Lawyers R Us.

Oh, the Ontario Line. The Ontario Line is $1 billion per kilometre.

Oh, those public-private partnerships are just working so well.

This, again, is from Thomas Marois: “There is nothing inherently good or bad about public banks. They are only ever as good or as bad as society makes them. Good ones contribute to the public good by advancing prosperous, inclusive and increasingly sustainable societies. Whether Ontario will craft the new OIB in that vein remains to be seen.”

This is something to watch very carefully. I would prefer that they just take that $3 billion and create a funding mechanism in partnership with municipalities, much like the federal accelerator fund. We have seen municipalities meet those targets very quickly—I’m thinking of Vaughan; I’m thinking of Kitchener-Waterloo. When municipalities know that there is money on the table, they can advance, they can streamline those projects, and so far, I have to say, this seems to be very effective.

Now, who doesn’t like this? Well, the Premier. The Premier doesn’t like this at all. He doesn’t like the fact that the federal government is bypassing the province and actually getting money into communities. Do you know why he doesn’t like it? Because he doesn’t get invited to the ribbon cuttings or the infrastructure project announcements—

Interjection: You don’t pass them up.

I don’t get invited to them. I just got heckled that I don’t pass them up; I don’t get invited to them. I used to show up and crash the party. It was really fun, I have to tell you. But no, we don’t get invited to them, because this government thinks that that money is their money. So sometimes councillors or a community leader will say, “Oh, by the way, the member from Kitchener–Conestoga is going to this place, and you might want to show up.” And sometimes you do; sometimes you don’t. Anyway, in the end it doesn’t—

Interjection.

Interjection.

So this one final piece on the infrastructure bank—but, goodness, you gave me a lot of material to work with with this fall economic statement.

Why is the Premier’s government creating a bank to finance public projects? “Questions swirl” around this whole idea. I think that the general point is that here we have a government that’s on the ropes, that’s quite worried about the narrative that’s actually happening about what is driving your decisions around the budget, especially six months in, when you drop $2.5 billion in an unallocated contingency fund when you know—if your eyes are open, if you are paying attention, if you’re spending time in your community, you know the needs are there.

We even saw a reduction in Meals on Wheels. That’s eyes on seniors addressing the issue of isolation and loneliness—which, actually, the LG mentioned this morning—and we know after the pandemic that loneliness kills. We know that we have a minister responsible for seniors who says we have to do more. Well, you can do more by actually resourcing those amazing not-for-profits in the communities. You show up for the photo ops with them, and sometimes you go on a ride-along with Meals on Wheels. But when they see a 30% cut, they’re making very hard decisions about who they can see and who they can deliver food to. That is a big thing. It’s a big thing for a government to say, “I see you. I see you, and I’m going to work towards”—imagine having the money, which they do, that you have the legal authority because you have a majority government. Imagine making the choice to not help, to not invest and to sock away, or squirrel away, $5.4 billion in an unallocated contingency fund. It really defies a lot of common sense.

The last point on the infrastructure bank, because I’m just fascinated with the fact that it’s not really contained in Bill 146 but it’s in the fall economic statement, is that when the minister was questioned about this—CBC News had asked “if establishing the bank opens the door to big investors profiting off public infrastructure projects.” It’s a very good question for the minister. He went back, and he said, “I don’t think profiting is the right way to think about it. Think about it in terms of revenue streams.” But who are the revenue streams for, Madam Speaker? Because if it’s interrupting and if the investor becomes the primary person of concern, organization of concern, how dedicated really is the government of the day to the infrastructure project?

We’ve seen this carving out of responsibility, really an abdication of public responsibility by this government. Even this weekend, I’m sure my colleagues must have seen that Shoppers Drug Mart, which is also a favourite of the Premier—for some reason, they have the distribution contract for vaccinations. So these small mom-and-pop pharmacies across the province, they’re supposed to get 200 flu shots or they’re supposed to get 200 COVID vaccinations, and they’re getting 20 and 50. When we see 2.1 million people in Ontario not have a family doctor, they become very reliant on pharmacies. Pharmacies and pharmacists perform a very crucial role in the health care system, and for them not to be able to get access to basic and, I would say, essential health care resources because you have, essentially, a monopoly with a private distributor—and this was the best part. The news article that I read—I don’t have it here—said that the Ministry of Health is going to meet with Shoppers to see if they can do their job. Can you imagine? This is 2023. Have we learned no lessons on the privatization and outsourcing of basic health care needs? Apparently, we have not.

So that’s how we feel about the infrastructure bank. And this is something that has rarely happened in this House: I’m just going to quote the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. This is Jay Goldberg. He says the Canadian Infrastructure Bank was “‘a complete failure,’ and says it’s concerning that the province would follow suit.” Just one for the Hansard: We definitely agree with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Moving on, though, especially as it relates to where the money in this last fall economic statement is not going. One of the issues, and I want to get this on the record because this is certainly a disturbing trend, particularly on the justice file—we’ve seen it’s down over 2%, funding in justice. And if you’ve ever actually had to deal with a case in your riding of someone who is navigating the court system, you will see how completely broken the court system is in Ontario.

One story that caught my attention this week—and this will appeal, I think, this story, to the strong law-and-order group of Conservatives who often are complaining to the federal government about bail reform and about appropriate justice resources. Well, in Ontario, on November 7, an alleged rapist was released from custody because the court system took so long, Madam Speaker. And this is an important part, that—this is a CTV article, and this was done by Abby O’Brien and it’s very comprehensive.

I’m not going to read all of the disturbing details in it because it could be triggering for a lot of people: “In hindsight,” it says, “Emily recalled doing everything she’d been taught to do in the wake of an attack—she reported it to the police, took herself to the hospital, gave an interview to a detective, and, months later, testified in court.”

But on November 7, “a sexual assault charge laid by the Toronto police against the man Emily reported raped her in January 2022 was stayed and the case against him thrown out, court documents show.”

This is what she said: “It took so much to even do that first step”—right? This takes so much courage. It’s one of the worst kinds of violence you can ever experience, sexual assault. And then a year and a half later, she gets to face the alleged rapist in court, and it was a very—it takes a lot of courage to do this.

The court system is not kind to sexual assault victims. It’s a very harsh place. We need a better system, and we’re going to be working on a better system for sure, Madam Speaker. But it goes on to say that “Emily’s experience is no anomaly. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, anyone charged with an offence has the right to a trial within a reasonable time frame.” In Ontario, “barring exceptional circumstances, that time frame is 18 months in the provincial courts of Ontario”—18 months, a year and a half. Our court system is so underfunded and understaffed that we can’t get a victim and a perpetrator in the same court in 18 months in Ontario.

I think it adds insult to injury, given that this is the newest court, making my point that you can have a good building, you can build a bed, you can build a classroom, but boy, if you don’t have the human resources, you don’t have the people to help navigate that space, then you really are failing—failing. I have to say, if we had the opportunity, having a $5.4-billion contingency fund that is just sitting there, that you squirrelled away by not investing in certain areas—I would say that we could find some alignment here, with your “tough on crime” and more cops and more resources. We want more people. We want more people in the court system to make sure that people have access to justice, and that is what Emily deserved in the province of Ontario.

So in the end, Emily said a crown attorney told her that they believed she had been sexually assaulted, but that the charge had been stayed, and that they suggested that she move on with her life and try to put the event behind her. And she said, “What about my rights? Why are the rights of this man held with more importance?”

And then the judge of this particular court said, “This case should serve as a chilling reminder that this inexcusable state of affairs must never be allowed to happen again.

“The emotional trauma associated with never knowing the outcome of a case on the merits will often be long-lasting and severe for both victims and accused persons.”

“The judge identified the staffing shortages as the reason for the delays in the trial.”

So we have over a 2% cut in justice. We have a $5.4-billion contingency fund. If the minister responsible brought forward a motion to this House and said, “I need more money to staff these courtrooms,” you would have no objection from the NDP.

He goes on to say, “There is no reason this case could not have been completed....

“What happened in this case was entirely predictable, and avoidable. Yet it was allowed to occur, despite all the warning signs....”

He said this case serves “as yet one more example of how the government’s failure to ensure this courthouse could function at full capacity [has] produced tragic results.”

When charges are stayed, both parties in the case are failed by the system.

“That will now never occur. That alone is regrettable,” adding that the people of Ontario “deserve a justice system they can be proud of.”

Trust in the system is long gone, and Emily said, “I’ve lost faith in our province’s ability to keep me, us, safe.”

And I can tell you, Madam Speaker—I don’t know Emily; I’m just completely impressed by her courage. But this is an issue for everyone, and it should be a non-partisan issue. We should care about justice. We should care about timely justice, because we often hear in this House that justice delayed is justice denied and, certainly, that happened in that courtroom.

I want to move on to education, because education has seen a year-over-year reduction. I think our critic has done an amazing job on this file and pointing out inflationary cost pressures on the system as a whole. As I said before, this used to be a government—Conservatives used to acknowledge inflationary cost pressures as real, and plan for those cost pressures.

This, again, is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’s Ricardo Tranjan, who is an excellent researcher and very well-spoken on these issues. But they have been tracking the pattern of this government and how they view public services. In this, Ricardo actually goes all the way back to the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, which was recently tabled, as the “clearest display to date of the Ford government’s ideological agenda against public education. The writing was on the wall from the start.”

It goes back to 2019, when there was a plan to eliminate 10,054 teaching positions by 2024 through increased class sizes and mandatory online learning. There was, obviously, a disruption around that plan by parents and organizations who fought back. Education is always worth fighting for. It’s one of the reasons why I’m standing in this House today.

But I do want to say, in tracking of the funding and this trust issue that I’ve referenced before, we have to remember that most of the COVID funding that came into the education system came from Ottawa or school board reserves, Madam Speaker. This is why it’s so ironic, really, that the Premier is bemoaning the fact that the federal government isn’t giving him the housing money so that he can then in turn pass it along to municipalities. I think the federal government learned their lesson in that regard and don’t trust the middle man here in the province of Ontario.

Also, after that, the government began sending money directly to parents, instead of into classrooms. We all remember this. It also expanded the scope of online education, justifying cuts to brick-and-mortar schools, and last year, when funding became available for tutoring, it had to be partially spent on third-party providers. This is directly, intentionally, with purpose moving education dollars out of the education system.

Now, I’m sure that the government of the day and the minister, perhaps, has his own rationale for doing this, but at the end of the day, when you factor in inflationary costs, in this year students are seeing $1,200 less per student around the GSN funding, so $1,200 less per student in the 2023-24 school year than they received in 2018-19. That has a real impact. If you’re going to invest in the future economy, in the health and communities that we’re all elected to serve, education is one of those key places, as is child care.

Toronto last week just saw 12 infant spaces close down because they can’t find staff. You know why they can’t find staff? They can’t find staff because this government does not respect early childhood educators. They deserve a fair wage. You cannot roll out a $10-a-day child care strategy in Ontario without child care workers, right?

This has an impact on the economy. If you’re not going to do it for the right reason, if you’re not going to say, “I value those first five years of a child’s life, one to five”—the impact that an educator, in collaboration with a parent, has can be life-changing. We’ve seen some real success stories across Ontario, and the research is sound. For every $1 invested in child care, you have a $7 return on that investment—$7. That’s actually 2019 numbers. I’m sure today it must be higher.

Also, there’s a new funding line that the government has in education. It’s on unallocated amounts. This appeared in the GSN for the first time with amounts between $30 million and $40 million. In this year’s document, that line was replaced with “planning provision,” which has $317 million sitting inside it, which is 10 times as much as was originally said. A footnote explains that the money is for possible in-year funding changes, and more unallocated funding has been included with the totals of specific grants.

This government is actively shuffling money away from the classroom. The amount is similar to the cost of the direct payments to parents, which is $365 million. Some parents really appreciate those two tutorial lessons that they get for their child with the money that they are allocated, but at the end of the day, $365 million invested specifically in special education resources in a classroom benefits the entire classroom. It benefits the entire school. It benefits the entire community.

Finally, Ricardo goes on to say, “Stashing cash away and using it to pay for populist measures—like cash transfers and tax cuts—has become a common practice of this government,” which they have been monitoring.

This is another trend of this government—shuffling the money around. I look forward to the new FAO’s analysis of where the funding is going. I was proud to be on the hiring committee. Jeffrey Novak is going to be the new FAO. He was the Acting FAO prior to that. I think that this government has given him a lot of material to work with as well—including the whole staff there at the FAO office.

We are down in justice, down in education, and then you have health care.

Madam Speaker, I just have to say: When I am reading these investigations—and thank goodness for the media, because they really are tracking the pattern of governance of this government, and I think that’s an important distinction to be made, because it’s not just about where this government is not investing or where they are investing; it’s about who gets control over that money.

Last year, as I mentioned, when the Minister of Health was not using her government-issued phone to talk to stakeholders, a major change was happening in Ontario. The government was creating another parallel system to alleviate the pressure on the public system, but they were very intentionally underfunding the public system, which is why we have had now over 5,672 hours of emergency closures in Ontario.

The damaging impact of Bill 124—I’m sure somebody somewhere is reviewing it and exploring it, but, boy, you absolutely were running health care workers right out of the province, and it’s going to take us years to rebuild. I will say this is one of the issues that keeps me up at night, because we have an aging demographic, so the health care needs of Ontarians are only growing, expanding and becoming—quite honestly, because of COVID and post-COVID impact—even more complex.

So when I read this morning that the Ford government is paying for-profit clinics more than hospitals for OHIP-covered surgeries, this is what we always suspected was happening, but thankfully CBC filed another FOI—it’s the theme. We should just have an FOI banner outside of the Legislature: “If you want information, FOI it”. They’ve never made it public—the rates it pays private clinics to perform thousands of outpatient day surgeries each year. So this is why I posted it this morning. Ontario, quite honestly, cannot afford Doug Ford, because he is paying these surgeons in these private clinics exorbitant rates, which, again, is so insulting to the surgeons, doctors and nurses who are just down the way on University Avenue performing life-saving surgeries, who are answering the call.

Just before I forget to get this into the record, because I see that time has gone very quickly, the Ontario Medical Association—when they came here earlier in the fall, we had an amazing conversation with them, because they were proposing solutions. We even heard from a doctor last year in Windsor who proposed solutions. This is what’s happening to family doctors: They are spending 19.1 hours every week on paperwork. So they have proposed to the government—you have a doctor shortage; 2.1 million Ontarians don’t have a doctor. In two years, it’s going to be three million Ontarians with no family doctor. Unless you’re going to completely privatize the entire system, family doctors are the gateway to diagnostic tests and to really accessing acute care.

The Ontario Medical Association has said, “Having family doctors spend 19.1 hours a week doing paperwork is not a good use of our resources. If you funded a scribe, if you funded these family practices so that a nurse practitioner or a professional person who has medical knowledge could do the paperwork, at the end of the day you would have the equivalent of 2,000 more doctors available for patients.” That’s a good solution. Is that money here in the fall economic statement? No, it’s not.

This is another thing I don’t understand. Imagine having the privilege—and it is a privilege, I think, to be a minister of the crown. It’s a duty. It’s a responsibility. But if you have that power within the scope of practice, you should absolutely be using that power for good and making these decisions that actually make a difference.

This article very clearly outlines how much more these private clinics are costing. This money is absolutely coming at the expense of the Ontario Hospital Association, and this discrepancy, it goes on to say, “raises questions about the government’s imminent plans to expand the volume and scope of surgeries performed outside of hospitals, including the potentially lucrative field of hip and knee replacements.”

I just want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the House that when something goes wrong in these private clinics—you know where those patients end up? They end up in a publicly funded hospital. So, you’re throwing good money after bad. It is so short-sighted.

So the fall economic statement, for us—and none of these measures, for some reason, are contained within the technical bill which operationalizes the fall economic statement, including this new bank. I really feel somebody in cabinet should have said, “Let’s read the room here. We have a serious trust issue. Why are we creating a new fancy bauble of a bank when we should just do what we’re elected to do—invest in public services, support the people of this province and actually do our job.”

I want to thank the member for Waterloo for her thoughts on the government’s financial plan.

I’m looking at transit across this province, and what I’m seeing is upsetting. In the city where we’re from, we just heard that OC Transpo is cutting 74,000 service hours because of cuts from the province. We have a transit strike going into its fifth day in the city of Hamilton, and the city is telling this government there’s not enough funding coming from the province to pay those operators and mechanics. We have a transit strike potentially forthcoming in Peterborough on the 17th of this month.

I don’t see anything in the government’s fiscal plan to deal with the $500-million hole that we have in operating transit in this province, when we have jurisdictions like Brampton operating at 130% of its capacity.

Does the member from Waterloo believe this government has to get serious about funding transit so we can get people on the bus, on the train, on the streetcar, in the subway, and not throw our municipalities under the bus?

Affordability is the number one issue right now that we are all facing in Ontario. There’s no doubt about it. I think the one good thing that I did say earlier about the fall economic statement—perhaps it was last Thursday—was the removal of the HST for the purpose-built rentals.

That said, the government of the day understands that you’re not in the business of building affordable housing. The housing that is being built right now across this province is unaffordable housing. So we have proposed a program to build non-market housing. The government of the day must get back into the business of funding truly attainable and affordable—and I know you don’t want to do it, but there’s no way that the developers out there on the greenbelt are going to do it for you.

I’m going to move to questions. I recognize the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

I thank the member for her remarks on the fall economic statement. It’s much appreciated.

The member was talking a lot about affordability throughout, and I just wanted to offer three points to have her and her party consider:

(1) We’re extending the removal of the gas tax to mid-June to keep the cost for Ontarians low. That’s an affordability measure.

(2) We’re removing the HST from rental construction projects, which will enhance the affordability of rental properties throughout Ontario.

(3) Overall program spending is $193 billion expected versus $173 billion, which is an increase of 11% over the year—well in excess of inflation.

Does that not cause the member to consider supporting this bill?

Thank you to the member opposite.

The current state of Ontario today: We have some great news, with a lot of newcomers coming to the province—500,000 people. The reason they’re coming to Ontario is the strong economic growth, the manufacturing sector that’s growing again.

The unfortunate news is affordability. The Bank of Canada has increased interest rates, which is making affordability very difficult for the people of Canada, particularly here in Ontario. Adding to that, of course, is the carbon tax, which the federal government put into place.

Part of this particular bill, the fall economic statement, is reducing the gas tax that people pay at the pumps until June 30, 2024.

Will you, as the official opposition, support reducing the gas tax to help the people of Ontario?

On the housing front, we’ve taken the initiative in this bill—along with the federal government, I might add, of a different political persuasion—to eliminate the GST and HST on purpose-built rental housing in order to stimulate more rental housing, which we need. Does the member opposite support this component of the fall economic statement?

The short answer, of course, is the smart money is on public transit, but it is also the mechanism by which you are funding that. The public-private partnerships that this government has embraced, just like the Liberals did, are so irresponsible.

I will note that in the fall economic statement there are no details, still to this day, on the estimated costs of Highway 413 or the Bradford Bypass. There is no timeline for frequent all-day, two-way GO rail to Kitchener, to Niagara or to Bowmanville.

Basically, what we have here is a government that is addicted to making announcements about transit—and yet, no follow-through.

Finally, there’s no timeline for the restoration of the Northlander, which we hear a lot about.

And then, a real safety issue: There’s no plan to address threats to northern winter roads due to climate change.

This fall economic statement missed the moment entirely on transit.

The member from Oakville mentions all these people coming into Ontario. You know one of the largest groups is international students, and the colleges and universities are so underfunded—as I said, by 12%—that international students have become a funding vehicle for the post-secondary education sector. They’re charged astronomical fees. They arrive here in Ontario. In Kitchener-Waterloo, there are 12 of them sleeping in a two-bedroom apartment because of affordability.

If the government truly wants to have a respectful relationship with newcomers, you might want to start building some non-market affordable housing so that they don’t have to sleep on the street and don’t have to go to a food bank just to survive their experience here in Ontario.

If I was an investor, I wouldn’t want to lose money here in Ontario.

So small measures are great, but why is this government spending so much time writing to the federal government to do their job for them, when they can actually have mechanisms that can make Ontario more affordable for everybody?

Next question?

It’s always an honour to speak in the House. Today, I wasn’t planning on speaking. I’m surprised that the government doesn’t want to speak to what they claim to be their fantastic political record.

Bill 146, Building a Strong Ontario Together—a great title.

I would agree that the MPP for Waterloo is the best finance critic that we have ever had—and considering that I was once finance critic, even I agree. She brought up a lot of good points.

I’d like to start with a few things that are supportable in this piece of legislation—some particularly for northern Ontario.

Flow-through shares aren’t a new thing. They’ve been around for a while. They actually do encourage exploration and investment. It’s a pretty straightforward concept. Specifically, when you’re in the exploration business, it’s risky, but flow-through shares actually—I don’t know if it lessens the risk, but it does encourage investment. I think people in the mining industry and particularly the exploration industry have been pushing for flow-through shares for a while. I think that’s a supportable part of this legislation that actually will help the mining sector.

Believe it or not, although the Conservative government tries to say that the NDP doesn’t support mining because we didn’t support their last changes to the Mining Act—the reason we didn’t support the last changes to the Mining Act is because what the government is trying to do with the Mining Act is very similar to what they did with the greenbelt changes, because they’re trying to take regulations away and put them in into the political realm.

I’m not trying to disparage the Minister of Mines’s experience in mining—not at all. But when you take the planning out of the actual civil service and put the approvals of those plannings into the political realm, you actually might end up slowing down development instead of speeding it up.

Now, I don’t think the current mining minister believes that, and I respect that, but I think there would be a few developers in this province who are now questioning the help they got from the Ford government, because actually it shone a huge spotlight on some of the problems that the Ford government is creating for those developers. And I hope, I sincerely hope—because no one wants to support good mining projects more than I do. Mining is a huge part of the north, a huge part of my riding, and I hope that the government’s meddling in the approval process doesn’t actually slow down, actually jeopardize the mining sector.

The one thing that the mining sector has done a really great job at, probably better than any other sector, is—and I know this from where I live—100 years ago, mining was incredibly damaging to the environment—it was—and we’re still dealing with those damages in places like where I live, close to Cobalt. We’re still dealing with it, and in other places, like close to the minister’s area, Kamiskotia Lake.

But now, because of strict regulations, because of a very good planning process, mining in Canada has, rightfully so, a very good reputation. Some of the same companies don’t have the same reputation in other areas, but in Canada they do. It’s largely because of a very strict regulatory process, and I sincerely hope that the meddling of the Ford government doesn’t actually hurt the mining sector.

Now, I’ve often heard members say, “Well, it takes way too long to approve a mine and way too much red tape.” I don’t think we have an issue. The length of time it takes to approve a mine—I think we could make changes there to actually add certainty for mining companies, for the investors that when they do things right, there’s an actual timeline that they can—I look at other jurisdictions, like Nunavut, which actually has stricter regulations than the province of Ontario, yet a much quicker approval timeline. I know that because one of the mining companies I talked to, Agnico Eagle, told me that. So it’s not a case of more political meddling; it’s a case of having a better, more stable approval process with timelines.

It’s not that we’re anti-mining, not at all. And it’s not that—mining is going to play a more important role, actually, in the future—as important or more important than it has in the past. I’m just going to say it once more: I’m incredibly concerned that meddling from the government and trying to do things quicker politically is actually going to slow things down and hurt the reputation and hurt the profitability and hurt the long-term viability of the mining sector. So flow-through shares are good, some of the other moves maybe not so much.

It’s often been brought up: the gas tax refund. You know what? I come from a place, northern Ontario—I have one community that has public transportation, the municipality of Temiskaming Shores, and also, they partner with Cobalt. But that’s the only community I have that has any public transportation. Everything else is by car. There is no bus; it’s car. And we are very sensitive to gas prices, 100%. Gas prices are always more expensive in Timiskaming–Cochrane than they are in Toronto. I know that. I know that because I drive it every week.

Actually, it’s kind of around Gravenhurst, and right in there, a little bit north of Barrie, it seems cheaper than anywhere else—lots of times. It’s kind of weird, because they’re always telling us that gas prices are dependent on transportation—how much it costs to transport. That doesn’t make any sense to me at all, because it has nothing really to do with the routes.

Getting back to the gas price or the gas tax reduction, I guess the biggest question we have is, what certainty do we have that the reduction actually gets passed to the gas pump? I don’t know what that certainty is. They will say, “Okay, the law of economics and the law of competition”—I understand that, but I don’t know if you’ve noticed but gas prices in towns seem to follow each other pretty closely. Then, you will drive through the next town, and all of a sudden, they’re different. So what proof does the government have?

The government may be very well-meaning with the gas tax refund or rebate. I’m not questioning that. I’m questioning, how do we know it’s actually getting to the consumer? I don’t know. When I drive, when I do the six hours—depending on traffic; it took me eight hours yesterday. Yesterday is Monday, right?

Thank you to the member from Waterloo, our finance critic, who has shown yet again that she is honestly the best finance critic we’ve had in the province.

My question to you is about the Ontario investment bank. Given that the trust of regular Ontarians in this government is zero—they do not trust this government; they have lost all confidence in this government—if they had a choice to invest their dollars in this bank, they would say, “There’s no way I’m putting my money in that bank.” But they have no choice, so $3 billion of people’s money is going into this bank whether they have trust or not.

The other part is about this private money that’s going into the bank. What private investors hate more than anything is risk, and we have seen a government that went out of their way to de-risk the investment environment for developers. But that scheme has been unveiled.

So my question to you is, do you think that private investors will see this as a de-risk preferential treatment opportunity, or will they also mistrust and be concerned about putting their private dollars into this OIB?

Yes.

I apologize to the member. There is time on the clock, but it is 6 o’clock. I have to interrupt the member because it is private members’ public business.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Ms. Scott moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 138, An Act to amend the Change of Name Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le changement de nom et apportant des modifications corrélatives à une autre loi.

Because I hit Toronto—I have sympathy with people who live in Toronto. Toronto traffic is something, because it took me two hours to get from the 400 to Bay and Edward, where my apartment is. Toronto traffic is something. Normally it takes me six hours, and the difference in gas prices is just phenomenal.

So how do we know? And that is a huge issue.

Now, a couple of minutes, I’ll maybe have—oh, I’m going to have some time when I’m here next time.

The infrastructure bank has always kind of confused me, because federally, the Conservatives’ federal cousins—Mr. Poilievre says that the federal infrastructure bank is a boondoggle and a total waste. Yet, they import it provincially and it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Now, I don’t understand. I don’t understand the concept. Do you want to—I understand the concept; I do. I just don’t understand why you would want to do it. In my business past, I’ve built things—nothing on the scale of government. But you want to build something, a public building, a highway—you talk a lot about highways. The province has the ability to borrow money cheaper or for less—yes, cheaper, I guess—than the private sector in many cases.

For the infrastructure bank to work, you’re going to have to offer a better income for the investors than they can get anywhere else. So when you’re paying the investor, when you’re paying the people who are putting money in your bank more money than they’re getting anywhere else in the market, it’s—

It’s an honour and a privilege to stand before the House today to present the Change of Name Amendment Act, 2023, known as Bill 138, and I am proud to introduce this bill with my co-sponsor, the MPP from Thornhill, who I will be sharing my time with.

Similar legislation has been successfully enacted in other provinces, and it is time for Ontario to do the same. This bill has a simple purpose: to prohibit convicted sex offenders from obtaining a legal name change. The term “sex offenders” refers to individuals that are convicted of a sexual offence and are required to comply with the provincial Sex Offender Registry, known as Christopher’s Law. We want to make it harder for sex abusers to cover up their criminal activity and to hide their true identities.

Legal name changes happen frequently in this province, as is necessary. Whether it’s due to marriage or identity purposes, name changes are foundational to allowing people to be who they want to be. While name changes are often positive, there are concerns that need to be addressed. Criminals will exploit and take advantage of any opportunity that comes their way. For example, convicted sexual offenders can use a legal name change to obscure themselves and possibly commit further harm under this new identity.

There is no denying that some individuals will take advantage of rights and privileges and use them to inflict harm on others. Although Ontario’s current name change regime has existing protections, there is a need to tighten the process so that sexual offenders do not abuse this privilege.

The Change of Name Amendment Act will enhance our government’s zero-tolerance approach to sexual assault. Further, it will aid our commitment to protecting survivors, their families and communities as a whole. We take sexual assault and crimes against children extremely seriously. Providing supports and protections to Ontarians remains one of our top priorities.

A zero-tolerance approach is necessary when dealing with a heinous crime like sexual assault, particularly when the victims are children. These types of crimes often follow a pattern as predators seek out their targets. Unfortunately, predators often target individuals they perceive as vulnerable. Through coercion, threats and intimidation, they force their victims into silence, causing them to feel alienated and alone. You are not alone, and we as the government of Ontario are doing anything we can to bring justice.

Under the current name change process, individuals are required to complete a criminal background check and to have lived in the province for the previous 12 months. Additionally, name changes are published in the Ontario Gazette, unless requested by the applicant and approved by the registrar. That seems complicated, Madam Speaker, but I want to emphasize this: that although name changes are published in the Gazette, making them publicly available, this is not a publication that people frequently consult. In fact, most people probably don’t even know the Gazette exists or where to access it.

While there are existing safeguards in the name change process, more can be done to protect survivors of horrific crimes as convicted sex offenders could successfully change their name under the current system even before they leave jail. Name changes provide these dangerous offenders with an opportunity to distance themselves from their crimes. While offenders can adopt a new identity and possibly commit further harm, their victims are forced to grapple with the repercussions and the trauma. Sex offenders must be held accountable, and the rights of survivors should remain paramount.

It is, of course, important to recognize that recidivism, as in repeating, among sex offenders remains an ongoing problem. Offenders with a prior sexual offence conviction had a recidivism rate nearly double the rate of first-time sexual offenders, 19% versus 37% after 15 years. Unfortunately, there is a visible upward trend of sexual assaults, especially against children, according to the most recent reports from Statistics Canada. This is horrifying. The time to act is now. This is an important measure of protection for the victims.

As previously mentioned, this measure has been adopted in other provinces, like Saskatchewan and Alberta. To demonstrate the need for this legislation, I’ll provide a grave example that contributed to Saskatchewan adopting this policy. David Donald Shumey was a 76-year-old man who returned to Regina after spending 20 years in a US prison for various sexual offences dating back to the mid-1990s. He was arrested in Las Vegas and charged with 88 different counts. When he was released from jail, he returned to Regina and legally changed his name to David Donald Stryker.

We cannot allow individuals like David to adopt a new identity and cause further harm. Even though the name change would have been published in the Saskatchewan Gazette, is it fair to place the onus on survivors to keep tabs on their abusers by browsing the gazette each week? Or would it make more sense to prevent the name change altogether?

Our goal has been and always will be to protect survivors, their families and their communities. If someone is convicted of a sexual offence and required to comply with the sex offender registry known as Christopher’s Law, they should be barred from changing their name. It’s as simple as that.

I’m extremely proud to co-sponsor and bring this legislation before the House. Improving the lives of survivors and providing reassurance and safety to communities is our goal. I look forward to working with all members of the Legislature.

It’s an honour for me to bring this private member’s matter, Bill 138, the Change of Name Amendment Act, along with my colleague, the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Speaker, name changes are relatively common in Ontario and often indicate a positive transition in life. It could be a new beginning for an adopted child, or a person, perhaps, who wants to capture a part of their family lineage—regardless, there are a number of reasons that provide an honourable and positive reason for changing your name.

But sadly, there are many bad actors who use the application to hide their identity for the wrong reasons—creating a new world for themselves, unknown to their victims and their community. These convicted offenders could take advantage of this opportunity of a legal name change to distance themselves from crime so very heinous, providing them with a new life, a fresh start—something their victims will never have.

The right to change one’s name shouldn’t be abused. As a community of people who sit within this House, I believe we have a moral obligation to put the rights of those victims first.

Let me give you a bit of background on this bill. In 1988, when Christopher was just 11 years old, he was kidnapped at knifepoint at a Brampton mall, and, after hours of abuse, the abuser killed Christopher and left his body in a field. It was determined through the investigation that the person responsible for the attack, Fredericks, was a repeat sexual offender. From the ashes of that horrific experience, Christopher’s parents rallied to create Christopher’s Law, also known as the Ontario Sex Offender Registry, which came into effect in 2001. This bill is very simple: to ban convicted sex offenders that fall into this registry from having the privilege of making application for a legal name change. They should not get a new chance at life, because that’s something their victims will never have. We have to do everything in our power to protect the lives of our most vulnerable in society: our children, their family members and the supports that keep them whole.

Sexual offences are among the most heinous and degrading forms of violence against children. They have a devastating impact on survivors, who are literally broken, and they live with this trauma for the rest of their lives.

In my past life, I worked on matters under the child protection act and it was very rewarding work. Many files were a happy ending for the children that Ontario supported—placement in a safe and nurturing family environment—and I’m always reflective of this work as positive not only for the children but also as a community. I’m not blind, though, to the trauma some of those children face. As a mother it especially hits home for me. We have to work to protect Ontario’s children.

Speaker, let me be very clear: We currently have very strong laws. Ontarians seeking a legal name change must undergo a criminal record check, and under most circumstances, those who change their names must register these details with the Ontario Gazette, where name changes are published. Yet truthfully, Speaker, most Ontarians do not read the Gazette, let alone know of its existence. While safeguards do exist, they still do not prevent sex offenders from making applications.

It’s also crucial to keep in mind that recidivism amongst offenders remains an ongoing concern. Given the heinous nature of sexual offences, recidivism cannot be ignored, and the highest likelihood of reoffenders is observed amongst those who victimize young boys, with a 15-year recidivism rate of 35%. That means one in three are going to recommit.

Recently, an investigation by a joint task force of police services across Ontario known as Project Limestone has led to the arrest of 10 people for child exploitation. One of the people taken into custody was a repeat offender; one who was out on bail at the time of their arrest. And I also think of Donald Shumey, the 76-year-old man who returned to Canada after spending 20 years in prison after 88 different sexual offence counts. He changed his name as well: David Donald Stryker.

And, like most of us, we think of Karla Homolka, who is now living under the name of Leanne Teale in Quebec. We all remember her, and I will choose not to mention her former husband’s name, because, quite simply, their crimes were so reprehensible that I do not wish to bring his name into the record. My understanding is that Ms. Homolka—or, should I say, Ms. Teale—was at one point volunteering at a school.

This legislation aims to deny these offenders the legal right to change their name. There are no acceptable excuses for those who commit such acts, and our laws and our punishments must be consistently firm in addressing these cases. This legislation has been adopted in other jurisdictions, and these are positive steps that Ontario needs to make.

The right to change one’s name must not be abused. Closing this loophole will strengthen our government’s zero tolerance against sexual offenders on our most vulnerable, and strengthen our position with survivors and their families, putting them first and not the thousands of offenders who have committed the most reprehensible crimes against our most precious citizens.

This bill, if passed, will stop the Karla Homolkas of the world from becoming Leanne Teales. These heinous criminals are the people that this legislation aims to stop. I hope you will support Bill 138, the Change of Name Amendment Act, for the sake of our communities, our children and our children’s children. Thank you.

Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for her presentation.

Further debate?

It’s always an honour to be able to stand in the House, today to discuss Bill 138, An Act to amend the Change of Name Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, sponsored by the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and the member from Thornhill.

Just to put it in context, I’d like to read the explanatory note: “The bill amends the Change of Name Act to provide that certain offenders are ineligible to apply to change their name. The offenders who are ineligible are those who are required to comply with Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000.” The member from Thornhill did a good job of explaining what Christopher’s Law’s role is to register sex offenders.

As a parent, I think I speak on behalf of everyone in this province that I can’t imagine what it’s like for a parent to experience their child being abused, or for the child. And as a party, we, as every other Ontarian, want to make sure that children are protected and that people who have harmed them in any way—that we do our best to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. That is incumbent on us.

We think this bill is supportable. We support it. We support it to actually go to committee and actually make sure that it’s done correctly, that we actually make this bill as good as it can be and that it actually passes. This is an issue, I think, on which we can all agree, but we have to make sure that someone doesn’t get caught up in this who we’re not trying to get caught up. That’s why it should go to committee. The member for Thornhill, I agree: We do have strong legislation in this province, strong legislation that can always be made better. With this bill, I think it is a step forward as long as we make sure that it’s as good as it can be.

I don’t think we need to prolong this debate. We are all on the same page in this one. You have our support. There’s nothing that should be stopping this bill from going to committee and becoming law. I’d like to thank the members for putting it forward. I’d like to thank you, Speaker, for allowing me the time. Those are my remarks.