Supplementary question.

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 54, An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 54, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail.

The division bells rang from 1138 to 1143.

On September 26, 2023, Mr. Fraser moved second reading of Bill 54, An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Second reading negatived.

The House recessed from 1147 to 1500.

Mr. Saunderson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr28, An Act to revive South Simcoe Developments Inc.

First reading agreed to.

Mr. Gates moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 132, An Act to amend the Liquor Tax Act, 1996 to exempt certain wines from the basic tax on wine / Projet de loi 132, Loi visant à modifier la Loi de 1996 sur la taxe sur l’alcool et à exempter certains vins de la taxe de base sur le vin.

First reading agreed to.

Madame Collard moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 133, An Act to proclaim the month of September as Kids’ Online Safety and Privacy Month / Projet de loi 133, Loi proclamant le mois de septembre Mois de la sécurité et de la protection de la vie privée des enfants en ligne.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

Mr. Saunderson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr31, An Act to revive Geranium (Hillsdale) Limited.

First reading agreed to.

Merci à la ministre pour sa réponse. Je suis très heureuse d’en savoir davantage à propos des réalisations de notre gouvernement au niveau de l’appui à la communauté francophone de la province. Il est crucial d’épauler le développement économique francophone dans différents secteurs pour contribuer à la prospérité de l’économie ontarienne.

Tout récemment, la ministre annonçait que 51 nouveaux projets ont été sélectionnés pour recevoir un soutien dans le cadre de l’édition 2023-2024 du Programme d’appui à la francophonie ontarienne. Valor et Solutions, qui se trouve dans ma région, figure parmi les organismes et entreprises dont le projet a été retenu. Une somme de 49 000 $ leur a été accordée aux fins de la formation aux groupes et organismes qui offrent des services en français dans l’est de la province et à travers l’Ontario.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que la ministre pourrait donner à cette Chambre un aperçu des autres réalisations anticipées grâce à la présente édition du programme de subventions?

Je remercie ma collègue pour sa question. Depuis notre arrivée au pouvoir, notre gouvernement sait que la prospérité de l’Ontario est intimement liée à la vitalité de notre communauté franco-ontarienne. C’est pourquoi nous avons mis sur pied le Programme d’appui à la francophonie ontarienne.

Depuis 2017, ce ne sont pas moins de 283 organismes à but non lucratif et des petites entreprises qui ont reçu un soutien dans le cadre de cette initiative, dont l’objectif est la livraison de produits et de services à la clientèle franco-ontarienne. Nous assurons ainsi la promotion et la vitalité de la langue française, ainsi que de la culture et de l’économie francophones. Cette initiative se démarque notamment par son caractère structurant, puisqu’elle répond à des besoins du milieu et que la réponse à ces besoins est articulée par des organismes du milieu que nous soutenons.

Monsieur le Président, nous sommes très fiers de bâtir une communauté franco-ontarienne forte et dynamique.

Deux millions de dollars sont consacrés à l’édition 2023-2024 du programme, et 51 projets ont été retenus, dont 45 sous le volet communauté et culture et six au niveau du développement économique. La liste des organismes et des petites entreprises récipiendaires serait beaucoup trop longue pour énumérer ici, mais elles ont en commun de renforcer les communautés francophones. À cet égard, chaque projet retenu doit avoir un impact mesurable et positif sur la communauté francophone de l’Ontario.

La francophonie est un atout économique indéniable et important pour la province. C’est pourquoi nous misons sur l’entreprenariat, l’innovation, une main-d’oeuvre qualifiée bilingue et des outils efficaces de promotion de la francophonie ontarienne. Monsieur le Président, les francophones savent qu’ils peuvent compter sur notre gouvernement pour poser les jalons d’un avenir prometteur et florissant, et nous allons continuer de travailler sans—

The next question.

Colleagues, I’m delighted to see everyone here again for the fall legislative session.

Today, I stand before you to recognize Gender Equality Week, which was marked last week in Ontario and across Canada.

Gender Equality Week, marked every fourth week in September, is an important opportunity to celebrate our progress in advancing gender equality as well as the significant achievements of women and gender-diverse people, recognize the barriers to gender equality that still exist and highlight Ontario’s action to identify and remove those barriers and create more social and economic opportunity for women and girls.

While Ontarians value diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity for all, women and girls in Ontario continue to face disproportionate barriers to achieving their full potential compared to their male counterparts. While women make up almost half of Ontario’s workforce, they are more likely to be employed in minimum wage and part-time positions, having represented nearly 60% of Ontario’s minimum wage workers and nearly 25% of Ontario’s part-time workers—almost double the proportion of men—last year.

Women continue to be under-represented in higher-paying sectors like the skilled trades and STEM. While women account for nearly 40% of enrolments in post-secondary STEM programs, they make up less than a quarter of the STEM workforce.

Women also continue to be under-represented in management. In 2022, men accounted for 62.7% of senior and 64.2% of middle management roles. In comparison, women only accounted for 37.3% of senior and 35.8% of middle management roles.

As Ontario’s Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity, I am determined to see these statistics improve. I am determined to see this not just because it’s good for women but because it’s also good for business and good for Ontario. A McKinsey and Co. report found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity in their executive teams were 25% more likely to experience above-peer average profitability than companies in the bottom quartile.

Women entrepreneurs also continue to face challenges accessing financing to grow their businesses. In 2020, only an estimated 19% of small and medium-sized enterprises in Ontario were majority women-owned, and these women entrepreneurs find themselves having to launch with 53% less capital on average than men.

In 2022, women earned 87 cents for every dollar earned by men—a 13-cent gender wage gap, 11 cents of which is due to wage inequality within the same occupations. These statistics are even more pronounced for Indigenous, Black, racialized and immigrant women, as well as women living with a disability and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals.

That’s why, under the leadership of Premier Ford, we are taking a whole-of-government approach to increasing women’s participation in the workforce to support their economic security and prosperity, especially in sectors like the skilled trades and STEM, where the need is greatest.

Our actions include signing a historic $13.2-billion agreement with the federal government to lower the average child care fees to $10 per day for children under the age of six by September 2025, allowing nearly 100,000 more women to enter the labour market and countless others to stay—and thrive. I am so proud to share that we are already seeing positive impacts of our agreement. Last year, labour participation rates for Ontario mothers reached the highest on record since 1976, and the labour participation rate for mothers with children under the age of five increased by 2.4 percentage points.

Our government has also modernized the curriculum, increasing exposure to STEM, skilled trades and apprenticeship pathways at an earlier age to better prepare students to succeed in the labour market and lead the global innovations of tomorrow. In fact, the Minister of Education is positioning Ontario as a leading jurisdiction in this area. Changes include mandatory learning on coding, scientific innovations and emerging technologies and how they are enhancing trades as early as grade 4; de-streamed high school science and math course, an improved computer studies curriculum and a new technological education curriculum. These will ensure that more girls are considering and prepared for careers in sectors that they have not been historically encouraged to pursue and where they are traditionally under-represented.

We are also making workplaces safer and more welcoming for women in the skilled trades by requiring employers to provide access to at least one women’s-only washroom on construction sites, as well as properly fitting equipment like safety harnesses and PPE.

Colleagues, our government is on the right track. Last year, Ontario achieved a historic increase in skilled trades apprenticeship registrations, including an almost 30% increase in registrations amongst women. We are also offering targeted training, skills development and employment opportunities for women experiencing social and economic barriers, including poverty and gender-based violence, in high-demand, high-reward sectors that feature competitive benefits and pay equity. This includes programs to train more women for careers in trucking and construction, to name a couple.

One of the initiatives I’m most proud of is the expansion of the Investing in Women’s Futures Program through my ministry to 33 service delivery locations across the province, as well as our continued support of the Women’s Economic Security Program, which features general employment, information technology, skilled trades and entrepreneurship streams.

Over the next three years, we are investing $30 million in these programs to help more women facing social and economic barriers increase their wellness and gain the skills, knowledge and experience they need to enter or re-enter the workforce, achieve financial security and independence and provide for their families. And these programs are backed up by real results. In 2022-23 alone, the Investing in Women’s Futures Program helped 1,300 women secure employment, start a business or pursue further training and education.

Finally, our government also recognizes that women are disproportionately affected by gender-based violence and firmly believes that no person or community should experience violence because of their gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation. That’s why, last year, we invested more than $250 million in violence prevention initiatives and supports to help survivors rebuild their lives.

We know that Ontario is facing the largest labour shortage in generations. Every day, roughly 300,000 jobs are going unfilled in Ontario, costing the province billions in lost productivity. But we also know that women are a part of the solution, and that’s why we are taking such decisive action to increase their participation in the workforce and make great strides towards achieving greater gender equality in Ontario. Because when women succeed, Ontario succeeds.

My question is to the Premier.

Report after report has stated that there’s more than enough land within existing urban boundaries to build the housing that we all know we need, yet this government is forcing those urban boundaries to enlarge. Do you know what’s going to happen then, Speaker? Some of the most fertile farmland in North America is going to be exposed to exactly the same speculators who are going to profit from the greenbelt.

It took two investigations and the resignation of high-profile ministers to make the Premier realize the importance of the greenbelt to Ontarians. What is it going to take to make him realize the importance of all farmland in this great province of ours?

I would like to thank the farmers of Ontario for uniting and telling this government how important farmland is.

When is the government actually going to realize that we need farmland to feed the cities? The people who are coming are going to need farmland. It’s the greatest gift we’ve ever been given.

Interjections.

I’m pleased to respond to the minister’s statement.

Since 2018, the fourth week of September has been recognized in Canada as Gender Equality Week, a time to celebrate progress and recommit to reducing barriers that prevent women and gender-diverse people from full participation and inclusion.

For college and university students in Ontario, this week is a critical time. Data shows a significant increase in sexual violence on campus during the first six weeks of a new academic year, rooted in the pervasive rape culture that results in disgusting “daughter drop off” and similar banners during orientation week. The more we can do to raise awareness of the meaning of consent and the accountability that it involves, the better we can protect young people from the devastating, lifelong impacts of sexual violence. Unfortunately, this government has refused to pass Bill 18, the NDP bill to formally declare the third week of September as Consent Awareness Week, which would be an important step forward in creating a future for women and gender-diverse people free from the trauma of sexual violence.

Of course, Speaker, sexual violence does not just occur on campus. It is a reality for women across this province. The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres reports an 18% increase in sexual assaults every year since 2016, with 81% of sexual assault centres experiencing an increase in crisis-line calls in the last year alone. According to the most recent femicide report from OAITH, there have been 42 femicides—the most deadly form of sexual violence—in the last nine months. Of note, of the four femicides recorded in August, three were Indigenous, revealing once again the over-representation of Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people within Ontario femicide data. While they account for 12% of femicide victims, they make up only 3% of Ontario’s population.

Speaker, the urgency has never been greater. Yet rape crisis centres, sexual assault centres and women’s shelters remain starved by this government for the funding they need to support women and families dealing with violence and to compensate their workers fairly. The calls for justice for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls have yet to be implemented by this government. The government is ignoring the first of the Renfrew coroner’s inquest’s 86 recommendations to declare intimate partner violence an epidemic in Ontario, even as 47 Ontario municipalities are showing leadership by issuing such a declaration. And finally, the risk of harm faced by gender-diverse Ontarians, especially vulnerable trans students, has been increased by this government through their stoking of fear about indoctrination in schools.

Achieving gender equality involves more than ending gender-based violence, however. It also requires removing barriers to the participation of women and gender-diverse people in the workplace. Despite some progress, women in Ontario still earn far less than the average salaries of male workers, especially if they are racialized, Indigenous, 2SLGBTQIA+ or disabled. As costs of living soar, more and more Ontario women are struggling to afford the basic essentials to support themselves and their families.

As we saw during the pandemic, Ontario’s economy and our society have been built on women’s unpaid, underpaid and undervalued care work. Women make up 80% of typically low-paid voluntary sector workers, and when COVID hit, it was women in front-line, female-dominated jobs like nursing, child care, PSWs, education, crisis counselling and more who held us together. Most of these are public sector jobs, where wages have been suppressed by this government since 2019, and while the courts have ruled on the unconstitutionality of Bill 124, this government is showing how little they value or respect these workers by appealing the court decision.

Speaker, achieving gender equality means taking real action to end gender-based violence in Ontario. It means investing in strong public services and paying the wages and benefits that public sector workers deserve. It means providing all workers with paid sick days. It means doubling social assistance rates that force people with disabilities, especially women, to live in legislated poverty. These are the actions that will truly move Ontario forward.

Further debate?

I want to thank the good people of Essex for this petition; I think it’s an excellent one.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas police provide protection to some of the most vulnerable members of our society; and

“The provincial government has launched the Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy; and

“The 2023-24 budget commits an additional $13.4 million to this strategy;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario reject the ‘defund the police’ position, and continue funding police, seizing illegal guns, suppressing gangs, and supporting victims of violence through the Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy.”

I fully endorse this petition, will sign it and give it to page Erin.

This petition is entitled, “Develop an Ontario Dementia Strategy.” I want to thank the good people from Kapuskasing for mailing this in.

“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” 2023;

“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.”

It’s my pleasure to affix my signature to this petition, and I hope that you all join the Alzheimer Society today at their reception.

This petition is entitled, “Pass Anti-Scab Labour Legislation.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the use of replacement workers undermines workers’ collective power, unnecessarily prolongs labour disputes, and removes the essential power that the withdrawal of labour is supposed to give workers to help end a dispute, that is, the ability to apply economic pressure;

“Whereas the use of scab labour contributes to higher-conflict picket lines, jeopardizes workplace safety, destabilizes normalized labour relations between workers and their employers and removes the employer incentive to negotiate and settle fair contracts; and

“Whereas strong and fair anti-scab legislation will help lead to shorter labour disputes, safer workplaces, and less hostile picket lines;

“Whereas similar legislation has been introduced in British Columbia and Quebec with no increases to the number of strike or lockout days;

“Whereas Ontario had anti-scab legislation under an NDP government, that was unfortunately ripped away from workers by the Harris Conservatives;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To prohibit employers from using replacement labour for the duration of any legal strike or lockout;...

“To prohibit employers from using both external and internal replacement workers;

“To include significant financial penalties for employers who defy the anti-scab legislation; and

“To support Ontario’s workers and pass anti-scab labour legislation, like the Ontario NDP Bill 90, the Anti-Scab Labour Act, 2023.”

I support this petition. I’ll affix my signature and give it to page Justin for the table.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the basics of reading, writing, and mathematics are fundamental for student achievement; and too many school boards are jeopardizing student achievement by straying away from teaching the basics of reading, writing, and mathematics; and parents are being bullied and denied representation at school board meetings, and trustees are being bullied by other trustees;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario authorize the Minister of Education to set provincial priorities in education in the area of student achievement, and authorize the Minister of Education to issue policies and guidelines setting out the training to be completed by board members, directors of education, supervisory officers and superintendents, and require boards to adopt codes of conduct that apply to members of the board.”

I endorse this petition. I’ve affixed my signature there too, and I’ll hand it to page Ella to deliver to the table.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the basics of reading, writing, and mathematics are fundamental for student achievement; and too many school boards are jeopardizing student achievement by straying away from teaching the basics of reading, writing, and mathematics; and parents are being bullied and denied representation at school board meetings, and trustees are being bullied by other trustees;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario authorize the Minister of Education to set provincial priorities in education in the area of student achievement, and authorize the Minister of Education to issue policies and guidelines setting out the training to be completed by board members, directors of education, supervisory officers and superintendents, and require boards to adopt codes of conduct that apply to members of the board.”

I’m happy to sign my name to this petition and provide it to Huzaifa.

I’d like to present a petition before the Legislature entitled “I Support the Moving Ontarians Safely Act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas we’re seeing an alarming rise in road accidents involving drivers who injure or kill a pedestrian, road worker or cyclist;

“Whereas currently, vulnerable road users in Ontario are not specifically protected by law. In fact, Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act allows drivers who seriously injure or kill a vulnerable road user to avoid meaningful consequences, often only facing minimal fines;

“Whereas this leaves the friends and families of victims unsatisfied with the lack of consequences and the government’s responses to traffic accidents that result in death or injury to their loved ones;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“—reduce the number of traffic fatalities and injuries to vulnerable road users;

“—create meaningful consequences that ensure responsibility and accountability for drivers who share the road with pedestrians, cyclists, road construction workers, emergency responders and other vulnerable road users;

“—allow friends and family of vulnerable road users whose death or serious injury was caused by an offending driver to have their victim impact statement heard in person in court by the driver responsible; and

“—pass Bill 40, the Moving Ontarians Safely Act.”

I’m happy to submit this to the Clerks’ table with my friend Minuka.

My petition is entitled “Bring Back Rent Control.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ford government cancelled rent control on units built after November 2018;

“Whereas the cost to rent a home has never been higher;

“Whereas people are being forced to leave their communities because decent, affordable homes are increasingly out of reach;

“Whereas the Rent Control for All Units Act, 2022, will ensure tenants are not gouged on rent each year;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to protect tenants from predatory rent increases and pass the NDP’s Rent Control for All Tenants Act today to ensure renters can live in safe and affordable homes.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and pass it to page Kian to take to the table.

Right to the second. That’s all our time for petitions.

I recognize the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 27, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 131, An Act to enact the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 and to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 / Projet de loi 131, Loi édictant la Loi de 2023 sur le financement des stations du réseau GO et modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la cité de Toronto.

Speaker, I rise today as the transit critic in this House for the official opposition. This is my first one-hour lead in response to transit legislation proposed by the government. Before I get into the substance of my remarks about Bill 131 and its two schedules, I have a few people to thank because I needed to be a quick study this week. I found out about the bill on Monday and I am blessed, as the transit critic, with some great resources both inside this caucus and inside this great province, and I want to take the moment to thank them first.

First of all, I want to thank the member for University–Rosedale, who did incredible and impressive work on transit policy for this caucus through the current Parliament and in the previous Parliament. I want to thank her very much.

Secondly, I want to thank the hard-working people at Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, who get Toronto’s folks moving, who move people around all over this city—13,000 people.

Interjections.

I want to thank, in particular, ATU 113 president Marvin Alfred and strategic consultant Ian Fellows. I want to thank ATU national president John Di Nino. I’ve had occasion to have many conversations with them, Speaker, and I’ve learned a lot about what happens every single day on the public transit system in this great city of Toronto and, through John, right across the whole country.

Before I jump into the substance of my remarks, Speaker, if you’ll permit me a little sidestep. Someone important in my life passed away four days ago, a professor I studied with at York University: John Saul, one of Canada’s experts on human rights in the continent of Africa. He spent a lot of his time supporting the freedom struggle launched by the global giant Nelson Mandela as an American and Canadian citizen. I know a lot of us who were graduate students who worked under John were blessed to have Africans come to York University, where I trained. I want to thank him, and I want that to be read into the record of this place. There are many human rights champions in Ontario and John Saul was one of them. So I’m thinking of you, John, when I’m reading out this speech today.

Let’s get to the substance of Bill 131, and its two schedules, and what it does. I had occasion this morning to listen to the Minister of Infrastructure, who I’m glad to see here today. I also had occasion to listen to the Associate Minister of Transportation’s remarks supporting this legislation.

As I understand it, this bill is attempting to do two things. On the one hand, it seeks to align service integration between transit agencies. It’s amending the City of Toronto Act, as the government purports, to make sure that the Toronto Transit Commission is simpatico in its relationships with other transit authorities from outside the TTC’s boundaries, because the TTC has a monopoly in providing transit service for within the TTC’s boundaries. That’s what I understand the first schedule of this bill to do.

The second schedule of the bill is about building more GO Transit stations, which, for those folks—like my friend from Oshawa—who come to this place representing communities outside the downtown core, is a really popular thing. This is something I have heard in my short time as transit critic in this place. The government is proposing a mechanism that municipalities would have to defray the costs of them themselves, taking on the responsibility of building provincial infrastructure. That’s what I understand this bill to be doing, the specific task.

But, Speaker, I feel it important to talk about Bill 131 in a much bigger context than those two things, although I will get into them in great detail this afternoon. I have heard members of this House often say that public transit and active transportation are priorities for Ontario. I heard it from the Minister of Infrastructure this morning and the Associate Minister of Transportation. Making transit and active transit a priority is certainly something that bears repeating, and why? Let’s get to the context. Speaker and friends in this place today and folks watching at home: We are living in a climate emergency. That is not hyperbole. It is proven by science. We must take bold steps to put our province on a sustainable path for our children and grandchildren. That’s the context for a conversation about public transit.

We saw it this summer—didn’t we, Speaker—all over Canada, in the historic wildfires that happened here. If you can believe it, there’s been a study done to measure the impact of those wildfires. Over two billion—billion—tonnes of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere as a consequence of those wildfires, and some are still raging. As Canadians, we like to get out into the wilderness to find peace and solace and to reconnect with nature. Those trees that we reconnect to, that land we reconnect to, are a giant carbon sink that is supposed to provide that role of helping balance off the benefits of industrial modern life. But as a result of those wildfires this summer—which are linked, according to scientific efforts, to lack of progress in our country on the climate emergency—we released three times the value of that carbon sink, two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. It bears mentioning.

We know—and the Minister of the Environment, previous and current, has mentioned—that extreme weather is linked to these things. We celebrate the first responders who run to those communities to help people. But we also know that our climate action plan has to include public transit. Public transit is part of that. It’s part of our focused effort to reduce emissions.

We know that one third of Ontario’s emissions comes from our transportation sector. Anyone who has braved a commute on our major highways has seen what that looks like, the congestion, the smog and, let’s face it, the frustration on our roads. Many people are hurt by the violence that results often from that frustration. I want to name, for the record, sadly, a tragedy that happened not far from my community in downtown Ottawa yesterday. A 63-year-old German cyclist, a tourist to our country, was critically injured on Highway 17, south of Pembroke.

When I recently had occasion to ride my bicycle from Ottawa to this great city of Toronto and stop along the way, I met with people in big communities and small communities who were telling me the same thing as vulnerable road users: They do not feel safe. But at the same time, they are trying to do their part for the climate crisis.

Let me be very clear, Speaker: By taking the bus, the train, the streetcar or some mode of active transport like a bike, a wheelchair, a walker or even a good old pair of shoes, you’re taking action. It’s an act of hope for our future, notably our children’s future. This House, by encouraging public transit, as I understand the Minister of Infrastructure is purporting in this bill—we have to support that choice. We are obliged to support that choice. We have to make public transit and active transportation much more attractive and viable for a greater number of people. So that is my departure point for my comment on this legislation today.

When I think about that, I think of the great Brazilian novelist Paolo Coelho, the author of The Alchemist, who once said, “The world is changed by your” actions, “not your opinions.” We’ve had a lot of talk about public transit in Ontario. I’ve occasioned to learn thanks to the member for University–Rosedale about a lot of the research she had done that she shared with me in my preparation for today. We’ve had a lot of visions, but we haven’t necessarily had enough follow-through, and I’m going to be talking about that this afternoon.

Four years ago, Matt Gurney, who’s a columnist who frequently comments on public transit, summed up Toronto’s transit woes this way: “Elections,” Mr. Gurney said, “come and go, politicians are elected and serve out their terms,” Toronto “and its sprawling suburbs keep growing—but precious little transit ever” gets built.

That’s why, Speaker, this opposition supports efforts to broaden access to public transit—we do—to improve service levels and to improve the quality of the transit we have by supporting the operating funding of those systems. And I have good news for you, Speaker. It’s important to talk about good news today because some of these challenges we are talking about are serious. This is what the city of Toronto has just accomplished under the leadership of their new mayor, Olivia Chow. The city of Toronto was dealing with a massive deficit in its operating infrastructure for the TTC. Transit systems all over the world have been struggling during the pandemic to recover. And I’ll acknowledge the government has done its part to make moves in helping transit systems in this province recover.

But what Mayor Chow just committed to was to put the TTC on a path to 91% of pre-pandemic service levels. That’s a big boost. The way that her team is doing it is by utilizing funds that were otherwise allocated to manage the failing Eglinton Crosstown system.

So we have a civic leader managing the urban community around this great building who has taken a purposeful decision to make significant investments in the operating lane—not necessarily new visions and ribbons to cut and all of that important stuff—I’m talking about helping those trains, those streetcars, those buses show up on time and respecting the people who drive and fix them. So it is possible to do better.

The Premier said this in question period yesterday: “We have to find ways to get people out of cars and into other modes of transportation.” I want to say off the top, if that is what Bill 131 is intended to do, that is a worthy goal. But I’m going to explain this afternoon, Speaker, that I find aspects of Bill 131 need work if that’s the goal. I’ll outline these now and I’ll get into more detail as I go through them one by one.

First, the responsibility to build and operate transit at the moment, in my opinion, is not being appropriately shared between provincial and municipal governments, and Bill 131 has the potential, although it doesn’t have to, to make that situation worse. Schedule 2 of this bill, as I mentioned, allows municipalities, pending approval of the Minister of Transportation, to assume the financial risk of building GO Transit stations, which is provincial infrastructure normally built by Metrolinx. So they assume the debt for the infrastructure, but they charge, as the minister said this morning, a station administration fee to recoup that cost. They charge that fee to developers who are seeking to build housing—which, I take the point, we urgently need, particularly affordable housing—and other amenities around GO Transit stations.

But this option being offered by the government through this schedule in this bill is coming at a time when the government has also dramatically reduced the revenue capacities of municipalities through its controversial Bill 23. Bill 23 withdrew a billion dollars of potential revenue for municipalities across Ontario, and it was one of the reasons why the Association of Municipalities of Ontario said loud and clear at their most recent meeting that they wanted to see those powers restored. It’s also the reason Mayor Chow proposed to the Premier that Toronto have some new revenue-generating powers to pay for some of those needs She has yet to persuade the Premier. AMO has yet to convince the government to walk back some of the moves it made under Bill 23.

The 440-odd municipalities in Ontario are short a billion dollars, and they’re being told, “If you want to build a new GO station, a provincial piece of infrastructure, you take on the costs and we’re going to give you the tool to defray that cost after the fact.” It’s voluntary, my friends in government are saying, but, Speaker, I want to submit to you, that’s rather like telling an asthmatic that their puffers are voluntary. You know? Because we need public transit.

For a community like Bowmanville that has had occasion to go through—they are so excited for the prospect, and the member from Oshawa can confirm this better than me, of their new GO station. There are other communities that want them too. Let’s dispense with that—it’s not voluntary. I said earlier, about the context, we have to build public transit. There’s no choice. But we’re asking municipalities to do it with dramatically less revenue. We’re asking them to shoulder more debt after having gone through legislation previous to this bill that reduces their revenue.

The other thing that concerns me, Speaker, on a related note—and I’ll get into more detail later—is that the government has said, without a lot of detail, that municipalities can charge these station administration fees to developers building housing projects and other amenities around GO stations, provided some kind of an incentive is given back to the developer for the privilege of using this incentive.

This morning in debate, I heard the minister say it could involve being flexible with municipal requirements for parking for large buildings, because, as the minister said—and I take her point—we want to be building infrastructure not premised upon the single occupancy vehicle or single vehicles. We want to encourage people to utilize the transit that’s right at the new building. Okay, I could see a rationale for that case, but what is the scope of other incentives that are proposed by this bill? What’s going to be determined in regulation? Often what we’re dealing with, when we’re talking about the developers who will be building these amenities around GO stations, are some of the most profitable companies in the home-building industry and commercial building industry in our province. I’m not necessarily convinced that we need to bend over backwards to reduce their cost. We certainly need to work with them. We certainly need to work with them, but I’m worried about the scope creep of this particular thing, and I’m going to be talking about that today.

Thirdly, Speaker, I want to persuade the government—and this is where I would like everyone’s focused attention because it’s an urgent priority—that schedule 1 of this bill needs to be repealed because I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s necessary because it concerns an amendment to the City of Toronto Act that would render the contracting-out provisions of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113’s collective agreement null and void. It would basically say that when the TTC collaborates with another transit agency, there is no complaint that could be brought to bear based upon the negotiated achievements of those transit workers around reciprocity of service, around wages, around standards of vehicles that could be used.

I can tell you, my phone has been burning up a bit today and yesterday, Speaker. People are concerned. The leadership of ATU 113, Marvin Alfred and the gang, are in Alberta right now, visiting some of their colleagues and talking about transit policy for the country, but they found time in their schedules today and yesterday to talk to me and our leader at length about this.

There’s good news here, Speaker, and I was mentioning this to the minister earlier today. There is a provision within the ATU 113’s collective agreement with the TTC and the city of Toronto that allows for service integration between the TTC and other transit agencies. It already exists because pilot projects have already been started because riders want it; workers want to collaborate and be flexible; and the massive achievement that people in this place have fought for, on all sides of the House, the notion of eliminating double or triple fares that the Associate Minister of Transportation was talking about this morning, bringing down those costs for transit riders. Everyone has agreed on that, and this is the service end of that, but—and this is a big “but,” Speaker—we can’t, from this place, from this House that our grandparents built, open up the collective agreement of a transit union whose responsibility is to negotiate not with us but with the TTC, and ultimately the leadership of the city of Toronto. That can be construed as interference in the collective bargaining process. And I’ll tell you something, in the time I’ve had to get to know transit workers, I wouldn’t want to mess with them. I wouldn’t want to get them angry, because their jobs, every single day, is dealing with conflicts. Sometimes our neighbours are in their worst position when they jump on the bus or the subway.

Can I just look around the room today and see, have people had that experience? When you’ve been on public transit, you see someone is having a really hard time. They could be homeless, they could be dealing with an illness—there could be any number of issues that require our attention. I have risen in this place, and I’ve spoken about the violence on public transit. This is what the women and men who work for the TTC have to deal with every single day, and they do it with dignity and they do it with honour, but if they get a sense that, from this building, we’re going to diminish the integrity of decades of work at the negotiating table—the member from Sudbury has lived his life doing this sort of work, and other people here have. They are not going to respond terribly well.

The good news is, we don’t have to go the road of schedule 1. We don’t need it. If the government’s objective is to merge service agreements between transit jurisdictions as the Associate Minister of Transportation said this morning—riders don’t care what the colour of the bus is. They just want to get on in Durham and get off in Oakville or get off in Markham, wherever the case may be. I take the point, but we want to make sure that all the hard work that’s gone into making sure that bus is in good shape, runs on time, is driven by a competent professional, is repaired by a competent professional—we want to make sure that all of that work is maintained and there is no backsliding, because safety comes first. Safety for everyone comes first.

I’ll also just mention for the government that there has been a recent interest arbitration ruling by Justice William Kaplan, who said very clearly, and I will pull out my weapon of mass distraction here to read out the words. This is the award that Justice Kaplan mentioned—because the TTC management had been pushing for this particular flexibility. He said, “Having carefully considered the proposals of the parties and with the foregoing observations being borne carefully in mind, I direct that a note be added to the collective agreement called E-27 pilot project. This will allow the parties, in the limited time remaining during the term of the current collective agreement, to test the cross-boundary integration. The pilot project will provide that the TTC may implement cross-boundary integration on any or all of 50 Burnhamthorpe, 105 Dufferin North, 49 Bloor West and 25 Don Mills.” These were the nodes being proposed for inter-jurisdictional transit. “I note that these routes were identified by the TTC involving roughly equivalent service hours to the number of hours some TTC buses”—and again, identified by the TTC—“are currently being driven outside the city. These, or equivalent cross-boundary routes will continue so long as this pilot project is in effect.

“There will be no layoff or termination resulting from the pilot project. The TTC will not directly engage in any third-party contracting for the provision of vehicle operation. Actual language of the provision will be remitted to the parties.” That is to say, if you want to change it, change it in bargaining. “The parties are further directed to regularly and jointly monitor any cross-boundary staffing operational matters that arise when these corridors are established so that they can be fully informed by the actual implementation of this pilot project, and thus addressing the issues that may arise in the next collective bargaining round, including expansion of the number of corridors. No finding, needless to say, is made about the best manner of general implementing reciprocity, which will undoubtedly continue to be a feature in future cross-boundary service integration.”

The conclusion line reads: “At the request of the parties, I remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award.”

What Justice Kaplan is saying is that the legal reading of the collective agreement is, we can have pilot projects around service integration, but we can respect the collective agreement at the same time. That strikes me as a very good path. It strikes me as a path that doesn’t require schedule 1 of this bill.

I also want to say, fourthly—and this is based upon information I received as recently as an hour and a half ago—that something not covered by this bill are the partners provincially we are continuing to work with in building public transit in Ontario. Phil Verster, the CEO of Metrolinx, just got up before the province of Ontario—the people of Ontario rely on those services—and told us that there remains no deadline for the completion of the Eglinton Crosstown project. This is a project that is going on three years late. Speaker, it’s over a billion dollars over budget. There have been lawsuits between the consortium building the project and Metrolinx that now exceed over $500 million. But meanwhile Mr. Verster’s salary has increased from the $200,000 range to now almost a million dollars a year—a million dollars a year.

Speaker, when my friends in government campaigned in the 2018 election and they said, rightly, that under the Liberals the $6-million man ran our hydro system into the ground and criticized the governing Liberals of the day for that, I thought there was a lot of credence to that. One of the first things the Premier did was let that executive go, because you couldn’t have a situation in Ontario where people had to choose between heating—if they had electric heat—or eating, and it was obscene that we would have at the top of our power authorities someone making that kind of money in that kind of context of energy poverty. Well I would submit to you, Speaker—and I will get into details this afternoon—that Mr. Verster’s time should be up too. It’s time for him to go. The official opposition has said it clearly this afternoon; the people around the Eglinton Crosstown who have been dying for this transit service deserve it.

Let me get into some comments that I made—because I think it’s related—at committee to the transportation minister of the day. I went over two different reports from the Auditor General into the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. I noted that Metrolinx as a company has 59 vice-presidents—59 vice-presidents. I noted, in fact, that there are 19 C-suite executives—the “C” being the CEO, CFO, the C-whatever-O. The amount of executive bloat in this organization truly defies belief. So I asked the minister at the time, does she think that Metrolinx needs 19 C-suite executives and 59 vice-presidents to deliver a project that, at that time, was not operational and was a billion dollars over budget? I didn’t get an answer to my question.

I also asked—because this concerns this bill, Speaker. It concerns who we’re working with to build public transit in Ontario, these GO stations we want to build. I also asked because, as you know, in Ottawa Centre we had a very strong community movement to fight for a public inquiry into our own failing light rail system, and I was glad that the Premier decided to listen to us, respond to our call and declare that public inquiry, and Justice William Hourigan’s report is now public. But a name that keeps coming up in that report, Speaker, is Brian Guest. It keeps coming up, and it’s because this fellow, who lives in Ottawa, had never, before the Ottawa LRT phase 1, been involved in building a transit system anywhere in the world, let alone Ontario. Mr. Guest had not only played the critical role in stage 1 of our LRT, he had gone on to advise Metrolinx as a vice-president in the construction of the Eglinton Crosstown.

So you can imagine, Speaker, my reaction, and the reaction of people in Ottawa. We have been through the wringer, most recently with our LRT, if you can believe it—we have a fantastic music festival in the summer; it’s called Bluesfest. Part of what we encourage people to do—patrons of Bluesfest—is to not travel with their cars into the downtown. Utilize the LRT. But guess what, Speaker? We had a 28-day shutdown, because engineers told us the station was over-utilized. The Ottawa police told the community not to use our LRT station on Canada Day because the police assessment of the major stations was that they were not appropriate—get ready for this, Speaker—for high volumes of people. That is the level of deficiency with the Ottawa LRT, and the architect of the Ottawa LRT was spreading this madness to our friends here in the city of Toronto with the Eglinton Crosstown.

So I asked the minister—given that Mr. Guest’s name keeps popping up across these Metrolinx projects and that Mr. Verster has overseen all of this at the executive level—in this place in question period and I asked at committee, “Are you going to investigate Mr. Guest?” At the time, if you remember, we pushed hard enough that the minister let Mr. Guest go under a cloud of suspicion. But that’s not enough. For our friends here at the Eglinton Crosstown, who are relying on that transit project to be viable, we wanted to know what decisions were made. We wanted to know what was going on.

We asked the minister responsible, “Have you done an investigation into Mr. Guest and what he has done or not done for the Eglinton Crosstown project?” We were told—let me find it for you, Speaker—on two separate occasions at committee: “An internal review was done.” On another occasion, the minister said, “A review was done internally, and it was concluded that everything with respect to the procurement that you are discussing of those services was fair and competitive.”

So we, as the official opposition, did a freedom-of-information request for any records pertaining to the minister, the minister’s staff, the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Infrastructure about any investigation of Mr. Guest. What came back to us was a field that said “zero records.” That doesn’t inspire confidence for me. It doesn’t make me think that Mr. Guest was held to account at all, and it makes me seriously worried about what the good people of Toronto are about to experience because frankly, Speaker, I have seen this movie before.

What we learned—not at today’s press conference that Mr. Verster stumbled through—at his last press conference was that there are 260 deficiencies at least with the Eglinton Crosstown project and that some of those deficiencies relate right to the rails that are put into the system. If we think about the virus that has spread from Ottawa to Toronto—and I hope it’s not the case, but I worry that it is—this is precisely what we’re dealing with in our city. There is a stretch of the track for stage 1 of our LRT from the Tremblay Road station that crosses the Rideau River that if you stand by that river and you listen to the trains go across the track, the screeching of the wheels is piercing to listen to.

The engineers I’ve had occasion to speak to off the record privately, who do not want to talk publicly for fear of their own employment, will tell me that for a working light rail system, the wheels of the undercarriage of the trains have to be bespoke to the rails. They have to be absolutely perfect, like a perfectly fitting suit. But what I was hearing, the engineers told me, was a lack of fit between wheel and track.

On a point of order: Pursuant to standing order 9(f), I wish to inform the House that there shall be no business during tomorrow morning’s meeting.

It’s my honour to read the following petition into the record. It’s entitled “Develop an Ontario Dementia Strategy.” It reads:

“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.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Sophia Rose to the Clerks.

I’m pleased to present a petition that has been signed by many residents of London. It’s entitled “Say No to Train and Trial Areas.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas penned dog-hunting facilities are cruel and inhumane to the wild animals who are confined for the purpose of training dogs to hunt and kill them;

“Whereas this deplorable and unethical practice is prohibited in every other province; and

“Whereas Ontario stopped issuing new licences in 1997 to phase out train and trial areas, and issuing new licences after 25 years is a massive step backward on animal rights and wildlife protection in our province;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accept applications and issue new licences to operate train and trial areas in Ontario.”

I fully support this petition, affix my signature and will send it to the table with page James.