Ma question est pour la ministre des Affaires francophones.

Bien que nous sommes ravis que l’offre active soit en vigueur depuis le 1^er avril, il va sans doute y avoir une période d’adaptation. Il y a également plusieurs enjeux envers cette loi. La province fait face à une pénurie de main-d’oeuvre. C’est difficile à croire—et même pratiquement impossible—que toutes les agences assujetties à la loi vont avoir le personnel formé à offrir les services bilingues.

Alors, madame la Ministre, comment est-ce que votre ministère va faire pour assurer des travailleurs parfaitement bilingues dans tous les endroits désignés? De plus, quels indicateurs de performance est-ce que le ministère va utiliser pour tirer un juste portrait et quelles seront les répercussions pour ceux qui ne seront pas conformes à cette loi?

Je suis très heureuse aussi que le 1^er avril, la réglementation sur l’offre active, qui est vraiment la pierre angulaire de la modernisation de la loi, soit entrée en vigueur. Les mesures qui sont attachées à l’offre active—les neuf mesures—sont essentielles pour assurer que les francophones en Ontario reçoivent des services de qualité dès le premier contact avec des organismes gouvernementaux.

Mais je suis d’accord avec le député de l’opposition : il y a beaucoup de travail à assurer une formation de main-d’oeuvre bilingue pour livrer ces services en français, et je peux en parler en plus dans la question supplémentaire.

Notre langue française est toujours en déclin, et selon les données récentes de Statistique Canada, c’est le pire qu’on a vu depuis 40 ans. La vitalité de la langue française dépend de plusieurs facteurs, entre autres l’immigration francophone; nos institutions postsecondaires, comme l’Université de Sudbury; et les organismes francophones tels que l’ACFO, les radios communautaires et les centres culturels.

Madame la Ministre, quelles mesures ou stratégies est-ce que le ministère planifie de prendre pour assurer la continuité et l’épanouissement de nos institutions et organismes et mettre une fin à ce déclin de la francophonie ontarienne?

En Ontario, notre gouvernement a pris des mesures concrètes pour s’adresser aux besoins de la communauté francophone et aux défis auxquels font face les francophones de l’Ontario. Notamment, nous avons modernisé la Loi sur les services en français. Nous avons mis sur pied la première université pour et par les francophones ici à Toronto, la création et l’ouverture de l’UOF. Nous avons aussi donné l’indépendance à l’Université de Hearst.

Mais avec le travail que nous avons fait sur la modernisation de la Loi sur les services en français, nous avons aussi introduit une stratégie globale pour nous adresser exactement aux craintes que soulève le député. Nous avons simplifié le processus de désignation pour aider les communautés francophones à appuyer les organismes francophones et bilingues dans leur communauté.

Monsieur le Président, il n’y a aucun gouvernement dans l’histoire de l’Ontario qui a fait autant—

My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

Our province is home to people from all across the world who are proud to call Ontario their home. While our province has much to offer, we recognize that diverse workers and entrepreneurs face unique challenges when it comes to finding jobs, starting businesses and accessing opportunities. I’ve met with many of them at my constituency office—particularly, hard-working local business owners who are just trying to make a go of it.

Our government is working diligently to address systemic challenges here in Ontario while investing in diverse talent and communities to support job creation and economic growth.

Can the minister please explain how our government is supporting diverse entrepreneurs who are looking to start a business here in Ontario?

Thank you to the member opposite. I don’t know if it is harder than running a dairy farm; I have some friends who run a dairy farm. I’m able to rely on my staff, whereas, on a dairy farm, quite often it’s the family members who are getting up every day of the year. We are closed three days a year, so I can appreciate that dairy farms never close.

Moving all the paperwork onto digital, I think that will save time, money and resources. I’m still the one who likes to mail out cheques. Stamps are not getting any cheaper; the envelopes aren’t as well. Again, I’m not necessarily the most tech-savvy person—I will not pretend to be—but my managers are helping me with that. Ultimately, integrating technology into systems in the business and workplace I think will ultimately help owners be more efficient with their use of time.

Again, as a dairy farmer, you know it’s a balance between family time and work time. I think I’ve got to get with the 21st century and start moving online in some of my forms. I know WSIB has just moved online as well, which, even for myself, I’m very appreciative of.

I don’t need to explain it to this House, but ultimately, there have been supply chain shortages; there have been staffing shortages. So if small-business owners are able to focus a little bit more on the front lines of their business, ultimately they are going to succeed more, and when small businesses and businesses in general succeed, our province does succeed and the people who live here succeed as well.

Most small-business owners I’ve been speaking to over the last three years since the pandemic has started have been stressed and anxious about what’s coming next or what supply chain shortage we’re going into or the inflationary pressures that small businesses are under. Any time a small-business owner can do things more efficiently—again, other than myself bringing things online, most are very happy to be able to bring these types of services online. It’s just a more efficient use of their time

If small-business owners can utilize their time in a more efficient way, the staff will succeed as well, because, ultimately, myself being a human resource grad, we’re able to put more effort into training our staff and ensuring they’re ready for what is presented to them.

I am one of those businesses that didn’t qualify for those grants because my sales weren’t necessarily down; they were flat or slightly up. So I can appreciate that not every business was given the same resources to be able to become more accessible, but it is a priority of this government and our province to be as accessible as possible, even on websites and online features as well.

Speaker, I have a petition here to “Develop an Ontario Dementia Strategy,” and I’m very pleased to read it to the House.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas it currently takes on average 18 months for people in Ontario to get an official dementia diagnosis, with some patients often waiting years to complete diagnostic testing;

“Whereas more than half of patients suspected of having dementia in Ontario never get a full diagnosis; research confirms that early diagnosis saves lives and reduces care-partner stress;

“Whereas a PET scan test approved in Ontario in 2017 which can be key to detecting Alzheimer’s early, is still not covered under OHIP in 2022;

“Whereas the Ontario government must work together with the federal government to prepare for the approval and rollout of future disease-modifying therapies and research;

“Whereas the Alzheimer Society projects that one million Canadians will be caregivers for people with dementia, with families providing approximately 1.4 billion hours of care per year by 2050;

“Whereas research findings show that Ontario will spend $27.8 billion between 2023 and 2043 on alternate-level-of-care (ALC) and long-term-care (LTC) costs associated with people living with dementia;

“Whereas the government must follow through with its commitment to ensure Ontario’s health care system has the capacity to meet the current and future needs of people living with dementia and their care partners;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to develop, commit and fund a comprehensive Ontario dementia strategy.”

Speaker, I fully support this petition, will affix my signature to it and give it to page Ryan to take it to the Clerks.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 6, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91, An Act to enact two Acts, amend various Acts and revoke various regulations / Projet de loi 91, Loi visant à édicter deux lois, à modifier diverses lois et à abroger divers règlements.

My question is, would you agree that we have to make sure that we cater to or we are very careful about making it accessible to those who may not have everything electronic? A lot of people actually didn’t qualify for grants that were available to small businesses because they didn’t have that documentation or couldn’t meet the deadline to put in everything electronically and therefore qualify for a grant. What are your thoughts on that?

We knew.

Petitions?

I’m really honoured to be reading a petition titled, “Support Gender-Affirming Health Care,” by MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam.

“Whereas two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse, and intersex communities face significant challenges to accessing health care services that are friendly, competent, and affirming in Ontario;

“Whereas everyone deserves access to health care, and they shouldn’t have to fight for it, shouldn’t have to wait for it, and should never receive less care or support because of who they are;

“Whereas gender-affirming care is life-saving care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the reintroduction of a private member’s bill to create an inclusive and representative committee to advise the Ministry of Health on how to realize accessible and equitable access to and coverage for gender-affirming health care in Ontario.”

Interjections.

I’d like to thank my colleague from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for your passionate presentation and also you talking from your experience, your small business background and your in-depth knowledge about small businesses and red tape-ism and how red tape-ism is impacting small businesses in Ontario. This bill is very critical. It’s coming at a critical juncture to change the name of the game.

Mr. Speaker, through you to my colleague, could you explain, from a small business perspective, how this bill will impact our small businesses?

I listened intently to the remarks from the member from Stormont–Dundas–West Glengarry—close?—and it was interesting that he has a restaurant background. Since we no longer operate a dairy farm, my wife is a server in a restaurant, and I’ve learned from her experience, listening to what happens every day, that I think running a restaurant might be a tougher job than running a dairy farm. I appreciate your experience.

Could you be a bit more specific—and you would know the restaurant business very well—about how Bill 91 would specifically address things that you face running a restaurant?

Yesterday, we heard from the Attorney General with regard to some of the changes that are being made from a creditor relief perspective. So my question to the member is, when it comes to updating the Creditors’ Relief Act, which is to include electronic formats, what changes are being made and why?

The next question?

Thanks to the member for his speech on Bill 91 this morning. I want to say that schedule 4 in particular in this piece of legislation makes a series of COVID-era temporary legislative amendments permanent. However, the government chose not to make the three paid sick days permanent even after going through COVID and realizing the impact of paid sick days interrupted the transmission of COVID, especially in the restaurant and tourism sector.

So can the member speak to why this government decided that paid sick days were not going to be part of this legislative change when, under schedule 4, the door was open there for you to do so?

Thank you to the member, my colleague from the opposite side. With regard to the Creditors’ Relief Act, it limits the delivery of enforcement documents to mail and in-person service. With the pandemic, we’ve modernized a lot of things. We were all on Zoom and Teams quite often, so it’s good to know that it doesn’t need to be in mail and in person. If approved, the changes would permit the sheriff’s office to serve these documents by email.

We all have email—or the majority of Canadians and Ontarians do—so to allow that process to happen and be more efficient with it—because sometimes addresses aren’t correct. We had an instance in my office, and we were trying to find the person who came in, and the police did not have the correct address on file. So to be able to serve those documents by email is—as much as I’m sometimes against technology, it’s about time that we’re going to update those, if this is passed.

Myself, I do offer the sick days to some employees—my management, specifically. But the one thing that was interesting about the paid sick days, and this is a concrete example, is the 10 paid sick days were actually used by the end of the first month that they were offered. So for the 11 extra months out of the year, they didn’t necessarily factor in that they should carry those forward. So in the end, those 10 days were—I’m not going to say abused, but they were utilized too fast. They ultimately weren’t using them for their sick days moving forward.

But it has now turned into an endemic, and ultimately, the pandemic will carry on moving forward. We were the only jurisdiction in Canada to offer the two guaranteed sick days—

But ultimately, there are a lot of pressures on small business with the inflation and supply chains and the staffing challenges. We were trying not to put too much pressure onto the small businesses. We need the businesses to be able to succeed for the employees to be employed and ultimately for our economy to succeed as well.

Unfortunately, we have run out of time for questions and answers, but we have time for further debate.

It’s always a great honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Hamilton, and today to speak to Bill 91.

Before I begin to address this bill that the government is calling the red tape reduction bill, I think we need to look at this bill in context of what is happening in Ontario. We hear daily in the House the struggles of people in Ontario to pay the rent, to pay their hydro bill, to feed their children, and there is nothing in this huge bill that will address that—absolutely nothing.

You can take my word for it, if you like: The people are not concerned about red tape. It’s not the thing that’s foremost on their mind. Or you can look at this Angus Reid Institute poll that just came out very recently. It gives the people of Ontario an opportunity to say what is on their mind. It also is an opportunity for the government to listen. They’re in an echo chamber. They don’t seem to listen, so take this poll seriously when, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the people of Ontario say the cost of living, health care and housing affordability are the top three concerns for the people of the province of Ontario. There is absolutely nothing in this—what do we call it—doorstop of a red tape bill that is going to immediately address and relieve the concerns that people have.

In fact, the same poll shows that even among Conservative voters—people who voted Conservative—69% believe the government has done a bad job on the cost of living; 65% think you’ve done a bad job on health care and 70% think you have done a bad job on housing affordability. Those are your own voters who say you need to do better when it comes to the things that are most urgent for the people of Ontario.

We know, despite the bluster of the municipal affairs and housing minister, that housing stats in this province are going down, not up. We have heard time and time again from the minister that we need to build on the greenbelt, that we need to expand urban boundaries and that we need to build on agricultural land. But the government’s own task force said we have enough land within existing boundaries to build homes that people can afford.

Recently, the Ontario planners council—planners from across the province—have said absolutely, we can meet the housing targets set by this government within existing land. So the million-dollar question is why did the government open up the greenbelt? Who were they listening to and who is this going to benefit? Because it’s quite clear it’s not going to benefit people who are struggling to find a place to live in this province.

When it comes to health care, where do we start with the state of health care in the province of Ontario? I know that we have heard about the countless emergency rooms that have closed permanently or been closed for a significant period of time. This is the primary place people go when they have a crisis, an emergency, and they’re often being turned away. It’s just unthinkable that in this province you could go to emergency and find the doors closed when you have a critical, perhaps life-threatening, emergency.

I know that I have brought a bill forward to stop code zeroes. I know that in municipalities across the province people are experiencing what are called code zeroes or code black, level zeroes. Essentially, what this means is there are times—sometimes an extended period of time—when you can call for an ambulance—perhaps you’re calling for an ambulance because your ER is closed—and there is not one available to take you to an ER. It’s shocking.

I talked to an ambulance communication officer when I put forward my bill that the government supported—we’re still waiting to see some action on it—and a woman that worked as an ambulance communication officer explained the plight that she is in during a code zero event. She had a mother call who had a choking baby on the line. She had another call that came in. She had to put the mother with the choking baby on hold to deal with a cardiac situation. She had to deliver what is called—I didn’t know this is what it is called—operator-assisted CPR.

These are the dire choices Ontarians face. This professional had to choose between a baby that was choking and someone having a cardiac arrest. No one should have to make these choices.

The time that we’re spending in this House should address these concerns, but they’re not in this bill. This bill is six times larger than the budget and it is quite possible it helps even fewer people than the budget did, which, as we said, failed to meet the moment and was described in an editorial that said if it “were a Christmas present, it would be a three-pack of white socks.” I think that speaks to this government’s being so out of touch, so tone-deaf to what people are feeling in this province right now.

I just want to say, when it comes to the concerns in Hamilton, it’s really shocking to me that I have to read this in the House, but the city of Hamilton has declared three separate states of emergency to get the province’s attention on what is urgent for them. A councillor moved forward three separate states of emergency, one for homelessness, one for mental health and the other for opioid addiction, because municipalities are struggling to address this crisis and this government seems to completely have earmuffs on, not seeming to understand what’s happening in the real world.

I can imagine you’re getting these calls to your constituency office; we are. I don’t know whether you live in a magical part of Ontario where you’re not getting these calls, or maybe you think the magic of red tape will resolve some of these problems, but I can tell you it’s not working.

The Niagara region council also declared a state of emergency for the same reason, trying to get the province to understand the concerns and the dire state of emergency that we’re in.

And you know, I would just say, when it comes to homelessness, which is absolutely a crisis not just in Toronto, not in Hamilton but in every community in Ontario—in rural communities. I have never heard of this. This is a problem. We walk down Bay Street here in Toronto and people are sleeping in sleeping bags on the street. It’s shocking to me, in Hamilton, to see people in tents, in parks, with no place else to go. and the way that they’re treated and the way that they are criminalized is something that should be a top priority for this government, but it doesn’t seem to be.

I just will say it’s not just me, again, because I imagine that you don’t want to hear it from me, but I have a letter here that was written to the Premier. It says, “Dear Premier Ford,

“Homelessness is a crisis in every part of Ontario. The homelessness crisis is harming people and families and communities. It is undermining the social fabric and economic prospects of our province. It imposes unnecessary costs on our health care and justice systems, and on our institutions, community agencies and government. It limits opportunity for economic participation. It reveals a lack of progress on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. It is putting Ontario’s broader prosperity at risk.”

And I will just let you know that this is signed by, among other people, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs. These are the first responders that are seeing this crisis and took it upon themselves to write what I would call a pretty extraordinary letter directly to the Premier, saying we are in crisis in this province.

In the city of Hamilton, we have 1,500 homeless people, as best as we can count—1,500 people who have no place to live—but we have 500 shelter beds. If these numbers are correct, when it comes to how many homeless people there are, and it may be greater than that, we already only have one third of these people who can be housed. This is something that just seems to be acceptable or seems to be, “turn the page.” We seem to be not addressing this crisis, which really is a humanitarian crisis. There is no other way to describe allowing people to live and die on the streets of our communities and not making it the top priority—the top priority—in this budget. Pardon me, in this bill. It didn’t make it in the budget either, by the way, but certainly in this bill.

Municipalities have been left holding the empty bag that you have delivered them. They will be left holding the hole in their revenue when it comes to all of the development charges that you’ve waived in the province. This magical thinking, that you can give developers—waive fees, waive the kinds of charges that build our communities, that build municipalities, and that money is going to be made up from where, a trickle-down theory? I don’t know if that’s what you are referring to. But the fact is that municipalities are saying, all across Ontario, that there’s going to be something like $5 billion that municipalities will no longer have to provide these front-line services that are needed: front-line services to keep our paramedics on the street, to keep homeless shelters open, to keep mental health crisis centres open.

I cannot believe that I’m looking at this giant bill, Bill 91, with quite a few schedules, and none of it addresses the critical emergencies in the province of Ontario.

I want to commend my colleague from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for speaking out on Bill 91 and really highlighting what really isn’t in the bill and what we’re going through in the province of Ontario, where our hospitals are at their knees and the cost of living, like hydro and food—food banks have tripled in lineups. People are sleeping on concrete beds throughout our province. You’ve highlighted that houses are way too expensive, and this government continues to bulldoze over our greenbelt.

I’m not sure why they’re calling it cutting red tape in Bill 91. With almost 30 sections to it, it’s a huge omnibus bill. As I said, the honourable member here in the official opposition has highlighted what this Conservative government continues to ignore.

Can you highlight a little bit more what is not in this Bill 91’s almost 30 sections? And what is more important to the official opposition than cutting through this?

Thank you to the member opposite for her presentation. I listened thoughtfully to what was said, but I’m also aware of the fact that—she talked about limiting economic participation. We have a number of thriving businesses in Thornhill. We have a number of small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of Ontario. Sometimes they are crippled by things that get in the way of doing their jobs. To that point, in 2017, Ontario businesses were paying $33,000 in annual compliance fees. That’s $4,000 more than any other province, and the largest regulatory burden in Canada.

Clearly we have to understand that red tape is a significant barrier to our economic competitiveness. So why does the opposition continuously vote against this kind of red tape reduction measure, when all the benefits they would have for the people of Ontario, including the—

Thank you to the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. I know the member spoke a lot about some of the challenges in Hamilton. I appreciate you talking about those. I’m a Hamiltonian myself—born there; high school there. I know the problems of Hamilton.

But in this bill—speaking of this bill, Bill 91—through the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, we are looking at updating the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008. The new developmental services funding approach is based on the government working to develop a new, evidence-based funding approach that will determine funding for adult support based on a person’s assessment needs.

I’d like to ask the member, can you support this change in this Bill 91?

It is now time for questions.

Just because I said I didn’t like it doesn’t mean I said I won’t vote for it. Let’s be clear, I didn’t—don’t put words in my mouth.

But I will also say that in this province, for small businesses, we have the highest insurance rates in the province, so small businesses struggle under the burden of insurance. During COVID—do you want to talk about red tape? I had so many small businesses, which I understand are the backbone of our communities—I understand that they represent over 90% of the businesses and over 90% of the jobs in my community of Hamilton. I understand that. But my phone was ringing off the hook with small businesses that were trying to keep the doors open, trying to stay alive and keep their employees in place, but couldn’t get through the red tape of your COVID supports that you were trying to provide them.

We hear about mothers, families, who can’t afford formula to feed their babies. This is what we should be talking about, not about this bill. And while I imagine in here, there are probably some things that will indeed reduce regulations, possibly, is this what we as legislators expected to do when we came to this House, to look at this kind of legislation, when our communities are expecting so much more from us than this?

I want to thank the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for her passionate speech. I know she cares for her community very much, and I think Hamiltonians are very proud to have you represent them.

One of the things I’ve been very keen on asking about for this bill specifically is small businesses, because we know that during the pandemic, our government could have done a much better job supporting them. You mentioned insurance for small businesses. One of the things was the fact that a lot of businesses did not qualify for grants, because there was a lot of red tape. And for a bill that is about red tape reduction, I don’t see a lot of reduction of red tape when it comes to small businesses having the ability to quality for supports they truly need and deserve as contributors to this province. What are your thoughts?