Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Unlike previous governments in Ontario, which were supported by the opposition NDP, our government has taken many steps to improve the physician supply, including expanding medical education, Ontario’s international medical graduate program, using other non-physician health care providers to provide team-based primary care, the northern and rural recruitment initiative and the northern Ontario physician retention initiative as well as locum programs.

I know you’re speaking about your situation in your community in the north. We’ve expanded education for medical students, as I said, including at Lakeridge hospital, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine as well. And we have those northern initiatives, as I indicated, that help provide physicians in the north. We’re certainly going to continue to work on improving the physician supply in northern communities and all other communities in Ontario.

I have a very important question for the Minister of Long-Term Care. From 2011 to 2018, the Liberal government actually produced only 611 long-term-care beds—that’s all that was added to our system. And you know what, for many years, the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, overlooked the realities of Ontario’s aging population and were indifferent to their needs.

As the needs of our aging population become more prominent, the failure of past governments to plan ahead was not only neglectful but disrespectful to Ontario residents and our seniors who need care. Their inaction and failures have contributed to the gaps that are evident today.

What is this minister doing to address the growing needs for long-term-care beds in this province?

Speaker, as Ontarians age, their health care needs grow, and these needs are felt throughout the community, through increased demand for hospitals, retirement homes and long-term-care and emergency services. The parliamentary assistant mentioned that the government is building approximately 60,000 new and upgraded long-term-care beds across this province, and I am pleased and very thankful that 256 new beds are coming to my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

With many Ontarians nearing the age of retirement and with many others already requiring long-term care, it is important that these beds are built quickly and efficiently. Speaker, can the minister please provide an update on the status of these projects?

Thank you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for the question. After years of neglect from successive governments, we have made a commitment to fix long-term care. Our government is investing $6.4 billion to develop new beds, as well as redevelop existing beds to meet modern standards. Currently in the development pipeline, we have over 60,000 net new beds and upgraded beds, but this is only one component of our plan to fix long-term care.

We are also improving the quality of life and care for residents. We are doing this by hiring and retaining personal support workers, installing air conditioning in every resident’s room and increasing care to a new standard of four hours per resident per day. This is up from just over two hours.

Our government is making historic investments to fix years of Liberal neglect and get it done for the seniors of Ontario.

But building these beds is only one part of our government’s plan to fix long-term care. We recognize that many Ontarians need additional support right now to stay in their homes, which is why we have invested in community paramedics. Through this service, paramedics conduct in-home visits and remotely monitor the health of Ontarians.

Just this morning there was a testimonial in the Northumberland News which said, “This program has helped keep my mom out of the hospital. Since we have been on the program, ... her anxiety is down, and she is doing much better.” The Northumberland chief of paramedics said, “Working with our community partners, this is another opportunity to make health care services more easily accessible to vulnerable residents.” This is exactly—

My question is to the Premier. Devon Freeman, a young man from Georgina Island First Nation, was 16 when he disappeared from the group home he was in and died by suicide. His body was found six months later. At the inquest into Devon’s death, Mimi Singh, a lawyer for Ontario, said that this government could only endorse “the spirit” of the provincial recommendations.

Speaker, is it the position of this government that recommendations designed to prevent the deaths of Indigenous children misconceives democracy?

Why is this government not properly supporting these recommendations from the inquest into the death of Devon Freeman?

Thank you very much for the opportunity to reply.

The death of a child is a tragedy, and first and foremost, I want to offer our government’s and my thoughts to Devon Freeman’s family and loved ones.

Our government wants every child and youth to have a safe and loving and stable home, and for families to be strengthened and communities to be strengthened and supported through preventive services and early intervention. That’s why we’ve embarked on the child welfare redesign, and we will continue that work.

Knowing the importance of these recommendations, our government is taking the time to review and properly consider them so that we can offer the right solutions that make the lives of children and youth better.

I also want to say that I am grateful and our government is grateful to the jury, to the participants who were involved in this very difficult inquest.

We are reviewing the recommendations, and we look forward to them informing our continued work in this child welfare redesign and in this case.

My question is for the Premier. Last February, the residents of Ottawa endured three weeks of lawlessness in their downtown core. People’s personal safety and public safety were both under threat. People suffered. Women couldn’t walk to work and feel safe. Families couldn’t enjoy their neighbourhoods. They couldn’t go to a park. Businesses were closed. And for two weeks, this Premier did nothing.

Families want some answers as to why the Premier did nothing for two weeks. They deserve answers and, quite frankly, they deserve an apology. They deserve the Premier saying, “I’m sorry that you had to endure that, and my inaction caused it to go longer.”

Speaker, the question is simple: Will the Premier stop his court action, apologize to the citizens of Ottawa and give testimony in front of the inquiry?

Thank you again to the member opposite. I haven’t seen the letter that you referred to, but our government is responding. As I was saying, the things we’re doing in the north include the Northern and Rural Recruitment and Retention Initiative program, which began earlier but offers financial incentives to physicians to establish practices in rural and northern Ontario, and they grant about $80,000 to $117,000, paid out over four years, while a physician establishes a practice there. They’re available in any community defined as rural using the rurality index, and in all five of Ontario’s northern urban rural reference centres: Timmins, North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.

We have also got the Northern Physician Retention Initiative, which provides eligible physicians in northern Ontario with a $7,000 retention incentive paid at the end of the fiscal year if they continue to practise full-time in northern Ontario beyond an initial four years.

We are going to keep working on initiatives to make sure we have the physician supply we need in the north and elsewhere.

The supplementary question.

My question is to the Associate Minister of Housing. Recently, a report from the Union Bank of Switzerland stated that Toronto and the GTA have one of the riskiest housing markets in the world. According to the study, the report says that home prices have increased by 17% in Toronto and the GTA compared to a year ago. The study also highlights low levels of housing under construction and that local housing prices are rising rapidly due to high demand of speculation.

The price of housing is becoming more and more unaffordable for people who want to move into Richmond Hill. Speaker, can the minister please share what our government is doing to help build more homes and provide housing opportunities for my constituents in Richmond Hill?

My constituents in Richmond Hill are concerned about their economic future and the ability to own a home. They are worried about rising interest rates and the lack of houses being built. They are concerned about what kind of housing options will be available for them, and if they will be able to live in the communities they grew up in.

We are at a critical juncture to address this problem for future generations. That is why we need our government to take urgent action today and ensure that houses are being built. Speaker, once again to the associate minister: What is the government doing to help build homes and build the homes faster?

In fact, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve said on a number of occasions that we actually have been assisting the commission, right from the onset. Of course it’s important to assist, as the federal government act requires that there be a commission of inquiry following the federal government’s decision to enact the federal Emergencies Act. Of course, we’re going to assist. That’s why we’ve provided cabinet-level documents. We’re assisting by ensuring that the commissioner of the OPP and other policing officials, who were there on the ground helping the Ottawa Police Service and who have important information, are testifying in front of the commission—because it was, after all, a policing matter, so one would expect that police officials would be there, colleagues. That is why the Deputy Solicitor General and officials from the Ministry of Transportation are also on the ground.

So we have been assisting the commission, and we will continue to do so as required.

Now the commission has asked for our assistance, and that is why we are proactively providing cabinet documents. That is why the commissioner of the OPP is testifying. That is why other policing officials who were on the ground making decisions are also providing assistance to the commission as it does its investigation into the Prime Minister’s decision to use the federal Emergencies Act. We will continue to assist the commission, because that is what we should do.

At the same time, of course, we did similar proactive things here in this House with respect to our state of emergency. It is too bad that the opposition at the time never thought it was important to participate in those debates in this House. In fact, when we had the discussions and debates over what was happening there, they chose to sit on their hands and end debate.

It’s really unreal what I’m hearing there, Mr. Speaker. The member from Ottawa knows it’s a federal inquiry—he lives there—into the federal government’s use of the federal Emergencies Act, not the provincial emergency act. This is about the federal government.

As much as the member wants to play politics and pretend that it’s a provincial situation, as much as the member wants me to direct the police—he knows I don’t direct the police. I don’t direct municipal police. I don’t direct provincial police, and I do not direct the RCMP.

Top officials from the OPP that were running the operation in conjunction with the municipal police and the RCMP, in my opinion, did an incredible job. But again, to the member from Ottawa, he knows it’s a federal issue. He knows it’s a federal inquiry, and that’s up to the federal government. It’s not up to the provincial government; it’s up to the federal government.

Interjections.

Interjections.

Therein lies the problem, exactly the same problem that happened last February: “It’s someone else’s problem. It’s not my problem. I’m not going to worry about it.”

The problem is, when it comes to public safety and people’s security, it’s all of our problem. Speaker, the Premier was not there for the residents of the city of Ottawa.

The Premier may win in court next week, but he’s losing every single day in the court of public opinion. I can remember three Premiers in this province who, when they were called to testify before a committee or through court were there: Premier McGuinty, Premier Harris and Premier Wynne. What makes this Premier any different? They did this because it was the right thing to do. They didn’t shirk their responsibility. They knew that that came with the office.

Speaker, through you, I will ask again, will the Premier simply drop his court action, apologize to the city of Ottawa and do the right thing: take his responsibility and testify before the inquiry in Ottawa?

Just to outline the order of business for next week, in accordance with standing order number 59:

On Monday afternoon, we will be debating a bill that will be introduced later this afternoon.

On Tuesday, we will continue debate on the bill that will be introduced later this afternoon. On Tuesday afternoon, we will be debating opposition day motion number 1, followed by the private member’s motion standing in the name of the member for Ajax.

On Wednesday afternoon, we will continue debate on a bill that will be introduced later today. Currently, we have the bill from the member for Kitchener Centre, but I think we will be delaying that and working with the opposition. Currently it’s on the order paper, but we will be working together on that one.

Then, on Thursday morning and afternoon, we will be debating the bill again that is being introduced later today and the private member’s motion standing in the name of the great member for Barrie–Innisfil.

The bill amends the Planning Act with respect to land that is zoned for prescribed agriculture uses. The bill provides that the land cannot be rezoned and the uses permitted on the land cannot be changed unless an agricultural impact assessment has been carried out. The restriction applies to a municipality passing a zoning bylaw and to the minister making a minister’s zoning order.

I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, on the estimates selected by the standing committee for consideration.

Thank you, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite for that question. I thank her for acknowledging that we have a prudent plan for the people of Ontario.

But when I listen I think to myself: Did the members opposite across the floor make the historic and unprecedented investments in health care when they had the opportunity? Did they make the investments in long-term care and highways and public transit? Did they do that, Mr. Speaker? Did they make the investments to provide housing to the families and to the people that come to this great province that want a home and a roof over their head? Did they do that when they had the opportunity? No, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is very clear. This government has a plan to build Ontario to make the investments in infrastructure and support labour to get the job done.

I have the opportunity to introduce today my sister, who has given me love more than a sister, Navdeep Gill; Prabsarup Gill, her husband; Pawanjit “Monty” Malhi; their friend Varinder Malhi; and Kirandeep Brar. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to introduce two important sets of legislative amendments relating to post-secondary education. First, I am pleased to introduce legislative amendments that would require publicly assisted colleges and universities and private career colleges to have specific processes in place that address, and increase transparency of, faculty and staff sexual misconduct on post-secondary campuses. The strengthened policies would allow institutions to deem the sexual abuse of a student as just cause for dismissal; prevent the use of non-disclosure agreements to address cases where an employee leaves an institution to be employed at another institution and their prior wrongdoing remains a secret; and require institutions to have sexual misconduct policies in place that provide rules for behaviour between faculty, staff and students, as well as disciplinary measures for faculty and staff who break these rules.

Additionally, I am delighted to announce that our government is introducing legislative amendments so Ryerson University can legally change its name to Toronto Metropolitan University. The proposed change in name supports our government’s efforts to ensure Ontario has a post-secondary system that embraces diversity, inclusivity and promotes success for all learners—including Indigenous learners—so they can find rewarding careers.

These legislative amendments will help Toronto Metropolitan University begin a new chapter in its history that better reflects the current values and aspirations of the institution.

Mr. Vanthof moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27, An Act to amend the Planning Act to protect agricultural land / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire afin de protéger les terres agricoles.

I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

We do agree that we need more workers, which is why under the plan signed with the federal government—a better deal, with $3 billion more on the table, because our government had the political wisdom to stand up to the Trudeau government to get the best deal for the students and parents we represent. And if we followed the advice of the New Democrats and Liberals specifically, we would have let a third of operators in the member’s riding be precluded from participation, denying moms and dads in this province the right to affordable child care, after it rose by 400% under the former Liberal government.

We know, as Conservatives, we can do better. We can make life affordable. We can hire more workers and increase their wages, as we are doing every year over the course of this agreement—a minimum standard, $1 increase every year—to make it more competitive to retain these workers and finally increase the access and the affordability for the people we represent.