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

March 6, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Mar-06 (PDF)

L075 - Wed 6 Mar 2019 / Mer 6 mar 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 March 2019 Mercredi 6 mars 2019

Orders of the Day

Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario

The People’s Health Care Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les soins de santé pour la population

Introduction of Visitors

Independent members

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Housing policy

Autism treatment

Tuition

Indigenous health care

Hospital funding

Northern economy

Pay equity

Autism treatment

Agri-food industry

Sexual assault crisis centres

Waste diversion

Government services

Health care

Visitors

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Deferred Votes

Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Sickle cell disease

Highway of Heroes Tree Campaign

Services for persons with disabilities

Events in Parry Sound–Muskoka

Autism treatment

Life Sciences Ontario

Autism treatment

Lunar New Year

Health care

Introduction of Bills

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 relative à la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones

Hellenic Heritage Month Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le Mois du patrimoine hellénique

Supporting Ontario’s Community, Rural and Agricultural Newspapers Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le soutien aux journaux communautaires, ruraux et agricoles de l’Ontario

Algoma University Amendment Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur l’Université Algoma

Petitions

Child care workers

Fish and wildlife management

Pharmacare

Autism treatment

Mental health and addiction services

Services for persons with disabilities

West Lincoln Memorial Hospital

Child care workers

Child care workers

Child advocate

Injured workers

Autism treatment

Orders of the Day

Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour des écoles sûres et axées sur le soutien

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us begin this morning with a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 27, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to restore Ontario’s competitiveness by amending or repealing certain Acts / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House passed March 5, 2019, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved second reading of Bill 66,

An Act to restore Ontario’s competitiveness by amending or repealing certain Acts.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard a number of noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

The People’s Health Care Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les soins de santé pour la population

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 5, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act concerning the provision of health care, continuing Ontario Health and making consequential and related amendments and repeals / Projet de loi 74, Loi concernant la prestation de soins de santé, la prorogation de Santé Ontario, l’ajout de modifications corrélatives et connexes et des abrogations.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Good morning, everyone. I’d like to start off by saying how grateful I am as a Canadian, and indeed as an Ontarian, for our public health care system. All of us in Ontario can each be grateful to live in a province where the health care providers are best in class and health care is publicly available. We are truly fortunate—and I can’t stress this enough—to have some of the best medical professionals in the world working in our province and caring for patients and their families all across Ontario.

So to the doctors and nurses living, working and caring for those in my riding of Cambridge, I want to say thank you. To all the people who work every day to help and care for patients in the clinics and in hospitals across Ontario, thank you for the work that you do and for being there.

But as the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has already said, while universal access to publicly funded health care is not up for debate, the structure and effectiveness of our system is. Mr. Speaker, just because we have some of the best and brightest working in health care in Ontario, that doesn’t mean that our system is perfect. It’s not. We can do better, and we need to do better.

Patients are languishing in hospital hallways. That is unacceptable. Ontarians are often waiting too long for procedures. Caregivers are increasingly frustrated as they’re forced to navigate and struggle through complicated processes, trying to access the services they need for their families and loved ones. This isn’t the fault of our doctors and nurses or the front-line health care workers, but these are issues that health care workers see every single day. These are the issues patients and their families live with on a daily basis.

Things need to change. As I’ve said already, Ontario is home to thousands of committed health care providers who ensure patients get the highest standard of care, but the system is currently organized in a way that works better for bureaucracy than for patients and the providers dedicated to helping them. Too many across Ontario, unfortunately, know all too well what it’s like being bumped around from place to place.

More often than not, different health care providers don’t talk to each other, so people have to fill out the same forms, tell the same story, and may even need to get the same tests done more than once, all because of a system that doesn’t communicate as well as it could. They use faxes instead of email. If there is a digital medical record, most likely those who need it don’t have access to it.

Mr. Speaker, this is 2019. Ontarians deserve to have a system that is keeping up with the times. These are just a few examples of bureaucracy that exist in each different part of the system that Ontarians face under the current system as it is today. The current system is not patient-focused or centred, but it should be. Bill 74, our government’s new health care plan, recognizes this problem and introduces positive solutions to start fixing the health care system.

Our government is committed to building a connected health care system to improve the patient and caregiver experience and strengthen local services. These changes will make it easier for Ontarians to navigate the system, rather than be lost within it. Providers will work together to take the guesswork out of transitions, where we know patients often feel lost and unsupported. As we improve our public health care system, patient needs will be put front and centre, as they should be. The new system will be designed to ensure patients receive the best care, no matter when and where they need it.

Bill 74 means changing certain aspects of the system to improve the health care experience and services, so that Ontarians would have one integrated team of health care providers working together to meet their needs, a medical record that both they and their providers can access easily, and help in navigating the public health care system on any day and at any time.

Anyone who has spent time dealing with, or existing within the system as it is today, can clearly see ways the health care experience can be made better for patients and better for the system as well. For example, sharing electronic health records between specialists means only having to test blood for the same issue once. Getting one X-ray that a family doctor and an ER nurse can both access electronically is quicker and simply makes more sense.

But, Mr. Speaker, I need to point out what isn’t changing, because I know Ontarians are curious, and I also know the opposition likes to talk about what we’re doing, as they should. But I’d like to set them straight on a few things. While we improve the system, Ontarians will continue to have access to the care they need and to the providers that they trust. The health care services they receive will remain uninterrupted.

Under the proposed new system, they can still go to the same doctor, choose their own provider: doctor, nurse practitioner or specialist. They’ll receive care by the same trusted providers as before, and they can be confident that what is paid for by OHIP today will be paid for by OHIP in the future. Ontarians can expect excellent service from all health care sectors, from cancer care and organ donation to home and community care.

Under our plan, Ontario health teams are being introduced to provide a new way of organizing and delivering services in local communities. Under Ontario health teams, the health care providers Ontarians see—including hospitals, doctors and home care providers—will work as one coordinated team, no matter where they provide care. And a great part about Ontario health teams is that they will rely on leadership that already exists in the community, rather than create another level of bureaucracy and management.

Over time, Ontarians will belong to Ontario health teams that coordinate and deliver services to meet individual health care needs. These services will include primary care, hospital care, rehabilitative care, home and community care, plus residential long-term care, in addition to mental health and addictions supports. Under our plan, with Ontario health teams, if you’re a patient and if you need to see different providers or receive care in different settings, your team will work together to make sure you get the care that you need.

Ontario health teams will know someone’s health history, be aware of health care services locally, and help people navigate the system 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Ontario health teams will ensure referrals get to the right place. They’ll receive and share health records with patients and caregivers, such as test results, and provide them with digital options, such as online access to health records and virtual care. It’s 2019; faxes just don’t cut it anymore. People need better access to their records, and our providers need the means to give it.

Interjection: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Hear, hear.

Under our plan, with Ontario health teams, providers will be able to safely and seamlessly access patient health care records and share them with other members on the team. It’s thanks to this that patients will never feel like they’ve been discharged from one provider to the next, or that old feeling of getting bumped around from place to place.

To achieve better-connected care, including Ontario health teams, we are coordinating provincial health agencies and specialized provincial programs so they are more effective and will work together. If the proposed legislation is passed, this single agency will be known as Ontario Health.

Our changes mean one central organization to oversee the health care system. This means better experiences for patients and caregivers, better health outcomes for patients, and better clinical guidance and support for health care providers. This means a sustainable health care system for years to come, and this is something that Ontarians using the health care system, and the medical professionals working within the system, need. This is an opportunity to stop working in silos and, instead, expand things that work well in our health care system.

Our health care dollars should be spent where it has an impact: on patients. Patients should not be confused about the care they need or how to access that care. Under our new plan, if passed, we would see some existing provincial agencies move under the new agency, Ontario Health. Cancer Care Ontario, eHealth Ontario, the Trillium Gift of Life Network and others would all be transitioned over.

But there is something specific that I want to point to: the 14 local health integration networks, or LHINs, in this province. The LHINs will also be brought under the umbrella of Ontario Health because, again—and I can’t stress this enough—our focus is patient-centred care. Our focus is making sure that the health care system works for the people who need it.

The LHINs have proven in many ways to add more to the bureaucracy and give less to patients, who have no choice but to use them. We, our party, fought hard in opposition, advocating for change and pushing the previous Liberal government year after year for the changes to the system, changes to the LHINs and changes that put patients first—changes that we are now proposing as government.

The NDP used to agree with us on this. The NDP, who are now the official opposition, used to think that the LHINs didn’t work, that they didn’t work well enough for patients or for caregivers. I’m expecting some debate, so I am curious as to what changed for the NDP. Now that they’re sitting across from us rather than beside us in this place, I do find it quite interesting.

I find it interesting that the criticisms to our plan, the changes we’re making to better serve patients—that, not so long ago, they were pointing out where the Liberals went wrong and how the LHINs weren’t working. I quote, “Unelected LHINs hold great power and responsibility in our health care system. The government made the LHINs responsible for planning, coordinating, funding health services in hospitals, community care centres, community support service organizations, mental health and addiction agencies, community health centres and long-term-care homes.

Quite frankly, the Liberal government has shifted responsibility for most of our local health care to the LHINs and, unfortunately, the blame as well.”

Mr. Speaker, that’s a direct quote from the member for Niagara Falls in January 2014, before his election to this House, when he spoke to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. I believe he was representing Unifor at that time, but as I’ve noted already, the NDP agreed that the LHINs weren’t working. They pushed for a review, along with us. Well, it’s more than four years later, and the LHINs still don’t work for Ontarians.

Interjection.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: You’ll get your chance; don’t you worry.

In October 2016, the member for Toronto–Danforth said this of the then Liberal government changing community care access centres, CCACs, into the local health integration networks—and this is the NDP member, directly from Hansard, in the Legislature on Thursday, October 20, 2016:

“I have to say that in many ways, the heart of this bill is the elimination of the community care access centres, the CCACs, and the transfer of power, authority and organizational responsibility to the local health integration networks, the LHINs. But that is not going to deal with our problem in long-term care. It’s not going to deal with our problem in the home care area.

I talk to constituents of mine—Speaker, you would be familiar with them—in the seniors’ buildings in my riding who consistently face problems accessing support from personal support workers to come into their units and help them to do the small number of things that would allow them to continue living independently. The reality is that a reorganization, a change of initials from a C-C-A-C to an L-H-I-N, is not going to actually deal with the home care crisis that we face.”

Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: What has changed for the NDP? Why are they now standing up for a system that they’ve said for years needed to be fixed under the Liberals? Our government is trying to fix what the Liberals didn’t. We’re trying to fix a health care system that the NDP once agreed with us needed fixing.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP might have changed their tune over the years, but we haven’t. We’re focused on listening to patients and health care providers and ensuring that Ontarians have what they need from their health care system.

I know that there are providers in my riding of Cambridge who want to see the changes our government is proposing in Bill 74. Patrick Gaskin, president and CEO of Cambridge Memorial Hospital, had this to say about our plan:

“As a community hospital mandated to provide comprehensive acute care services, we understand the benefit of partnership as a means to both extend our resources and enhance our patients’ journeys.

“Here are some of our examples:

“—Cambridge Memorial Hospital worked with local primary care physicians to expand mental health supports, thereby helping to reduce an outpatient mental health wait-list from over 500 to just 30 in a span of a year.

“—We combined efforts with regional police, community-based programs and local health agencies at Connectivity Table to wrap services around the most vulnerable members in our community, helping to reduce their visits to our emergency department.

“—We were one of the first hospitals in the province”—in Cambridge—“to embrace the collaborative quality improvement plans (C-QIP) that are developed in co-operation with primary care and local health agencies.

“—In collaboration with Stonehenge—a community-based organization focused on addictions treatment—we introduced on February 25 what is one of Ontario’s first peer recovery coaches in our emergency department to bring life-changing counselling to those wanting to treat their drug dependencies.

“—By the end of March, patients at Cambridge Memorial Hospital will have access to their hospital records online through a partnership with MyChart, thereby involving them in their care and enhancing their overall patient experience.

“These are the things that add value to our health care system, yet they take tremendous will and effort from all parties because our current system is not built for integration.

“Cambridge Memorial Hospital is aligned with the government’s intent to lift barriers and create a system that is seamless, as it is patient-centred. We believe Cambridge and North Dumfries would benefit from government’s proposed Ontario health teams. Our hospital is well positioned philosophically and we have the experience. As such, we welcome this opportunity and are now preparing our business case so to be an early adopter of this model.” It’s a very long quote, Mr. Speaker.

Patients, caregivers, doctors and health professionals across this province are calling on us. They’re telling us that change is needed, and what we propose with Bill 74 answers that call. It gets rid of needless barriers and costly bureaucracy and it puts the patient first, which is right where they belong.

In the final two minutes, Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to share something personal. In my past employment, I used to work very closely with medical professionals. Back in 2007, when the LHINs were first introduced, again, I was working very closely with specialists and general practitioners. They said to me that they were concerned and they didn’t think this was going to work. There was a lot of rumbling in the medical community that I was speaking with. They didn’t like the idea of the LHINs. Lo and behold, 12-plus years later, people are still not happy with the LHINs, and we’re looking to, as I mentioned in my speech, integrate them into Ontario Health.

In my work at the Kidney Foundation, which is a great charity, I worked very closely with the Ontario Renal Network. Again, any of this integration is going to help. It’s going to help specialists; it’s going to help patients. Patients who used to come to the foundation for support would speak often about how challenging it was not only to be dealing with a disease like kidney disease, which is very complex on its own, but then to navigate the health care system, which would add extra stress to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, this bill speaks very closely to me. I’m happy to see these proposed changes. I look forward to continued debate and look forward to, hopefully, this bill passing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s a pleasure to respond to some of the comments that were made.

Recently, I read a book about John Robarts, who was the Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario from 1961 to 1971. I actually was impressed with a lot of the things that he did. He built GO Transit. He expanded our university system. He built our college system. He kept tuition fees low because he was a Progressive Conservative.

The thing that I disagreed with, or that I would have disagreed with: In 1965, he fought against public health care. He didn’t want public health care coming into Ontario. That is always the concern of the NDP, because we recognize the importance of public health care and keeping it public. The thing that concerns me in the member of the government’s comments and even in the name of the bill is that it doesn’t say “public” health care.

That adjective, “public,” is so important because it is the public nature of our health care system that means that we get health care at a fraction of the cost—we pay far less for health care than they do in the United States—and yet we are a much healthier population.

The health care system that John Robarts fought against in 1965 and that we are afraid this government is going to try to dismantle is also a competitive advantage for Canada and for Ontario. When companies are deciding if they’re going to locate in the United States or in Canada, they often will locate in Canada because the health insurance premiums that they pay up here are so much less.

I support some of the things that the person was saying. One place where we do agree is that the current system is not working. There are too many people languishing with hallway medicine. There are too many people, too many of our seniors who should be in long-term care, who are languishing in hospitals. In that, we are in agreement. But our big concern is that this government does not use the term “public” when they talk about our health care system.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. David Piccini: I just wanted to thank the member from Cambridge for her excellent speech this morning and for highlighting the significant stakeholder support for this bill and for much-needed reform. Thank you to the member for Spadina as well. I appreciate your input on this.

I heard the member opposite get hung up on words being used. Yes, it’s important, and I think Minister Elliott has said a number of times in this House that Ontarians will continue to rely on the public health care system that they’ve known to love and that has become strained. In fact, it has become broken. Over the last 15 years, we’ve seen the increasing bureaucratization of our health care system.

I come from a background, having worked in health care—and we just weren’t listening to our health care professionals. The reason that doctors mobilized so firmly was because of the devastating cuts and because of the cutbacks for residency positions by the previous government.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Look in the mirror.

Mr. David Piccini: I understand it upsets the member opposite, and it would upset me, too, after what they did to our health care system. It upsets a lot of people in Ontario. The system was broken.

This minister, this government is committed to ending hallway health care. One thousand patients in the hallway is 1,000 patients too many. It’s 146 days to wait to get in a long-term-care bed. We’ve taken immediate action: 6,000 beds. We’ve delivered four acute-care beds at my hospital; a $1.7-million investment into Campbellford Memorial. That’s going to continue under this government.

Ontarians will continue to depend on our health care system. They will continue to receive the supports they need. But, Mr. Speaker, we can do more. We must do more.

This is a plan that’s going to get Ontario’s health care system working for the people who need it most: the patients.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m always happy to stand up and debate on bills—especially the health care bill. It’s an extremely important bill. This is probably one of the largest restructurings of Ontario’s health care system that has been brought forward in decades, centuries.

This government says that they’ve been consulting people, but I read an

article just the other day in the Star in which doctors and nurses were saying that they weren’t consulted. This government is also in such a hurry when it comes to consultation during committee process. They don’t travel bills. They don’t actually give enough time for days for presentations. So when they stand and they talk about how much they’ve consulted, I have to ask the question—I really don’t trust that piece of it.

One other thing that they’re going to do is they’re going to create these super-agencies. We don’t even know who those super-agencies will be, because they’re still under the application process. What happens is, in this super-agency, you only have to have three core basket services of health care.

Right now, there are usually six core health care services that we believe are required in order to provide full health care to everyone for access, and those would be hospital services, primary care services, mental health and addiction services, home care and community services, long-term-care-home services, and palliative care services. If you restrict super-agencies to only have three out of those six, how are people going to have access to those other health care services that they need so much, that are so important to them? That is a concern, Speaker.

And the fact that they are saying, “We’re still waiting on applications. We don’t know what the super-agencies are going to look like, what they’re going to be composed of” is a concern under this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s really important to rise and to speak to Bill 74, because health care is something that touches all of the 14 million-plus people who live in this province and who rely on our health care system.

What the government has said in terms of bureaucracy—this is the biggest form of bureaucracy, creating this super-agency with layers and layers and layers between patient care and the ministry itself. So I think that there’s a lot to this bill, and a lot of sweeping changes.

I want to remind the members opposite that measuring of wait times across our system is something that was put in by the former Liberal government because the state in which we found our health care system was completely in chaos. We have spent the last number of years making investments in new hospitals, hiring nurses—all of those things—and all of that is at risk with the intention behind Bill 74.

I don’t see the consultation plan here. All I see is a government that is making sweeping changes that will affect the lives of every Ontarian, without talking to anyone, without talking to the front-line health care professionals. They’ve come in, they’ve talked to me, to members of the Liberal caucus, and they are concerned. Everyone is concerned, because the government has not taken the time to put forward a consultation that really does get the best ideas and helps to improve our health care services.

Obviously, to improve the health care system is something that should always be happening on a continuous basis, but you can’t do it by just downloading big ideas without talking to the people who it will effect.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now back to the member from Cambridge for final comments.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the member from Spadina–Fort York, the member from Scarborough–Guildwood, the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South and the member from London–Fanshawe for all of your comments on this. I’ll just try to take everyone’s comments together.

Addressing the member from Spadina–Fort York: We agree that the current system is not working. I’m really glad to hear that, because the current system is not working. The system that we were handed by the Liberals was broken.

He’s saying that we didn’t use the word “public.” I’m looking at my paper, and I used the word “public” easily 20-odd number of times. There is nothing changing about our publicly funded health care system. I cannot say that enough; I don’t think the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care or her parliamentary assistants can say that enough. Nothing is changing when it comes to our publicly funded health care system.

The member from Scarborough–Guildwood is talking about complete chaos, that there will be more chaos, and talking about consultations. I don’t know if the Liberals can really talk about consultations, because a lot of that didn’t happen under the Liberal government, unfortunately.

Again, when the LHINs were implemented, I was working in health care. I heard from front-line providers every single day, and as I continued to work in health care, I heard from the providers as well as patients how broken the system was. So I was hearing it; every day for 12 years I was hearing it. Now I’m here at Queen’s Park and I’m telling you, Mr. Speaker, what I heard from patients and providers. The system was broken. They wanted change. They need change.

We promised change in the election. We are bringing change to the table.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Good morning, Speaker. How are you?

I suppose the best place to start this morning is on some of the areas on which we can agree with the government. We, the New Democrats, agree that our health care system is in crisis. Every member of this House has a horror story to tell. We’ve heard them in the House over and over again. I’ve told my story about my father. I’ve told the story about—in Hamilton, we had a grandmother who died waiting for an ambulance. That was simply because there was a code zero, and code zeros are a direct result of our overcrowded and underfunded health care system. So we agree completely that this is a crisis.

I think we also can agree that the Liberals did leave our world-class health care system hanging by a thread. The system has been chronically underfunded, and that’s not mentioned often enough. In fact, Ontario spends less per capita on health care funding than any other province in Canada, and that’s important for us to acknowledge.

We can agree also that this system is currently being held together by the dedication of front-line workers—

Interjection: Hear, hear.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Exactly. See? We agree on that.

Our nurses, our technicians, our PSWs and our doctors: They are all working right now in untenable conditions, and their dedication is what’s keeping the system going. So we do have the best health care workers in the world.

Unfortunately, this is where I would say that our agreement ends. The lovefest ends now.

Bill 74 is a plan that was cooked up behind closed doors without meaningful consultation. This government proposes to create a super-bureaucracy, Ontario Health. This is a super-bureaucracy with extraordinary powers. The bill will close award-winning agencies like our Cancer Care Ontario and the Trillium Gift of Life Network—

Interjection.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: —but, most chilling of all, Bill 74 opens the door to unprecedented levels of privatization in our health care system.

So yes, to the member for Northumberland–Peterborough South, we are hung up on the idea of public health care. That’s what we are hung up on.

And I would say that just by saying the word “public” over and over and over again doesn’t make it so. It needs to be in the bill, and it’s not in this bill.

Most of all, we agree that we have a health care system that’s in crisis. How is this minister proposing to fix our health care crisis? It’s not by protecting our front-line health care workers. In fact, we hear that nurses are being laid off right now in this province of Ontario, when we need more nurses, not fewer.

They’re not addressing the chronic underfunding, that we’ve talked about, in our health care system. Instead, it proposes to create a super-agency: Ontario Health. My guess is that must be a pretty super agency; in fact, it probably has got to be magic if one big bureaucracy can solve the crisis that we have here in the health care system. But it’s really hard to tell exactly what this bureaucracy will do, because there is very, very little information in the bill.

It has been mentioned that there has been very little public consultation. When I was on the finance committee, the pre-budget consultation, we heard time and time again from people who were mentioning that they had not been consulted on the budget bill. We’re hearing again that people—front-line health care workers—have not been consulted in any meaningful way on Bill 74.

That makes sense, because there’s very little information in this bill to help us understand how this, in fact, will help address our health care system. We don’t know how much money this super-agency is intended to save. We don’t know how many jobs will be lost. The minister doesn’t seem to have clear answers on that. We don’t know who, in fact, will run this super-agency. Who is going to be hired to lead this super-agency? I had visions, again, of some more gravy-train jobs in our future. I can only say that because there’s no information on which to go on. There’s absolutely no evidence presented in the bill or in this House that this idea of a super-agency will, in fact, work—

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Or that anybody even wants it.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: —or that anybody even wants it, I will add.

The examples that this government has proposed as apparently evidence that a super-agency will help—the plan that this is modelled on—in fact, do the exact opposite. They actually don’t reassure us; they show us examples of things that just don’t work. The government has suggested in debate yesterday that this is an idea based on systems in the UK and in the United States. But each of these examples are anything but success stories. In fact, they’re quite the opposite, really.

Let’s start with the American system of health care. I have family who live in the States. Our access to health care is something that they really, really regret losing when they moved to the US. In fact, we know that our Canadian-style health care is the envy of most Americans. The stories of the failure of the American health care system are legendary. We know this. We know that people in the US pay more for health care and have poorer health care outcomes. In fact, there are instances, based on this two-tier system that the American health care system has, that people aren’t accessing health care.

My sister, in fact, is a nurse in the States. She worked here in Canada as a nurse, and she now works in the States as a cardiac specialist. She gives clear examples of how the system in Canada is so much better for patients and for people’s outcomes. She tells a story of a family she knows who had a young girl who broke her arm, who didn’t even go to the hospital because they didn’t have coverage. That is the kind of horror story that we don’t need to be setting up as a shining example of how to model our health care system. And then there’s Britain.

I would like to echo—before Britain—that nobody wants an American-style system here in Ontario. In fact, that’s a nightmare scenario for most people in Ontario.

And now the UK: The National Health Service in the UK is facing a huge backlash. We’ve heard time and time again about how this is failing people. Harry Leslie Smith, who was a champion of the public health care system, recently died but was really a beacon of hope for us to understand how important a health care system is for the general health of people. He grew up in a time when people did not have access to a public health care system, and he feared that the changes that the national health system was implementing would take them backwards.

The system even has critics like Stephen Hawking, when he was alive, which led to legal hearings. In fact, the British Medical Association issued a warning that this type of model increases the risk of privatization, the very thing that we are saying that Ontarians and the New Democrats are concerned about. We are fearful that this is a plan that is going to usher in more privatization.

Universally, critics pan the idea of a huge bureaucracy. Just name a huge bureaucracy or a super-agency. They are not things that come to mind as something that really is effective. Some of the major criticism for our huge bureaucracy is that it removes it from local communities, so now local communities don’t have direct access. They feel that they will perhaps have unequal access to health care.

The most important thing is that they don’t respect local decision-making and local knowledge. I feel that this is a government that thinks they have all the answers, and that they think they can concentrate all the power in the Premier’s office or they can concentrate all of the decisions regarding our health care system in one super-agency. Really, does that sound right to anyone? Does that make any sense, that a super-agency is going to resolve this problem that we’re facing today?

There are a few things that Canadians can certainly agree on. There are things that we share, our shared values, things that we take pride in. So I think it’s appropriate, and I’m happy to be able to remind the House, that Tommy Douglas was voted the greatest Canadian ever.

Interjections.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Exactly. We thought it was going to be Don Cherry, but it turns out, in fact, it’s Tommy Douglas.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I wonder why.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Why, you may ask, my friend? Well, why don’t I tell you? Because Tommy Douglas was known as the father of medicare. He was the founder of the medicare system in Canada in which we take so much pride.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you, Tommy.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you, Tommy. Exactly.

The second thing that’s connected to this, that we share in common, is that survey after survey shows that the thing that Canadians take most pride in, the thing that they value most, is our universal public health care. It’s one of our greatest sources of pride. It’s a shared national value, such that this commitment to our public health care is enshrined in the Canada Health Act. Let me just read the piece that is one of the founding principles of our Canada Health Act. It says, “All administration of provincial health insurance must be carried out by a public authority on a non-profit basis.”

But this bill says no such thing. This bill proposes that our health care will be delivered by Ontario health teams. I suppose that’s the new myCARE groups that we heard about earlier, but now they’re called Ontario health care teams. This bill has absolutely no provisions that these teams will have to be not-for-profit public teams. There are no provisions at all that speak to the public, time and time again. There are no provisions that they have to be not-for-profit. There are no provisions that they have to be based in Ontario or even in Canada. This is chilling. This is very telling of what this government’s true intentions are.

That means any corporation, whether they are a US-based mega-corporation, is welcomed into our health care system. In fact, it seems that this government is putting out a welcome mat to these huge corporations, because apparently agencies are lined up to get in on this action—agencies that represent people who can afford $1,250 a seat for a dinner to have access to the Premier.

Let us make no mistake: This is big business indeed. Senior care is big business. It’s true that a lion’s share of our home care and long-term care is already privatized, thanks to Mike Harris, and there is clear evidence that this is not serving us well. We all know, again, horror stories of people languishing in long-term-care homes, where there are not enough beds, and people who are not getting access to adequate home care. We hear the stories, you share the stories, we tell the stories—so the very fact that privatization is not working.

We have a $60-billion health care system, and my guess is that looks pretty lucrative to some of these corporations that are looking to make profits on the backs of patients. We know that this $60 billion comes from our hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and that every dollar that is siphoned off for profit is a dollar that doesn’t go towards fixing our health care system; it’s a dollar that doesn’t go towards paying overworked nurses, underpaid PSWs. These are dollars that we need in the system, not to be siphoned out.

In fact, there is evidence that shows that when privatization profit motive is put into the health care system, it costs upwards—between 12 cents and 15 cents on every dollar goes to privatization. That’s a lot of money being siphoned out of our health care system.

Patients and people in Ontario are not profit centres. Ontarians do not want big box health care here in Ontario.

Interjection.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: And if this is not the case, as the Minister of Finance seems to be indicating—he’s quite good at multi-tasking over there.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: He’s a genius. Just ask him.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Yes.

If this is not the case, Minister, then why not mandate it in the bill? Why is the bill silent on this issue if these fears are unfounded?

As they say, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. We have heard time and time again—and we know the history in Ontario of what Mike Harris did to our health care system.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Mike Harris is the board chair of Chartwell.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Oh, is that right?

Apparently, former Premier Mike Harris is the board chair of Chartwell, a very lucrative, private, for-profit provider of long-term care.

Laying off nurses, closing hospitals—in many ways we’re still recovering from this regressive attack on our health care system. This privatization that we experienced under Mike Harris clearly has negatively impacted what we see now in our home care system. That competitive bidding scheme that he put out was a complete failure.

In Hamilton, we saw incredible chaos in the system, and venerable organizations like the VON, which had been operating for over 100 years in Hamilton—a community-based, not-for-profit organization—had to shut their doors. That’s the kind of effect, the kind of destabilization and chaos that this created in our history.

We’ve also seen boondoggles just like this super-agency. Mike Harris forced amalgamation—that was a big, bold idea from Mike Harris that forced amalgamation on cities around Ontario. A study by the Fraser Institute determined that amalgamation actually increased costs like property tax and long-term debt. The report states that “there was no tangible, financial benefit from amalgamation.”

So what do these things have in common besides being epic failures for the people of Ontario? I would say, number one, lack of consultation—but this is what has been expected from this government. We see time and time again that this government does not want to have debate on important issues. They like to have their time allocation bills so that we, as a Legislature, can’t weigh in on these bills—these bills that are proposing to make transformative, sweeping changes to our health care system, but apparently we don’t need to debate that in the House, because this is a government that has all the answers, and apparently we don’t need to consult with the people of Ontario.

We believe that this bill should travel. If this is a bill that is going to create sweeping changes in the way people access health care—health care, the things that are most fundamentally critical to the lives and well-being of people—why do we not travel this bill? If this government is so proud of it, let’s put it out there. Let the people of Ontario weigh in on this bill. This is their health care system, not the government’s alone.

It’s kind of ironic that this government doesn’t want to give every Ontarian a chance to weigh in on this bill. The irony is not lost with me that it’s called The People’s Health Care Act. You can’t have a People’s Health Care Act if you don’t consult the people. It’s just blatantly obvious. Really, if this is something that the minister is so proud of and this is something that has been developed behind closed doors, it is time that the people of Ontario get to see those doors opened, that they get to see what is about to be foisted on them in the province of Ontario.

Finally, I’ve got to say that the Minister of Health’s spin game is in overdrive these days. She keeps saying “public, public, public” over and over again. As I said before, saying it doesn’t make it so.

The other thing that she likes to say is that Ontarians will continue to pay for services with their OHIP card. This is a bit of false advertising, because the OHIP card is not a credit card. Our OHIP card is our right to access free public health care. This is health care that we pay for with our hard-earned tax dollars.

Do you know what? This bill does nothing—and the comments of the members across do nothing—to assure us that behind the scenes, in the closed doors of the Premier’s office, this isn’t a plan that is looking to siphon off dollars for private gain. If this is not the case, if this is something that you are proud of and you are assuring us that the delivery of our health care will be public, not-for-profit—not mega-corporations, not for-profit corporations, not corporations that are traded on the stock exchange—that these are public entities that will be tending to and caring for the people of Ontario, put it in the bill.

So I say to the minister: Mandate it in the bill. Stand up, be clear and say it directly, because—do you know what?—14 million people in Ontario are looking to be reassured that you are not putting our public health care system up for sale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I’m very pleased to rise and speak today about this wonderful bill to strengthen our public health care system.

When we look at this bill, I think we’re talking about fixing some of the significant challenges that we have had in our health care system. When we talk about hallway health care, this is not just a slogan; this is a reality. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have had a chance to visit their local hospitals and see this themselves, if not experienced it themselves, as a patient, and so we had to take action to address this.

The health care piece is one piece of, I believe, an interconnected triangle. That is the health care piece, the long-term-care piece and the home care piece. All three sides of that triangle need to be working in harmony for us to truly achieve the kind of public health care system that we all want.

I look at my own experience: I am fortunate to have a doctor who’s part of the Rideau Family Health Team. If I have a health issue, I can go to my doctor, and I immediately get access to a team of allied health care professionals. Whether it be a dietitian, a doctor, a nurse practitioner—whatever it might be—there’s a team that I have access to.

Let’s scale that model. Let’s expand that. Let’s give hospitals the opportunity to partner with a long-term-care facility, to partner with different groups in the community that can help ensure that when a patient accesses our public health care system, they get the full support they need.

I am pleased to support this bill, and I look forward to seeing the development of it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

M. Guy Bourgouin: Merci, monsieur le Président. Comme vous le savez, ce mois-ci, c’est le Mois de la Francophonie. Ça me fait plaisir de parler du projet de loi 74, puis les effets que ça va avoir sur les francophones, les soins de santé francophones dans la province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Our health system is broken, and we are having serious issues. Being in hospital, talking to doctors, talking to patients, nurses and service providers— all of them are saying there’s something wrong with the system. They are complaining about the system. No one can deny that. We can argue or debate what should be done, but we all agree something has to be done.

One of the important improvements I think we should look into in every aspect or every solution we have is technology. Modernizing the systems, linking the systems together, having information sharing between the different providers makes a significant difference for the patient experience.

Being a patient in one of the instances where I can have some service from a service provider and then I get handed paperwork and told, “You go and figure out the next step” is not acceptable. Working with multiple agencies, multiple arms or multiple separate stand-alone agencies that sometimes have their own bylaws on sharing information, or restricted to sharing information due to their knowledge of the laws or knowledge of sharing policies, in the end makes patients suffer.

Having all this collected under one umbrella will enable and make it seamless for the patient to receive service in any part of the service we are talking about.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Ian Arthur: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and contribute to this debate. I’m glad the member from Ottawa West–Nepean brought up his experience with his family health team, because what he’s talking about is a model of paying health professionals called the capitation model. It’s something that the Liberals started. They decided to move towards a more inclusive health practice, but then they got afraid of the cost and they capped how many organizations could exist under that model, so now we have dual systems. We have a fee-for-service system, which is the older one on how doctors were paid, and a capitation system, which is the family health teams he was talking about.

I worry very much about how hard it is to actually deliver health care in this province and how complicated it is. I worry that everything Liberal is inherently bad and everything Progressive Conservative is inherently good now. The realities of delivering that are incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive, and I question whether this government is going to put the funds behind it that are needed to do a good job in delivering this.

You have agencies that love the LHINs; you have agencies that struggle to interact with the LHINs. There are always two sides to the story. I don’t see that a super-bureaucracy is going to have the answers that the LHINs fail to have. I understand the idea of bringing them together and merging them and trying to find efficiencies but, simply, the mechanics of delivering that funding to the agencies that are on the front-lines, that give those services to the community, are hard to set up.

How is this government going to take all of those channels and all of those things that were established—they’re throwing them out. They’re trying to bring in a new system. I question how different logistically it is actually going to be at the end of the day.

We need to put the money into health care, and there is no other way about it. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Now we return to the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for final comment.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I thank my fellow members for their weighing in on such an important issue as the crisis that is in our health care system. I would like to underscore some of the concerns that have been raised in this House about the idea of a super-agency, a super-bureaucracy.

We talked earlier about how the experience in Britain has been that people feel that the health care is removed from their local experience. We now have heard concerns from the Franco community, from the northern community, where they already feel underserved. They already feel disconnected from the health care system.

The idea of a health care system is that we all have access to the same standard of care wherever we live in this province. This super-bureaucracy is not going to make that better. In fact, it’s going to make it worse. Evidence from the experiences of other jurisdictions that have tried this scheme are showing that it has failed, so it really boggles my mind why this government is going down this route.

And then we can only guess that there is this idea of privatization. Every time we say that we have fears, that the people of Ontario have fears about privatization, we’re told that this is not the case. Then put it in the bill. It’s simple. If you want to end this concern, if the government truly wants to reassure 14 million Ontarians that they are not trying to siphon off profits from our health care system to mega-corporations, it’s a simple, simple fix: Put it in the bill.

If you don’t believe me, travel this bill. Go and speak to the people of Ontario whose health care you are planning to transform without consulting them. Go to the north. Go to the Far North. Go to my seatmate Mr. Mamakwa’s riding of Kiiwetinoong. See what his health care system looks like. Don’t sit here, in the Premier’s office, in this Legislature, isolated from the people of Ontario. Go and speak to the people this health care act is intended to address.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 74. I do want to say that the member from Kingston and the Islands I think gave a very good response to the member’s speech. We’re all here for the same reasons. We’re here because we care about our communities and we care about health care. That’s the most important thing we do, I believe. It’s the most important thing we do for our families and for the families of the people who we represent.

The interesting thing in this debate—I’ve listened to the minister’s speech and some of the speeches of other members with regard to this legislation and what it means. It’s the same thing we’ve been saying for 30 years, all of us—different places, different times—about what we want to do with the health care system and on who it should be centred. They’re pretty much the same words. Sometimes we change them. The intent is the thing we know is there; it’s the execution that’s the challenge.

I want to talk a bit about the risks of the kinds of changes that are being suggested in this bill and the risks of the powers that exist in there, because I think they’re critical for all of us to realize as we go forward, not just for the next five to 10 years, but 15, 20, 25 years.

The challenge is right now—and the member from Ottawa West–Nepean articulated that very well. We all know that. That’s why we opened up, essentially, a hospital in downtown Toronto last year. It’s why we did 1,100 surge beds, and you continued those 1,100 surge beds. There are people there right now waiting in emergency rooms, waiting in places where they don’t need to be, waiting for home care. This bill will not do anything for them right now, next week, next month, next year, two years from now, three years from now.

The changes you’re suggesting that you want to make are a pretty big right turn. It’s from a local community-based model of decision-making into a centralized one. I’ll go into that later. So the proof will be in the pudding: How do you solve that problem of hallway medicine when you’re in a revenue box? The FAO is downstairs talking about that right now and the challenges. It takes money. That problem is right here, right now, and it’s incumbent upon all of us to solve that problem.

How is this going to solve the problem of access to palliative care? This bill will not—not right now, not a year from now, not two years from now, not three years from now. I guarantee you. What’s needed here is, what is the government’s commitment to fixing those things for those people who are stuck in the hallways or waiting for access to palliative care or actually not being able to access their primary care provider? Ninety-four per cent of Ontarians have a primary care provider but they can’t get them when they need them. And where do they end up? In emergency rooms or sicker. That’s a right-now problem. We can talk about transformation, but this is a right-now problem.

No matter what side you’re on and when you’ve been in charge in this Legislature, when you’ve had government, whether it was the NDP or us or you, there are always challenges in the health care system. So if anybody comes to you and says, “I have the solution for health care”—it doesn’t exist. What exists is the constant effort to improve on the gains that we’ve made and correct the mistakes of the past. That’s what we do in health care. You’re never finished. You fix one thing; there’s something else to fix. The government needs to focus on this now.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: To the member opposite: I can talk to him about wait times. I can talk to him about the best cancer results in the world, and this bill actually repeals the Cancer Act, which is one of the reasons why we have some of the best results in the world. So I appreciate the heckle, but the minister here knows that it’s his responsibility—his responsibility—to ensure that the resources for those problems I’ve just brought out are taken care of now, not three years from now, not five years from now. And as the FAO said, you’re putting yourself in a pretty tight fiscal box.

I’ve talked a bit about the concerns right now. I’ve talked about the concerns right now. I want to talk a bit about the risks that exist here. When you take a system and you turn it on its head, when you take a system that’s localized, based on community decision-making, and you centralize it, you restructure, you bureaucratize, you create a bureaucracy, the end result is only borne by those people at the end of the line: patients, their families, the people who provide care. That’s where people fall between the cracks.

So in Ottawa, what did we have to do? We had to fight for the Montfort. The community had to rise up to save the CHEO cardiac unit because the centralized decision-making—not local decision-making—was saying, “No, we’re just taking that away from you.”

Here’s the power that’s in this bill: The minister has the power, in 30 days, to restructure, close down or amalgamate any health care provider that’s out there—30 days, no appeal.

Who owns the Brockville hospital? Is it the government of Ontario? No, it’s the people of Brockville. They gave 10%. That 10% was really hard to get, but they own it. So are you willing, 10 or 15 years from now, in your community, to allow a board of 12 people and a minister of the day to say, “Brockville, in 30 days you’re part of the Ottawa Hospital”? Or, “You know what? We’re closing you down because you can just go to Kingston.” That’s a risk. You may say, “No, no, no, we’re not going to do that.” You did close 26 hospitals.

Let’s say I believe you, but how do I know, five years from now, that’s not going to happen and that we haven’t given too much power to a group of individuals who weren’t elected?

In this bill, there’s no democratic recourse. There’s no shareholder meeting where people can come and say to this board of 12 people, “Hey, I’m not happy. Why are you doing this?” There’s not even a provision in this bill where we do that, and we represent those people. It’s crazy. That’s a piece that’s missing that’s really important. You may say, “We’re not going to do that. We have the best plans. We’re pure of heart.” And I believe that. I hope nobody took that the wrong way. But the concern is, you’re giving unchecked power that will go off into the future and you have no control over that. There needs to be a check and a balance, and there’s not a check and a balance in this bill.

I’m checking on my time here; I’ve only got a few minutes left before—three minutes? Thank you, Speaker.

What I urge the government to do is to think about how we want to govern our health care, how we want the people to be able to have input, be able to criticize, be able to be part of the decision-making. There are LHINs where there are good experiences and bad experiences. I’m not here to defend the LHINs, but I am here to defend local decision-making. When you rip away local decision-making and you park it here in downtown Toronto, we all know what the end result is. There are members on the other side of this House who know how that centralization affected their communities and hospital closures.

Are you willing to say that you’re going to let a board of 12 unelected people and a minister be able to say that this really great community organization that does wonderful work in health care in my community—well, the minister is amalgamating it with somebody else? I know what you would say. I know what you would say if it happened to you while you were in government; we wouldn’t hear it, because you’d be saying it inside caucus or to the minister. But I know what you’d say on this side of the House. You’d be really upset, and your community would be upset.

The biggest challenge that’s in this bill right now is it removes local decision-making and parks it here in downtown Toronto, and that’s not good. So I hope that when you’re looking at this bill and you’re drafting amendments, you make sure that the local is not totally lost, because when I look at this bill, that’s what I see.

Speaker, I think you want to get up.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): You’re a mind-reader. I did want to get up and I did get up. It is now 10:15. To the member from Ottawa South: You will have an opportunity to continue your debate once this bill comes back into the Legislature again for debate.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): But since it is now 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ian Arthur: It’s my absolute pleasure today to introduce the Johnson family. They are the parents of Collin, who is the page captain for today. We are joined in the members’ gallery by his mother, Kelly; his father, Todd; and his sister, Laura. Welcome to the Legislature. It’s absolutely wonderful to have you here.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Introduction of visitors? I recognize the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, finally I’m recognized early.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House two of my constituents, Flora Waters and Colin Waters. They are the grandparents of page Pieter Waters, who is from the same great riding as the member from Windsor–Tecumseh. I’d like to thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

I also would like to welcome the federal member from Durham, who goes by the moniker of “son of John O’Toole,” the great MP Erin O’Toole from Durham. Welcome.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: It’s my pleasure to welcome, from Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Deputy Grand Chief Derek Fox and one of his staff, Gina Fata, and also my staff, Anne Chabot.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I want to take a moment to welcome participants of the 12th annual Canadian Black Caucus who are here in the Legislature today, and I would like to do that on behalf of the Liberal caucus. This is their 12th year of being in the Legislature. You’ll see lots of young people from across Ontario here today. I want to welcome them to the Legislature and take a moment to thank Gwyn Chapman and all the other people that made this happen. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Lindsey Park: It’s a great honour to introduce the member for Durham, the Honourable Erin O’Toole, federal member of Parliament, here with us. I also see the federal member of Parliament for Prince Albert, Randy Hoback, here. Thanks for joining us. They’re both joining us for the Highway of Heroes Tree Campaign reception. I hope all members will join us. It’s hosted by the member for Northumberland–Peterborough South in room 340 after question period.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the board and staff of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They’re here for a couple of days educating us on how our food is produced and how we keep it safe.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to welcome the members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to the Legislature today. Alongside some of my colleagues, we met with them this morning for a wonderful breakfast discussion to discuss important issues that the sector is facing. We want to welcome them all to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Paul Miller: Today is Tourism Day here at Queen’s Park, and from the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario I’d like to welcome Troy Young, David Peacock, Brad Butt, Kevin Eshkawkogan, Rebecca McKenzie and Rick Layzell. Welcome.

Mr. David Piccini: It’s a great pleasure to welcome two constituents of mine, and also a distant relative from Newfoundland—don’t let the last name fool you; half Newfie as well—Lloyd and Sue Johnson. They are also celebrating their 49th wedding anniversary. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to remind members of the Highway of Heroes Tree Campaign event in room 340. I hope you will join us. A special thank you to member of Parliament Erin O’Toole for joining us for that—of course, Randy Hoback as well. I’d also like to acknowledge Brad Butt, former member of Parliament for Mississauga–Streetsville. You could practically have a caucus reunion here today. There are so many of you. But welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to recognize the 12th annual Canadian Black Caucus event, Inspiring Youth Politically, happening today at Queen’s Park to encourage young people to get involved in the political process, organized by founder and long-time community organizer, Gwyn Chapman, with the assistance of Island Spice.

We would like to welcome the students attending from Jack Miner Senior Public School, Scarborough–Guildwood; Winona Drive Senior Public School, Toronto–St. Paul’s; Uchenna Academy, Davenport; Balmoral Drive Senior Public School; Brampton Centre; Central Tech high school, University–Rosedale; York University, Humber River–Black Creek; Ryerson University, Toronto Centre; and Stephen Mensah from York South–Weston. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce and welcome Mr. Bryan Plumstead, who is the manager of tourism in Grey county, here as part of the tourism reception and lobby day; the Honourable Erin O’Toole, the treasured son of Johnny O., our former colleague, mentor and MPP; Pat Jilesen and Keith Currie from the OFA, and a special, special happy birthday to Cody Welton, executive director of issues management and legislative affairs. Happy birthday, Cody.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: On behalf of the official NDP Black caucus, I would like to welcome all of the brilliant youth who are at Queen’s Park today for the 12th annual Canadian Black Caucus event. Thank you again to Gwyn Chapman, and I can’t wait to meet with all of the youth at 11.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I have the privilege of introducing a few guests this morning. From the great riding of Simcoe North, I would like to welcome Ms. Rolston and her students from Twin Lakes Secondary School, as well as my guests Glen and Rosie Heatherington. Thank you for being here today.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: This morning, I’m delighted to welcome Ms. Olga Sawchuk from my riding. Today, she will be receiving the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to the House members of the Canadian Black Caucus and the organizers, Gwyn Chapman and Jennifer Matherson, and all of the young people who are here to participate in the conference, Inspiring Youth Politically. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Steve Clark: It’s tourism day at Queen’s Park. I’d like to welcome representatives of the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario, but specifically I want to welcome a constituent from my riding of Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I’d like to welcome Kathrine Christensen, who is the executive director of 1000 Islands Tourism. Please give her a warm welcome. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome Allan Carswell, president of the Carswell Family Foundation. Speaker, Allan taught physics at York, and his research on laser terrain mapping systems helped guide the 2007 Phoenix space mission to Mars. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park, to question period, for the very first time Terry Angiers, who is the father of my legislative assistant Trent Angiers. He’s travelling today from Newcastle.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome some friends from my riding: Lynnette Bain, who is the vice-president of Tourism Windsor Essex Pelee Island—or TWEPI—and Ben Leblanc-Beaudoin, who is a rock star chef and owns the Iron Kettle B&B. He’s in the building today, as well as their colleague, Rebecca Mackenzie, here for the Taste of Ontario reception. We welcome them here today.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: It’s my pleasure to welcome the former MP for Mississauga–Streetsville, Brad Butt. Mr. Butt is serving now as a VP for government relations and stakeholder relations for the Mississauga Board of Trade. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m delighted to welcome a Western University student and London West constituent, Brienna French, who is here today. Brienna was an amazing campaign volunteer for me and is the co-founder of the Western University NDP club.

Mr. Paul Calandra: I too would like to welcome my former colleagues Brad Butt, Randy Hoback and Erin O’Toole. As well, I would like to welcome—she is going to be very embarrassed—my legislative intern, Nikki Romano, who is doing a great job in my office.

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s my honour to welcome to the house Hitesh Pandya from the Ontario Pharmacists Association, as they are holding their Queen’s Park lobby day.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: As part of Tourism Day, I’d like to welcome Michael Crockatt, president and CEO of Ottawa Tourism.

I’d also like to extend a warm welcome to three former colleagues from Parliament Hill: Mr. Brad Butt, Mr. Erin O’Toole and Mr. Randy Hoback. I look forward to seeing Mr. Hoback and Mr. O’Toole in a new government come October.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Okay. We don’t make any political statements. Members know that we don’t make any political statements. We’re way over time.

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to acknowledge and thank my good friend Peyton Veitch, who is the LA in our office. It’s his birthday today. Peyton, thank you for everything you do for us, for making us work.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the House my friends from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, especially the provincial director from Bruce county, Pat Jilesen.

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d just like to welcome Peggy Brekveld, and Larry Davis from the federation of agriculture. He is our town crier in the county of Brant.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m honoured to have my father, Mr. William Crawford, who is here to see not me, but his granddaughter Michelle, a page.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to welcome some very special guests from the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario to the Legislature today. They are Beth Potter, Michael Crockatt, Andrew Weir, Lorrie McKee, Chuck Thibeault, Minto Schneider, Steve Ball, Bryan Plumstead and Kathrine Christensen. The Tourism Industry Association of Ontario is hosting their lobby day today at Queen’s Park, and I hope to see everyone at their reception this evening.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: There is one person who hasn’t been introduced in the chamber today. I’d like to welcome the former president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who is from my riding: Don McCabe. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m very pleased to welcome some of my constituents: Greg Martin and Kara Halonen, and their daughter Teagan Martin, who is eight. She will be nine in May, and she is here as a very strong autism advocate. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Teagan.

Mr. Ross Romano: I would like to welcome a friend in the gallery from the great riding of Sault Ste. Marie, someone who knocked on some doors with me in two consecutive elections within just over a year: Nick Kowaleski. Thank you, Nick.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our introductions of guests. We allowed this to go past the allotted time. I recognize that there was some anxiety on the part of some members; I can only recognize one member at a time. I would ask each of you to keep your introductions brief—no political statements—and let’s keep that in mind for tomorrow.

Independent members

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have an important matter that I wish to address the House with, and I would ask for your attention.

On two occasions early in this 42nd provincial Parliament, during the special summer sitting, I addressed the House on the subject of how the eight independent members would be included in our daily proceedings and debates. In doing so, I explained to the House that I was prepared to exercise my discretion under the standing orders and, accordingly, independent members would be given reasonable opportunities to participate in this House in accordance with and in proportion to the opportunities all other members have to place a question and speak in debate.

We did mathematical calculations, carefully and thoroughly. We determined that the eight independent members should be each given the opportunity to ask a question once every eight sitting days, which effectively meant we would anticipate one independent member’s question each day. This approach also provided the House the advantage of some degree of predictability and certainty, which reduced confusion and allowed all of us, on both sides of the House, to plan and prepare. Again, at the outset of this Parliament: eight independent members, eight questions, over eight days.

However, with the passage of time in this Parliament, the number of independent members has grown from eight to 11. We have once again done the math, again seeking to ensure that independent members should have the chance to participate in the House in accordance with and in proportion to the opportunities all other members have. In order to fairly accommodate the 11 independent members, I am prepared to allow one independent member question every day, with a second question every Tuesday, as well as, starting today, a second question every alternate Wednesday. This approach will result in 11 opportunities for independent members’ questions over eight sitting days.

I recently received a written request from the member for Ottawa–Vanier asking that I allow the independent members to manage the order of their questions, forgoing the requirement to seek the consent of the House to permit one independent member to ask an additional question in place of another member. To accede to this request could have the effect of permitting one or more independent members to have a disproportionately high number of opportunities to ask questions compared to every other member of the House. I would add that while standing order 38(

a) confers upon the Speaker the discretion to allow independent members to participate in question period, there is no standing order which gives the Speaker the authority to grant the rights of a recognized party upon a group of members who are not a recognized party. For these reasons, I am not able to consent to this request.

I should add that when a similar situation such as exists today occurred in this House in 1999 and again in 2003, it was addressed by way of a motion adopted by the House in one case, and the achievement of recognized party status following a by-election in the other.

Another request from the member for Ottawa–Vanier suggests that I should allow the seven independent members, which in the past I have recognized as the Liberal group, the ability to split the 20-minute speaking times allotted to them in debates. In a previous statement, I noted that the 20-minute speaking time could only be used by a single one of the seven Liberal members, since the ability to split speaking time is prescribed by the standing orders and outside the Speaker’s discretion.

However, in asking that I revisit this decision, the member for Ottawa–Vanier argued that ability to split time as referenced in standing order 24(

d) is not limited to “recognized parties,” but simply to members of a party. Given the fact that I permitted the Liberal members to pool their individual speaking times into one larger allotment based on their affiliated status, and consistent with the solution that Speaker Curling granted in a similar situation in his ruling of November 27, 2003, I am prepared to agree to this request. Going forward, members of the Liberal caucus may therefore divide their speaking times during debates, covered by standing order 24, with another member or members of the Liberal group.

I want to thank the member for Ottawa–Vanier for her submission and thank the House for your attention to my remarks this morning.

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, former deputy OPP commissioner and acting OPP commissioner Brad Blair released a statement thanking the OPP and the people of Ontario for allowing him to provide 33 years of unblemished police service. That service ended yesterday, when the Premier once again interfered politically and had Commissioner Blair fired.

It is getting increasingly obvious that the only way to hold the Premier to account is through a public inquiry. Will the Acting Premier back that inquiry today?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I understand the supremacy of this House, but I cannot allow the NDP members to suggest in any way that there was political interference with Mr. Blair’s termination. Again, I will remind the members that Mr. Blair’s employment with the Ontario Provincial Police was terminated as a result of a recommendation and agreement by the nine-member Public Service Commission. The action was taken in full consultation with Commissioner Gary Couture.

No one is above the law, not a constable and not a deputy commissioner. When we swear an oath to uphold the laws in this province, we have a responsibility to ensure that that happens. That is why Mr. Blair’s termination happened on Monday morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: In his letter, the former acting commissioner notes that he raised “serious issues of real and/or perceived political interference with the independent operations of the OPP to the provincial Ombudsman.” It’s obvious to all that this is true. But the minister seems to think it’s okay to fire a distinguished officer for raising these concerns.

Does the Acting Premier believe that there is anything wrong with a senior police officer raising concerns about political interference?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As long as we are quoting letters, I want to begin with: This individual “used his uniform and position as deputy commissioner to further his own personal gain ... he violated the trust of his office.”

To quote another letter, sent to Brad Blair upon his dismissal—Speaker, I will quote from it: “You have no authority to unilaterally disclose confidential government emails in furtherance of your personal interests.

“The disclosure is both a contravention of your obligations under the conflict-of-interest regulation made under the” PSOA “and a violation of the oath of office you took as a public servant.”

It’s a “clear attempt to use your professional status to further your private interests.”

Speaker, I understand that we have a responsibility to uphold the laws. I only wish the NDP understood it as well.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: The former acting commissioner also stated that he believed raising this issue was, “the right thing to do.” Ontarians would agree. The only ones who don’t are the Minister of Community Safety and the Premier. Will the government call a public inquiry?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: There is actually quite a long list of individuals who don’t believe that Mr. Blair was using his office appropriately, starting with the commissioner of the OPP, Gary Couture, starting with a nine-member commission of the Ontario public service.

We have to ensure that people who choose to serve our public and sign oaths of office are prepared to represent them and live up to them. I cannot understand why the NDP do not understand that when you sign an oath of office, when you prepare and say that you are going to defend those rights, you do that. When you don’t, we are going to act and the Ontario Public Service Commission is going to act.

Government accountability

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Acting Premier: Brad Blair has stated that he feels his dismissal was a reprisal for speaking out, and few would disagree. We on this side of the House know it. The media knows it. The public knows it. I think even the backbenchers on the other side know it. If the government is so confident that all of us are wrong, why don’t they prove us wrong and call a public inquiry?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take your seats.

The question has been put to the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, it’s pretty clear that the Public Service Commission made a decision that Mr. Blair had breached his duties as both an officer of the OPP and a public servant.

I will quote from Mr. Blair’s termination letter: It “is a clear attempt to use your professional status to further your private interests by implying that the legal activities in which you are engaged are part of your official duties and/or sanctioned by the OPP. This is also a contravention of your obligations under the conflict-of-interest regulation.”

I quote again: “You have acted in a manner that is incompatible with the faithful discharge of your position as a public servant.”

The only thing I would like to add is, to all of the OPP officers who serve our province, I think we have a duty to them to make sure that the oath they have signed is appropriate. This individual chose not to do that. That is why he is no longer with the—

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

Mr. John Vanthof: In interviews last year after the former acting commissioner spoke out, the Premier stated, “Someone needs to hold him accountable, I can assure you that.”

Does the Acting Premier expect anyone to believe that this was not

an act of reprisal?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I really do feel like I have to remind the members opposite that Mr. Blair’s employment was terminated by a decision of a nine-member panel of deputy ministers—that’s code for “not political”—that made up the Public Service Commission. This action was taken in full consultation with OPP commissioner Gary Couture.

No one is above the law. I don’t care how you serve; I want you to uphold the laws of this province, to uphold the oath that you took when you chose to become an OPP officer. This individual chose not to do that. That is why he is no longer with the OPP.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: The Premier is telling people to believe the impossible: that the man who blew the whistle on his plan to hire his friend as OPP commissioner, who told the world about his plans for an off-the-book camper van with reclining leather seats, and a decorated police officer whom the Premier pledged to hold accountable, was not fired as

an act of reprisal. If the Premier truly expects people to believe him—or the Deputy Premier—he can do the right thing today: Stop dodging questions and call a public inquiry.

My question to the Acting Premier, and to every one of the members of the government here today, is, why don’t you call on the Premier to do that? No one is above the law, including the Premier of this province.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, I will remind the members of the NDP that when you do not agree with your oath of office, you don’t get to continue to serve as an OPP officer in the province of Ontario.

There is no van. This individual didn’t get the job he applied for. He is angry. He has chosen a path. We are supporting the decision of the Public Service Commission to rescind his order in council because he no longer works for the OPP, because the OPP did not support his actions and believe that he contravened his oath of office as an Ontario public servant.

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Through you, Speaker, to the Deputy Premier: For months, the Premier has insisted that an extraordinary series of coincidences has magically occurred here in Ontario. Even though he wasn’t qualified to apply for the initial job posting, the Premier expects us all to believe that independent civil servants happened to pick his old friend Ron Taverner. And now, after months of publicly ranting about Brad Blair and how Brad had to pay for speaking out about his concerns, the Premier expects us to believe that independent civil servants decided to fire Brad Blair, a 33-year veteran of the Ontario Provincial Police force.

Will the Deputy Premier go on the record today and tell us whether she thinks that this is credible?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, as you and all members of this Legislative Assembly know full well, the Integrity Commissioner is an independent officer of the assembly. He has been doing an investigation and preparing a report on the hiring process for the OPP commissioner. I am not going to presuppose what the Integrity Commissioner will report upon. I will anxiously await his report, as I’m sure all of you do as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, you’ll have to forgive me, but I’ll trust the word of a police veteran with a distinguished record over the word of a Premier with a shady record any day of the week in this House. That’s just me, Speaker—

Interjections.

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

I would ask the member for Essex to be careful with his language so as to not cause disruption in the House.

Member for Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much, Speaker. If the part-time Premier is so confident in his facts, will he have the courage today to call for a full public inquiry?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Listen, Speaker, I understand that the member opposite is upset that the majority of Ontario voters chose Premier Ford to serve as our Premier. I understand that he’s not satisfied that the majority of the people of Ontario sent the Progressive Conservatives to serve as their government in Ontario. I understand that, but he has to understand that I believe in the integrity and the independence of the Integrity Commissioner. I will await his report because ultimately I will never question the integrity of the independent officers of the Legislative Assembly.

Interjection: Unlike the NDP.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Unlike—

Interjections.

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

Housing policy

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. During the fall consultations, municipalities and stakeholders told us that the growth plan changes the Liberals imposed on municipalities without consultation just prior to the election are simply not working. It was a top-down approach that hurt municipalities, harmed the economy and slowed down the building of new housing.

We also know that the previous Liberal government took no action to address the lack of housing, which resulted in the housing crisis in which we find ourselves today. Can the minister please explain what he and his ministry have been doing to combat these harmful changes and instead increase the housing supply in the greater Golden Horseshoe and across Ontario?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the good member from York Centre for that excellent question. There’s no doubt that Ontario is growing, particularly in the greater Golden Horseshoe. In the next 20 years, the greater Golden Horseshoe will accommodate 85% of the province’s population growth. That’s why it was a priority of our government to cut red tape and make it faster to build housing for all Ontarians and increase the housing supply and availability of homes in that region that people can afford.

Our proposed changes to the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe give local communities the flexibility over how and where they grow. It will ensure that communities will grow and prosper while protecting the environment and health and safety. I look forward to the supplementary from this member.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Roman Baber: Thank you, Minister, for making housing in the greater Golden Horseshoe and across Ontario a priority.

Back to the minister: We know you’re working hard to bring more housing to the region while maintaining protections for the greenbelt, agricultural lands, the agri-food sector, provincially significant employment zones and the natural heritage system.

The growth fund created by the previous Liberal government was done without thought or consultation. It was not practical, and it could not be implemented. It is reassuring that our government takes a different approach to finding the best solutions on housing. Can the minister speak to what he and the ministry have been doing to consult Ontarians on growth plan amendments as well as ways to increase housing supply?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, thanks to the member for that question. This past fall, our government held extensive consultations with businesses, the agricultural sector and the research and development sector as well as municipalities and others about the challenges they had with the previous Liberal government’s rushed changes to the growth plan.

When we posted our proposed changes to the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe online for public consultation, we also held numerous regional round tables to get further feedback from their communities within the greater Golden Horseshoe. We’re committed to working together with all stakeholders, such as our Indigenous and municipal partners, to bring forward a thoughtful plan that has been developed through consultation and that will protect the environment, create jobs and increase the supply of housing in Ontario.

We held those public consultations on our Housing Supply Action Plan as well. I’m pleased to report that we received over 2,000 submissions. Our government is a government that listens.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: I hope the government is listening to this question.

The opposition to the disastrous Conservative autism plan keeps rolling in. School principals are urging this government to delay changes and reconsider. Kinark Child and Family Services, one of the regional service providers, has also come out against the plan.

Tomorrow, parents from across Ontario will be on the front lawn to demand that this government go back to the drawing board. Acting Premier, who from your so-called government for the people will come out to speak to them?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much to the Deputy Premier. I appreciate her leadership here today.

Of course, there is a diversity of opinions, whether it’s parents, whether it is service providers, whether it’s those who have lived experience with autism. But I will tell you, the opinion of this government is that we are going to clear the wait-list of 23,000 children, or three out of four children in Ontario, who have been denied service by their Ontario government—by clearing the wait-list in the next 18 months, by doubling our investment into diagnostic hubs and providing direct support to moms and dads to choose the best services that they feel for their children, whether that is behavioural support, technological aids, caregiver training or respite.

But the opinion that I will not share is the opinion of the previous Liberal administration that ignored three out of four children, or 75% of the kids with autism in the province of Ontario. We’re going to clear the wait-list.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: The only thing that this minister got right is that there are opposing opinions, and it’s hers against everyone else’s.

The members opposite know the autism plan isn’t working. The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services used to oppose age cut-offs and supported needs-based services. I’ll quote the minister: “Many families have been waiting for years for this necessary support for their child. Now they have been pulled off the wait-list by the minister because their child is over five years old. Just imagine how devastating that is to be so close to receiving this necessary support and then have it be ripped away from you.” I wonder if the minister still agrees with herself.

Will the Acting Premier encourage her members to join parents on the front lawn tomorrow? Perhaps the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services would like to come out for that photo op.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I don’t know where to begin with that question, Speaker.

Let me be perfectly clear: This was a member who said on November 4, 2015: “They have known for years about the devastating impact of these wait-lists.” That member there talked about needing to clear the wait-list. That’s why our government is committed to clearing the wait-list in 18 months.

They were for supporting wait-lists until our government brought it in, and then they opposed it. They were for regulating service professionals until this government brought it in, and then they opposed it. They supported bringing in direct funding until this government brought it in, and now they oppose it. Why are they so inconsistent on the other side? Is it because all they want to be is the new democratic protest party?

Tuition

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I know from speaking with students and families that skyrocketing fees for university and college in Ontario became increasingly unaffordable under the previous Liberal government. Since 2006, undergraduate tuition for Ontarians has risen from an average of $5,000 to almost $9,000.

As the minister knows, our government was elected on a promise to put more money back into people’s pockets. Can the minister tell us what steps this government is taking to make university and college affordable for students and families?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite from Scarborough–Rouge Park for his excellent advocacy for students and families in Ontario.

Speaker, the reforms that our government announced to reduce tuition and address the Ontario Student Assistance Program and ancillary fees are about ensuring the sustainability and affordability of post-secondary education for years to come. Our government’s across-the-board 10% tuition reduction is the first of its kind in Ontario and will provide real relief for families and students. The reforms we made to the Ontario Student Assistance Program are going to ensure that the program is sustainable for years to come. Meanwhile, the Student Choice Initiative will treat students like adults and allow them to opt out of fees they don’t support or need.

Our plan is financially sustainable and it will provide real relief and choice for Ontario students and families.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Speaker, it is shameful that under the previous Liberal government, tuition was allowed to skyrocket. I am proud that our government is the first in Ontario’s history to take action and to stop the trend of skyrocketing tuition fees for students. Meanwhile, I’m proud that our government has recognized the additional burden of ever-increasing ancillary fees and is giving students and families choice to save more money through the Student Choice Initiative.

While tuition fees have nearly doubled since 2006, ancillary fees can be as high as $2,000, and the previous Liberal government did nothing to stop them increasing year over year. Can the minister tell us how much students in my riding could save because of our government’s historic action?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you again to the member opposite for the question.

Speaker, the member is right to say that students and families will see real relief and substantial savings with our 10% tuition reduction. For example, in the member’s riding, a student studying public relations management at Centennial College will save $670 next year thanks to our government’s changes. A student studying an honours bachelor of aviation technology at Seneca College will save $1,230 next year. Finally, a student studying a two-year management MBA at the University of Toronto will save $5,340 next year.

We were elected on a promise to put more money back into people’s pockets, and through our historic tuition reduction and our Student Choice Initiative we are doing just that. I would like to again thank the member for raising this issue.

Indigenous health care

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Oji-Cree.

My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Last week, the government introduced their latest health care bill, which is portrayed as the biggest overhaul of Ontario’s health care system since the introduction of medicare. The minister stood up in this House telling us that she has consulted with thousands of people, but she has failed to engage with First Nations, who will be greatly impacted.

Mr. Speaker, First Nations already face additional barriers in accessing health care. We lost a community member in Cat Lake recently due to the housing and mould issues in the community. Six Nations is one of the largest Indigenous health care providers—not only that, but one of the biggest First Nation communities—in Canada, and they have not been consulted on the development of this bill.

Minister, you say your door is always open, so will you consult with First Nations before voting on the bill?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member opposite for his question. It is something I take very seriously. I have, in fact, consulted with First Nations communities over the course of a number of years, commencing with my position in opposition as health critic for six years, in my work as Ontario’s first Patient Ombudsman, and certainly in my position now as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

This is an important plan for all Ontarians. Everyone deserves to be consulted. I have spoken with thousands of people across Ontario, including First Nations communities. As we come forward and we start speaking about local Ontario health teams, we want to make sure that everyone is represented.

I do expect that there will be interest from First Nations communities in forming part of those teams, and I certainly welcome their involvement in designing the system for their communities, because it is something that—

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I’m presenting a private member’s bill on the implementing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within Ontario.

Article 19 of UNDRIP says that states shall consult with Indigenous peoples through their own representative institutions in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative measures that may affect them. So far, this government has failed to meet these requirements.

What assurances can the minister make to communities like Six Nations that their jurisdiction for health will be recognized before your government votes on this bill?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I respect very much what the member is saying. I can advise that one of my parliamentary assistants spoke with the director of Six Nations health this morning and asked to discuss concerns with her in consultations about how this plan will move forward and how the participation of First Nations communities will be involved.

As I said earlier, I do anticipate that there will be some interest in forming local health Ontario teams—perhaps on an Ontario basis. We want to understand directly from Six Nations and other First Nations communities what will be the best way to proceed to make sure that communities are represented with the kind of health care that is needed by the people in those communities.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

Mr. Jim Wilson: That’s okay. I’m used to standing ovations.

Minister, as you know, for many years my riding has been fighting for the redevelopments of the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital and the Stevenson Memorial Hospital in Alliston. Last year, the hospitals each received $500,000 in stage 1 planning money, and they’re grateful for that. But they are well beyond stage 1 in terms of planning, and they’ve each incurred well over $1.5 million.

The hospitals have done everything asked of them by your ministry. In fact, they kind of feel like they’re being run around right now.

Can you give me some indication today of when these hospitals will get approval so that they can begin construction on their long-awaited redevelopments? As you know, under the previous government, they were ignored for 15 years. My constituents have waited long enough, and they’d really like to hear some good news from this government.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for his question. You are, and always have been, a very strong advocate for your communities, for your riding and for your hospitals. I am sorry that you were ignored for 15 years, but please be assured that that is not happening now.

We take the concerns of your hospitals very seriously. As you know, we do have a rigorous process for approving capital projects, and we are certainly paying attention to the needs of your communities and to the expressions of interest by your hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the minister, Mr. Speaker—with my little jab to the independents here, I’ve lost my coalition, I guess.

Minister, as you know, the Collingwood hospital is full 100% of the time. Over the next 14 years, their catchment area is expected to grow by 31%.

Stevenson Memorial Hospital in Alliston sees 40,000 patients each year—in fact, it’s closer to 50,000 this year—in an emergency room that was built for 7,000 patients some 50 years ago. Their catchment area is expected to grow by 37% over the next 13 years.

These communities are ready. As I said, they’ve been doing everything asked by your ministry. Major donors are waiting to give money but they’re also waiting for the green light from the government before they fully commit. A lot of money has been raised locally. Communities have given you and me their assurance that they will raise their fair share. They’re willing to do that in a very quick manner.

So I ask you. You’ve been invited to tour. I don’t know whether you will be allowed or not, but I’m going to ask you: Will you come up, tour the Collingwood hospital and the Alliston hospital, and see first-hand the need?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, thank you very much to the member for your advocacy. I am certainly aware that the needs of your community are changing rapidly and that your hospitals are under great stress, as are many of the hospitals across the entire province. I have heard from many members with respect to capital projects in their ridings and hospital expansion projects and so on.

As you know, we do have a rigorous process in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to approve capital projects because there are many, many requests. The first priority, of course, is going to be patient safety. That has to overtake all other considerations. But we also know that there are many hospitals that are operating under 100% pressures. That is one of the reasons why we have hallway health care. We have—I know I’ve quoted this statistic many times, but I’ll do it again—over 1,000 patients every day in Ontario that are being treated in hospital hallways and storage rooms. That is not acceptable. That is one of the reasons why we are coming forward—

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

Northern economy

Mr. Ross Romano: To the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: Since the Far North Act became law, the Far North of Ontario has been frozen in time. This has meant a loss of opportunities, including a loss of development, a loss of jobs and a loss of people as they are forced to move away to find employment elsewhere. Anyone who paid attention to the debate when the Liberals pushed this deeply flawed legislation on the Far North cannot be surprised by the result. No one from the Far North asked for or wanted the Far North Act.

But there’s good news, Mr. Speaker, because relief is on the way for the Far North, under the leadership of our Premier. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to learn that our government for the people is collecting public input on the Far North Act. Can the Minister of Natural Resources—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for the question and for his tremendous advocacy, always ongoing, for the north. The people and the member are absolutely right to highlight the concerns from the previous Liberal government—that they chose to ignore the views of the north, and particularly of the First Nations.

Our government was elected on a promise to make Ontario open for jobs and open for business. Gathering public input on repealing the Far North Act shows that we are keeping that promise. Our goal is to cut restrictions on important economic development projects in the Far North, such as the Ring of Fire, all-season roads and electrical transmission projects. Unlike the previous Liberal government, we will take the time to appropriately consult with Far North First Nations and Indigenous communities and all other stakeholders, in order to provide a stable environment for business going forward.

They want certainty; we will give them certainty.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you to the minister for that answer and for his hard work on this important file. Finally we have a government that listens to the people and the concerns of northern communities that the Far North Act has limited their economic opportunities. I want to emphasize that these are not new concerns. The previous Liberal government was told time and time again that limited economic opportunities would be a direct consequence of implementing the Far North Act. Instead of trying to make life easier for the people of the Far North, they decided to pander to supporters of special interest groups living in their downtown air-conditioned condos.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister expand on his previous answer regarding the countless benefits our actions will bring to the Far North?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for his supplementary. As I’ve said to the House before, this is too important for us not to get it right. We want to consult with the people who are most affected by the Far North Act. The opportunities that exist in the Far North are some of the greatest in all of Canada, and we need to ensure that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs.

We support development that is beneficial to our communities while maintaining our commitment to conservation. We will retain any land use plans through changes to the Public Lands Act. In addition, we will continue forward with plans already in the advanced stage.

Our government believes wholeheartedly in the potential of northern Ontario. We are committed to making the Far North open for business and open for jobs, like the people of the north have asked for for years, not the Far North Act that the Liberals gave them.

Pay equity

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is to the Acting Premier.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Deputy Premier.

Ms. Suze Morrison: Deputy Premier. According to Statistics Canada, women in Canada earn 71 cents for every dollar that a man earns. I should note that that number is even lower for Black, Indigenous and immigrant women. Yet, the Premier and his government have stopped implementation of legislation that bridges that wage gap.

Why is this government more interested in asking large employers how much it would cost them to administer pay equity than ensuring that women in Ontario are earning fair wages?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and women’s issues.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: What a great question, because this government is committed to closing the gender pay gap, to give women the same resources and opportunities to succeed at work and advance women’s representation and leadership. We have a strong group of women in our cabinet and in this caucus within this government who are committed to ensuring that women’s voices are heard on the eve of International Women’s Day, this particular Friday.

I’m looking forward to discussing more in the supplemental with my women’s issues critic, but I’m looking forward to tomorrow when, in the afternoon, we will have an opportunity to talk about the progress of women in this province, how we want to empower them economically and the work that our government is doing for the people and for women in particular.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Suze Morrison: Again, back to the Acting Premier: There are real examples of discrimination in pay that women across this province face every single day. Last year, the Ontario midwives won a historic pay equity case that the last Liberal government and this Conservative government have not made good on. In fact, this government decided to retroactively cut funding to the Ontario College of Midwives rather than pay them a fair wage.

Instead of moving forward, this government is telling women to continue to wait for fair wages while businesses fill out surveys. Why does the Premier believe that pay equity for women is red tape?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: This government for the people is absolutely committed to closing the gender gap. That’s why myself and the Minister of Labour are working on that very key initiative.

But I want to talk a little bit about International Women’s Day and what we’ll be doing as a government as we mark equality of all women in the province of Ontario. We know, for example, that women are escaping domestic violence. I was lucky yesterday to be with the member from Oakville as well as Milton to visit two women’s shelters to empower the women who are seeking assistance there. I will be unveiling a round table consultation with the members from Mississauga as well as Cambridge as we try to tackle sex trafficking in the province of Ontario.

Let me be perfectly clear: If women who are escaping violence and women who are fleeing sex trafficking are not equal, are any of us? That will be our goal this International Women’s Day as we talk about the equality of all women in the province of Ontario.

Autism treatment

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, as the person with responsibility for allocation of funds. I’m hoping that the minister will be able to bring some clarity with regard to autism funding. Parents and teachers and agencies have not been able to get the answers that they need from this government.

It has become clear over the past few weeks that the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services froze the wait-list and then artificially increased it in order to make the program that you’re putting in place look better. The minister claims it was a lack of funds, but honestly, Mr. Speaker, without clear numbers, that really sounds like nothing more than a talking point. The current Minister of Children, Community and Social Services claims that the President of the Treasury Board approved her request for $100 million in emergency funding for autism services.

Through you, Speaker, can the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that this is in fact correct, and can he confirm what the total budget for autism services is for the 2018-19 year? Is it $256 million, $321 million, $421 million—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The question is to the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The numbers are available, and we’ve said it many times, that the previous Liberal government’s budget was $256 million. As the record shows, there was $62 million in holdback which was to be released, because the program—you’d have to ask them why they wanted to hold back $62 million. The Treasury Board released that money at the request of the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services because it was the right thing to do.

In addition, the minister came forward and asked for an additional $40 million, Mr. Speaker, because the previous Liberal government’s program was broken and she wouldn’t stand by and take over a broken program. Treasury Board was more than happy to supply that support.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, it’s interesting, because if this were as simple as the member presented it then the portfolio would not have been mismanaged as it has been. Families would not be in the chaos that they’re in. They would not be so worried about April 1. The agencies and schools would not be in chaos because they don’t know what’s going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, the budget was $321 million. That was the money that was budgeted. The numbers that the President of the Treasury Board is putting forward are just not accurate. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, sitting at the table when our Minister of Children and Youth Services leaned forward to ask for an increase to the budget. That $256 million—that’s just not accurate. So I ask the President of the Treasury Board again: What is the number, what is the total budgeted number for autism services for 2018-19, and why are families finding themselves—

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to say thank you very much to the President of the Treasury Board for doing the outstanding work he’s doing to clean up the mess of the previous Liberal administration, for releasing $102 million to me in a time of need, when we inherited a broken and broke program from the previous Liberal administration, which that member was the leader of. Can you believe it? She stands here today—the incredulity that we see. She was part of a government, Speaker, that took parents of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The House will come to order. Member for Hamilton Mountain, come to order. The clock is ticking. Member for Timmins, come to order.

I’ll allow the minister to conclude her response.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: That member bankrupted this province. She was bankrupt of ideas when she left office, and she bankrupted the Ontario Autism Program. I will take no lessons from the former leader of the Liberal Party. After 15 years of waste, scandal and mismanagement—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I apologize to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Once the standing ovation erupted, I couldn’t hear what she was saying and I had to stand up and interrupt her.

Start the clock. Next question. The member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Deputy Premier. Last week, the government—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize. The Speaker erred in terms of the order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

I’m going to recognize the member for Haldimand–Norfolk.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs—he’s right here. A farmers’ organization in my riding is always looking for opportunities and support for projects that will help them grow and innovate in the years to come. I do thank Minister Hardeman. A few weeks ago, he came down to visit with our Haldimand federation. So we know that our government is committed to helping farmers and agribusiness to succeed and continue to thrive, without adding those additional burdens in their daily operations. I know that farmers, businesses and organizations in the agri-food sector depend on the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, the CAP program, for various eligible projects.

Speaker, my question: Can the minister provide this House with more detail on the latest intake under the partnership and how it’s going to help our farmers and our agribusinesses to grow and to innovate?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to thank the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for the excellent question. In partnership with the federal government, our government announced a new funding intake through the partnership for our farmers and the agri-food businesses and organizations, both open this month. The new intake will focus on eligible projects related to economic development in the agri-food and agri-products sector, and environmental stewardship to enhance water quality and soil health. Additionally, the intake will focus on protection and assurances to reinforce the foundation of public trust in the sector regardi