role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 30, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Apr-30 (PDF)

L098 - Tue 30 Apr 2019 / Mar 30 avr 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 30 April 2019 Mardi 30 avril 2019

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of hockey jersey

Wearing of pins

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Education funding

Public health

Health care funding

School bus safety

Disaster relief

Highway improvement

Public health

Consumer protection

Privatization of public assets

Library services

Endangered species

Education funding

Science North

Tree planting

Northern economy

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Education funding

Public Heroes Awards

Daphne Clarke

Hydro rates

Ministry hiring

William Winegard

Armenian genocide anniversary

Health care

Doctors’ Day

Attacks in Sri Lanka

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Semaine de sensibilisation au génocide des Tamouls

Petitions

Autism treatment

Homeopathy

Education funding

Environmental protection

Affordable housing

Highway tolls

Education funding

Long-term care

School facilities

Injured workers

Long-term care

Long-term care

Visitor

Annual report, Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth

Orders of the Day

2019 Ontario budget

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Hon. Laurie Scott: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 100,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 7, 2019, and Wednesday, May 8, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 100:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on Thursday, May 2, 2019; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee and their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 6 p.m. on Thursday, May 2, 2019; and

—That each member of the subcommittee or their designate provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk, by 9 a.m. on Friday, May 3, 2019; and

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation, followed by 10 minutes divided equally amongst the recognized parties for questioning; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, May 9, 2019; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 10 a.m. on Friday, May 10, 2019; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall be authorized to meet on Monday, May 13, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. and Tuesday, May 14, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, May 15, 2019. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That notwithstanding standing order 81(c), the bill may be called for third reading more than once in the same sessional day; and

That in the event of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 20 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Ms. Scott has moved government notice of motion 36. We’ll return now to the government side to kick off the debate. I recognize the member for Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was kind of anxious to get up because I don’t know how many times I’ve prepared remarks in the past and I’ve always spoken at the end and ran out of time, so I was pretty near going to get up ahead of the minister there, but now I’m up.

Mr. Paul Calandra: You’re not going to run out of time today, Bob.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes.

It’s an honour to rise today and add my comments on Bill 100, Protecting What Matters Most Act, 2019. I will be splitting my time with the member from Kitchener–Conestoga this morning.

Like I said, it’s an honour to stand here in the House today and speak in favour of Bill 100. This is the first time in 12 years, as the member of provincial Parliament for Sarnia–Lambton, that I will be supporting a provincial budget, as, in the past, I’ve always been in opposition, so it’s kind of nice to be able to vote yes for a budget. I really like this budget, and I know my constituents in Sarnia–Lambton have been waiting a long time for me to do this.

They’ve been waiting for a government like this Ontario PC government that would take a responsible approach to balancing the budget and restoring confidence in Ontario’s finances.

Whereas the previous government refused to do what was necessary to protect Ontario’s most valued public programs like health care and education, we will restore trust and sustainability in our province’s finances for generations to come, and we’ll do it while providing real relief for families and businesses in this province.

I would like to commend the Minister of Finance, the member from Nipissing, and all my colleagues in the government caucus who participated in the budget process, and there were many. Together, our caucus has delivered a document that makes smart, long-term decisions, reinventing the way the Ontario government delivers its services. We’re focusing provincial resources on the individuals and families in the greatest need. We’re restoring trust, transparency and accountability, and balancing the budget in a reasonable manner. It’s a new day in Ontario.

I’ve said for many years, and I’ve said it repeatedly during every campaign I ran for election, that the biggest threat to Ontario’s public services that people of Ontario and Sarnia–Lambton have come to expect and depend upon is the suffocating debt that our province is and was accumulating. Those spending habits of the previous government, supported by the opposition NDP caucus many times, were completely unsustainable, leaving behind a $15-billion deficit, while still somehow managing to starve programs and services across the province. It is the epitome of mismanagement by the former government.

I’m proud to be a member of this side of the House, that is now going to fix this mess that was been left behind for us and our children.

Our plan will balance the budget in five years while protecting what matters most: health care, education and our core public services. Despite the fearmongering from the opposition and the press, we’re investing in the programs and services that matter most. I probably shouldn’t have said that about the press, but what the heck.

The health care budget increases by $1.3 billion a year this year with $384 million more for hospitals and $267 million added to home care. Hallway health care is the most serious challenge facing our hospitals and our constituents today. We also know that the wait-list for a bed in a long-term-care home is too long, and this creates added pressure to the system. These historic investments make crystal clear our government’s commitment to protect what matters most to Ontarians, including our public health care system.

In addition, we are investing $90 million in a new low-income seniors dental plan, something I heard a lot about over the years and in my office. This is something I’ve heard a lot about, and I’m incredibly proud to say that our government is moving forward and providing low-income seniors access to quality dental care through a new publicly funded dental care program that will begin later this summer. Together, we are creating a connected system of care where every Ontarian is truly supported throughout their entire health care journey.

I want to once again commend the Minister of Health, Christine Elliott, for the work she has done on the health care file. I can’t imagine a person more perfectly suited to handle the transformation of health care in Ontario than the member for Newmarket–Aurora.

As a government, we are also making historic investments in education in our first budget. The education budget increases by some $700 million this year alone. And we are investing $13 billion over 10 years in capital improvements, $1.4 billion this year alone. As well, we are investing $1 billion to build 30,000 child care spaces in our schools.

We have taken great care to build a sustainable education plan, despite what our opponents often claim. The Minister of Education continues to get an A+ on her file for the work she is doing. I am particularly interested in the updated curriculum that will see the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities working together to introduce more young learners and students to careers in the skilled trades.

Mr. Speaker, for those who don’t know, in my riding of Sarnia–Lambton there is a large presence of skilled trades workers, some 5,500 plus, because of the petrochemical and biorefining sector. We’re right now making a major investment in Nova Chemicals of over $2 billion, which is going to employ a massive amount of men and women for the next three years, until about 2021-22. I really applaud the work on the skilled trades.

I continue to hear from skilled trades employers who say they regularly have to turn away work because they can’t find the people they need to put on job sites. These are high-paying, highly skilled jobs. In fact, I met with one of the big sectors in Sarnia just a week ago—it’s just come back to me now. I was with the Ministry of Infrastructure. One gentleman said he has 85 employees right now in the construction sector, and he said, “I could use another 20 tomorrow.” He says, “I have to turn work away because I don’t have enough employees to be able to do the work.”

The sooner we can show young people that, as a master electrician, a labourer, a pipefitter, a carpenter or a crane operator, they can build a great career, the better off we are going to be as a province. How many kids are defaulting to attend university because that’s what their parents did, or that’s where they think they have to go in order to find a job after graduation? I’m excited that the Minister of Education has included this emphasis on the skilled trades in her plan, and through this budget we are going to make that happen. This is certainly something I hope the members of the opposition will support.

I think that if the members of the opposition took the time to really look through the budget documents with their constituents, they would find that a lot of folks agree with many of the ideas and the reasonable approach that we have taken as a government. There are so many important pieces of Bill 100 where, as a government, we show how we are going to lead this great province back to its traditional spot as the leader of economic growth and opportunity in our country. We are putting the people of Ontario, and the people of Sarnia–Lambton, back at the centre of every decision that we make.

We are creating the environment to create jobs. We’re providing relief to families, individuals and businesses, and we’re looking out for seniors and students alike. And we’re building a sustainable future, with a reasonable approach to the province’s finances that protects the jobs of front-line staff delivering those critical services. This budget will benefit people in every corner of this province, not just those in urban centres.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Bill 100, the Protecting What Matters Most Act, shows exactly how this government is restoring trust, accountability and transparency to our provincial government. I, for one, am excited at this time to be able to cast a vote in support of this budget bill, the first in 12 years that I’m voting for.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House, for the opportunity to add my comments. I look forward to hearing further debate on Bill 100.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve got to say, I am not happy to yet again be debating another time allocation motion. I remember, as you do, Mr. Speaker, and others who were here in the previous Parliaments, that the Conservatives were consistent in their opposition to time allocation. When you listened to the Conservatives when they were the official opposition here, they would get up and, rightfully so, chastise the Liberal government for an overuse of time allocation. If it happens every now and then on a bill that is seized by the House that just can’t be let go, maybe you could make an argument.

But that you’re going to time-allocate each and every bill that comes through the House, and pretend that you’re a government of the people and it’s all about making sure you do things for people back home is a little bit rich.

Time allocation is a very blunt tool. It’s a tool, at the end, that is a disservice to the people of Ontario and a disservice to democracy. Our parliamentary system, as imperfect as it is, has a really great part to it, and that is the committee process; so that a bill, once it’s out of the second reading portion of the House, which is normally after seven to 10 hours, let’s say, on average, ends up going into committee, and we have an opportunity there to travel the bill so that people get to hear what the government is trying to do.

We listen to what the public has to say, and then we amend the bill based on that comment, so that we can actually have a bill that is strengthened and that works for the people of Ontario.

That’s not what is going to happen here, Mr. Speaker. The time allocation motion is essentially the same as every one this government has done. The anti-democratic Ford government is coming forward with yet another time allocation motion that is going to give us two days of public hearings here in Toronto. Now, I have nothing against the city of Toronto—I think this is the best city in the world—but, you know, there are other municipalities in Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t know if the government has woken up to that fact, but there are communities like Windsor, like Cornwall, like Ottawa, like Thunder Bay and a whole bunch of other communities that are out there that would like to be part of a process by which you deal with the budget, because the budget will affect everybody.

If you’re a municipal “partner,” as the government likes to make them out to be, you may want to say something about this bill. I was at an event on the weekend with one of our local elected officials, who, I’ve got to say, is a very identified Conservative, not somebody that is known to be a New Democrat—known to be a Conservative—and who is mad as heck at this government for the way they’re handling things through this budget. Imagine the municipality: They’ve made their budget. They drafted their budget; they decided what they are going to do when it comes to expense and revenue for the entire year.

And then the government, through this budget process, announces that they’re going to download a bunch of services onto the municipality as a result of decisions they made in this budget.

The big one is obviously public health. As we know, a large part of public health is 100% paid by the province, which is going to be downloaded to municipalities like mine in Timmins to 70%. Those programs that were 75% are going to be lowered to 70%. Well, that means to say the municipality has got to pick up the bill, and that means ratepayers are going to have to pay more on their house taxes as a result of this download.

Well, I’ve got to tell you, if there’s one tax that people are really upset about in the city of Timmins—and I would think it’s the same in a bunch of other communities—it’s about how much we pay on property tax. This government, which purports itself to be the government of the people, is downloading costs onto a municipality, which is going to lead to increased property taxes or a reduction of service at the public health unit, such as water testing, or maybe a combination of both.

Those are the decisions the public health unit board is going to have to make, and those are the decisions that municipalities are going to have to make. Essentially, the Ford government is not only downloading the financial cost to the municipalities; they’re going to be downloading, quite frankly, the blame for the cuts that are going to happen as a result of what’s done around public health. That is not right.

So that’s one of the reasons that you have to be able to travel. You’ve got to be able to take your budget bill and travel it around Ontario so that municipal partners, in this case, can have their say.

What about the famous gas tax? You’ll remember how my good friend the Minister of Natural Resources would stand in the House time and time and time again and talk about how we had to properly deal with the gas tax so that municipalities other than the large municipalities are able to get their fair share. Well, we’ve gone in completely the wrong direction.

The government has not only not done what the current Minister of Natural Resources has advocated for for years—and with how many bills that he’s introduced in the House?—but they’re actually reducing the gas tax that municipalities get, which means to say they’re going to have less money for transit and other things. So they’ve gone in the opposite direction to what they had indicated they would do prior to the election, when they were in opposition.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Twist, twist, twist.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, you reduced it. It’s a wonderful thing about this Liberal government—same thing. Tory government, Liberal government: no difference. It’s really interesting. Do you know the story, Mr. Speaker? The mother walks into the bathroom and she sees the little boy who plugged up the toilet with a roll of toilet paper. The water is bubbling out of it, and the little boy stands by the bathroom and he says, “It wasn’t me, Mom. It wasn’t me.” Well, that’s what these guys are like. Every time they make a decision around cuts to education or cuts to municipalities, they stand there and say, “It wasn’t me. It wasn’t me.”

Well, it is you. You’re the majority government. You have put forward a budget. You have made decisions. And now people are having to feel the full impact of those decisions. At least own it up. Try not to deflect by denying what you have actually done. It’s in black and white. It’s in the budget bill. It’s in black and white; it’s in press releases that the government has put forward.

The government can try to deny its actions all it wants, and I think that speaks to why they’re not travelling their budget bill. They’re not travelling their budget bill because they know there are people in this province, in their own constituencies and within their own party base, who are upset and are going to say, “Listen, we don’t disagree with some of the direction the government is going.” We’ll say it’s some Conservatives, because I hear that from my Conservative friends in the city of Timmins, because we have Tories in Timmins, like there are anywhere else, and New Democrats and Liberals.

But they’re going to say that what you guys are doing, quite frankly—you’re doing it very ineptly, and you’re doing it in a way that it’s actually going to be worse, not better, for the people of Ontario.

What about all of those parents with children with autism? You think that the people across Ontario wouldn’t like to have a say about this provincial budget that radically transforms how we deliver autism services in this province? People would like to be able to come to committee in communities across this province. In fact, people came to Toronto yesterday from across Ontario at their own expense to just try to change the government’s mind, because they’re looking at what this means to their kids.

I was talking to Theresa Beasley yesterday—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, come to order, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Here is a really interesting comment by the Minister of Community and Social Services. She used to stand on this side of the House—I think she sat around here, if I remember correctly—and she used to ridicule the government for creating websites as a way of being able to consult the people of Ontario. She used to stand up and rail at them, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services has raised a point of order.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’m going to inquire and look into Hansard for the past 13 years where I’ve actually ridiculed the government for consulting people. I think it was the lack of consultation. Maybe, perhaps, he’d like to correct his record or provide me with the information.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I return to the member from Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: We’re back to the analogy of the little kid and the toilet again: “Not me. I didn’t do it.” Listen, you stood in this House as the opposition critic, and every time the government created a website that said, “Oh, we’re going to consult you; come to our website,” you got up and you railed and laughed at them, and rightfully so.

We have a legislative committee process that allows people to come before the committee, which we can travel across this province, who are going to have their comments said in front of elected MPPs, registered in Hansard and have to be taken into account. Why is it that the government is not doing that? I think because they understand full well that this is not a very popular budget. There are going to be people across Ontario who are going to have some pretty big problems with this budget who want to speak to it.

Chief medical officers of health across this province, I think, are going to want to say something about this budget. Parents with children with autism are going to want to say something about this budget. Mayors and municipalities are going to want to say something about this budget.

Even the chamber of commerce, which is normally pretty friendly with the Conservatives, is criticizing this government for some of the initiatives they have in the budget. I saw last week, Speaker, as we all did—or maybe two weeks ago—the Ontario Chamber of Commerce put out a press release and said they’ve got to stop doing this sticker campaign that they’re planning to do at gas stations, because it’s a waste of money, and their membership, who has to put these stickers on, aren’t happy, because they see this as the government trying to play politics rather than the government trying to govern.

There’s a real problem with the price of gas, I think we’ll agree on both sides of the House. Hey, Mr. Speaker, in Timmins, less than a month and a half ago, the price of gas was around 95 cents a litre, when the price of a barrel is essentially what it is today. Today the price of gas is $1.45. All right, you can argue, “Well, that’s because of Mr. Trudeau’s carbon tax that was forced on us because the Ford government cancelled cap-and-trade.” So let’s be clear: We’re paying the carbon tax because Ford cancelled cap-and-trade—fair enough. That’s 4.4 cents. You can criticize Ford and Trudeau for the 4.4 cents.

Fair enough; I don’t have a problem with that. But the price of gas went up about 50 cents. What happened to the rest? The price of oil is the same.

The government’s response is not to try to rein in the gas companies and the refiners in order to get their prices under control. Their response is, “Let us help Mr. Scheer, at the federal level, get elected by waging a campaign against the federal government and wasting all of our time by putting stickers on gas pumps instead of dealing with the real problem,” and the real problem is gas companies are gouging you at the pump. It’s as simple as that. If you don’t like it, do something about it.

At least call the guys in and say, “Listen, either you stop doing this or else we will call the NDP gas regulation bill,” or draft your own and actually put these people under some sort of regulation so that we are not constantly being gouged at the pumps.

So people need to be heard, and this government has a time allocation motion that says, “We are going to have two days of hearings in the centre here in Toronto.” If you live in Elliot Lake, if you live in Niagara, if you live in Ottawa, if you live in Timmins or Moosonee or wherever it might be, either you’ve got to fly down here or drive down here on your own, because you can’t take a train from northern Ontario; that was cancelled under the Liberals. But, yet again, you have to come to Toronto to be heard.

Well, this Parliament is the Parliament of Ontario, and you would think that the people of Ontario would have fair access to their government. But this government has decided yet again not to travel the bill and give it the amount of time that it needs.

Now, they’re not heckling this, but I was expecting this heckle: “Oh, you guys are not any different.” Yes, we are. I was part of a government in 1990 who had a budget bill that was controversial, our very first budget in 1991. As a matter of fact, the former member and later Premier, Mike Harris, read names of lakes into the record and did different dilatorious things, as was his right—and I’m not arguing that he didn’t have a right to do this—as a means of putting pressure on the government to travel the budget bill.

We were going to travel the budget bill anyway, but we decided to extend the number of days for that bill to travel. We travelled that bill across Ontario. I think there were about two weeks of hearings here in Toronto, and there were three weeks of hearings on the road. We went to Ottawa, we went to Sudbury, we went to London and we went to Windsor. We went to different places around Ontario to hear what the people had to say, listen to what they had to say, amend the bill as per what we thought needed to be amended based on those comments—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Government members in the northeast corner, come to order, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Finally, the bill was passed at third reading.

Well, what is the government afraid of? Are they afraid that (

a) they don’t want the people to be able to get access—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’m sorry, member, I have to interrupt and ask the government members who are occupying the seats in the northeast corner this morning to come to order so I can hear the member from Timmins. Thank you.

Member from Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The northeast corner of Ontario is where I come from, so I don’t know what that was all about. I know what you’re talking about. Just teasing, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

My point is, it’s either (

a) this government doesn’t want to travel the bill because they know, politically, they’re going to get a bit of a rough ride from a number of different organizations, groups and individuals out there about the bill. There are going to be some people who are going to come and say nice things about it, I don’t doubt, but I think the vast majority are going to be opposed and say things the government doesn’t want to hear.

So it’s either (

a) they don’t want to go through the exercise because they don’t want to listen to what people have to say, because they’re fearful that it might hurt them politically, right? That could be one of the reasons that they’re not doing it. It could be (

b) they really don’t believe in democracy. I think you can decide that one for yourself, right?

So I say to them: What do you have to lose? You’re a government with a majority. You have three and a half years—or a little bit less than that now; three and a quarter years left—to govern in your mandate, and you have an opportunity to do what’s right and make sure that people are heard. That’s what this place is all about.

Now, we wonder why people in Ontario—and across Canada, I would argue, as well—have a low regard for politics, government and politicians. This is one of the reasons why. You have to be in touch and in contact with the public. We know that on a local level.

There’s not a member in this assembly who doesn’t understand that if you don’t go home and you don’t talk to your constituents and you don’t interact with them, you’re not going to get re-elected. There’s not a member in this House that doesn’t understand that. Members on both sides of the House try to do the best job they can with that, because we understand we’re here to serve and we have to answer to those people who elected us. This is not me saying the Tories don’t do it. They do it; I do it; the independent members do it—because we understand that’s what our job is.

The job goes beyond just us as individual MPPs going out there and talking to our constituents. The job is also for this Legislature and the government to do the same, and not for the government to say, “Oh, we’ve got yet another consultation process, the www.ImNotGoingToReadYourEmail.ca kind of a process.” Right? Because that’s essentially what it’s at—or it’s www.IveAlreadyMadeUpMyMindButImGoingThroughTheExercise.ca. Right?

Put the committee out so that the committee can actually do what it’s meant to do. If we, as individual members, understand in our constituencies that we have to get out and talk to our electors, we, as government and as members, should understand that we have that obligation as well. That’s what committees are all about. This government is very reluctant to do that because they’ve made a number of decisions around this budget that, quite frankly, are not very popular.

I listened to the previous member from Sarnia get up and talk about what he liked in the budget. One of the things that he said through his comments was, “We have this big deficit because the NDP supported the Liberal government.” Did anybody notice last time that there was a majority government? Did I walk through the last four-year term? Was there a minority Parliament then, or was that a majority?

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: It was a majority.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It was a majority. And a majority government—I just want to understand. I’m not really good with the rules, guys; I don’t understand the rules of this place at all. But when there’s a majority government, they kind of get to do what they want to do. Is that how it works?

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, that’s what a majority is.

The idea is, if all of a sudden the NDP—which was not even the official opposition; we were the third party—somehow or other were supporting a majority government in enabling them to pass legislation, either the government did not account for its own majority and didn’t show up for the votes or these guys, again, are just making it up. That’s the reality.

If you go back and look at the voting record—here’s the part that they don’t like—every party in opposition at times does vote for a government. In fact, in the last Parliament, 53% of the time the Conservatives supported the government.

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, I got that wrong. Excuse me.

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Excuse me. No, no. I got it wrong. Let me correct—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They’re having fun over there.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Order, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: In the last Parliament—I just had the number backwards—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member from Whitby, come to order please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —the Conservatives supported the government 49% of the time, and we supported the government 53% of the time, so virtually—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’m trying to listen, and I’m trying not to laugh. The member from Timmins is doing a good job at aggravating the government members, but the government members aren’t doing such a good job of listening so they can reply.

I know the member from Kitchener–Conestoga is anxiously waiting to get his 10 minutes in, but if he keeps up the agitation, he won’t be here to do his 10 minutes.

I’m just letting you know that we’re getting to the point where we’re back in kindergarten, and that’s not where we should be. I’m asking all members from both sides to come to order. Let the member from Timmins conclude and then we’ll get back into a fulsome debate, as we’re hearing now. Thank you.

I return to the member from Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: So in the last Parliament, because there was a majority, the government virtually got to do what it wanted. This is exactly what’s happening now. The Conservatives got a majority; they get to do what they want. There are going to be times—and we have voted with the Conservative government on certain bills because sometimes you get things right. When you get things right, it’s the job of the opposition to say, “Okay, fine enough. We’ll support it.” We’ve supported the government on a couple of bills.

I will argue the percentage is pretty off from the last time. It’s maybe 5% of the time we’ve voted with the government, because most of what they’ve done, we don’t agree with. But my point is, even the Conservatives, in opposition, under three different leaders—Patrick Brown—no, more than that; it was under Patrick Brown, under Mr. Fedeli, and under Hudak, just before that—voted half of the time, essentially, to support the Liberal government, because there were times that the Liberals did something that the government agreed with, and there were times they didn’t. That’s what an opposition party does. Sometimes they vote with the government; sometimes they don’t.

The government’s job, by rule of this House, is to propose, and our job, as they say, is to oppose but to offer criticism, and that comes by way of amendment in committee. So, when a government says, “We’re going to chop off the part of the political process or the parliamentary process which is committee,” which allows not only the public to come forward but the opposition parties and the government members to put forward amendments on the legislation, the system breaks down.

And you wonder why the public is, quite frankly, disconnected from politics? I think that’s what the right wing wants. The more that people hate government, the better it is for them, because they don’t believe in government. It’s pretty clear. Conservatives, if there was no government, would be happy. If we could go back to the Dark Ages, if we went back to that time, I think these guys would be pretty happy, because they’re always talking about going back to the good old days. What people should realize is, they’re talking about the Dark Ages. They’re not talking about a few years ago.

The thing is, the government, I think, is very happy not having the public to present before committee, for a whole bunch of reasons. They know that there are people upset with the budget. Quite frankly, they don’t want to listen. They’re just going to do what they want to do. That’s pretty clear; that’s why they’re time-allocating. In the end, they don’t care if people don’t have confidence in the political process, because that serves their aim. The more that people are mad at government and tune out and don’t pay attention, the more they can get away with what they’re doing.

Well, I tend to disagree. I believe that government can be a solution to many of the problems that our society is faced with.

For example, I started telling this story earlier. Theresa Beasley was here yesterday with her daughter, Julie, out on the front lawn. Her son is now 21 or 22 years old. He had autism from the time he was born, but he never got in the system, and he was on the severe side of the spectrum. He now has to live in a group home. He cannot function on his own. He cannot be left alone, and he can’t stay at home because of the severity of his autism.

We’re now spending far more money to maintain this young man—and rightfully; we need to. We can’t put this young man out on the street. We’re paying far more money to deal with the outcome of not dealing with his autism issues when he was younger. Unfortunately, he was born at a time when we didn’t know as much about autism as now. IBI therapy was just starting, and the system never really got put into place until he was—you know, he was probably in his very early teens when everything started to get going, so he kind of missed the window.

But saying today that we’re going to essentially privatize autism services as a way to solve the problem—you may save yourselves some money up front; there’s no question. The government says, “Oh, but we’re spending more.” No, it’s the way you play with the numbers. You say, “We’re going to spend more,” but what you’re going to do is give less to every individual parent, so they’ll never be able to get the service they want.

Because it’s a privatized system where you get the $20,000 or the $5,000 to bring your child to an IBI therapist, or whatever it might be, you will not be able to find them, because there will no longer be an organized system by which we do the proper assessments and we match the child with the service they need. That’s a big problem.

I met with an organization last week in my riding about this particular issue. What’s clear—and I knew this going in, but they confirmed it—is that part of what’s going to happen as of April 1 and then six months from now, when this temporary hold has been put in place, is that we’re going to lose the coordination part of what they do. That means that parents are on their own. They’re having to go out and figure out, with their $5,000 or $20,000 or somewhere in between, what it is they can purchase for their child.

Is the parent in a position to make that decision? Because it’s a very complex issue. I have a granddaughter, Eva, who is four years old now, who is both developmentally and physically delayed. Her mom’s a psychologist, her father’s a mental health worker, and they’re pretty qualified to be dealing with issues around taking care of children with special needs. Even they find it hard to make some of the decisions they have to make with the Passport funding because, as you know, the Liberals did to adult services and children’s services exactly what you’re doing with autism.

You essentially took the Liberal plan and made it yours, because it was the Liberal government who created the Passport Program. What’s the Passport Program? It’s essentially your autism program. The parent gets an allocation, the parent sends the bill to the DSO and the DSO pays for the private service that you went out and purchased. It’s kind of the same thing that’s going to happen with autism.

But here’s the problem: First of all, a lot of parents are ill-prepared to understand what it is they need to provide to their child. All they know is their child needs help. Number two, because you can’t get the IBI therapy—if, let’s say, that’s what you need—which will cost you $60,000, then maybe all you’re going to get is a little bit of service around respite care and a few other things in order to give you a break. But you’re not going to deal with the issue, and you’re going to end up with a child who’s not going to get the needed attention that they have to get at an early age to deal with their autism.

We had a meeting on autism with parents in Timmins about three or four weeks ago, with Monique Taylor, our critic, who just happened to be there, because we were doing different things. One of the things that happened there was a story we’ve seen in all of our ridings: A mother shows up with two young boys, about nine or 10 years old, perfectly coping with what was going on. You know, they were engaged, they were quiet, they were doing what every little boy at nine and 10 years old does. These children were at the extreme of the autism spectrum about five years ago.

But because they got IBI therapy and eventually ABA, they are now functioning in the community and in the household like every other nine- and 10-year-old child.

That saved us money. Yes, it cost $60,000 per child for a couple of years—and in this case, probably a quarter of a million dollars—but imagine how much money we’re saving in the end when these children are able to function on their own and become meaningful contributors to our society and to the economy. But even more important, imagine what this means in human price.

All the government is doing—that’s why I always like saying this old saying: “Liberal, Tory, same old story.” Unfortunately for me, as a New Democrat, what we end up doing—

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: That’s original.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, you guys are anything but original.

But anyway, the point I would make is that unfortunately, as New Democrats, what we see happen in this province is that people get mad at the Liberals, so they vote Tory. Then they get mad at the Tories and they vote Liberal, and they do that back and forth, and we end up with the same result, and we wonder why.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Because you guys follow the same policies. You took the Liberal Passport solution—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Excuse me. I’m sorry to interrupt the member from Timmins again.

The member from Markham–Stouffville would perhaps like to choose a seat and sit down instead of standing at the back and making his voice heard over the person who has the floor. Thank you very much.

If the government members could limit their conversations—if they feel they need to carry on conversation, there’s always a lobby. You could go out and raise your voice as loud as you want.

We’ll return to the member from Timmins, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: As I was saying, all the Conservatives have done in this case is they’ve taken the Liberal solution to child and adult services, applied the Passport model, which is private funding to private deliverers, and did it to autism. That’s what they’ve done. Even more so, if you look at the Liberal government’s response to autism in British Columbia when they were in office, it’s essentially the same thing, and the same amount of money, even. All we’re doing is that we’re using the same policy and we’re exchanging the title: Liberal, Tory, Liberal, Tory—the same thing all the time.

We need to do something different. That’s why we, as New Democrats, work hard in order to try to get people to understand that there is another option out there.

I guess where I

part company with the government, along with my colleagues—and of course, the government and the Liberals are kind of in the same pot—is that I do believe that you can use government for good. Should government be doing everything? Absolutely not. Government shouldn’t be running private businesses. They have no business doing that. But we do have the right to make sure that when they run those businesses, they take due regard to the environment, and they take due regard to workers and the communities they operate in.

We don’t have to be heavy-handed about it, but there are some basic rules, and good businesses understand that. If you talk to people in the mining industry—as my good friends from northern Ontario would know, the mining industry is actually somewhat fearful of this government, as to what they’re going to do around the environment and a couple of other items.

Mr. Daryl Kramp: Oh.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You guys have no idea.

They’re sitting there going, “Oh. They’re business, so they automatically like us.” No. They understand they live in an international world, and they have to be able to sell their products and sell their companies by way of investments in a way that looks and shows them to be a responsible corporation to the jurisdiction they’re operating in.

I’ll tell you what could happen. If you follow the logic of the government where they say, “Get government off my back,” you’ll have happen what happened in South America, where the tailings dam—was it in Brazil?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Yup.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The tailings dam ruptured in Brazil because of poor regulation on how you handle effluent from the mill, and it killed how many people? Like, people died. The environment is like—it’s just one big environmental and human tragedy.

That doesn’t happen in Ontario because we have rules which companies follow so that they’re able to operate safely. When you talk to the Lake Shores of this world, when you talk to the Vales of this world, and others, Glencore and Placer Dome—well, not Placer Dome anymore, but Goldcorp—they understand that they have a responsibility to the community they operate in.

In the city of Timmins, Goldcorp built an open pit in the middle of the city, all right? Nobody has really heard about this. Why? Because it’s not perfect, but the company went through an entire process, because of the laws of Ontario and our municipal laws, where they had to consult with residents about how they were going to approach the development of this pit. What we had in Timmins was the old Hollinger mine that was opened up in the 1910s. It had shafts, it had open pits, little ones here and there, and the whole thing was fenced off.

It was ground that can’t be used, it was dangerous and it looked not very good—right in the middle of our city, because the city built around the mine. Back then, when the mine started, they would build the houses close by, because you didn’t have cars and buses in the same way we do today.

So the mine proposed, because there’s lots of gold there at the surface levels, to mine it, and, once they finish mining it, they’re going to turn it into a lake, so you’ll end up with a lake in the middle of the city of Timmins.

I’ve got to say, there were residents in Schumacher who were very unhappy, and are still unhappy, about what happened and how that is going, because of dust and noise and other things; and the company, as much as they can, are trying to mitigate that. Are they mitigating to the degree that every citizen wants? No; I will agree. But at least there’s a process in place by which the majority of the complaints that have been brought forward have been able to be dealt with in a pretty positive way. Is it perfect? No. But it’s a lot better than what we would have had otherwise.

So what this government doesn’t understand is that what they’re doing is actually putting at risk some of the investment opportunities in Ontario as a result of some of the decisions they’re making. You can’t go and pass legislation, as you are in this bill, where you’re saying you will make it illegal for a corporation who is done wrong by, as a result of a government policy, to sue the government for that decision.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you ran a business and you said, “I’m going to make a decision and I’m going to make a royal decree onto myself that you can’t sue me.” No business in Ontario has the ability to do that, but the government of Ontario is doing that and they’re creating a very unstable climate for businesses to invest in. Are you going to invest a billion-dollar investment in something that you think the government may be putting its paws on, in this particular environment of the government taking away the right of a corporation to sue? That’s a good question. Maybe or maybe not.

So I just say the government would be well served to travel this bill and send the bill to committee so that the people of Ontario get a chance to have a say.

Again, I just want to say there is precedent where governments in the past, dating back to the time that I first got here in 1990 up until even the Conservative governments of Mr. Harris, actually travelled their budget committees. They actually travelled their budgets in committee around Ontario. That was the right thing to do. Did Bob Rae like travelling a bill? Probably not. Did Mike Harris like travelling his bill—

Mr. Mike Harris: Of course he did.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No. Probably not. I was there. I was there; I remember.

The point is that there’s an obligation for us, in the Legislature, to say to the people of Ontario, “We are here to consult; we want to listen to you,” and then make a decision. And if you make a decision that the public doesn’t like, they’re going to accept the decision for the time being, and how you act for the rest of your mandate will determine if you get re-elected as a government. But doing this, I think, is very short-sighted and quite frankly is going to harm the democratic process here in Ontario.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know—no surprise—New Democrats will be voting against this time allocation motion, just in case you had any doubt through this whole presentation. I know that there are other government members who want to speak, as well as members on the opposition side.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Harris: You know what? You’re right. I am very eager to participate in debate today because I am passionate about what this budget stands for. It reflects the philosophy that lies at the core of our government’s mandate, that the decisions we make today are the decisions that will protect and serve the interests of future generations, Mr. Speaker.

I’m sure you’re wondering when I’m going to bring up the fact that I’m a father of five; here it comes. As a father of five, this is, after all, why I am here. I ran in the last election because I was fed up with the previous government, that had no qualms about mortgaging the future of our children, Mr. Speaker, and I couldn’t be happier with the direction that this government is heading.

I am happy to play my

part in bringing about the necessary changes that need to be made in relation to the way that government services are managed here in this province. Passing Bill 100 is an essential step in bringing about this change. Not only does it reflect a commitment to make our government more efficient, but also one to protect the longevity of our most essential services, such as health care, education and transit. It does this through proposing strategic investments and common-sense reforms.

Our government is taking great leaps forward on the health care file. Ontario’s families and seniors will not be forgotten by this government. Rather, with our budget, their health care services will not only be protected but significantly improved.

Let me start off by noting the financial commitments that our government has made towards boosting health care in this province. The budget includes several health care funding increases:

—hospitals will receive an additional $384 million in funding;

—home and community care spending will increase by $267 million; and

—long-term-care funding will increase by $1.75 billion over the next five years.

Our government is making sure that Ontarians get the health care services they need and deserve while making the changes that need to be made to make our system more efficient. We are modernizing the organization and funding of public health care units, enabling greater flexibility in the delivery of services based on community priorities, and the provision of higher-quality health care.

Quality, Mr. Speaker, starts with delivery. We need a system that is patient-centred, and that is exactly what we are working towards. That is why our government is exploring options for redesigning the Ontario Drug Benefit Program. We are looking to provide more timely access to clinically proven medicines.

We are working to modernize oversight of payments to pharmacies. As is the case across the board for all government programs, we are finding ways to make more serious reductions in red tape for clinicians and industry wherever possible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since day one, we have made it clear that we are a government that is prepared, amidst all the tough decisions that have to be made, to do what is right for the everyday Ontarian. We work for all Ontarians.

That is why, in addition to all of the positive health care reforms and funding increases that our government announced as part of the budget, we also included the expansion of dental care for low-income seniors. Not only is there a public health argument to be made in defence of this provision, but there is also a moral argument to be made. After investing their professional lives in their careers, paying their taxes and putting their time in to make this province a better place, seniors deserve better, Mr. Speaker.

Single seniors with incomes of $19,300 or less—or couples with a combined average of $32,000, barring existing coverage—will be eligible for dental services in public health units, community health centres and Aboriginal Health Access Centres throughout the province.

We need this province to work for and reward hard-working Ontarians at all phases of their life, Mr. Speaker. We are protecting what matters most for working professionals and seniors. We aim to build this province up through smart policy.

When we talk about building this province up, we must remember to talk about the positive steps that our government is taking to improve the lives of Ontarians. Families are, after all, the backbone of this province.

Perhaps one of the most meaningful ways that our government moved forward on protecting the interests of families is through the progress that we have made on the child care front. Our government is making the child care system more affordable and flexible for all the people of Ontario. We initiated this change with our new child care plan in Bill 66. In conforming to the objectives of our government’s new child care plan for Ontario,

schedule 3 of Bill 66 succeeds in reducing red tape and administrative burden, making child care more affordable, increasing choice for families and improving the quality standards of care.

As a parent, Mr. Speaker, I know the considerations that young and growing families have to make during the early years of their children’s lives. The objective of improving affordability is something that is clearly advanced in the budget of 2019. The fulfillment of this objective is realized in the—get ready for it, Mr. Speaker; hold on here—Ontario Childcare Access and Relief from Expenses tax credit, or CARE tax credit. We’re going to call it that because it’s a little easier to say. The CARE tax credit will support families with incomes of up to $150,000 combined. In doing so, it will provide up to 300,000 families relief in paying for up to 75% of their eligible child care expenses.

We care about the families of this province, Mr. Speaker. We want to see future generations set up for success. This begins by investing in our children. What better way to provide our children with a leg up than to invest in their education? For all the opposition that our government has received on our education reforms, it is important that we find opportunities to set the record straight and to highlight the very positive strides that we are making on this front.

Something that our government has made clear from the start is that we intend on investing in educational infrastructure in order to make this province’s social and economic path a sustainable one. Our government is making bold investments to enhance our schools and boost our education system. These include $1.4 billion for school renewal in the school year 2019-20, and nearly $13 billion in capital grants over the next 10 years to help build new schools and improve existing schools.

Beyond these general investments to enhance our educational infrastructure, our government is also taking a more focused look at our skilled trades and how we can gear our post-secondary institutions more towards revitalizing them. This is to say we are shifting funding for our universities and colleges to be more dependent on student and economic outcomes, taking action to ensure the Ontario Student Assistance Program is sustainable for future generations. We want to give Ontario students a greater value for the dollars they invest in their education, and to ensure we can open pathways for students to enter into fields where there exists a high demand for skilled workers today, Mr. Speaker.

In order to achieve this, we must also look beyond the immediate scope of the university and college spheres. When students leave college or university, we want to ensure they have a seamless transition into their suited career path. Employment services can play an important role in achieving this outcome. Our government is transforming the way we deliver employment services for all job seekers, including those on social assistance, by creating one efficient, cost-effective system that is easy to use. When our students begin their careers, we want to make sure they are set up for success.

This means removing unnecessary barriers to their day-to-day functions, whether it be personal or in their work settings.

Mr. Speaker, much of my riding is composed of rural townships. In these townships, as in many other parts of the province, one of the most irritating complications that one can encounter in their day-to-day life—and my colleague the member from Brantford–Brant, I’m sure, can attest to this—is lacklustre cellphone service. There are few things that are more frustrating than when you have to make an important call and your cellphone service drops. We need to fix that for rural Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

Our government has committed to investing up to $315 million over the next five years to expand broadband and cellular access, including up to $150 million to unserved or underserved communities over four years, starting in 2020. This is a crucial infrastructural investment that will greatly strengthen the ability of businesses and families to function more smoothly.

The smart infrastructural investments being advanced by our government do not end there, Mr. Speaker. Another item that our government made early movement on and that is also outlined in the budget is the reforms we are making to improve the affordability and sustainability of our energy system. What I am referring to here in particular is the natural gas expansion being undertaken by our government. Our government is expanding access to 33,000 households in 80 communities, saving residential consumers—here’s a great number—up to $2,500 a year if they’re switching, whether it be from wood or propane etc.

Ontarians can expect us to deliver on this reform immediately, and there is no time to waste. Ontarians heard clearly in the presentation of the budget all of the clear ways that Bill 100 will improve their day-to-day lives, and now they want to see those positive measures put into action. Ontarians want better health care. They want better child care. They want better education. They want better transit. We can’t take the next steps in delivering that to them until we pass this bill. That is why I will be voting in favour of the motion on the floor today, and I would strongly suggest that other members of the House do the same.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: I, too, am not too happy that we’re talking about a time allocation motion, because at the end of the day, a time allocation motion means, “We don’t want to hear from you anymore.” Yet, this is a humongous bill with over 60 different schedules on which a lot of people have a lot to say. I have many members of my caucus who never even had an opportunity to do a two-minute hit on this hundreds-of-pages document.

How could it be that not only do they not want to hear from the MPPs who are there to represent the 14 million people of Ontario—we just heard the time allocation motion. It will be limited to maybe 20 people who will get to be heard, in a province as huge as ours. With a bill that transforms so many parts of the programs and services of the provincial government that all of us depend on, you should give us an opportunity to be heard.

I will try to put the voices of some of the people who have reached out to me about the bill who probably won’t have an opportunity to be heard at all.

I’d like to start with Josée Pharand et son époux, Chad. Ils ont mis un nouveau service Internet en ligne, qui s’appelle #WeAreThe100Percent, qui encourage les familles à partager leurs histoires. Et plusieurs familles y participent. Josée Pharand and her husband, Chad, have a young girl, Manon, who is on the spectrum, and they have created this website to encourage people to share their stories. A lot of those people would like to share them with the minister. Many of them have written to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Unfortunately, as of today, they have not received any answers.

I encourage people to go on the website, wearethe100percent.ca, and share their stories.

There’s Chantal Chartrand, who is from Capreol in my riding and is the mother of Valérie, who is on the spectrum. Chantal wrote to the minister on February 17. She wrote a very good four-page letter explaining why the cuts to the ministry and the changes to the autism program will hurt her daughter and her daughter’s chance of living a fulfilling life. She wrote to the minister on February 17. It would be really good if she were to receive an answer.

We have many other people who are trying to get heard. There’s Laurie and Travis Zaldiner, who are also from my riding. They have a son. His name is Gavin. They have written to the minister on February 9 to basically talk about the recommendations for their son, which was for 28 hours a week of IBI services. There is no way, with this new program, that their son will ever be able to receive this. He was receiving one-on-one support in school and was progressing very well.

Their school principal and some of the workers at the school also wrote in support of continuing with the intensive behavioural intervention worker who was working with Gavin. The changes it has made to this child’s potential, the great progress he has made—all of this is not available to them anymore. Pablo Gil-Alfau, the principal of Chelmsford Public School, has also written in support of this family and this particular child, because without the support that they were getting from the Ontario Autism Program, the continuation of this child’s progress in school is seriously at risk.

There was also Mrs. Shannon Lavoie, who has a son named Teo. She’s a constituent of the honourable minister, and she wanted to share with her the harmful effect that the change to the autism program was going to have. The minister happens to be her own MPP. She has written to the minister on February 10, and as of today has yet to receive an answer.

They are sharing some serious issues that have to do with very vulnerable children, and they deserve to be heard, because once this budget is passed and $1 billion is taken out of the ministry, then the chances of changing things for the better are getting slimmer and slimmer all the time.

We also have been copied on many emails to the minister about Child Care Resources. Child Care Resources was the biggest provider of services to children on the spectrum. They have recently laid off four therapists and one supervisor—they used to have 20 therapists and five supervisors—and another round of layoffs is coming. Those are very precious resources in northern Ontario. This particular agency was barely able to provide services in French. They were not able to meet the need.

We have a serious shortage of people who have the training and the skills to provide ABA and to provide IBI, to provide the services that children on the spectrum need to be able to reach their full potential. Now we’re going from bad to worse. We’re going to situations where we had long wait-lists, in part because of the way the program was designed but also in part—I live in northern Ontario—because the distances are great and because the cost of providing those services is way higher; I recognize this. To drive from Sudbury to Gogama is four hours of travel. This takes time. This takes resources.

But Child Care Resources treated every child with respect and tried their best to meet their needs, although they did not have enough service providers, enough therapists, to do this. Now, with the changes, they have even less. We are looking at a situation where the hope for those families is going from bad to worse.

The letter that Laurie Zaldiner wrote to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services was dated February 9. Again, those people are still waiting for an answer. Mrs. Zaldiner was dealing with Behaviour Analysis North, which is a private practice that helps people gain access to services for people on the spectrum. But, then again, there are very few therapists.

There is nothing in what the government has put forward that talks about equity of access, that talks about making sure that no matter where you live, no matter who you are, no matter your differences, whether it be language or culture or poverty or living in a northern or rural area—for all of those people, services were hard to get, with long wait-lists, but at least they had hope.

Now, for all of the people in northern Ontario, in rural Ontario, all of the people with special needs, those hopes are gone. They are not going to have enough resources to ever be able to purchase the services required, and even if they did receive the $20,000 because a miracle happened and a kid in northern Ontario was diagnosed before the age of six and was able to recoup, there aren’t enough professionals, there aren’t enough therapists for us to hire.

The government has a role to play in ensuring equity of access, but they are turning away from those responsibilities and basically saying, “Here is your $5,000. The specialists have said that your child needs 21 hours or 28 hours of intervention. They also need some speech language pathology. They also need a little bit of physiotherapy or occupational therapy.

Take your 5,000 bucks and decide by yourself which therapist you should hire first, which services you will give your child.” It is impossible for people to make those decisions, and if you live in northern and rural Ontario, it is impossible to find the therapists to provide those services. This is a lose-lose and it’s really hard to swallow.

But this is just part of what’s in the budget. Another huge

part is this one little paragraph that talks about the health units. We have 35 health units right now. The government will bring that down to 10. There is no body of evidence that exists anywhere, Speaker, that tells you that regional public health will do a better job. That does not exist. There is no body of evidence that shows that if you cut public health, we will be healthier, we will decrease hallway health care, we will have a warm send-off. None of that exists. Much to the contrary, our public health units are there to keep us healthy.

The minister yesterday talked about how they have an advocacy department. She supports that they give immunizations and they keep track of outbreaks of contagious diseases, but do they really need an advocacy department? Well, let me tell you, Speaker, that if Toronto Public Health did not have this advocacy department, we would still be smoking in restaurants and bars in Ontario like they are in many other places. It was Toronto Public Health and the hard-working people in their advocacy department who did the hard work, against tremendous pushback, to get the restaurants and the bars to be smoke-free. It was really tough work, but they knew it was the right thing to do.

They brought it forward in Toronto. If you remember, they brought it in for a few months, and then they changed their mind and we went back to smoking in bars and restaurants. Then they were finally able to push it through for Toronto. Once Toronto did it, a few other municipalities also, because of the hard work of the public health advocacy department, were successful in getting their municipality to pass a bylaw that said we were not allowed to smoke in restaurants and bars. Now, after many, many other municipalities, the provincial government finally came forward.

Do any of you think that we would be better off if we were still smoking in bars and restaurants? I don’t think so. The number of restaurant workers who were getting lung cancer, and bar workers who were getting lung cancer, because they were exposed to cigarette smoke for the entire shift, and all the rest of it—this is what public health does. It is not sexy. It doesn’t grab headlines. It requires a ton of work, but it works. It keeps us healthier.

And what is this government doing? Well, just for public health here in Toronto, they’re cutting $65 million this year. This is a budget that has already been approved and all of sudden, Toronto, if they want to continue what they have, will have to come up with $65 million more, and the same will apply to the 34 other health units.

I see that you’re trying to stand up. That means I have to sit down.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): That is correct. Thank you very much.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Seeing the time on the clock, this House will stand in recess until question period at 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask the members to introduce their guests, I’ll remind them that after we’ve concluded the introduction of guests, I will be formally and officially welcoming our pages.

Introduction of visitors.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: On behalf of the member from Toronto–Danforth, I’d like to welcome Julie Dale here today. Julie is the mother of page Cameron Dale, and her older brother, Tom, is a friend of mine from Windsor. Julie grew up in Windsor, and Tom is one of the best cameramen that was ever hired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Welcome back to Queen’s Park, Julie.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, 150 members of the Ontario Co-operative Association and its francophone counterpart, Conseil de la coopération de l’Ontario, are at Queen’s Park today for meetings with MPPs and for their 2019 annual reception from 5 to 7 in rooms 228 and 230. I am pleased to introduce Peter Cameron, their acting executive director and co-op development manager, who is in the members’ gallery today.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to welcome representatives from the historic Canadian National Exhibition here today. In the Legislature we have the CNE Association president, Mr. John Kiru; board director Suzan Hall; and senior staff representatives John Peco, Maya Gorham and Sarah Fink.

The CNE will be hosting a reception this afternoon at 4:30 in the dining room. I encourage all of you to attend and check out the amazing CNE-inspired food and games.

Mr. Joel Harden: It’s with great pleasure that I welcome Anthony Polci to the House today. Anthony is Leo Polci’s father. Leo is a proud page—in fact, was the page captain, I believe, yesterday. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce two Oakville constituents, Mike Saffran and Mike Mestyan, of the Joshua Creek Residents’ Association. Mike and Mike, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome Henny and Ray Rabideau from my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, who are visiting their granddaughter Kate, who is serving as a legislative page this session. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to introduce Mariam Nawaz. She’s a Waterloo grad and this week she completes her four-month internship with Brown and Cohen. She’s here today with the Ontario Co-operative Association for their lobby day.

Wearing of hockey jersey

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Sudbury has informed me he has a point of order.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you, Speaker. I’d like to rise on a point of order and ask for unanimous consent to wear a Niagara IceDogs hockey jersey in the Legislature. The member from Niagara and I had an ongoing bet. The Sudbury Wolves were knocked out early, so he has given me his jersey, which I’ve been told is the average IceDog size. I would like to have unanimous consent to wear it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member from Sudbury is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow him to wear a hockey jersey during question period today. Agreed? Agreed.

I would now ask the pages to assemble.

Wearing of pins

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Oh, point of order: the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe we have unanimous consent to wear pins to recognize CNE day today here at the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear pins recognizing CNE day here at the Legislature. Agreed? Agreed.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Again, I would ask the pages to continue to assemble for their introduction.

It is my pleasure and honour to welcome this latest group of legislative pages.

From the riding of Barrie–Innisfil, we have Caleah Burke; from the riding of Toronto–Danforth, Cameron Dale; from the riding of Durham, Emily Brown; from Parkdale–High Park, Helen DeBoni; from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, Jadon Tsai; from Milton, we have Jedd Rafael Peralta; from Sarnia–Lambton, Kate Rabideau; from Ottawa Centre, Leo Kristal-Polci; from Scarborough–Agincourt, Maria Nastase; from the riding of King–Vaughan, Mary Calleja; from Brampton Centre, Nailani Cavero; from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, Olivier Quesnel; from Mississauga Centre, Rishi Jarajapu; from London West, Romeo Lafrance; from Kitchener South–Hespeler, Sarah Fee; from Brampton East, Tabitha Terrance; from Scarborough–Rouge Park, Tarun Moturi; from Perth–Wellington, Thomas Sheldon; from Ajax, Trenyce De Gannes; from Beaches–East York, Wolfgang Wai-Hahn; and from the riding of Waterloo, Zoe McCabe.

Welcome to the Legislature.

Applause.

Oral Questions

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Acting Premier. The Ford government’s classroom cuts are already impacting schools and students. Yesterday, Lorne Park Secondary School in Mississauga sent a notice home. The notice informed students that 30 courses had been cancelled due to the government cuts and that students enrolled in those courses would be removed.

Does the Acting Premier think this school is fearmongering, or is she willing to admit that her classroom cuts have real impacts?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to rise today and again focus in on an education plan that works for you. It’s going to be the plan that is going to bring education back on track in Ontario. I actually think the people who are fearmongering are not the school boards. It’s the Leader of the Opposition and her party. It needs to quit once and for all, because the fact of the matter is, we can’t forget that we inherited a fiscal mess. We all have to take responsibility and steps forward to make sure that we get the province back on track.

That said, though, we’re going to be working with our school boards and we’re going to be working very diligently to make sure that our number one priority is student achievement and the learning environment in the classroom for teachers and students is second to none. Again, we’re going to be working with our school boards to make sure that attention is paid to student achievement and that learning environment in the classroom. We’re going to get it right once and for all.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, perhaps the minister should have worked with Lorne Park Secondary, because it certainly doesn’t work for students that 30 courses are being cancelled. Schools in rural Ontario are facing unique challenges, Speaker, as everybody in this chamber should already know.

The Near North District School Board wrote the Minister of Education, warning that the government’s so-called attrition protection will not prevent layoffs and that “recruitment and retention of qualified and talented individuals can be difficult in northern Ontario....” As another northern board chair puts it, “If the automotive teacher retires”—and we aren’t allowed to recruit new teachers—“who’s teaching auto? Who is qualified to do it?”

I think that’s a really great question, and it’s one that the Premier needs to answer, the minister needs to answer and the Acting Premier should answer. In fact, everybody on that side of the House should answer people in northern Ontario about the loss of courses that they’re going to see from these cuts.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I would suggest, respectfully, that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should actually pay attention to what we’re announcing, because when it comes to making sure we have the right people in the classrooms teaching our students across this province, from one end to another, we have been very clear. When it comes to mathematics, when it comes to STEM subjects, when it comes to skilled trades and every aspect of skilled trades, we’re going to make sure that if a teacher retires, the proper teacher will be hired and will replace him.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, at the risk of tit-for-tat, I would, with all due respect, suggest that the Minister of Education pay attention to the school boards across this province who are ringing the alarm bells about the thoughtless cuts to education.

Parents and students don’t want to be told that they’re fearmongering. School boards don’t want to be told that they’re fearmongering. They know the fears are legitimate, Speaker. They’re seeing them in schools right now. As we sit and breathe, they are seeing the cuts affecting schools. They deserve an education that allows young people the opportunity to succeed, not one that leaves them scrambling to deal with classroom cuts, as is what’s happening right now.

Will this Ford government stop plowing ahead with cuts that leave students with larger classes, fewer teachers and put their futures at risk?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, the only people who are fearmongering and playing politics is the party opposite under the leadership of the leader, unfortunately. The fact of the matter is, the GSN numbers just went out to our school boards, as promised, on Friday. They’re just working through their numbers right now. We’re going to be working with our school boards to make sure we get it right.

Again, we want the right teachers in the classrooms, making sure that we have the best learning environments for our students. Again, we’re going to be working with our school boards because, to be perfectly clear, no teacher will lose their job involuntarily because of our proposed changes.

The fact of the matter is, people are celebrating the fact that we’re focusing on what is needed to get done to clean up the mess after 15 years of mismanagement, and we are going to get it right. We stand by our teachers, and most importantly, we stand by our students and our parents. Again, we’re going to prove this party wrong—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Next question.

Public health

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. Does the Acting Premier believe that immunization, student nutrition and long-term care have a role to play in keeping Ontarians healthy and ending hallway medicine, and if she does, why is she making such dramatic cuts to public health?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, I think those are all important public health issues, but I’m confident that if the city of Toronto, first of all, has its priorities in place and spends government dollars wisely and taxpayers’ monies wisely, they will be able to provide those essential services.

In fact, I think it should be noted that the city of Toronto’s public health unit, over the last 10 years, has had a surplus of $52 million, so about $5 million per year. That would certainly help them with making up the difference with the small adjustments that we’re making over three years. We also need to make sure that the government spends its money wisely on the things that are priorities.

Is it a priority to have an entire department based on advocacy in public health? For what? Aren’t we all in favour of public health? Why is that necessary? Why is it necessary to have a department that has a study on the reactivation of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

I’ll remind the members I had to stop the clock once the standing ovation started, because I could not hear the member who had the floor.

Start the clock. Supplementary question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, only a government that fears the voice of the people wants to get rid of all advocacy in the province of Ontario, and that’s what this government is showing.

Public health units perform vital services across the province to keep people healthy, and the Ford government’s callous cuts are putting health at risk. The Acting Premier has tried to explain away these cuts as a difference of opinion, but what the mayor of Toronto said—who the Acting Premier served with when he was leading her party—is crystal clear: These retroactive cuts to public health put everything from school to breakfast programs to immunization at risk.

Why doesn’t the Acting Premier believe the medical experts, concerned citizens and her own former leader, and call for a reversal of these cuts?

Hon. Christine Elliott: There is a vast difference of opinion between the Ministry of Health’s view of the situation and what’s happening and the city of Toronto’s. There is a difference of opinion with the city of Toronto, which we are trying to work through so that they will understand how we arrived at our calculations. We’re trying to understand their calculations. I’m sure that we can resolve that.

But it is a question of priorities, priorities over having an audit department versus making sure children are vaccinated. I think the vaccinations are more important and I’m sure the people of Toronto think so as well.

The city of Toronto also needs to take a look at its own internal affairs. There is one budget here. To suggest that there aren’t savings to be found is not true. There is money to be found. If you take a look at the fact that recently, their own auditor found that a tree maintenance service was watering tree stumps and wasn’t even following the proper GPS service—they were doing other things, but they weren’t watering trees. That’s millions of dollars wasted. They also spent—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Thank you.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, as I live and breathe, a Conservative who doesn’t like audits. Go figure. I have never seen anything like it in my life, Speaker.

Look, all of the experts are on one side and the differing opinion is the government’s side. I’ll go with all the experts, because they’re the ones who are being upfront with the people of Ontario on the impacts of these cuts.

Here are some of the programs that these cuts are going to affect: breakfast programs for at-risk kids; dental clinics, which were supposed to be the cornerstone of the government’s dental care plan for seniors; and immunization programs—immunization programs, Speaker—which are at risk at exactly the same time that fears of a measles outbreak are at the highest they’ve been in this province in a very, very long time.

This is not good for public health. This will make hallway medicine much, much worse. Will this Ford government reconsider this reckless cut to public health?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Of course I support audits. I was a bank auditor myself for a number of years, so I respect what the auditor for the city of Toronto is saying with the millions of dollars wasted on watering tree stumps. I don’t think that’s in the public’s best interest.

In addition, they bought a fleet of vehicles for over $10 million that cost $314,000 a year to maintain, that aren’t even being properly used. In fact, the people who should be driving those vehicles are also being paid for their own personal mileage expenses.

That is not good leadership. That is not good management of public money. I think if the city of Toronto looked a little harder, they would be able to find more money for services.

I am confident that the essential services in public health—vaccinations, making sure that restaurants are inspected, making sure that breakfast clubs continue to be run—they’re actually funded through the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. They will continue, and all of those essential services will be preserved.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Health, Speaker. But I have to tell you, I knew the Premier wanted to be the mayor of Toronto; apparently the Minister of Health wants to be the mayor of Toronto as well.

Over the last week, I met with families across Ontario who were worried about the government’s cuts to health care. Whether it’s billions of dollars of cuts to public health, the plan to slash ambulance service or the mega-agency that will allow unprecedented levels of for-profit care into our health care system, people have seen health care getting less reliable and more expensive.

Last week, the government announced they intend to make even more dangerous cuts to Ontario’s health care system by eliminating out-of-country coverage for emergency health services from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, OHIP. Why is the minister forcing patients to pay for health services with their credit card instead of their OHIP card?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would say to the leader of the official opposition, it’s because it’s not providing good value and it’s also leading people to the erroneous impression that they would receive full coverage if they are injured while out of country when, in fact, the total that they would receive is about $400. If you’re injured out of country and you have to go into intensive care, it can be thousands of dollars per day. We want to make sure that the people of Ontario understand that when they go out of country, they need to make sure they have their own private insurance, which can be purchased very inexpensively, making sure that they are going to be covered.

Again, this wasn’t even a program that was providing good coverage, and it was very expensive to maintain. About a third of the entire cost of this project was taken up by administration. That’s not good value for taxpayers. That’s not what we were elected to pursue. We are there to provide core services and make sure that taxpayers’ money is being spent wisely.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Ford government has made it very, very clear to Ontarians that they are on their own when it comes to their health care if they happen to be travelling across the border.

The Canadian health act sets standards for health coverage across the country. One of the principles of the Canada Health Act is that provincial health plans must provide coverage for people when they are temporarily outside of the province. With this decision, the province is violating the Canada Health Act and asking patients to pay out of pocket for health services.

The Ford government promised that Ontarians would never be asked to pay out of pocket for health services. I’m going to say that again: The Ford government promised that Ontarians would never be asked to pay out of pocket for health services. But now you’ve got to tell the families of Ontario who are crossing the border, for example, for a kids’ ball tournament, that they have to pay for private health insurance.

Why is this government asking people to pay for health care in the province of Ontario when they promised they wouldn’t?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, I would say, through you, that this is a huge stretch by the leader of the official opposition. There is no legislation of any kind that is being disrespected or denied here. What we are trying to do is to make sure that people’s money is being spent wisely. I don’t think any taxpayer in Ontario would think that to use a third of the cost of a program on administration only is a good use of those dollars.

We also want to make sure that people are going to be covered properly when they leave the country, to make sure that if they have an expensive health problem, it is going to be covered by insurance and that they’re not going to have to sell their house or lose their personal assets. This is an important public announcement to people to let them know that they need to find their own insurance, which can be purchased very inexpensively, to make sure that they will be thoroughly covered when they’re out of country.

That is our responsibility as a government: to make sure that government funds are spent wisely, and people are told the true cost and the true implications of some of these programs that are not providing value—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The next question.

School bus safety

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. It’s my understanding that the minister was in London this past week making an important announcement that will ensure the safety of our children during their commute to school. School buses are one of the safest ways for children to get to school. Statistics show that students are 70 times more likely to get to school safely when travelling in a school bus than by car. There are over 830,000 children who travel to and from school every day by bus.

In everything our government does—every program, policy or service change—we put people first. Can the Minister of Transportation share with the Legislature the details of his recent announcement and how it will better protect and ensure the safety of Ontario’s children?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member from Cambridge for that question and for being a strong advocate for safety on our roads throughout the province. Our government is moving forward with regulations to allow evidence from stop-arm cameras on school buses to stand alone in court. That means there will be no requirement for additional witnesses. We wanted to help municipalities throughout Ontario improve school bus safety, and this will allow for more efficient enforcement and prosecution.

But, Mr. Speaker, that’s not all. If passed, our legislation will put in place an option for municipalities to target drivers who threaten the safety of children, through monetary penalties without wasting time and money in court. We’re making these changes in consultation with school bus providers and other road safety stakeholders because the safety of our most precious resource, our children, is our top priority, Mr. Speaker.

We hope these changes will help to reduce the number of children harmed while going to and from school by bus. We know these measures will hold irresponsible drivers responsible. I’d like to share more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you to the Minister of Transportation for that great answer.

Last week, I was pleased to see the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, the member from Niagara West, in London with the Minister of Transportation to announce this great initiative. It’s so good to see the different ministries of our government working together to protect our students.

Can the minister tell us more about this important legislation and what it can do to protect and ensure the safety of our children during their commute to school?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: The Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to continue to talk about the good things we’re doing for education and our students across Ontario. Thank you to the member from Cambridge and thank you to my PA, the member from Niagara West, for joining the Minister of Transportation. I’d be remiss if I didn’t say this is something that our government, our party, has long sought. Thank you for the great work from the member from Chatham-Kent; he got this ball started. I thank you for drawing attention to the importance of it.

We want to demonstrate that we are totally committed to the people who matter, and those are our students. We’re focused on student success but we’re also focused on student safety. This starts from the moment their bus picks them up at the start of the day. Stats show that children are most likely to be injured when they are boarding or leaving their school bus, or when they’re crossing the road. My own neighbour had that very experience. That’s why our government is proposing new legislation to use a school-bus-arm camera in court to target drivers that put kids at risk. Promise made—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question: the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Disaster relief

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Disaster relief assistance will be vitally important to the families and businesses affected by flooding across Ontario. Last year, when tornadoes devastated the Ottawa region, the minister told the House “that past governments haven’t activated the” disaster relief assistance “program early enough and that claims took too long to process.” That was last year. As of last month, only seven of 111 applicants have received money through the Ontario disaster program.

What confidence can the people of Ontario have about their government’s help in this disaster if they still haven’t delivered on their promises from the last one?

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you very much to the member for the question. First of all, I want to express, on behalf of all members, to all the regions that are struggling with the widespread flooding that is taking place in our province—yesterday I activated the DRAO Program in Renfrew county and in Pembroke. I know that many members of this House have local communities that are in some pretty challenging conditions, so our thoughts and our prayers are with all the first responders, all the community volunteers and everyone battling this situation.

The question is very timely because there are a number of improvements that our government has made to the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians Program. Our ministry has been on the site in many regions, both last year and in the days past, given some of the challenges that people are facing. We have to improve this program. There’s no question. We have to do a better job in terms of fast-tracking some of these opportunities to make sure that people present all the information as early as possible. I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Families that were promised disaster relief by the Ford government just last year are frustrated by the government’s failure to keep promises. Cindy Berry’s home was hit by the tornado in 2018. She told CBC news last month, “Why did” the Premier “come out and say that there was money and there really isn’t any money? Or if there’s money, why is it so hard to get?” That’s a good question.

Will the Ford government commit today that people affected by floods will have access to disaster relief funding as soon as possible?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, I want to thank the member for his carefully crafted question.

As I’ve said many times in this House, the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians Program is not a replacement for insurance. Again, I want to stress that. Again, I want to say that we have made a number of improvements to streamline the application process. We have ensured that ministry personnel have been on the scene in many of these jurisdictions, especially the ones that the member referenced last year. We spent many hours in many community halls, helping residents understand what needs to be provided in this application process and what isn’t covered in the application process, and as well, had other officials from the insurance industry and other partners involved in this process.

Yes, in some cases it is complex. We are trying to work through all of the applications and all of the issues around them. We will continue to improve this process. I want the member and all members to realize that this is something we take very seriously on this side of the House, and we will continue to improve this program.

Highway improvement

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As many in this Legislature will recall, I’ve been calling for concrete barriers along Highway 401 from London to Tilbury to assist in preventing crossover accidents. As many in this Legislature also know, in my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington, that stretch of the 401 between London and Tilbury is called “Carnage Alley” because it’s known to be a very dangerous stretch of highway that has unfortunately had many tragic accidents.

Mr. Speaker, for years I called on the previous Liberal government to install concrete barriers to prevent the crossover accidents that occur on this stretch of highway every single year. Unfortunately, the previous government did very little to address these very real safety concerns.

Our government for the people is committed to making Ontario’s roads and highways amongst the safest in North America. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transportation share with this Legislature what our government is doing to ensure the safety of Highway 401 between London and Tilbury?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks to the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington, a strong advocate across the board, representing not only his constituents but helping those across Ontario. I’m pleased to give a concrete answer to his question.

As the member has stated, there have been many accidents in Carnage Alley that have been tragic—too tragic. I’ve heard and met with many families over the past few years that have lost loved ones due to crossover accidents on this stretch of highway. One loss of a life is one too many.

This year’s budget commits to the widening and improving of safety along the 128-kilometre stretch, from four to six lanes from Tilbury to London on the 401. We are committed to getting shovels in the ground as soon as possible, and we are committed to installing concrete barriers along the entire stretch.

I look forward to sharing the safety measures our government has put forward in our supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you to the Minister of Transportation for firming up and hardening that particular response on that dangerous situation that we have along the 401. My community of Chatham-Kent–Leamington will be thankful to hear our government’s commitment to expand the highway to six lanes and finally install concrete barriers.

As the Minister of Transportation stated, one loss of life is one too many. I know the minister is aware of our concerns in our communities as a whole, and I know our government is committed to making this highway safer so that motorists and their loved ones can travel with some peace of mind. Can the Minister of Transportation share more about these safety measures our government has already implemented?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks again for that question from the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

Our government’s number one priority is keeping the people of Ontario safe, whether it be at home, work or during their commute. That is why we’re working to ensure that the people of Ontario have a safe and efficient highway network. I’ve directed officials to speed up the process to install concrete barriers along Highway 401 between Tilbury and London. I can assure Ontarians that we are expediting the planning work to get shovels into the ground as quickly as possible.

In addition, the Ministry of Transportation has taken measures to protect road users during this construction by implementing the following safety measures: We will be installing snow fencing at strategic locations, making enhancements of winter highway maintenance operations, working with the OPP and other road safety enforcement partners to increase speed enforcement and installing additional portable roadside variable messaging signs to display road safety messaging.

Unlike the previous government, I can assure Ontarians and the residents of southwestern Ontario that our government is committed to building these concrete barriers along Highway 401.

Public health

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

The government’s decision to cut public health funding will leave a $1-billion hole in Toronto Public Health’s budget. One of the programs that Toronto Public Health funds is the city school nutrition program, which serves 200,000 children with breakfast, lunch and snacks. That’s a lot of students that this decision is going to leave feeling hungry. Have you ever tried going to work hungry, Speaker? It is pretty hard to concentrate.

By cutting public health, the minister is making it harder for students to succeed in school and to break out of the cycle of poverty. How can the minister possibly think that this is an acceptable decision?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, I would agree with the member that the breakfast programs and so on are very important, but, as I indicated in a previous question, there is a significant difference of opinion with respect to the changes that are being made in public health funding by the province.

This is happening over a period of three years. The difference in funding amounts to one third of 1% of the city of Toronto’s overall budget. It is clear that if the city of Toronto concentrates on priorities and makes sure that they keep track of eliminating waste in other areas, there will be money for those essential programs.

In fact, I think it should also be pointed out that the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services contributes a significant amount of money to those school breakfast programs. That’s not even touched by the amount of money that the municipality receives from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

I am confident that those programs will continue with the funding that the city of Toronto is going to receive both from the Ministry of Health and from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

M me France Gélinas: Well, this is $65 million that the city of Toronto has to make up because of the government’s decision.

Earlier, the minister questioned Toronto Public Health’s priorities because they engaged in health promotion and advocacy. Did you know, Speaker, that if it were not for the advocacy of Toronto Public Health, we would still smoke in restaurants and bars in Ontario? This is what advocacy at the public health level does. It makes us healthy.

Evidence-based decision-making tells us that investing in health promotion works. It keeps us healthy, it saves the health care system money and it builds healthy communities. The city of Toronto and the 34 other public health units affected shouldn’t have to make the tough decisions on what health programs to cut because the province does not want to pay its fair share.

Will the minister listen to her previous leader, agree to pause this decision and go back to the drawing board?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would say that it’s important to base these decisions on facts, not on some of the rhetoric that we’ve heard from the city of Toronto.

The city of Toronto has proposed a number that is far, far in excess of the amendments that the Ministry of Health is proposing to make. In fact, the actual difference is $33 million for the first year, rising to $42 million after three years. That is something that the municipality is able to accommodate with the population, with the economies of scale that they can absorb. It’s also important to note that they have run surpluses over the last 10 years amounting to over $52 million. That being the case, it’s very clear that there is money they can find for some of these services.

The legislation, the Health Protection and Promotion Act, indicates that it is the responsibility of the municipalities to fund public health, yet the province is willing to pay its fair share, and I am confident that when the city applies its concentration to the priorities, like the breakfast programs, like the vaccinations, like helping—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Next question.

Consumer protection

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. I have a private member’s bill that proposes a sensible solution around consumers’ rights and digital issues. Put simply, I believe consumers should have the right to repair their own electronic products. I believe it is unreasonable and uneconomical that manufacturers can disallow owners from repairing their devices by making parts and product manuals overly expensive or by insisting that the manufacturer can be the only one to repair that product.

The current approach is wasteful, bad for the environment and expensive for consumers. It forces people, too often, to simply throw away a product rather than repairing that product and supporting a local business that does that. Minister, will you support this bill on second reading this Thursday?

Hon. Bill Walker: Speaker, through you: Even in opposition, the Liberals continue to do what they did in government: propose legislation that sounds good in theory or a sound bite, but is completely unenforceable in practice and threatens consumer choice.

The ability to repair electronics more cheaply and easily is certainly a concept we support, but the broader implications of this bill were clearly not thought through. This bill would do the opposite of what it is intended to do—unintended consequences that we so often heard through 15 years. It would limit consumer choice by making electronics harder to access, as businesses could choose not to bring new products to market in Ontario. We want Ontarians to have access to state-of-the-art electronics. It would worsen Ontario’s business climate, driving away innovation and jobs. Government shouldn’t create roadblocks for consumer choice.

This bill would also affect the intellectual property of companies, and I trust the member realizes that this is actually federal government. If this bill became law, these jurisdictional issues would immediately open up Ontario’s consumers and businesses to countless court challenges—challenges that would likely make it impossible to enforce the bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. Michael Coteau: Thank you, Minister. I get the feeling that that’s a no, but thank you for the response.

The right to repair is a very simple concept, but it has wide-ranging implications. It’s not just about mobile phones and iPads, but it’s also about other sectors, like the agricultural sector. These days, farm equipment is often basically a computer on wheels, and farmers often have to take those products and send them away to get them repaired when they could have those products repaired locally. These delays do cost time and money.

Minister, as we see more automation, and globalization continues to change the way our economy operates, I think it’s important that local economies and Ontarians get to fix those devices locally. It’s a piece of legislation that’s being proposed—which you should support—that protects the consumer, but most of all, it prepares us for the digital age.

Hon. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker, again through you, I would ask the member, if he really wants to protect consumers, maybe you’d vote against the carbon tax that you’re so adamant to put in.

As I’ve already said, this is a challenge in regard to intellectual property and jurisdiction of the federal government. Many states in the US have considered this right to repair, and not one has advanced the policy. It could also put Ontario in direct conflict with international treaties signed by the federal government that pertain to intellectual property law.

Mr. Speaker, we want to go the other way. We want to ensure that, with Ontarians, we’re truly protecting them and giving them what they believe. We don’t want them to get into situations where there could be liability. You repair your toaster, and at the end of the day, your house burns down—who’s protecting that? Have you thought through any of those types of implications, or is that an unintended consequence that you haven’t thought through yet again?

Mr. Speaker, we’re developing a provincial strategy that will actually help Ontario businesses and Ontarians and will benefit directly from our data economy while protecting the privacy and—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question?

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is also to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Every member of our government recognizes the importance of respecting taxpayer dollars and ensuring we are getting real value for that money. We do that by eliminating waste from government.

In December of this past year, the minister announced the government’s surplus property disposition plan, which would remove unused buildings from the government’s books and return them to productive use.

While the previous Liberal government may have been content to see empty buildings cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in maintenance costs, I know the minister recognizes that thousands become millions, and millions become billions.

Minister, could you inform this House on how yesterday’s sale of property at 26 Grenville Street and 27 Grosvenor Street will help build local communities and deal with the $15-billion deficit that the previous Liberal government saddled Ontario with?

Hon. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker, through you, I want to thank the honourable member from Oakville, my friend and colleague, for all of his hard work for the people of Oakville.

This member is absolutely correct that the previous Liberal government allowed unused government properties to stay on the province’s books for 15 years. These properties didn’t just provide no value to taxpayers; they cost taxpayers over $9.6 million per year.

We’re doing government differently, Mr. Speaker. The successful sale of 26 Grenville Street and 27 Grosvenor Street will generate $36 million for the people of Ontario, money that can be reinvested into core programs and services that matter most for the people we’re given the privilege to represent. That property was costing taxpayers $260,000 a year in operating and maintenance, with no value coming back to Ontarians. This land now, because of our action, will actually include more than 700 rental units, over 200 dedicated to affordable housing, as well as retail spaces and a new daycare.

Speaker, our government is committed to respecting the taxpayers and protecting what matters most.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you to the minister for that answer and for your work to respect the taxpayers of Ontario with common-sense solutions. I am proud to be part of a government that is investing in the people of Ontario. That investment is seen across our entire government, including in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr. Speaker, our government is making incredible investments into the housing sector here in Ontario, and we are starting with the most vulnerable, those who need it the most. Not only are we investing in housing, but we are making investments near important services like transit, schools, hospitals and daycares.

Can the minister explain how surplus land such as this will help provide much-needed housing, especially affordable housing?

Hon. Bill Walker: The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Oakville for that question.

I was pleased to join Minister Walker yesterday to speak about what our government is doing to not just help save taxpayers’ money, but also invest in government services and provide opportunities to have more housing when there’s an incredibly bad shortage of affordable housing, especially rentals, in Ontario. Our government believes that everyone deserves to have a place to call home. It’s imperative that we create the necessary environment to bring more housing to market faster and make housing more affordable.

The site that Minister Walker and I announced yesterday will be redeveloped into a mixed-use development that will have more than 700 rental units, with over 200 units becoming affordable housing, as well as retail spaces and even a daycare centre.

Our government is protecting what matters most by creating more homes and more choices for the people of Ontario.

Library services

Ms. Jill Andrew: My question is to the Acting Premier. The interlibrary loan service has been the backbone of small-town libraries in communities across Ontario. That vital service has vanished, thanks to yet another thoughtless cut in the Ford government budget.

Instead of reacting with concern, one MPP, the member for Niagara West, told concerned Ontarians to simply ask their local Conservative member to fetch the books they need.

The Southern Ontario Library Service reports that 153 libraries across Ontario received four book deliveries a week from this service. Will the Acting Premier be relieving the PC caucus from other responsibilities so they can devote themselves to delivering library books that were provided by this service?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government side will come to order.

The question is to the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Mr. Speaker, this process is about modernizing services across the province while we protect what matters most. I don’t understand the NDP’s position in having a staff member drive a van around the province of Ontario dropping off books. It’s odd that the NDP aren’t considering their carbon footprint while this delivery program is being undertaken.

As we rethink government services and modernize programs, if the southern library service used Canada Post like the north does, the delivery program could cost between $300,000 and $500,000, compared to the $1.3 million that’s being spent by having staff use delivery vans around the province of Ontario. It doesn’t make any sense. It saves money, it’s better for the environment and it’s probably even faster than taking back roads from one library to the other.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to working with the library—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary question.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Modernizing libraries has nothing to do with taking books away from seniors, for goodness’ sake.

My question is to the Acting Premier. The Ford government likes to pretend that vital services can be replaced with phone calls and favours. It would be funny if there weren’t real people across Ontario losing a vital service that they relied on. In small towns across Ontario and 47 First Nation communities across the north, it takes away a vital link. As the chair of Owen Sound’s library board put it, this is “an attack against libraries.”

Speaker, a library is a democratic public service and space. Will the Premier stop denying reality and restore these services now?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Once again, I have to start with what the facts are. We are spending $1.4 million paying interest on a debt that the government has had to assume. We are spending $40 million a day more than we are taking in in the province. There are efficient ways to be able to deliver services using Canada Post. There are alternatives.

At the end of the day, when you look at the reality of the situation and where the government stands, we are looking for transparent, sustainable ways of continuing services. The north is utilizing delivery services, and that is what the southern libraries should be doing as well. There is a solution to the problem and we will be meeting and working with the library services to ensure that the services continue.

The decision with respect to the library services cutting the interlibrary program—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you, Minister.

Next question.

Endangered species

Mr. Mike Harris: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Before we get started, I just wanted to thank him for coming down to Waterloo region with parliamentary assistant Andrea Khanjin last week.

Speaker, Ontario is home to more than 30,000 species of plants, insects, fish and wildlife. While many of these species have sustainable populations, 243 are listed on the species-at-risk-in-Ontario list due to threats such as habitat loss, pollution, invasive species, and climate change and disease.

The Endangered Species Act came into effect in 2008 and has been criticized for being ineffective in its aim to protect and re