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.

This petition is to the Ontario Legislative Assembly for a meaningful climate action plan.

“Whereas our planet is undergoing significant warming with adverse consequences for health, for agriculture, for infrastructure and our children’s future;

“Whereas the costs of inaction are severe, such as extreme weather events causing flooding and drought;

“Whereas Canada has signed the Paris accord which commits us to acting to keep temperature rise under 1.5 degrees ...;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario to develop GHC reduction targets based on science that will meet our Paris commitment, an action plan to meet those targets and annual reporting on progress on meeting the targets....”

I fully support this petition, and I’ll be giving it to page Grace.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are over 900,000 Ontarians who are forced to rely on social assistance;

“Whereas Doug Ford’s Conservatives promised to raise Ontario Disability Support Program ... rates by only 5%, and have provided no additional support for those who receive Ontario Works...;

“Whereas inflation is at a 40-year high and people on fixed incomes are forced to make sacrifices every day just to survive;

“Whereas both ODSP and OW recipients live in legislated deep poverty, a meager $58 increase to ODSP and no additional support for OW recipients will do virtually nothing to improve the lives of people living on social assistance;

“Therefore, we the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately double social assistance rates, so that people can live dignified, healthy lives.”

I support this petition, will sign it and give it to Alex to submit.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas a basic principle of health care is that it must be patient-centred instead of profit-centred; and

“Whereas the introduction of profit in health care has consistently led to poorer health outcomes in Canada and around the world; and

“Whereas the introduction of profits and privatized health care creates a division between those who can afford it and those who cannot;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact the following measures:

“(1) Recommit to honouring and defending the Canada Health Act;

“(2) Guarantee that health care in Ontario will not be privatized;

“(3) Ensure that in every case, health care system decisions are patient-centred and not profit-centred;

“(4) Commit to solve the challenges in our health care system through public and not-for-profit initiatives.”

I support this petition. I am signing it and am pleased to hand it to page Yusuf.

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 support this petition, will be signing it and giving it to page Alex to return to the table.

I would like to thank Karen Barnes from Chelmsford in my riding for these petitions.

“Health Care: Not for Sale....

“Whereas Ontarians get health care based on their needs, not their ability to pay;

“Whereas the Ford government wants to privatize our health care system;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals and will download costs to patients;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 to help recruit, retain, return and respect health care workers with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario;

“—incentivizing health care professionals to choose to live and work in northern Ontario.”

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

This petition is entitled “Develop an Ontario Dementia Strategy.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas it currently takes far too long for people in Ontario to get an official dementia diagnosis, with patients often waiting years to complete testing;

“Whereas early diagnosis saves lives and more than half of patients suspected of having dementia in Ontario never get a full diagnosis;

“Whereas a PET scan test approved in 2017 that can be used for detecting the disease early is still not covered under OHIP;

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

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

It is my pleasure to affix my signature to this petition and give it to page Max.

I’d like to thank Roxanne Tremblay from Garson in my riding for these petitions.

“911 Everywhere in Ontario....

“Whereas when we face an emergency we all know to dial 911 for help; and

“Whereas access to emergency services through 911 is not available in all regions of Ontario but most Ontarians believe that it is; and

“Whereas many Ontarians have discovered that 911 was not available while they faced an emergency; and

“Whereas all Ontarians expect and deserve access to 911 service, throughout our province;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“To provide 911 emergency response everywhere in Ontario by land line or cellphone.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and give it to Alex to bring to the Clerk.

I want to thank the good people of Huron Shores and Bruce Mines, the cattlemen’s association and the farmers who are there. The petition is entitled “Protect the Greenbelt.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bill 23 is the Ford government’s latest attempt to remove protected land from the greenbelt, allowing developers to bulldoze and pave over 7,000 acres of farmland in the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ontario is already losing 319.6 acres of farmland and green space daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ford’s repeated moves to tear up farmland and bulldoze wetlands have never been about housing, but are about making the rich richer;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats and prevent flooding;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately amend Bill 23, stop all plans to further remove protected land from the greenbelt and protect existing farmland in the province by passing the NDP’s Protecting Agricultural Land Act.”

I fully agree with this petition and send it to page Alex to bring down to the Clerk’s table.

When we left off the debate, I was just recapping some of the measures that are set out in Bill 51. Right now, we’re debating a time allocation motion to move this bill through, immediately, to a third reading vote without a third reading debate.

Basically, what this legislation does is transfer significant responsibility for the oversight of the Legislative Assembly to the Board of Internal Economy from the Speaker’s office. It empowers the Board of Internal Economy to appoint or dismiss employees of the Legislative Assembly. It gives them the responsibility to prescribe the duties and functions of employees of the Legislature. It empowers them to allocate the office space within the legislative precinct—and I should point out here that, although it does include some provisions about how MPPs are prioritized in the allocation of office space, it makes no mention of official opposition or independent MPPs having priority access to office space. It simply says that the members who are not parliamentary assistants shall have priority over the members who are parliamentary assistants.

Other measures included in this bill: It makes the Board of Internal Economy responsible for control of the legislative precinct. It also redefines “legislative precinct” to remove the basement of Whitney Block, and despite repeated questions that we raised during second reading debate, we never got a clear answer from the government as to why that change is being proposed. Finally, it makes the Board of Internal Economy responsible for accessibility plans.

This may be something that is done in other provinces. The big question, I think, for us is, why now? What was broken that the government decided it was so important to bring forward this amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act without any prior consultation or discussion with either the official opposition or—I don’t know about you, Speaker, or if the independent MPPs were consulted on these changes in advance. I can say with certainty that the official opposition was not consulted in any way—and this really contrasts with the last set of amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act that were brought forward in 2020. Bill 167 set out a number of changes. At that time, the government House leader shared some of those proposals with the official opposition in advance so that we could take a look at those proposals and consider whether they were supportable or not. In this case, we got the legislation on a Wednesday, we were debating it on a Thursday, and now, on a Tuesday, we are looking at seeing it move immediately to a final third reading vote tomorrow.

The other provision that’s included in this bill is to transfer the responsibility for appointing or dismissing the Sergeant-at-Arms from the Speaker to the Legislative Assembly. Once again, maybe that makes sense—I don’t know—but the question is, what was so wrong with the process that is currently being used for appointing or removing the Sergeant-at-Arms?

None of those questions that we raised and that we were curious about when we saw this bill have been appropriately and fulsomely addressed by the government.

When I talked about the major responsibilities that this legislation gives to the Board of Internal Economy—one of our concerns is, who is on the Board of Internal Economy? We know that up until 2012, the Board of Internal Economy was a board that had majority government representation. It was only in 2012 that a change was made to structure the Board of Internal Economy as a consensus body. There’s a representative from government, and there are representatives from the recognized parties. Currently, there are two members of the Board of Internal Economy—the government House leader and our official whip—and the Speaker is also on that board, as a non-voting member. However, that composition of the Board of Internal Economy is set out in legislation, in the Legislative Assembly Act, which means that we could see further amendments to change the composition of the Board of Internal Economy. This would not be unexpected.

Just today, we got the report of the standing committee on Bill 39, which is part 2 of the government plan to create and then expand strong-mayor powers in the province; they did that in two parts. My colleague spoke to that bill and pointed out the first part of Bill 3, the original strong-mayor bill. Bill 39, the bill that was reported today, just moves that much further in extending those strong-mayor powers. Most troublingly, it also completely undermines our published democratic traditions, the fundamental tenets of representative democracy, by allowing elected municipal councils—right now, in Toronto and Ottawa, but we know the government intends to expand those powers to other municipalities. It allows municipal councils to make decisions on behalf of the people who elected them on the basis of just one third of the members of the council, effectively silencing the two thirds of councillors who may be opposed to this decision that the strong mayor wants to push through with the support of just one third of their members. In a democracy, majority rule has been a fundamental principle of how we function as a democratic system, and the government has decided that that is no longer going to be the case in municipalities across the province and has moved forward with Bill 39.

During the debate, we heard the government House leader say, “Trust us. We wouldn’t change the composition of the Board of Internal Economy.” Frankly, Ontarians don’t have a lot of trust in this government. Ontarians heard the Premier assure them numerous times, repeatedly, that the greenbelt would not be opened, that there would be no carving out of the greenbelt, and yet, despite those repeated public pronouncements, the government brought in a bill, Bill 23, that did just that. It carved out the greenbelt, contrary to those promises, those commitments, that had been made by the Premier. And not only did it carve out the greenbelt, but there are lots of legitimate questions that people are asking about how the decision as to where the boundary is going to be changed was made, because there are wealthy land speculators, wealthy developers, wealthy donors to the PC Party who are going to be profiting enormously from those changes that were made to the greenbelt. So when we hear the government House leader saying, “Just trust us”—frankly, we don’t have that trust.

If the government leader was genuine in his assertions that the changes that are set out in this bill will really improve the functioning of this place and will go further in empowering members, as he likes to claim he has done—if that was really the case, he would have talked to the official opposition, he would have talked to the independent members, saying, “I’m thinking of doing this. What do you think? Do you agree that it would help us work more effectively as a Legislature?” But no, that was not the process that the government House leader chose to follow.

I was reading the Hansard of the debate last Thursday, and there were some interesting comments that were made by the government House leader on those issues. He said, “Now, the member opposite says”—he was referring to my colleague the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane—“‘Well, they could change the composition of the Board of Internal Economy.’” If I wanted to do that,” said the government House leader, “I’d just simply change the composition of the Board of Internal Economy. I wouldn’t need any of this. It would be a heck of a lot easier for me to present a two-line bill changing the Board of Internal Economy to government-majority rule.”

As we saw with strong-mayors part 1 and part 2, this could simply be a further centralization of government control—part 1, which is going to be followed by part 2, of changes to the Board of Internal Economy.

Later, the government House leader said this: “But the legislation ensures that, for now, myself and the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane will have a voice at that table”—meaning the Board of Internal Economy—“and will get to decide and help put in place a framework....” His reference stating that the legislation ensures that, for now, that is the case really sounds the alarm for us, because it suggests that just as there was one composition of the Board of Internal Economy that was in place until 2012 and that was changed, it would be very easy for a further change to be made to the Board of Internal Economy to give the government majority control and, therefore, the power over all of the scaffolding of the Legislative Assembly, all of those new provisions that are going to be assigned to the Board of Internal Economy through this act.

This is just simply not something that we are willing to support. We are not going to trust the government House leader, who didn’t even have the courtesy to approach us and share some of these ideas with the official opposition in advance. We are certainly not going to be supporting this time allocation motion that is currently being debated, that would see this bill go immediately to a vote when it is next brought before this chamber.

For that reason, Speaker, I now move adjournment of the House.

I have a petition here to stop the elimination of the 69 Warden South bus route.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Toronto Transit Commission’s annual service plan seeks to replace route 69 Warden South by the existing 135 Gerrard and the new 117 Birchmount South operating from Warden Station to Bingham Loop;

“Whereas 69 Warden South is an essential route for the residents of Scarborough, especially residents of Scarborough Southwest;

“Whereas for families, youth, students and seniors, the 69 Warden South is the only way for them to access public services such as the Albert Campbell library and the Warden subway station;

“Whereas many youth and seniors living in Scarborough Southwest have to rely on public transit to access basic necessities such as groceries, pharmacies and health care;

“Whereas the proposed growth plan for Scarborough along Kingston Road requires proper transit planning and accessibility for residents both current and future;

“Whereas the replacement route is longer, inefficient, and eliminate door-to-door service for many, requiring extra walking, and would make many places like the Taylor Memorial library, Birchmount Community Centre, Birchmount Stadium, Scarborough Gardens, grocery stores such as Tasteco, Sun Valley, Red Rose Halal, and many more completely inaccessible by public transit;

“Whereas the average daily ridership on this route is 3,900 people on weekdays and 2,100 people on Saturday, and 1,800 people on Sunday;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the elimination of the 69 Warden South bus route, which is essential to the day-to-day travels and livelihoods of all Scarborough Southwest residents and establishments and call on the Toronto Transit Commission to do a consultation and study that provides the services that the residents of Scarborough need.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature to it and give it to page Eric for the Clerks.

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 6, 2022, on the motion for time allocation of the following bill:

Bill 51, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 51, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l’Assemblée législative.

This is titled “Petition to Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and soon $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent small budget increase of 5% for ODSP still leaves these citizens well below the poverty line, both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to live in this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a basic income of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I absolutely support this petition. We must end legislated poverty. I’m handing it to Grace for tabling.

I believe, when we left off, the member for London West was speaking. You may resume debate.

The MPP for London West has moved the adjournment of the House.

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

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This is a 30-minute bell. I’m calling in the members.

The division bells rang from 1641 to 1711.

MPP Sattler has moved the adjournment of the House.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerks.

All those opposed to the motion, please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerks.

Further debate? The member for London West had the floor.

We’re just going to wait a couple of moments. If people need to move, please do that quietly so that we can hear the member speaking. Thank you very much.

The member for London West can continue.

Pursuant to standing order 50(b), I am required to put the question.

Ms. Khanjin has moved government notice of motion number 10 relating to allocation of time on Bill 51, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

Mr. Clark moved third reading of the following bill:

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.

The ayes are 0; the nays are 82.