firms on a fair footing globally. This government is committed to modernizing Ontario’s capital markets and making this province one of the most attractive capital markets destinations in the world to support Ontario’s economy and long-term growth.

Ontario is home to the major share of public companies in Canada. In 2022 alone, more than 50% of Canada’s equity market value came from public companies where the Ontario Securities Commission was the principal regulator. We want public companies in Ontario to excel, to thrive and to set the global best standards in corporate governance. Diversity is an important part of that. An important part of building a successful business is ensuring a wide range of perspectives are heard, especially at the decision-making tables, in boardrooms, among executives.

The world of investing is evolving rapidly. In the marketplace of a changing, globalized world, investors are increasingly looking for more information and background on firms and their leadership. For Ontario firms to compete successfully on a global scale and contribute to Ontario’s prosperity, they need to be enabled with all the tools that a modern and competitive capital markets system brings to the table. Improving corporate diversity is essential to achieving this outcome.

The member opposite has done a commendable job in bringing this issue to some wider attention, but I will now have to explain why we will be unable to support the member’s proposed legislation, in spite of this government’s strong and consistent support for diversity on corporate boards. I will begin with some background on the member’s proposed legislation itself, and then the work that has been done in Ontario so far for diversity on corporate boards.

The text of this bill proposes to amend the Securities Act with an addition that is a recommendation on diversity on corporate boards from the larger Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce final report. This task force was established in February 2020 by this government to help transform the regulatory landscape for the capital markets sector and advise the Minister of Finance on how to improve innovation and competitiveness of the province’s capital markets and best help build Ontario’s economy. The Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce engaged with more than 110 stakeholders. They consulted on the challenges that businesses, intermediaries and investors face in Ontario’s capital markets ecosystem. Based on these consultations, the task force developed a consultation report, which includes 74 policy proposals to modernize the province’s capital markets regulations.

The task force asked for feedback on the consultation report from July 9 to September 7, 2020, and received over 130 stakeholder comments during that time. The task force submitted its final report to the Minister of Finance, which includes 74 policy recommendations. These recommendations are intended to modernize Ontario’s capital markets and drive innovation, competition and diversity, resulting in job and wealth creation. The final report contains recommendations on:

—improving regulatory structure and enhanced governance;

—improving competitiveness through regulatory measures;

—ensuring a level playing field between large and small market players;

—improving the proxy system, corporate governance and the process of mergers and acquisitions;

—fostering innovation; and

—modernizing enforcement and enhancing investor protection.

The Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce had a detailed recommendation on improving corporate diversity in Ontario’s markets. For context, public companies in Ontario are already required to report on gender representation. Our 2022 budget committed to continue to consider this issue as part of our capital markets modernization efforts.

Additionally, corporate diversity continues to be an important initiative for our securities regulator. The Ontario Securities Commission, working with its provincial counterparts, consulted publicly on this issue in 2021.

In 2023, the OSC, along with its provincial counterparts, will consult on how to improve representation of other under-represented groups beyond gender. We look forward to hearing the feedback from stakeholders and the public on the OSC’s proposal.

Our government is committed to improving corporate diversity in Ontario’s capital markets sector. But, as a government, we cannot support this particular legislation for a few reasons.

First of all, the Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce was established with a clear mandate, and the trusted experts at the OSC are best placed to continue this work.

Secondly, supporting this legislative change to the capital markets would, if passed, make Ontario an outlier in its process for capital markets modernization. Supporting this legislation would make Ontario an outlier in this regard and would create more red tape for business and harm the overall efforts of the capital markets modernization across Canada. These recommendations from the capital markets task force will go through an industry trusted consultation period, and much good work is continuing on diversity topics at the OSC and the CSA.

As a responsible government that respects the work of agencies, we should not and will not interfere with the trusted work of these great organizations. The work on the task force recommendations continues, and there will be more to say about this in the coming months.

Our government continues to have a vision for improving this province and making it one of the best places in the world to invest, raise capital and start a business.

Before I close, let me reiterate that the principles behind the recommendation on diversity from the Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce is an important priority for the modernization program and this government. We will continue to work to ensure that Ontario is the best place to grow, prosper and build a business.

Further debate?

I rise today in support of the bill being debated, the Building Better Business Outcomes Act, as a reasonable step in the right direction. By amending the Securities Act to require publicly traded companies to have a written and publicly available policy on the diversity of their boards of directors, we can promote the inclusion of more women, more people of colour, more people with disabilities, and more members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community on corporate boards.

Everyone in Ontario deserves to feel safe, to feel welcome and to feel at home in this great province. No one should have to face discrimination or fear because of the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation or their abilities, and that includes at work.

The question becomes “What is diversity?” When we think about diversity, we typically think about race and gender, but it should be more broad, more inclusive. When we look at diverse employees, they don’t automatically create an inclusive workplace. They can start that process, but the workplace also has to have policies and frameworks that recognize the importance of both diversity and inclusion; there have to be teams with anti-discrimination policies.

Further to this, people don’t know what they don’t know. Until we have people of differing backgrounds, differing perspectives—can we begin to understand once we listen.

It’s disappointing to hear that the government is not in favour of supporting this. Representation is truly what matters. Diversity doesn’t happen by accident or by happenstance. It’s about making room at the table. It’s about providing that space. It’s about making space, not taking space. When people see themselves reflected, that is when you build trust, that’s when you build accountability, that’s when you build authenticity, and it provides an inspiration to young people. It broadens our minds.

To share some statistics—the Ontario Securities Commission reports that total board seats and executive positions occupied by women was less than 20%, yet only about the same percentage of companies had adopted targets regarding the representation of women on their boards. They hadn’t provided that room. Even worse, a study highlighted in the report found that only 5% of all directors were visible minorities. That’s not a reflection of the Ontario that we live in. Indigenous directors and directors with disabilities made up 0.05% and 0.04% of boards, respectively. Together, they didn’t even form half of a per cent. That’s problematic.

This bill echoes the recommendations from the government’s Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce. Investors are increasingly demanding data on diversity on boards and in executive officer positions to make informed investment and voting decisions, and this legislation addresses that demand. The task force recommended that publicly listed issuers set a target of 50% for women and 30% for BIPOC, persons with disabilities, and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. It also recommended that these targets should be completed—within five years to meet the target for women and seven years to meet the other targets for BIPOC, persons with disabilities and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. This report was issued in 2020, but the government has not taken any steps toward these goals.

The gender wage gap still exists to this day. We consider ourselves modern, we consider ourselves evolved, and yet why is it that for the same work, women are paid less? Why is it that women are still encountering the glass ceiling? Why are they not able to hold those positions of power? Women in this province earn far less for every dollar made—and that gap is even wider for intersexual identities, women who are racialized, Indigenous women, women who are newcomers, women with disabilities, trans women, and non-binary folks. We have tens of thousands of women in this province who are underpaid and undervalued for their work every day, and they earn less than they deserve. Quite frankly, it’s outrageous.

Over the course of the pandemic, it was women who were doing double duty, working and parenting without child care or school, or who were forced to give up their jobs entirely to stay home with children. This could have been resolved with more workplace flexibility.

When it comes to hourly wage rates, the gender pay gap is about 11%. The wage gap has always been greater for racialized and Indigenous women, and it could be resolved by more representative leadership.

The Equal Pay Coalition did a poll that showed that 85% of Ontarians said it’s important for the Ontario government to do more to promote women’s economic equality. But this government stalled the implementation of legislation that aimed to increase pay transparency in Ontario. This government instead makes cuts that disproportionately impact women—cancelling an increase to the minimum wage, slashing paid sick days, and refusing for years to make investments in affordable child care, long-term care, education and health care.

The London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership has also studied the impacts of discrimination on immigrants, visible minorities and Indigenous peoples. The outcomes of this study called for strategies to promote an environment that encourages victims of discrimination to report their experiences and engage in effective initiatives to prevent and reduce discrimination. The report states: “These anti-discrimination initiatives would help make London-Middlesex a more just and equitable community, and would protect its residents from the harmful negative outcomes that experiencing discrimination can produce ... would help make London-Middlesex a more welcoming community that could attract, integrate, and retain diverse individuals, an integral part of Canada’s strategy to sustain the economy.”

Of course, in my community of London, we know first-hand the horror of unchecked discrimination and what can happen as a result. On June 6, 2021, three generations of the Afzaal family were killed in an Islamophobic terror attack while out on a walk, leaving the youngest member of the family as the sole survivor.

In the last Legislature, the NDP tabled a day of remembrance and action on Islamophobia. That bill was ordered to the standing committee after second reading, and it never left.

Further, I was proud to table a bill to declare May 10 as a day of remembrance and action against anti-Asian racism. Unfortunately, that bill never passed.

We need more bills like Bill 50, to make sure that we are taking an active role to promote diversity within our province.

For Black, Indigenous and racialized people in Ontario, discrimination and racism are far too often a daily reality in a maze of deeply ingrained systemic barriers. It starts at the top. As a step to fight economic discrimination, publicly traded companies need to better reflect their workers, customers and their communities. When people see themselves reflected, it makes a difference.

To really and truly address the economic inequality experienced by women, people of colour, people with disabilities and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, we must also be looking at fresh solutions such as updating and enforcing the Pay Equity Act and moving forward with the Pay Transparency Act so we have mechanisms in place to track and hold companies accountable for the gender pay gap.

We could also make investments and do the work to dismantle structural racism in every sector in Ontario. Shortly after this government was formed in 2018, there were many concerns about the dismantling of the Anti-Racism Directorate and the $1,000 that was afforded to something that was supposedly formed to tackle racism across the province.

There’s also rock-solid evidence that more diverse boards have better bottom lines. It is a win-win.

Ontario has the opportunity to become a leader in this. Ontario has an opportunity to be the first to do this. The world of work is changing, and Ontarians must be set up to succeed now and in the future.

I hope that this government will reconsider. I hope they’ll listen to the debates that have been presented by the member from Don Valley West as well as the official opposition. This is a way for us to move forward. I hope that the government is listening.

I’m honoured to rise and speak in favour of Bill 50. I want to thank the member from Don Valley West for bringing it forward, because diverse voices, perspectives, ideas and experiences in corporate governance matter. Studies show that companies with directors and executives with diverse backgrounds perform better in business, and it’s in the public interest to have diverse directors and executives of publicly traded companies.

But despite the positive social, economic and business benefits of diverse directors and executives, the government’s own Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce itself has noted that diversity has been painfully slow on boards.

According to the Ontario Securities Commission, women on boards only increased from 11% in 2015 to 17% in 2019, and 24% last year. In a recent study that the task force cited, only 5.5% of boards represent visible minorities. People with disabilities make up less than 1%, 0.5%, of board diversity.

Speaker, we know we can do better in Ontario. We know that our businesses can perform better, and that’s exactly why I will be voting in favour of Bill 50.

I, too, support Bill 50, the Building Better Business Outcomes Act, 2022, and I want to congratulate the member from Don Valley West for putting forward this bill. She did her homework. The bill is well-thought-out. It’s a reasonable, measured approach to something that needs to happen. We all know that it needs to happen, because everybody keeps saying it.

The question really is: Are you going to support it? Are you going to support probably the least interventionist measure that your own commission suggested? I’ve kind of got the sense that the government is not going to do that. They’re not going to allow this bill to pass to second reading, to have more discussion in committee of something that your own folks came back and told you you needed to do.

So I hope that the government has a change of heart. I hope that I’m wrong, because one of the greatest challenges we have in any organization and in business is governance. Why is it a challenge? Because boards of directors become clubs. They become clubs for mostly men, so we need to ensure that we set up processes that reflect what our society—

The Building Better Business Outcomes Act is a bill that would have a hugely positive impact on corporations and their process for choosing board directors, leading to more diverse voices to be present on all corporate boards. The member from Don Valley West is an impressive advocate for diversity in business, entering politics after many years of experience in the corporate world, with a strong interest for encouraging and lifting up women in business.

Studies have shown that companies with directors and executives with diverse backgrounds have better business outcomes. Our province prospers when the key decision-makers reflect Ontarians—all Ontarians. We have the opportunity in this chamber today to make Ontario’s corporations more inclusive, equitable and successful.

When I was first elected to city hall as a Toronto city councillor, women made up only one third of the seats—pitiful. After the 2022 provincial election, women represented 47 ridings in the Ontario Legislative Assembly, out of 124. As women, we face a unique challenge when chasing our career goals. Often we must choose between family life and our own ambitions, often in industries that don’t favour us. Black, Indigenous and racialized people, people with disabilities and LGBTQ+ communities face their own barriers to entry into positions of power.

Bill 50 would be a step in the right direction to a more equitable and innovative future that recognizes the voices of everyone. I am in full support of this bill and hope that my colleagues from all parties can work and back it as well.

Further debate?

Back to the member for Don Valley West for a two-minute reply.

Ms. Bowman has moved second reading of Bill 50, An Act to amend the Securities Act to require certain issuers to adopt and make publicly available written policies respecting their director nomination process.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

The House adjourned at 1750.

I’m happy to hear the member from Oakville say that diversity is an important part of being a leader in corporate governance. I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their genuine support.

I’m disappointed to hear that the government considers this to be red tape. This month is Black History Month. International Women’s Day is next month. Reconciliation with Indigenous people must be at the forefront of what we do as leaders in government. What better time for all members of this House to come together and show our commitment to building a diverse Ontario?

Our laws reflect our values, and so I had hoped that this government was ready to incorporate diversity into the Securities Act. Bill 50 will advance our economy and the conversation around inclusivity within corporate boards. I know that this is something members from all parties agree on.

The member from Oakville says that there’s merit in this proposal, that the idea of diversity is something that should be considered, but they need more time, that we need to consult more about this requirement. But Speaker, there has already been, as the member opposite said, lots of consultation. The task force received 123 submissions, including from all five Canadian banks, Canadian and international investment firms, pension funds and corporations. The task force consulted the OSC and the Canadian Securities Administrators.

The government-appointed task force reached its conclusions after considering these submissions, including on board diversity. Delaying this further is unnecessary. It doesn’t make Ontario an outlier. Ontario is the engine of the Canadian economy, and all the nation’s most significant corporations are traded here. When Ontario moves, Canada listens. This legislation won’t make us an outlier; it would make every other province an outlier.

Speaker, I hope this government will quickly advance the work on diversity on boards to make Ontario a leader in corporate governance, because that’s what Ontarians deserve and that’s what our communities across this great province deserve as well.