It’s my honour to present this stack of following petitions which are to stop the cuts and invest in the schools our students deserve. It reads:

“Whereas the Ford government cut funding to our schools by $800 dollars per student during the pandemic period, and plans to cut an additional $6 billion to our schools over the next six years;

“Whereas these massive cuts have resulted in larger class sizes, reduced special education and mental health supports and resources for our students, and neglected and unsafe buildings;

“Whereas the Financial Accountability Office reported a $2.1-billion surplus in 2021-22, and surpluses growing to $8.5 billion in 2027-28, demonstrating there is more than enough money to fund a robust public education system;

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

“—immediately reverse the cuts to our schools;

“—fix the inadequate education funding formula;

“—provide schools the funding to ensure the supports necessary to address the impacts of the pandemic on our students;

“—make the needed investments to provide smaller class sizes, increased levels of staffing to support our students’ special education, mental health, English language learner and wraparound supports needs, and safe and healthy buildings and classrooms.”

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

It’s my honour to present this petition on behalf of Lynn Mayhew, from the families of incarcerated women and girls at the Andrew Mercer Reformatory. This petition was submitted by Lorraine Vasiliauskas. The petition reads:

“Extend Access to Post-Adoption Birth Information.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas current legislation does not provide access to post-adoption birth information (identifying information) to next of kin if an adult adopted person or a natural/birth parent is deceased;

“Whereas this barrier to accessing post-adoption birth information separates immediate family members and prohibits the children of deceased adopted people from gaining knowledge of their identity and possible Indigenous heritage;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to extend access to post-adoption birth information (identifying information) to next of kin, and/or extended next of kin, if an adult adopted person or a natural/birth parent is deceased.”

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

My question is to the Premier. London is a leader, having provided a bylaw solution to the growing onslaught of graphic images delivered without consent to doorsteps by anti-abortion groups, but we need the province to address this growing problem.

Earlier this week, I tabled the Viewer Discretion Act to protect families, children and those recovering from trauma from receiving these graphic images. Will the government do the right thing and pass this bill to protect Ontarians?

Speaker, everyone in London recognizes the homelessness crisis, and understands the dire need to ensure unhoused, marginalized Londoners have supports to rebuild their lives and finally be safe. More than 200 people have died on London’s streets in the past three years. No one among us should be able to turn and look away from human suffering and preventable tragedy.

In response to this mounting crisis, London city council engaged a broad spectrum of Londoners in their Health and Homelessness Summits. They created a collaborative plan known as the Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response, which will create 24/7 community hubs with on-site care, as well as build the desperately needed 100 supportive housing units this year and 600 in total.

London leaders have stepped up. After an historic $25 million gift by an anonymous London family, millions more have been donated by London’s amazing business and community leaders who have rallied to join the fight. The Health and Homelessness Fund for Change, fundforchange.ca, is administered by the London Community Foundation. The need is there. Community support is there and engagement is there.

London is a leader, Speaker, but we can’t do it alone. The province now has a chance to stand with London and support this noble and worthy cause. I echo the calls of community leaders, experts, local organizations and city council. I encourage the province to provide emergency homelessness funding to London in the 2023 budget.

I would like to thank the member from Orléans for his presentation. We’ve heard from government members claiming there will be presumptive coverage for pancreatic and thyroid cancers for firefighters, yet it does not exist within the bill. Earlier, I’d spoken to the government members about Bud Simpson, a Sarnia native who passed away from nasopharyngeal and gastrointestinal cancer which metastasized to his brain.

But I also wanted to share, from the Occupational Disease Reform Alliance, somebody from Peterborough who worked at General Electric—his widow’s name is Sara Sharpe. He worked there for 42 years and, unfortunately, he passed away just after he was nicely retired, with esophageal cancer. He passed away within two weeks.

My question to the member: Would you like to see multiple exposures covered in presumptive coverage, such as we’ve discussed?

I’d like to thank the member from Oshawa for her comments. I know that she’s a member who stands with workers in thought, word and deed, but I wondered if the member could take us back in time to a time when Oshawa GM was under threat, a time when the Premier actually said, after meeting with GM executives, “They told me straight-up there’s nothing we can do”—as if taking his orders from somebody else—“the ship has already left the dock.”

But at that time, speaking of the title of this bill, Working for Workers, I would like the member to describe how Oshawa workers stood up for workers when this government rolled over and turned their back on workers.

I’d like to thank the member for his comments. I just want to express my condolences on the loss of your father due to occupational disease. It’s terrible.

We’ve noticed on the official opposition side that nowhere in the bill is it included that firefighters will be protected with presumptive coverage for pancreatic and thyroid cancer, but we welcome that. It’s unfortunate that it’s not codified within this legislation.

I did want to also mirror the words of the Occupational Disease Reform Alliance. They noted a fellow who unfortunately passed away. His name was Bud Simpson. He worked at Fibreglass Sarnia for 36 years. Sarnia is the occupational disease capital and the heart of the petrochemical industry. In 2011, the World Health Organization said that it had the most polluted air in the country. Despite that, multiple exposures are not covered under WSIB, as I’m sure you know. Would you like to see that included in reforms to WSIB covering multiple exposures?

I would like to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his passionate comments.

In your definition of red tape, you also pointed out the barriers that people face on the Ontario Disability Support Program.

During the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs discussion of the progress on the Plan to Build Act, Bill 36, on November 24, I added the words of Lane Sargeant, a constituent of mine. Lane wrote, “Worse yet, ODSP is even a hindrance when it comes to forming relationships. In many instances, disabled people lose benefits if they marry or cohabit, having to wager the value of the roof over their head against the chance at a stable relationship. We have to fill out questionnaires about our love lives to determine if we are worthy of groceries? The state has no business indeed.”

The government understands the red tape that has been created through the ODSP program yet chooses not to fix it. Why does the member think that they have chosen not to fix this within Bill 46?

It’s an honour to present the following petition entitled “Invest in Ontario’s Arts and Culture Sector.” It reads:

“Whereas the arts and culture sector contributes $28.7 billion to Ontario’s GDP and creates over 300,000 jobs; and

“Whereas the Ontario Arts Council budget has not been increased at Ontario’s rate of inflation, exacerbating the income precarity of artists and cultural workers, some of whom are earning less than $25,000 per year, and still less for those from equity-deserving groups; and

“Whereas the income precarity was worsened during the pandemic through issues of regulatory unfairness in the arts and culture sector, disproportionately impacting the performing arts and OAC-determined priority groups, including BIPOC, Indigenous, women, people with disabilities, 2SLGBTQIA+ artists, and cultural workers;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the Ontario Arts Council budget of $65 million in the 2023 provincial budget, adequately invest in the arts and culture sector, including supports for equity-deserving groups, small, medium and grassroots collectives in our communities, and individual artists to ensure their personal and economic survival.”

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

I’d like to thank the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for his passionate and articulate speech on Bill 46.

Boil-water advisories are a national and provincial disgrace that they continue to this day with very little action. I wanted to share the words of Deshkan Ziibiing, the Chippewas of the Thames First Nations, who have some concerns about some of the potential areas for carbon sequestration. It has been shown by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to be quite close to COTTFN lands. There is no commitment in Bill 46 to require First Nations’ consent for carbon capture, utilization and storage, and they ask that there be early and meaningful involvement of impacted First Nations, and, in addition to consultation, the province must seek consent of First Nations before proceeding with CCUS projects.

My question to the member: Do you suspect that the government understands the difference between consultation and consent?

Today I am pleased to present this petition to develop an Ontario dementia strategy.

“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. I will affix my signature and deliver it with page Claire to the Clerks.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome Katie Dean as well as her son Logan Dean. Katie is the founder of the Viewer Discretion Legislation Coalition.

I’d like to also provide a warm welcome to members of my constituency staff, including Marie Rioux, Suhaib Al-Azem, Madeline Vrolyk and Alex Wild, who are visiting Queen’s Park today.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

This legislation has been passed in London and Woodstock—and hopefully in St. Catharines soon—by municipal councils.

I’d like to thank Katie Dean for all of her work, her advocacy and for sharing her strength and her story.

Ms. Skelly moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 81, An Act to proclaim Croatian Heritage Day / Projet de loi 81, Loi proclamant le Jour du patrimoine croate.

It’s an honour to welcome former MP for London North Centre, Glen Pearson, and his partner, Jane Roy, as part of the Feed Ontario breakfast. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d like to thank the member for his presentation. Here in the chamber, we’ve seen many presentations where it appears as though the Conservative government is reversing progress that has been made towards reconciliation. Also, in this bill, we see contradictory treatments of closure plans. On the one hand, they allow an applicant who may not meet the requirements to submit an incomplete closure plan and then subsequent actions give the minister broad discretion in permitting applications. My question for the member: Does it make good business sense to rubber-stamp plans that are written on the back of a napkin?

I’d like to thank the member from Nickel Belt for her eloquent speech about how this government’s changes deliberately exclude Indigenous people. Members on the Conservative benches, earlier this afternoon, seemed to suggest that the burden should be on Indigenous people to reach out if they have concerns.

My question to the member is, is this Conservative government moving backward in terms of reconciliation?

I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Malton for his presentation. As I’m sure he is well aware, the official opposition is in support of this bill on second reading. But one of the official opposition’s main concerns remains this government’s track record not only on relations with Indigenous peoples, their track record on the environment—and their love of unfettered and unchecked power, quite frankly.

Industry sources did not push for transferring powers from directors to the minister, and we worry about this centralization of power. My question, though, to the member is, who specifically recommended this transfer of power from the director to the minister?

It gives me great pleasure to rise as the official opposition critic for economic development, job creation and trade to add my thoughts about Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act.

As I start my comments, I think it’s important that members on the other side, on the government benches, recognize that this is a bill that the official opposition will be supporting at second reading, but we do very much rely on this government to travel the bill, to travel the bill properly and to listen to as many stakeholders as wish to appear at committee to make sure that this is a strong bill, a robust bill and one that has been built with public consultation. Because when we see many pieces of legislation that are brought forward in this chamber, much is left lacking, and that is perhaps intentional on the part of this government, to omit things which are very glaring in their absence.

I’d like to also start by saying this government’s track record on relationships and partnerships with Indigenous peoples is abysmal. As well, their record on enhancing and maintaining environmental protections is similarly abysmal. In 2018, when this government first assumed power, in their throne speech, they started it without an Indigenous land recognition—a horrible omission. And then, one of their first acts was to cancel the Indigenous curriculum-writing sessions while people were already in attendance. They were either already on their way or they had arrived and they were told to go home. Now, as well, we’ve heard and seen an ideological obsession to not declare September 30 a provincial holiday to recognize truth and reconciliation, which is truly bizarre.

But as I move my comments towards mining, mining is an excellent industry here in the province of Ontario. It’s a great and strong industry. It provides good-paying jobs, those union jobs with benefits, with a pension. I know members across the aisle are probably going to plug their ears and shriek, but it actually provides paid sick days. Imagine that. I know they’re very upset about that concept, but that is something that is provided with more union membership.

Mining also has a history in the province and it has moved away from that history. I believe our House leader, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, mentioned how, in the past, there were not closure plans, there was not the same sort of responsibility that has now been placed and that the mining industry has welcomed and is something that they’ve worked very hard to make sure that they are good corporate partners, good global citizens. They’ve brought up the industry. They’ve made sure that they are not only looking after the now but they’re looking after the eventualities of their industry within the province, which is excellent.

This is a huge financial risk, not only for the industry itself but also for the province, and we want to make sure that it’s one where we look after our environment for generations to come.

I’d like to also turn to what is known as “a dish with one spoon” teachings. I’d like to thank Dan and Mary Lou Smoke, some wonderful people from my riding, who have taught me about what that concept actually means and what that teaching means. Frequently, it is a covenant that was engaged in between Indigenous peoples to indicate a shared responsibility, an agreement. Sometimes you might refer to it as a truce as it were so that they can share within the wealth in Mother Earth.

When we take a look—it’s called “a dish with one spoon”—the dish refers to the land, and it’s meant to be shared peacefully; it’s meant to be shared equally; it’s meant to be shared among all people for their benefit, and the spoon is what refers to the individuals living on that land. But what it actually means at the heart of it, as Dan and Mary Lou have indicated to me, is that there is enough when we share with one another. There is enough when we take good care of the earth.

“A dish with one spoon” also has resonance with extracted economies: that we don’t pillage the earth; we don’t take too much from the earth—and if we do take from the earth, we make sure we take in moderation and we make sure we do not destroy what’s left for future generations to come.

This has resonance in many other places in the world and many other disciplines. For instance, in Tao Te Ching there is a writing that says “the person who knows when enough is enough will always have enough.” When we share with one another, when we don’t hurt the earth too much, we will have a good environment for generations to come.

I also think of the words of Bishop Terry Dance. We live in a world right now where there’s this singular focus on what he calls “unbridled acquisitiveness.” There is this rampant greed where people are more interested in what they themselves can obtain and what they can take than there is about how we should look after one another, and that’s something I believe we have to be very cognizant of and very careful of. If we look after one another, we all win. If we look after the environment for generations to come, those generations will also win. We need to take the selfishness out of many of these equations.

As I look at this legislation itself, there are some deep concerns, one of which would be that, in Bill 71, it replaces the “director of mine rehabilitation” anywhere in the Mining Act with “minister.” We know from this government that their track record on environmental protections is abysmal. They’ve ripped out those charging stations that were already paid for—it was a bad business. Not only were they paying to destroy something, but they were paying to destroy something they had already paid for. So if they could have taken money and thrown it in the toilet, it seems this Conservative government would have done so in their ideological battle against environmental protections.

But we’ve also seen Bill 23, which is the commodification of the greenbelt for a few very well-connected backroom insiders, under the disguise and the weak cloak of calling this a bill for affordable housing. So when we see this consequential change of the “director of mine rehabilitation” being replaced with “minister,” it doesn’t exactly inspire trust on behalf of the official opposition, or really anyone in the province, because nobody believes this government on their track record of environmental protections.

Also, we see that there is the elimination of the reference to the director of mine rehabilitation altogether—the person who’s going to be looking after this in the future. And why is that eliminated? You know, MiningWatch Canada’s Jamie Kneen has said, “Undoing safeguards and making the process more streamlined and less accountable is really just, I think, a recipe for disaster.”

Kate Kempton, an Indigenous rights lawyer, has said, “Ford is proposing to strip the closure plan approval process and First Nations engagement in it to a bare minimum, which was—it’s basically taking of the last thread of protection that we have.”

Kneen goes on to say, “This (Pirie’s reassurances of continued environmental safety and Indigenous consultations) is coming from a government that has shown no consistent respect for either of those things, so it’s really hard to take that seriously.”

In this bill, as well, the rehabilitation will be changed to a different use or condition that the minister determines. Again, I’m not so sure that we can trust the minister. And the minister becomes the locus of control, as they will look at the land and they will deem it suitable for future use or a site determined by the minister.

Now, I also want to make sure that we add in the record that the mining industry has really raised the standard. They have made sure that they have financial security, they have closure plans. This government is really tinkering with these closure plans, which is very concerning. They also are very curiously, where there is a closure plan, weakening that in a very strange way. This bill allows the applicant, who may not meet all the existing criteria for a mine closure plan, to nonetheless submit a claim. Is this a workaround? That’s a good question that we have.

Further, the bill sets out that the minister shall file a closure plan within 45 days of it being submitted or return the applicant for resubmission if it misses one of their parameters as set out in the act. Why is there this contradiction? We’re not sure. This needs to be answered by this government.

I also want to highlight what we heard as we travelled with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, which was the concept of tailings. MIRARCO, who submitted a presentation for the committee, also said they have the Centre for Mine Waste Biotechnology, the first of its kind in Canada, which will take a look after those tailing ponds, which grow exponentially year after year after year and the dams are just made higher and higher. We know and we’ve heard from the member from Sudbury about the crisis that happened in Brazil, where hundreds of people died. But this company has a great way to extract some of the things that are being left there as waste.

I just want to point out some of the statistics that they shared with us at committee. They felt that there’s between $8 billion to $10 billion of nickel contained in the Sudbury mine—

Speaker, back to the Premier: The condo tribunal is not doing nearly enough to protect residents. The Minister of Government Services and Consumer Protection already has the fixes in front of him—they need to be implemented. The condo tribunal is not doing nearly enough to protect residents.

My constituent Charlene told me that the board president where she lives unilaterally fired the construction company mid-project and hired his own cousin. Now, residents have to pay enormous payments for the lawsuit, the lien and pay again for construction. They’re worried that they’re going to be paying more in condo fees than their mortgage. Some are moving out or relying on friends to help with groceries.

Premier, will you listen to condo residents like Charlene and strengthen the condo tribunal so that Ontarians have protections?

I’d like to thank the Minister of Mines and the member from Essex for their presentation.

The minister discussed diamond drilling and working with Indigenous peoples and working together, whereas the member from Essex talked about consultations. I hope that the minister or the parliamentary assistant will assure the House that when building more mines, such as this bill is titled, that there will be free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous partners on each new site.

My question for the member from Essex is, could you please define free, prior and informed consent for the House?

It’s an honour to rise today to add my voice to the official opposition leader’s motion today to do something incredibly important, incredibly timely, something that is not only a good choice for humans but is a good choice fiscally.

Mental health is apolitical. We’ve heard stories across the aisle today—really impactful, important stories. Like no other time before, it is as though the government and the opposition are on the same page. We have the opportunity today to employ a positive, proactive solution to the struggles that many people face across this province.

Middlesex-London Health Unit indicated that 48% of the population indicated that their mental health was declining as a result of the pandemic. We’ve seen cost of living going through the roof, whether it’s the cost of housing, food, child care. People are also worried about possibly paying more for their health care. We have seen many people in the small business community living on a razor’s edge, not sure if they were going to get the supports to make it through the pandemic, and employees that were worried every time that they showed up to their place of work whether the doors would be locked. It’s not even to mention the folks who are on really terrible social assistance rates, because being on those rates exacerbates mental health conditions even more when you’re worried about the bottom line every single month.

This government also—as I had the opportunity to travel with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, my colleagues and I heard from many CMHA branches that they have had only a 2% base funding increase in the last 10 years. We have an opportunity today to address that with only $24 million. Think about the lives that can be impacted. We as a Legislature can show that we believe in the great work of the CMHA. We as a Legislature have the opportunity today to make sure that we support all of those people in the communities who are on the front lines doing that life-changing work, and we as a Legislature can show today with our vote that we want people to get the mental health supports when and where they need them in their communities.

I urge this government: Let’s get this done. Please vote in support. Vote for mental health.