This question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Galbraiths have been waiting for an assisted living space for their son since 2014. Imagine, day after day, year after year, writing letters and emails, making phone calls and hearing nothing but crickets.

Can the minister tell this family when they will be offered an assisted living space for their son?

Can the government tell us, really, when people can expect to have the services delivered? Eight years is far too long for a family to be waiting to receive supports.

I would like to welcome Dr. Ailya Patel from the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors; as well as Dr. Jessica Carfagnini, who practises in Thunder Bay; and Dr. Shawn Yakimovich. Welcome to your House.

The Northern Policy Institute and Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association each opened their recent events with an address by Anishinaabeg Elder Marlene Pierre. Dr. Pierre spoke of our responsibilities as leaders to respect the land, respect our roles as treaty partners and build right relations amongst Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. These are two major northwestern Ontario organizations putting their commitment to build right relations front and centre.

Unfortunately, last week, we witnessed a much older, discredited approach to relations with First Nations. Every single First Nation in Ontario strongly objected to the building mines faster act, yet the Ford government pushed it through anyway, claiming they know better than First Nations peoples themselves what is good for them. But isn’t this the same attitude that led to the violent removal of children from their families and the deaths of so many children at residential schools? And hasn’t the Conservative government thus guaranteed years of business instability and conflict?

By taking the time to build good relations, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg, the town of Marathon and Generation Mining have shown the way to creating mutually beneficial projects that protect the land, water and traditional economies and guarantee land remediation. Bulldozer politics will always lead to conflict, but if we put building right relations first, good jobs and a protected environment are possible.

Meegwetch. Merci. Thank you.

Thank you for the question. We have about 45,000 people who don’t have access to primary care at this time. I know that the government has opened up some spaces for doctors, but it’s not enough. We really need to increase the spaces to train doctors. We also need to increase incentives to bring doctors to remote regions. I would like to see some of the work that’s being done to incentivize other health care workers to work in remote regions applied to doctors and see those spaces increased.

What was that? Framework. Thank you very much—to establish a framework so that business had security and First Nations had security, knowing that they would be able to work together and come to an agreement that everybody could live with.

I want to talk a little bit about—jeez, I’m going to run out of time, and I had so much I wanted to share. Biigtigong Nishnaabeg, also known as Pic River First Nation, is just east of Marathon on Lake Superior. They recently signed an agreement with Generation Mining. The town of Marathon and Biigtigong Nishnaabeg worked very closely together. That’s a relationship they’ve been working on for years. And the relationship with Generation Mining has also been worked on for years. The entire community voted on whether they would go ahead with this agreement, and that actually was a very beautiful ceremony in which that agreement, in principle, was signed.

It’s possible to do this right. It’s possible to build these relationships. If we really wanted to, we could get clean water in every one of those communities at the snap of our fingers, but instead, that doesn’t get done and, in fact, it’s kind of used as a bit of a—the nice way to call it would be a bargaining chip. “If you do what we want, maybe we’ll give you your water.” Instead, we have a bill—Bill 71—that overrides the wishes of First Nations and tramples on, compromises on environmental protections for mine remediation. We know that these things can work if they’re done properly, with respect. We also know that pushing through Bill 71 was not an act of respect and that it will not provide the business security that people are looking for and it will lead to more court cases.

I was listening to the member from Durham earlier, and a lot of talk about transparency and fiscal responsibility, so I wanted to look at that a little bit and where money is being spent by this government. It really puts that into question, the transparency and fiscal responsibility, so I’d like to make a tally here.

I’m thinking here of the mandate letters that have been in court now for five years, and still the government is too frightened, I assume, of what the public will think to reveal what ministers have been directed to do. We all hear every day in this Legislature what the government wants people to believe—they’ve got a narrative—but wouldn’t it be enlightening to compare these creative narratives to what has actually been laid out in the mandate letters? Unfortunately, it’s clear the government would rather spend our tax dollars on lawyers rather than on public transparency. So I ask, is that an example of fiscal prudence?

The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that Bill 124 is unconstitutional wage repression, and the repression of the right to collective bargaining is what Bill 124 does. But is the government prepared to stop fighting nurses, educators and other public-sector workers? No. They would prefer to keep spending taxpayer dollars on lawyers and court costs.

Now, we know that if they lose their appeal of Bill 124, they will be forced to pay back wages, probably in the billions, that will be owed to those workers. And these are the workers who did so much for people during the pandemic, who have been treated very poorly by this government. In the end, if they lose that case—first of all, the case is costing a lot of money—then they’re going to have to pay out a lot of money. So why keep fighting and spending tax dollars on a court appeal?

I like to think in terms of strategy, and again, I’m asking myself: What is in those mandate letters? Let’s put this together with another massive health care expense, so that people can see that the wage repression represented by Bill 124 is actually part of a larger strategy to collapse the public health care system so that well-connected people can come in and make hefty profits on the backs of people who are ill.

Bill 124 has effectively pushed health care workers out of hospitals, and hospitals have been forced to spend an incredible amount of money on agency nurses. The fact that people close to the Conservative government own some of these agencies is one piece of the puzzle, but it’s only one. Agencies are costing the public 550% more than it would cost to pay staff nurses. So then you can see that the repression represented by Bill 124 is actually not about saving money; it’s about creating a permanent state of crisis in public health care so that there are opportunities created for private shareholder profits.

Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if we could see the mandate letters for the Ministry of Health and the rationales for imposing Bill 124, which has led to an increase of 550% in health care costs for nursing staff? I find that incredible. Well, let me see: a massive transfer of public dollars into for-profit hands at the expense of health care workers, the ones who actually work on staff and are committed to their communities.

But there are other court cases. There’s the court case around Treaty 9 and undoubtedly there will be more with the imposition of Bill 71. We heard from the Chiefs of Ontario, representing 131 First Nations. The first letter came from the Matawa group, nine First Nations, all in the area of the Ring of Fire and where a lot of the mining the government hopes will take place. Treaty 9—really a very, very serious court case—and then Whitesand, all sending letters in opposition to Bill 71 and effectively saying, “Cease and desist. You do not have the right to be on our property. You do not have the right to be digging and exploring without our consent, without our agreement.”

I just want to say, as we’ve made very clear on this side of the House, that talking about First Nations’ rights is not saying we don’t want mining, but that we want mining done responsibly and we want those relationships built properly, with justice at their core. Right now, that’s not what’s happening.

To me, this is the same old, same old story, and it can be spun any way you like. The latest spin from the Minister of Indigenous Affairs is legacy infrastructure. I think we’re going to hear those two words again and again as the latest spin. It sounds nice, but when you shove things down people’s throats with a father-knows-best attitude, you are showing yourselves to have exactly the same approach as the architects of the residential school system. Surely we should be past that, and we should be capable of recognizing when we are bringing that kind of arrogance: “We know best what’s good for you. We’re going to do it anyway, whether you like it or not.”

The result is actually uncertainty for business. It’s uncertainty for business because there will be court challenges, and if it comes to it, do we really want to see Ipperwash happening here in northern Ontario? Surely not, but that is exactly what’s being invited right now. We had 80 people from the Far North of Ontario here, and chiefs, saying very directly, “The Ring of Fire will not happen without our consent.” Well, the Premier was not willing to even meet with them. What kind of consent is that?

The first letter I received, going back to April 3, was from Matawa—and by the way, Matawa includes Marten Falls and Webequie. Those are the two First Nations that agreed to have the road. I find it perplexing to hear the Premier say that those two First Nations—that it’s going to be their job to convince everybody else that this is a good deal. First of all, it’s not their responsibility to do that. Secondly, they signed the original letter in opposition to Bill 71. Matawa and Marten Falls signed the letter in opposition, so you cannot expect them to do the work that was asked for, which was to set up—let’s see if I can remember the correct words—a process—I’m sorry, I’ve lost the words now, but a process for negotiating so that companies and First Nations—

Thank you very much for the presentation from the member from Hamilton West, Dundas and Ancaster—not necessarily in that order.

You spoke about motherhood wage penalty, the gap between women’s wages and the average man’s wage doing equivalent work. I wonder if you could talk about a disability penalty. When I think of the social assistance rates that are available for people with disabilities and really how all of that money is always spent locally, and yet it’s not nearly enough for people to live on—if you would address that, I’d appreciate it.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I want to thank Dr. Sally Palmer for this petition. I agree with it wholeheartedly, will sign it and give it to page Akshitha.

Thank you for your presentation. I’m wondering, really, if we were observing the Seven Grandfather Teachings, what it would look like in the decision-making process. We had a decision made today about a mining bill, and it was objected to by the nine First Nations of Matawa, by the Chiefs of Ontario, 131 First Nations, by members of Treaty 9 and Whitesand—

I wonder if we could just have a little imaginative exercise. So the Minister of Northern Development mentioned earlier the idea of possibly having a movable Legislature, which I think is a very interesting thought, especially if we don’t think about the cost or the mechanics, but the idea of it. I wonder if we could think also about language. English and French were made as the official languages of Canada as a colonial state. What if we were able to hear Cree, Oji-Cree, Ojibway, Mohawk? How would things have been different if those languages and thought processes had been part, and is there a way we can incorporate that into our future?

I’m interested to know a little bit about the logistics. It’s an enormous amount of work to plan the future of this building but also an enormous amount of work to plan where we’re going to be in the interim. I’m wondering about where advice will be coming from in terms of the accessibility of both spaces.

I think of how often it happens that a space is not accessible because the right people weren’t asked; they weren’t part of the conversation. I’m thinking of AMO in Ottawa in the fall. When the escalators weren’t working, you couldn’t actually get to the fourth floor. I wonder if you could speak to that.

I thank the member for his presentation. This building has not been welcoming to some groups through its history, and many recognize the foundational colonial and paternalistic history of this place. I’m wondering what ideas the member would suggest for ensuring a more equitable space, working towards a Legislative Building that would be experienced more positively in the future.

This question is to the Premier.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to permanent brain damage due to diesel fuel exposure. With young people beginning skilled trades training as early as grade 11, can the Premier explain to parents why the government has not reduced the diesel exposure limits to the level long recommended by health and safety experts?

Mine workers have been lobbying this for years. In fact, members of the United Steelworkers have stickers on their hard hats recommending it be much reduced from the level that the government has recently moved to. For me, particularly knowing how badly WSIB is serving the interests of injured workers, I can’t imagine how parents will feel.

My question is: Why has the ministry not moved the rate down to the recommended level?

The region of Thunder Bay has at least 45,000 people without access to primary care. Greenstone is losing two doctors at the end of the month, and seniors are being left without access to any care whatsoever.

There are solutions: Further increase enrolment and create a learn-and-stay program for doctors at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. Establish more nurse practitioner-led clinics. Reduce the administrative burden on doctors and create a centralized electronic records and referral system now, not in five years.

Will the government finally invest in the solutions so clearly identified by medical professionals that are not happening now?

I would like to welcome Kevin Goa, a grade 9 student at Forest Hill Collegiate Institute.

Welcome to the Legislature. Thank you for coming.

This morning, in response to questions about the failure of government to share information with the public about the Eglinton Crosstown line, the minister argued basically that haste makes waste. Yet in this bill, in Bill 69, the government can’t wait to override due process, especially in regard to environmental assessments. Now, we know that the government has repeatedly cut short debate and discussion on environmental issues.

So my question is—really, 30 days is a blink in time. What is the problem with leaving that open for public input?

This Friday is the Day of Mourning for workers who have lost their lives through workplace accidents and workplace exposure to deadly chemicals. Unfortunately, this government, by distorting the function of the WSIB, has shown that it is not there for workers: claim suppression, refusing doctors’ assessments, bribery to deny that accidents have taken place, illegal cuts to the cost-of-living allowance, cutting support payments on the basis of fictitious jobs, and the return of billions of dollars to business that should have been available to support the far too many workers forced to live on ODSP because WSIB has denied their claims.

Recently, this government failed to reduce allowable levels of diesel exposure to what scientists have long recommended. Parents beware: Young people are vulnerable to permanent brain damage due to currently allowed rates of diesel exposure, and once harmed, they will have to fight tooth and nail for compensation. It doesn’t have to be this way.

This Friday, attend a Day of Mourning ceremony in your community, pay tribute to those who have died because of their jobs, and demand that the Ford government put the health and well-being of workers first. Nothing less is acceptable.

Well, it’s an amusing question, but thank you. Of course, nobody here has said that we’re opposed to accountability. What I have said is that accountability must go beyond test results; it must include other data. Otherwise, it’s too narrow to make any informed, intelligent judgments.

Frankly, I’m just going to throw it back because it’s nonsensical.

There is already a great deal of accountability built into the system. In addition, at faculties of education, there is constant research taking place about looking to improve how different subject areas are taught. The bottom line is, the money is not there to look after children and give them a fair education.

So a code of conduct is fine. I just don’t see that that’s where the problems lie. The problems lie in lack of funding and class sizes that are too large.

Well, I’d like to put myself in the picture. I have a PhD in education, and I taught future teachers at the faculty of education at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay for about 10, 11 years, until I was elected to my current role as an MPP. Before that, I was a guest artist educator in schools throughout the province, working together with classroom teachers at all grade levels to design creative music projects with students.

Now, this goes back to 1998 and, at that time, all the instruments in elementary schools were broken. There was nothing useful there to use, so I wound up buying and building—using recycled materials—to create enough instruments for the children I was working with in schools. Underfunding was very present then as well.

So my time in schools usually involved 10 half days, sometimes over a week or over two months, in both capacities and working with, together, collaborating with teachers in classrooms and teaching future teachers at the faculty of education. I’ve been witness to the stresses faced by teachers with classrooms with too many students, not enough EAs and the ever-increasing demands on teachers to fulfill the roles of teacher, social worker, mental health worker, all while being blamed for the socio-economic conditions shaping the lives of students, conditions that were completely out of the control of teachers.

I see the minister’s current bill as a grand effort to divert and misdirect. Like a skilled magician, illusion distracts the audience from the reality of what is actually taking place before our eyes. I have many thoughts on what I think the purpose is of various bills in education that have been introduced and the persistent underfunding. I will just add that if we were able to access the mandate letters, perhaps we would know actually what the intent was behind the bills that we see that we have so many concerns about, but the government continues to resist sharing that information publicly. It kind of makes me think, gee, when we want parents to know exactly what’s going on in schools, the people of Ontario also have the right to know how decisions are being made in the Legislature, the people who represent them here, but that is not an option at this moment.

According to this bill, the minister wants people to think that the challenges for students are all about weak board governance or weak teachers, but the reality is quite different. I ask myself, why would the minister create a distraction at this moment in time? Well, this distraction is not all that different from the ones that have preceded it, always with the intention of blaming teachers and now blaming boards for societal stressors that do have an enormous impact on student success.

Now, I’m not saying that teaching and board governance can’t be improved—

Now, I’m not saying that teaching and board governance cannot be improved, but many boards—and I heard a board representative interviewed this morning on my local Thunder Bay radio station—already write annual reviews and reports on their performance and post them publicly. So the requirement to do something that is already happening—again, I’m concerned that this is a distraction and a way of finger pointing to take blame away from, really, the cuts that we have been experiencing to education funding.

So, frankly, when the minister refers to working with experts but has not in fact met with boards, met with teachers’ unions, met with many people who actually do the work, I’m concerned that it’s not a full picture that we are seeing. And I really ask myself, why would he not take the time to have conversations with people working on the front lines?

We do know this minister was never a student in a public school and, I warrant, has very little idea of the realities of teaching, let alone teaching in classrooms with too many students and trying to integrate all students, whatever their needs, without enough EAs, social workers, mental health workers to support the students and, frankly, to support the teachers and other staff.

We know that there was funding for COVID that the federal government provided. Many schools had to actually put up the money to address the COVID situation in their schools, pay for PPE and so on, and that money has not been returned to the schools. The government has chosen not to give that money to the schools, so that’s already put them in a shortfall position. I do want to note also that it’s interesting that private schools had access to PPE when public schools did not.

So, I’m just going to—I have a lot of different things here. But I recall—really, I do have a long memory, especially about things to do with education and health care. I remember when the Mike Harris government started the attack on teachers; I remember it as if it were yesterday. John Snobelen’s advice to the Premier of the time: Create a crisis, and then you can impose basically whatever you want, any kind of solution that you want.

When the Ford government came into power, one of the first things they did was propose cutting staff, including over 10,000 teachers, arguing perversely that it would build children’s resilience—

Again, there is a risk of imputing motive, so I will try to be careful here. I am concerned, as always, that there is a lot of money to be made by privatizing education. My concern is that as schools are underfunded and as there is finger pointing, then it creates an opportunity, really, for privatization. It creates an appetite for it. That concerns me.

I want to tell you a little bit about my nephew. He was a very active boy, but he was also oppositional. He was not doing well at home or at his public school. Luckily for him, his parents had the money to send him to a private school, where there were only 15 students in the class. Not surprisingly, happily, he really thrived in a small setting because he was able to get one-on-one attention, much more attention from the teacher than in the classrooms where I’ve been a visitor where we’re dealing with 25 to 35 students—very, very different situation.

My nephew has grown into a very lovely, smart, confident man, and I really wish that all young people could have that advantage of being in small classrooms and really having the attention of teachers.

Again, I feel that the bill really points at boards as if boards were the source of a fundamental problem, and I just don’t buy it. I want to talk a little bit—the Associate Minister of Transportation expressed earlier a lot of frustration about board decisions and the impacts of those decisions on what kind of programming is available. Yes, ministries don’t determine programming, but budgets do.

I’m just going to take us on a little bit of a journey. In my teaching at the faculty of education, particularly during COVID, from one year, we went to having 22 students in an online class. I was teaching music in this case—incredibly difficult to do in an online context, but that was the situation.

But the second year, our class sizes were doubled. My initial response was to be angry, of course. We’re being paid the same money, we’re expected to educate the next generation of teachers, and yet it’s extremely difficult to do.

But why did this happen? What could I say? I could go to my dean and my chair and say, “This is incredibly difficult,” but the reality is they got a budget. That budget was limited, so they were forced to work within that budget and make their decisions on that basis.

That is exactly what boards have to do. They’re given a budget. They have to make a decision. It’s not going to be the decision that everybody wants because the money isn’t there. There isn’t enough money.

Really, instead of providing schools with the dollars they need to have reasonable class sizes with good resources, we see this government claiming to be spending what they describe as historic amounts of money. But we know, in fact, that the dollar amounts do not come close to matching the rate of inflation. In fact, inflation-adjusted school funding is down about $1,200 per student since the Ford government came to power.

In addition, we also know that thousands of children with autism are being moved into regular classrooms without any transition planning and without the needed supports in classrooms. There will inevitably be a crisis in classrooms if the supports are not there to support these children. You cannot be a teacher alone in a classroom, even with an EA, and have many students who really need special attention. You can’t do it. It’s not physically possible, and it is a recipe for failure.

I really question why teachers and boards are being blamed for things that are really outside of their control.

I’m going to go back a bit in time. In 2000—that’s when I first started teaching at the faculty of education—I witnessed math and literacy get the lion’s share of instructional hours relative to every other subject area. When the province went to a two-year teacher education system, math and literacy got an even higher percentage of instructional hours while other subject areas, such as phys ed, music, drama, social studies, shrunk to the smallest possible unit of instructional time.

My point is that math and literacy are already the primary focus of faculties of education, existing teachers, as well as teachers in training. There can always be improvements, but rather, not only do we have to look at class sizes, you also actually have to look at the capacities of specific children to learn easily. I’m very, very concerned with the 100% emphasis on math and language skills, that far too many children are going to be shamed into seeing themselves as failures. Frankly, not succeeding in math and literacy is nothing to be ashamed of. Children need to be able to celebrate the gifts that they bring, and teachers need to be able to support the development of those children, whatever skills and gifts they have.

I think of the many children I have met who have fetal alcohol syndrome. These children have different degrees of what is currently understood to be permanent brain damage. These kids are in school. I’m very close to some who are now adults. They can learn and grow in schools, but to demand that they need an arbitrary level of math and literacy competence is not only unrealistic, it’s frankly cruel. No one should set arbitrary limits on what a child can accomplish, but likewise, no one should impose arbitrary expectations on children whose gifts may lie elsewhere.

To punish and shame schools, teachers, boards and students because they have a higher percentage of children with significant challenges is the worst possible model of education, and because the government keeps going down this road of forcing everyone to teach to the test, and because teachers and schools are evaluated on the basis of test results, it’s in the interests of schools to actually discourage the attendance of children who may not have the capacity to do well on these tests. Should this happen? Is it against the rules? Sort of, sort of not. There is wiggle room—and frankly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s allowed or not, because it happens, and I know it happens. It happens because there is so much emphasis on jumping through the testing hoops, there is an incentive to attract the students who are easiest to teach and discourage those who are more of a challenge. This is human nature: If you are going to punish me and my school for something that is out of my control, I will use whatever tools I have to protect myself.

All students deserve the opportunity to develop to their fullest capacity, and that includes students with the widest possible range of attributes. In order to meet all students’ needs, however, the funding and staff need to be in place to support every student, and that is far from the case with the funding model being used by this government. Instead of being honest about what students, teachers and boards actually face in their individual communities, this bill blames boards, teachers and administrators for conditions created, really, by anti-public-education, anti-teacher and now anti-board policies.

I’ve just got a couple of minutes. I did hear one of the members talking about trying to have ideological unanimity across boards throughout Ontario. I’m thinking about—I’ve taught in Catholic boards, I’ve taught in public boards, I’ve taught in First Nations boards. They’re not all ideologically lining up to one viewpoint. What they do all share is putting students first, putting the well-being of students first, and that has to look different depending on where you are, what students you have in your space. Teachers do understand that. I believe boards understand that, and recommending and really enforcing a cookie-cutter view of what boards must think and do and prioritize actually underserves the students.

Yes, of course, they need to know what their responsibilities are, like any board position. Anything that we take on—if you do a volunteer position somewhere, you want to know exactly what your responsibilities are. I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the notion that all boards must think alike and have exactly the same results, because children and communities are different. Some communities, certainly in my region, have very, very significant challenges, and those students need to be supported, cared for, loved, encouraged and not shamed for not being the math geniuses or the language geniuses.

I have a nephew right now who is the loveliest young man. He’s 10. He’s not going to do well in math and he’s very, very slow with language. That’s the reality. Should he be punished? I don’t think so.

I really think that the bottom line is that schools need money. They need more money than has been given. Schools have actually experienced significant cuts since the Ford government came into office, and that has resulted in crises in our schools, classrooms that are too big to manage and many, many students who need a lot of additional help. The money is not there to provide those supports.

I’d like to thank you, Speaker, for your tolerance and for the ability to speak here.