I just wanted to ask the Legislature to join me to welcome Denis Mainville from Royal Canadian Legion Branch 547 in Belle Ewart. Welcome, Denis. Thank you for your service.

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

Bill 36, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

I thank the great member for Richmond Hill for her question and the great work she is doing in her community.

Speaker, under the leadership of Premier Ford, this government remains laser-focused when it comes to the health and safety of Ontarians, and this is why we have built a robust PPE stockpile to protect front-line and other critical workers, while ensuring our province is ready for any future emergencies.

We have shipped over 700 million pieces of PPE since the start of the pandemic, and we have procured and distributed over 157 million rapid antigen tests, over 97,000 HEPA filter units. And thanks to the Premier and this great Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, I’m proud to say that 93% of the forecast PPE procurement for the next 18 months will be with Ontario or Canadian-based manufacturers.

Speaker, our government will continue its data-driven approach, ensuring we avoid the mistakes made by the previous governments and are well prepared in the future. All of this will further help us to ensure our province stays open and continues to—

The ayes are 74; the nays are 31.

Bill 39, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Municipal Act, 2001 and to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 39, Loi visant à modifier la Loi de 2006 sur la cité de Toronto et la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités et à édicter la Loi de 2022 abrogeant la Loi sur la Réserve agricole de Duffins-Rouge.

Supplementary, the member for Waterloo.

The division bells rang from 1151 to 1156.

On December 5, 2022, Mr. McGregor moved that the question be now put.

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

Mr. Bethlenfalvy has moved third reading of Bill 36, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1202.

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

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

Third reading agreed to.

The House recessed from 1205 to 1500.

There appear to be 12 members standing. We are now going to have an immediate report-stage debate on the motion.

Twelve members having stood in their places, we will now have a 30-minute report-stage debate, as I said earlier, on the motion for the adoption of the report on the bill, pursuant to standing order 38(b). In this debate, each recognized party is allotted 12 minutes, and the independent members are allotted a total of six minutes.

Further debate?

I’m going to remind the member to make her comments through the Chair.

It’s always an honour to rise in this House and represent the wonderful people of Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, who have given me an opportunity to be here and to represent them.

Speaker, before I go any further, I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for his relentless work when it comes to solving the housing crisis in the province that we’re facing. Let’s go back to four and a half years ago, when our government was elected. All along the way, it’s this minister, under the leadership of this Premier, who has been talking about the housing crisis in our province. Every single measure that we have put forward, the opposition has voted against. They will come in here and talk about housing; they’ll vote against housing. They will come in here and talk about affordable housing; they will vote against affordable housing. They’ll talk about the need to have more housing; they’ll vote against the supply of housing in the province of Ontario. It doesn’t matter what you put forward—you can clearly see the difference between us.

That’s why, after the last election, the people of Ontario increased the number of seats for this government and gave us a bigger mandate to come back here and solve the crisis that we’re facing because of 15 years of inaction by the previous government. And it’s important to note and it’s important to remind the people of Ontario that it was the NDP that held the balance of power for three of those years. They could have made housing a priority for the people of this province, but did they, colleagues? They didn’t. They let the people of this province down.

Every single time, when you stand in this House and talk about the priority of housing, I want to ask my honourable colleagues, where were you when you had the opportunity? Where was this anger and outrage when you could have held the previous government to account? You could have made them—

Mr. Speaker, my family immigrated here, to this country. You’ve heard the government House leader, with passion, talk about what housing means to a new Canadian when they come in. We come with hopes and aspirations, with dreams. All come here to this country with a dream of having the opportunity, through working hard, to own a home one day. That was my family—all along the way, my parents both worked very hard, and finally, after many, many, many years, they had the opportunity to buy a small home, and as a result, we were then given that opportunity.

The system, the previous government and, by extension, the opposition now have absolutely let down the people of this province—not only now, but future generations. If we don’t do something about it now, imagine what it’s going to be. If you think it’s bad now, think about what it’s going to be like five years and 10 years from now.

That is why we said to Ontarians—we’re transparent with Ontarians. We told them housing is a priority of this government. We talked about it during the campaign, in the last provincial election. We said to Ontarians, “We’re not going to let you down. We’re going to do everything we can. We’re going to work with all levels of government, with partners.” Gone are the days when people are pitted against one another and nothing gets done. Under this government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’re going to collaborate with everyone. We’re going to work with local municipalities, we’re going to work with the federal government, we’re going to work with non-profits, we’re going to work with the private sector to build more homes all across the province so that we don’t let any Ontarians down. That is a promise that we made, and of course we’re going to keep it.

Through one initiative that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has put forward, we are looking at a minimum of 50,000 homes being added to the province. Of course, we’re going to be looking at that. We’re going to look at any way to increase housing.

Mr. Speaker, there’s a balance. Our strong stance when it comes to protecting the environment—you’ve seen it. We’re the leader in the country. Unlike what the opposition thinks, there’s a balance to everything. You can do more than one thing. And that’s what we’re doing. That’s what the Premier has asked us to do. We have two ministers responsible for housing in this province of Ontario. Why? Because the Premier sees a need. It’s a priority for us to make sure that we get the job done for every single Ontarian in this province.

I do want to talk about one thing: Colleagues, there is a procedure—all of you are familiar; we just got the report back—where, after we debate a bill, this then goes to committee. All along you’ve heard it—during question period, outside of here. Every opportunity that the members of the opposition have gotten, they have criticized this bill. Right? Correct me if I’m wrong. And yet, colleagues, when it came to committee, how many amendments do you think the NDP put forward?

Interjections.

Exactly. They have the authority to politicize bureaucrats by having the authority to hand-pick the heads of departments instead of having a more collaborative, non-partisan process to decide who these public servants are going to be. And any municipality—any mayor now also gets the authority not just to veto a piece of legislation but also to introduce legislation and get it passed with just one third.

This government, in short, in schedule 3, is giving themselves the permission to introduce minority rule in any municipality they want, whenever they want, just through regulation; it doesn’t have to come back through the Legislature. That is an assault to democracy. It is a shame.

I’m not the only one who’s concerned about this bill. We went to committee. We got 20 minutes of the minister’s time, with some questions on the first day. And then on the second day, we had just 18 people speak. You sped it through so fast. There are over 14 million people in Ontario. You’re rewriting how democracy works in this province, and you gave just 18 people the opportunity to speak—it’s really shocking—but speak they did, and the written submissions that we received and the comments that we received in committee, overwhelmingly, expressed horror at what this government was doing. We had CCLA. We had former mayors. We had thousands of citizens. We had the Anglican Diocese of Toronto. We had the Canadian Environmental Law Association. We had Ecology Ottawa. We had David Miller, Friends of Kensington Market, the Federation of North Toronto Residents’ Associations, the Federation of South Toronto Residents’ Associations, Friends of the Golden Horse-shoe, David Crombie, John Sewell, the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, AMO.

And I know you have all had hundreds, thousands of emails into your inbox about Bill 23 and its sister bill, Bill 39, over the last few weeks. I get those emails too.

You’ve had thousands of people, cumulatively, protest at your offices. It’s December. It’s cold. And yes, they’re still coming out because they’re so concerned about this bill. It is very concerning.

I want to read some of the comments that people expressed.

AMO represents 444 municipalities. They did a survey of Bill 3, which is an extension of strong mayors—Bill 3 and Bill 39 are very related. It’s almost like you forgot, like John Tory called you up and said, “Hold on, what about this,” and you said, “Oh, yes, you’re right. We’ll do Bill 39 too. Thank you. Oh, and that? Okay. We’ll make another bill.” AMO—77% of mayors are opposed to strong-mayor powers. Who asked for this bill, aside from John Tory? And 90%-plus of councillors are opposed to strong-mayor powers. Then, when it comes to Bill 39—they haven’t done a survey yet, because this bill got rushed through so quickly, they haven’t had time—the AMO board is unanimously opposed to this bill. They reached consensus. Yet, still you proceed. No amendments, ram it through committee—“good, good, good.” It’s not good. And your arguments keep changing all the time, so I know you’re hearing it from your constituents, too—they don’t think it’s good either. When you guys start changing your message, it means that something is not going so well—

This is a disastrous bill. It is a terrible, terrible, terrible bill, and it’s got nothing to do with solving the housing affordability crisis.

If this government was serious about solving the housing affordability crisis, you would bring in better rent controls so Ontarians out there living in new homes aren’t faced with a 15% rent increase come this Christmas, come January 1; this government would actually address the homelessness crisis and the mental health crisis, and build affordable housing and supportive housing to meet the need—not some scattershot approach that maybe you’re doing, plan-less.

Have a plan. Implement it. People need homes. Homes are for people.

This bill has nothing to do with providing homes to people; it’s got everything to do with consolidating power to help yourselves.

Where to start with this horrendous bill? I will start with addressing my counterpart across the way, with his mention of building housing. We’re all there on building housing. Let’s do it now—shovels in the ground, as you like to say. You say this bill is bold; I would say it’s timid. Housing: three units per site—come on, do four. Look at surface parking. There should be no surface parking in downtown Toronto. Like Manhattan, do parking underground. Build up the avenues. Look at our own provincial lands. Why aren’t we looking at LCBO sites? Build them up—working with churches, looking in our own backyards. Actually be bold and build housing. This bill will not build housing.

You’re always looking at building housing in the wrong places. You’re looking at farmlands when you know darned well, in the city of Toronto, there are—we have a letter from a bunch of planners. I’m sure you memorized this letter from 50 planning professionals based in Ontario and across the country with extensive leadership and experience—one, our own former chief planner, Paul Bedford, for the city of Toronto. He has huge credibility and a great reputation. There are 700,000 units in the pipeline in Toronto. That’s almost half of your 1.5-million housing goal. So why not be looking at urban centres, existing neighbourhoods? Why go into the farmland? You have heard repeatedly from other groups—especially the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, representing 38,000 farmers. They’re saying that class 1 farmland is instrumental—only 5% of Ontario’s landscape is arable land. The Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve is the only agricultural preserve in Ontario. Why would we go in there when we have other places to go for housing? It’s ridiculous. Give their letter a read. They talk about how instrumental it is for farmers; 1,600 farmers will be affected directly by this. You’ve seen the letters.

The process was horrific. Again, it was a day and a half—not even; half the day was for the minister. We heard from Parks Canada. Indigenous communities were not engaged. In a time of truth and reconciliation, why are we not walking the talk; why are we not doing better?

I’m sharing the time with my independent member down here, so I will be quick.

You’ve all received umpteen emails. You’ve seen the rallies. You are reading the tea leaves wrong on this. You have woken up every Ontarian. You cannot go into the greenbelt—

This is the wrong bill. This is the wrong place to build housing.

I’m passing the time over to my colleague.

The ayes are 67; the nays are 25.

It is our solemn duty to learn from the past, continue to support survivors of violence and acknowledge the names and the memory of women and girls who have tragically had their lives cut short.

Speaker, if I may, I would like to read the names of the women who died on that terrible day in Montreal:

—Geneviève Bergeron, age 21;

—Hélène Colgan, age 23;

—Nathalie Croteau, age 23;

—Barbara Daigneault, age 22;

—Anne-Marie Edward, age 21;

—Maud Haviernick, age 29;

—Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz, age 31;

—Maryse Laganière, age 25;

—Maryse Leclair, age 23;

—Anne-Marie Lemay, age 22;

—Sonia Pelletier, age 28;

—Michèle Richard, age 21;

—Annie St-Arneault, age 23;

—Annie Turcotte, age 20.

On that terrible day, 14 young women who were experiencing some of the best years of their lives lost everything because they were women. As I read those names, I am struck by how much potential each one of these young women had. Their lives were only just beginning. They had achievements waiting for them, memories to be made, people to connect with and, undoubtedly, so much more to experience in life.

The National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women is a time to mourn this loss of life and a time to restate our commitment to ending gender-based violence. Our government has zero tolerance for violence against women and girls. We believe that all Ontarians have the right to live freely, safely and in peace. Sadly, the majority of Canadians know someone who has been abused. The statistics are staggering: One in three Canadian women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime. Women are three times more likely to be stalked and three and a half times more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence. Approximately every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner.

Speaker, as Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, a physician and a mother, these statistics are deeply concerning. That is why we are working with community partners to prevent violence against women and ensure that survivors have the supports that they need. We’re also working with all levels of government, and we were pleased to endorse the first National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence last month.

Words are not enough. We are investing millions in programming to address the root causes of this violence and implementing innovative programming to support recovery. For example, last year we invested $11 million in violence prevention initiatives and nearly $200 million in services and supports for survivors of violence. This investment provides critical services such as crisis lines, sexual assault centres and emergency shelters for women and their children.

It also funds programs across the province that connect women who have experienced violence with a wide range of wraparound supports to help them heal and rebuild their lives. These supports include safety planning, counselling, mental health services, supportive housing and culturally responsive healing programs.

We’re also investing in additional community supports specifically for victims and survivors of human trafficking through our five-year, $307-million anti-human trafficking strategy. Many of these programs are focused on children and youth, as they are at increased risk of being targeted, lured, groomed and manipulated by traffickers due to their young age and vulnerability.

We are now in the third year of our strategy to combat human trafficking and child sexual exploitation, and we will continue to use every tool we can to reach these girls before offenders have the opportunity to exploit them.

It is also critical that we work to support culturally responsive interventions and solutions to human trafficking and broader issues of violence against Indigenous women. Indigenous women are three times more likely to experience violent victimization than non-Indigenous women, and they are two and a half times more likely to experience spousal violence. Indigenous women and girls also experience increased vulnerabilities to being targeted by human traffickers and being trafficked. In response to this, we are investing $96 million in community organizations that support victims and survivors of trafficking through our anti-human trafficking strategy—including programs designed by and for Indigenous people. We are also investing $80 million this year in the Indigenous Healing and Wellness Strategy, which supports a continuum of Indigenous-designed-and-delivered holistic programs. These programs focus on reducing family violence and violence against Indigenous women and children, as well as improving Indigenous healing, health and wellness.

This work is so important in our elimination of gender-based violence, and we will not stop until every woman and girl can live without fear.

We must continue to have open and honest conversations about violence against women, and encourage survivors to bring their stories forward as they feel safe doing so. And we must continue to educate boys and girls, men and women, about what a healthy, equal and non-violent relationship looks like.

I ask all members of this House to join me in honouring the women whose lives have been cut short by violence, and to commit to creating safer communities and a better future for all women and girls.

The member for Brantford–Brant, come to order. The Minister of Labour, come to order. The member for Waterloo, come to order.

The Associate Minister of Housing has the floor.

The Associate Minister of Housing can continue.

Interjections.

Further debate?

She has the floor.

The Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy reports the following bill without amendment:

Bill 39, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Municipal Act, 2001 and to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022.

Mr. Thanigasalam has moved the adoption of the report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1534 to 1539.

Report adopted.

Speaker, let’s be clear with the people of Ontario what we’re debating with Bill 39. We are debating turning over centuries of democratic principles. That’s what’s at stake right now—the democratic principle of majority rule. We all know Winston Churchill’s famous quote that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried; well, I guess the government wants to try another form of government called “minority rule” at city councils. That’s what’s at stake right here.

I used to think Conservatives were about conserving things. They’re certainly not about conserving democratic institutions and democratic principles. They’re certainly not conserving class 1 and 2 farmland in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.

We don’t need to get rid of democracy and democratic principles to build housing, to restore the dream of home ownership. We don’t need to pave over the farmland that feeds us and dismantle environmental protections to build the housing people need that’s affordable in the communities where they want to live.

The government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force, hand-picked by the Premier, didn’t put forward things I always support, but they put forward a number of solutions that the government is actually not even bringing forward. The task force never said, “Open the greenbelt for development.” They never said, “Get rid of the triple protections on the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.” And they never said, “Overturn democratic rule in this province.”

A couple of things they did talk about, in Bills 44 and 45, were getting rid of exclusionary zoning, so we can bring in gentle density—so if the government truly wants to restore home ownership, why don’t we pass Bill 44, which I’ve put forward, which puts forward the housing task force recommendations on how to do gentle density? And while we’re at it, let’s pass Bill 45, which shows how we can bring in mid-rise development across this province, so we can actually build homes that people can afford, close to where they work, in communities where they want to live, without paving over the farmland that feeds us and contributes $50 billion to the province’s economy. We can do it without undermining democracy like Bill 39 does.

Today I stand in honour of the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. The key word here is “action.” To truly honour the 14 women murdered means to act so that it doesn’t happen again, because, sadly, this massacre was not an isolated moment in time. Since 1990, there have been at least 980 femicides in our province alone.

This past May, four Indigenous women were viciously murdered as an act of femicide. We must remember their names too: Rebecca Contois, Marcedes Myran, Morgan Beatrice Harris, and the one who elders named Buffalo Woman. Each of these women had their full lives in front of them and they should still be living today. But because of violent misogyny, racism and colonialism, they are not.

Gender-based violence, including femicide, is a national epidemic. Let’s start by naming exactly what it is. Despite being a national epidemic, the province still has a role to play. The government’s endorsement of the national action plan on violence against women is not enough. It is more words or empty signals when there’s no action backing it up.

Earlier this year, the Renfrew county inquest was published in response to the femicide of three women in Renfrew county, with 86 total recommendations; 68 of these are under the province’s mandate. These 68 have yet to be answered to with any plan of action and, importantly, budget to implement them. These include establishing an independent intimate partner violence commission, a survivors’ advocate so survivors and their families and communities have a voice at the table; ensuring an annualized funding model is applied across the sector so each dollar can be spent on community care, not administration and reporting; and developing a plan for real, affordable, second-stage housing so that shelters aren’t the only housing available. These are just a few of the many at hand for this government that they continually to fail to answer to.

I also want to note that this is too often framed as a women’s issue. This is as much a women’s issue as a men’s issue. I want to thank the organization Counterpoint, in St. Paul’s, for recognizing this and putting in the work there with their counselling and educational programs dedicated for men’s learning specifically. Prevention does not happen without men’s work too.

Chers collègues, je suis heureuse de m’adresser à vous aujourd’hui pour annoncer que nous avons franchi une étape importante pour l’avancement des services en français dans notre province.

Il y a un an, le 9 décembre 2021, les modifications proposées à la Loi sur les services en français recevaient la sanction royale après avoir été adoptées dans cette enceinte.

Telle que mise de l’avant par notre gouvernement, la modernisation de cette loi phare représente un jalon important dans l’histoire de l’Ontario. Pour la première fois en 35 ans, la loi a été amendée de manière significative pour répondre aux besoins et aspirations de la communauté francophone.

Comme le disait si bien le père des Jeux olympiques modernes, Pierre de Coubertin : « Chaque difficulté rencontrée doit être l’occasion d’un nouveau progrès. »

La livraison des services à la communauté francophone présentait auparavant une préoccupation majeure, puisque le fardeau de trouver une offre convenable reposait sur les épaules des utilisatrices et des utilisateurs.

Durant les consultations publiques sur les services en français qui se sont déroulées à l’été de 2021, la mise en oeuvre de l’offre active revêtait une importance primordiale pour les intervenants qui se sont exprimés durant cet exercice. Nous avons donc procédé à un changement de paradigme important, et il s’agit là d’une avancée historique.

En plus de veiller à la responsabilisation accrue des ministères, des agences gouvernementales et des organismes tiers en matière de prestation de services en français, cette loi modernisée fait de l’offre active la pierre angulaire de l’accès à des services en français de qualité.

Alors que nous soulignons le premier anniversaire de sa promulgation, je suis heureuse d’annoncer que nous avons maintenant créé un règlement portant spécifiquement sur l’offre active. L’offre active de services en français incombe désormais aux fournisseurs. Ce nouveau règlement prévoit donc l’établissement de neuf mesures précises, visant à ce que les organismes devant offrir des services au nom du gouvernement soient proactifs. Les Ontariennes et les Ontariens qui souhaitent en bénéficier sauront dès le début de leur démarche que ceux-ci sont disponibles. Le service en français sera assuré, du début à la fin du processus.

Tous les ministères, les agences dont la majorité des membres du conseil d’administration sont nommés par le Conseil des ministres, les institutions relevant de l’Assemblée législative, les organismes désignés et les tierces parties mandatées contractuellement pour offrir des services au nom du gouvernement y seront assujettis. La date butoir pour la mise en place de ce calendrier s’échelonnera entre le 1^er avril et le 1^er octobre 2023. L’Ontario est désormais l’une des juridictions canadiennes possédant le cadre législatif le plus étoffé au niveau de l’offre active des services en français.

La modernisation de la loi s’inscrit dans une démarche stratégique pangouvernementale selon laquelle l’offre de services en français passe par l’accès accru à une main-d’oeuvre francophone et bilingue, et par la mise en oeuvre de modèles de prestation intégrés, bien adaptés aux besoins d’une communauté qui fait vibrer ses accents aux quatre coins de la province.

Les travaux de notre gouvernement pour la modernisation de la Loi sur les services en français, ainsi que nos efforts soutenus pour soutenir le développement culturel et économique de la francophonie, témoignent de notre engagement envers la vitalité et l’épanouissement de la francophonie ontarienne.

Je remercie donc l’ensemble de mes collègues, ainsi que les membres de cette Assemblée, pour leur appui et leur engagement. Je suis très fière du travail que nous avons accompli ensemble, en collaboration avec les acteurs du milieu, pour répondre aux demandes de longue date de la francophonie ontarienne.

La volonté de notre gouvernement est claire et sans ambages : qu’ils soient d’ici ou d’ailleurs, toutes celles et tous ceux qui contribuent au développement de la francophonie ontarienne, à sa richesse culturelle et à son essor économique, méritent d’évoluer dans des conditions propices à leur réussite.

Madame la Présidente, chers collègues et membres de l’Assemblée, merci de votre attention.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to advise that in keeping with the spirit of the standing orders, we have reduced our speaking time to five minutes as a group.

Madame la Présidente, j’apprécie vraiment que le gouvernement fasse des efforts pour changer l’opinion qu’ont les francophones de ce gouvernement quand on parle d’appui à nos communautés francophones. Mais les francophones n’ont pas oublié les coupures dévastatrices de ce gouvernement dans les services francophones. Et malgré certaines mesures avancées par le gouvernement depuis, nous n’avons toujours pas rattrapé le retard.

Je vais donc aujourd’hui présenter un récit qui vise à apporter un peu plus de compréhension sur les défis de la communauté franco-ontarienne. C’est important parce que les francophones à travers la province se sentent laissés pour compte.

Les conseils scolaires ont un grand déficit au niveau des infrastructures scolaires, qui ne répondent pas aux besoins des familles désirant faire instruire leurs enfants en français. Les inscriptions dans les écoles francophones augmentent à un rythme plus élevé que dans les écoles anglophones; pourtant, les investissements en infrastructure ne reflètent pas cette réalité.

L’impact réel est que des parents francophones font le choix difficile d’inscrire leurs enfants dans une école anglophone plutôt que de les envoyer dans un système francophone sous-financé.

Ce phénomène se produit aussi en région alors que les parents choisissent une école anglophone qui est à proximité plutôt que d’imposer à leurs enfants un long trajet en autobus pour se rendre à la seule école francophone du coin.

La croissance de la demande pour l’éducation française nécessite plus de travailleurs francophones en éducation. Les efforts pour adresser la grave pénurie de main-d’oeuvre ne sont malheureusement pas suffisants, parce que les recommandations fournies par le groupe de travail que le gouvernement a mis lui-même sur pied ne sont tout simplement pas mises en oeuvre.

Comme l’éducation est la racine de notre société, c’est là où l’on devrait investir le plus si l’on veut pouvoir combler les besoins en main-d’oeuvre francophone dans toutes les sphères de notre société—en éducation, oui, mais aussi en santé et dans les services juridiques, entre autres.

Tous ces enjeux d’accès à des services essentiels qui peuvent être pris pour acquis pour le reste de la population sont des questions non seulement qui compliquent la vie des Franco-Ontariens, mais qui leur causent souvent des préjudices irréparables.

J’encourage donc le gouvernement à continuer et ouvrir encore plus le dialogue avec la communauté francophone pour mieux comprendre comment agir afin que les Franco-Ontariens ne se sentent pas laissés pour compte. Je suis à votre disponibilité pour faciliter cet engagement.

Today I rise as well to commemorate the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. On this day, we recognize the ongoing violence against women in all parts of Canada. We reflect on and honour the lives lost to gender-based violence and femicide.

It’s been 33 years since the devastating shooting at l’École Polytechnique de Montréal. As a young woman myself, I remember that event well and the feeling that it was an assault against all women, that these young women, these aspiring engineers, were shot or killed only because they were women.

There were 13 young women injured and 14 young women dead. I thank the minister for naming those murdered. As long as we name them, they will be remembered.

This tragic loss of life is one that changed their families forever. It changed Canada forever, and it serves as a constant reminder of the continued existence of violent misogyny in our country.

As stated by the other members, women from Indigenous, BIPOC and LGBTQ2S+ communities are more likely to face gender-based violence than other women in Canada. It’s important that we bring our focus to these realities and the many crises that continue to exist, including the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and two-spirit plus people.

Just last week, a man was arrested for the murder of four Indigenous women in Manitoba, also named here earlier: Morgan Beatrice Harris, Marcedes Myran, Rebecca Contois and one who remains unnamed.

We can and must do more. I ask this government to update Ontarians on the status of the recommendations for change proposed in the Renfrew county inquest six months ago following the gender-based murders of three Ontario women: Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam. I call on the federal government to work to include femicide in the Criminal Code as one important step of many more necessary to end gender-based violence in Canada.

We must take an intersectional approach to addressing these acts of harm against women, especially as we become more aware that gender-based violence is not limited to traditional gender identities.

As MPP for Don Valley West, I’m committed to doing my part to eliminate gender-based violence in Ontario and Canada, and I know the rest of the House is as well.

I move that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be auth-orized to meet during the winter 2022-23 adjournment of the House at the call of the Chair.

J’ai écouté attentivement l’allocution de la ministre. L’offre active, c’est bien, mais je peux vous dire que quand ils ont fait les changements, la communauté francophone est restée sur son appétit. Trop souvent, on voit dans l’offre active que les paroles sont bien, mais des fois le service n’est pas là.

Je vois aussi que quand on parle de la communauté franco-ontarienne, on parle de l’Université de Sudbury. La communauté, ça fait longtemps qu’elle demande d’avoir un réseau. Je sais que le gouvernement travaille attentivement avec l’université pour faire avancer le dossier. Je sais aussi que la communauté, la coalition de Sudbury, demande à la ministre ou au ministère de faire un compte rendu, parce que je pense que la communauté a besoin de savoir où on est rendu dans ce dossier-là. Pourquoi? C’est important pour la communauté. La communauté demande le transfert des cours de la Laurentienne à l’Université de Sudbury, parce que la communauté a perdu confiance en la Laurentienne.

On voit aussi que si on a appris quelque chose pendant la pandémie—s’il y a de quoi qu’on aurait dû apprendre, que le gouvernement aurait dû apprendre—c’est de mettre des unités de santé publique, des services de santé publique assujettis à la Loi sur les services en français. Pourquoi ne le sont-ils pas? Ils devraient l’être. Ça fait partie, je pense, d’un bon système de santé.

Une des grosses demandes—on sait que le commissaire fait un très bon travail. Mais la communauté demande toujours de ravoir son commissaire indépendant. Je pense qu’on a travaillé dur pour l’avoir. Pour une raison quelconque, ce gouvernement a voulu le retirer. Je pense que, notre communauté, on mérite notre commissaire.

Mais aussi, une chose dont on entend souvent parler le gouvernement, c’est que c’est important aussi de parler des organismes à but non lucratif. C’est eux autres qui gardent notre langue. C’est eux autres qui gardent notre culture. On parle des AFO de ce monde. On parle de tous ces organismes à but non lucratif. On a besoin de les subventionner. Ils ont de l’argent du fédéral. La province devrait faire beaucoup mieux que ce qu’on fait là, car ils sauvent notre langue et notre culture.

Response?

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

This petition is entitled “Implement the Renfrew County Inquest to End Femicide in Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas since 2015, the same year of the tragic femicides of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk, and Nathalie Warmerdam in Renfrew county, there have been at least 273 women killed in acts of femicide in Ontario;

“Whereas the Renfrew county inquest was published in June 2022 outlining 86 recommendations, 68 of which are under provincial jurisdiction, in order to respond to and prevent intimate partner violence and femicide;

“Whereas the provincial government has yet to respond to the Renfrew county inquest recommendations in any meaningful way;

“Whereas Black women, Indigenous women, racialized women, trans women and non-binary folks, unhoused women, women with disabilities, and women living in rural or remote communities are at a greater risk of femicide due to systemic discrimination and structural inequities that make accessing resources far more difficult;

“Whereas femicide is an epidemic;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to respond and report publicly on the findings of the Renfrew county inquest with specific and timely plans of action and accompanying budget to support implementation of the report’s recommendations to eliminate intimate partner violence in Ontario.”

I wholeheartedly support this petition, I’ve affixed my signature and I will hand it to Grace.