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

February 25, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Feb-25 (PDF)

L146 - Tue 25 Feb 2020 / Mar 25 fév 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 25 February 2020 Mardi 25 février 2020

Orders of the Day

Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun

Members’ Statements

Property taxation

Andy’s House

Education funding

Education funding

Special Olympics

Black History Month / Mois de l’histoire des Noirs

Property taxation

Education funding

Employment

Mississauga Muslim Community

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Education funding

Education funding

Indigenous affairs

Mississauga economy

Licence plates

Indigenous affairs

Employment

Health care funding

Pharmacare

Death registration

Automobile insurance

Home care

Automobile insurance

Invasive species

Employment services

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Ditch the Switch Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour remettre les pendules à l’heure

Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour connecter la population aux services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire

Maternal Mental Health Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la santé mentale maternelle

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Home and community care

Petitions

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Food safety

Education funding

Tuition

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Home care

Documents gouvernementaux

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Real estate industry

Affordable housing

Ontario economy

Autism treatment

Orders of the Day

Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 24, 2020, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 171,

An Act to enact the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 and make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 171, Loi édictant la Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I rise to speak to this bill, Bill 171. As you might well guess, Speaker, this bill is contentious in my riding, as is the Ontario Line itself. The Ontario Line is contentious not because people don’t want transit; they desperately want and need transit. It’s contentious because bad design and bad consultation leave people fearful that their lives will be unnecessarily upended.

For years, my constituents have been pressing for transit investment. People in my riding find that they can’t get on the streetcar in the morning, and when they get on, they’re packed in like sardines. They can’t get on the streetcar to come home at the end of the day. People go to Pape subway station to get on the subway to go to work and find they have to wait multiple trains before they can actually get on the subway train and get to work. And so, when I go door-to-door talking to people about transit, it comes up constantly: “When will something be done so that I can actually get to work in a timely way? How can that happen?”

Frankly, Speaker, a number of years ago when the city of Toronto came forward with its proposal for a relief line and held public meetings in my riding about the design of that relief line, there was a huge amount of optimism.

It was not an easy process; the city actually consulted at length, held a number of public meetings, listened to the concerns and critiques of the people in my community and, ultimately, settled it. Meetings were quite rowdy. The direction or the route of that line was changed in the course of those consultations, as practical issues were pointed out by the community and, in the end, accepted and turned into reality by the city of Toronto. People knew that there would be disruptions because we know where the excavation holes were going to be put for the tunnel-boring machines.

Pape Avenue would have been shut down for an extended period, or greatly restricted. People’s homes would be expropriated. In fact, people got expropriation notices. People were not happy about having their lives disrupted. Who is? But they were happy that finally something was going to move forward and they’d be able to get to work.

I want to point this out, because I know there are some people who will say, “You don’t like the Ontario Line because you have a ‘not in my backyard’ approach.” This is a community that has supported a major construction project going through it to deal with transit issues. But they do object to bad design and poor treatment through missing consultation with the community.

Before I talk about the content of the bill and its associated regulations, I want to note some of the concrete problems that people in my community face because of poor design and poor consultation.

In the south end of my riding, the Ontario Line will come above ground for about two kilometres, through a residential area. This area has homes that were built in the late 1800s, so homes are very close to the existing rail lines. That’s just the way things were done. When people moved in, they understood that there were rail lines. But now we have an issue with noise from trains, which people live with. If you’re in my riding at rush hour and the trains are going by, you have to stop speaking. Trains go by every seven and a half to 10 minutes.

The GO system is being upgraded so trains can be more frequent, and people in my community support that. They need the necessary modifications—the safety barriers and the noise barriers. They understand the need for that increase in transit investment. But when you say that we’re going to have GO trains not every seven and a half to 10 minutes but every three and a half minutes, and subway trains going past every 45 seconds, it’s going to be very difficult to hold a conversation outside. I have to say to all of you: We’ve been through the consultations with Metrolinx on sound barriers.

Substantial questions have not been addressed, and the community is deeply frustrated that they can’t get answers to their questions about where sound barriers will go and how they will be upgraded in response to the concerns of the community. That is a substantial concern for people. How will you actually have a conversation outside?

Jimmie Simpson Recreation Centre, which is the major recreation centre in the southwest quadrant of my riding, is at risk because you have to widen the railway right-of-way. It’s possible that the centre will have to be taken down. In any event, you may well have trains immediately beside the west wall of that centre, changing the experience people are going to have inside.

Fontbonne Ministries is a home for women who have had difficulty getting housing. They’re fragile. They’re seniors. With the widening of the right-of-way, you may well have trains right up against the side wall of that ministry. The Sisters of St. Joseph talked to me about the need to protect the women who live there and their homes.

Pape Avenue school—just about the point about where this train is going to come above ground. We don’t yet know the impact there. Will there have to be an impact on the schoolyard, on the school itself?

When I ask Metrolinx staff about all three cases, they say, “We don’t think we’re going to have to do anything there. We think they’re safe.” I ask, “Can you give me a guarantee? Show me the document where these three places are protected.” I can’t get that.

Along the side of the railway lines, a number of spots are the park space that we have in that part of town, in an area that’s parks-deficient already. It’s clear that if you expand the railway right-of-way, we’re going to have much smaller or no parks in that area.

In the north end of my riding, people felt that the process, where they woke up one day, read the newspaper and found out there was a subway train going through their street and that they may be expropriated, was not an appropriate way to let people know that their lives were going to change. When the city of Toronto was doing its Relief Line North consultations, they had public meetings. They showed people a variety of routes. There was discussion. People had some sense of, “Okay, this may be coming.” But all of that was cancelled, and people simply got a line on a map and noticed their lives were about to change. That is not good public management. That is not good consultation.

The Premier’s ministers have said they need to build the Ontario Line above ground through two kilometres of my riding in order to save money. It’s expensive going underground, and I don’t argue that for a minute. It is. But expense was certainly not on the Premier’s mind when he announced, in April 2019, that the Eglinton west LRT extension would be built “underground, where it belongs.” We’re talking about a four-lane highway going through Etobicoke Centre, and, if you look at Google Earth, you can see the industrial plazas and the shopping plazas.

We’re not talking about putting a large LRT right beside a residential area or through a residential area; you’re going through a highway. But he felt it was important to put that underground.

The business case for the Eglinton west extension, the LRT, was prepared by the city in 2016. The city looked at a variety of options. The least costly option was the LRT above ground, down the middle of that road. They calculated, on present value of cost, that it would be $3.4 billion. What the Premier opted for was calculated at $4.7 billion.

So if there’s a shortage of money, I’ve got to ask: What’s the Premier thinking? If he wants a light rail transit system built underground through the riding where he lives and above ground in a riding that he doesn’t hold—if we’re in a situation when it comes to a riding that he doesn’t hold, where, unfortunately, there was no money: “We went to the piggy bank. Too bad, so sad. You’re going to have a very noisy life.” I can’t describe in parliamentary language what kind of approach this is, but you, Speaker, may be able to think it through and come to your own conclusions.

The minister has told us that we need this act to get transit built, and I just want to note very briefly a history of the Conservative approach to building transit. In 1995, when the Harris government was elected, the province and the city were building the Eglinton subway system. What happened 25 years ago to that subway that we aren’t able to take right now? Well, it was stopped and the tunnels were filled in with concrete. People say, “Why can’t we build transit in Toronto?” Well, I’ll tell you why: Sometimes you get governments elected that decide to fill in subway tunnels with concrete. That system would be operating today if it had not been stopped then.

In 2010, the election of the Ford administration in Toronto: At the point of that election, a $6-billion project of light rail transit had been agreed to for, let me get it right, Eglinton, Finch, Sheppard and Scarborough—cancelled. That’s rapid transit that would be running today if it had not been cancelled. That is the record of a Premier who did what he could to make sure that transit, in fact, didn’t happen.

If this government says it wants to speed up transit, first of all, I want it to look at itself and look at its record. But I also want it to note that the relief line had its environmental assessment done, passed, approved; design was well under way; construction was supposed to start this year. And what happened with the relief line? It has been pushed back. So a government that says that it’s in a hurry to get transit in place: Look at its history, look at its most recent actions, and that is not what we see.

This government has brought forward this bill and it has brought forward associated regulations—the details, the fine work—that allow people to know precisely what legal framework they’re working with. There’s a really important point here that people need to understand: that environmental issues and their resolutions can be set aside if the Minister of the Environment thinks that those issues and their resolution are going to be unduly delaying the project. That’s extraordinary for a Minister of the Environment.

I’ll read the

summary posted by the government on the Environmental Registry: “The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks will be able to intervene in the Metrolinx-led issues response process”—the response to environmental issues—“to modify any measures proposed by Metrolinx in response to issues and concerns”—environmental, health and safety—“if the minister is of the view that the proposed measures could delay the timely delivery of these projects.”

In other words, Speaker, the environment and health and safety are not the top issue for the Minister of the Environment. He has permission to set those aside if it slows down this project. That is extraordinary. People need to let that sink in. The message for the Minister of the Environment is not to protect the local environment or to protect the health and safety of residents near the transit line, but explicitly he has or she has the power to block measures that could delay the timely delivery of these projects.

So if Metrolinx identifies an environmental problem in the course of its study and provides a solution to protect human health and safety, that solution can be blocked by the Minister of the Environment if he or she thinks it can slow down the project. That is an extraordinary rewrite of the responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment. I think that the minister needs a new title: the Minister of Rubber-Stamp Approvals; the Minister of Expediting Projects and Setting Aside Concerns; or the Minister of “Go to Sleep Now, Little Baby, Don’t You Cry; Everything Is Fine.” I think it’s amazing that this would be put forward by any government, frankly.

I also want to talk about the fact that the environmental assessment is set up so that you can have early works and later works. You can get an approval for some early works, and then you can start this project without having done a full environmental review of the impacts of this project.

Speaker, first of all, this is an $11-billion project. If you are proceeding with an $11-billion project and you’ve made a mistake in the first stage and only caught it later on, then you’re going to be stuck with some very expensive redoing. When I spoke about this last week, I talked about a saying that carpenters have, which is: Measure twice and cut once. Do you know what? It’s an amazing thing: That actually makes a lot of sense. What’s being put in place here is a system where you can cut as much as you want and you figure it out later. You might have to glue it all back together—if you can.

Some might say, “Okay, well, the early works: We’re just talking minor stuff—things that won’t have a big impact on people’s lives and on the cost of this project.” But I want to read the definition of early works, because they’re actually fairly substantial. “Early works” means any components of the Ontario Line project that Metrolinx proposes to proceed with before the completion of the Ontario Line assessment process—you know, that environmental assessment process rubber-stamping sort of thing.

So components such as station construction, rail corridor expansion, utility relocation or bridge replacement or expansion—we’re talking early works; we’re talking some pretty big projects. In fact, it leads to the question: What’s left once you’ve done all that?

What happens if this early work poses problems when you do the environmental assessment later for the project as a whole? Are we going to have a minister who has been told, “Get it done and get it done now,” say, “Oh, no, we have to stop for a minute. We have to correct the errors we made and fix things so the environmental problems and the health and safety problems are dealt with”?

Speaker, there is at least one spot on the Union Pearson Express route, and there may be others, where sound barriers were promised by Metrolinx and never put in place. Why? Because they had put in place another structure earlier that didn’t have the strength to support the sound barrier. Too bad, so sad. I feel badly for the people who are having to put up with noise because they messed up on design. Metrolinx shows no urgency about replacing that structure so you can have the sound barrier that was required in the environmental assessment.

In many ways I think what we’re seeing is a bill and associated regulations being put together to protect Metrolinx, to protect the province and to protect the private sector proponent, and not to protect the community and the environment. That is not the way things should be done here in Ontario. That is a major problem.

I want to note that my colleague from University–Rosedale, our transit critic, had some interesting things to say about this bill just the other day. I want to repeat some of what she had to say. I’m quoting her: “I ... want to respond to ... the Minister of Transportation’s remark that this government is working in partnership with the city of Toronto. Let’s be super clear about what that actually means. Yes, the city of Toronto, with a gun to their head, agreed to support these new transit projects on the condition that the rest of the transit system was not taken away from the city of Toronto against their consent.”

You know, that’s pretty powerful incentive: “I won’t take away your subway system if you agree to what I put forward. You’ve got a nice store here, Mr. Mayor. Shame if something happened to it.” That’s the kind of dynamics we’re dealing with.

“We should also put in context that the city of Toronto asked for numerous things to be part of the negotiations with the government when we move forward with these transit lines.

Those requests included keeping maintenance under the city’s control.” And because there was concern at the city about the impact on the above ground section—“The city ... made it very clear that they wanted this province to listen to those residents and to work to identify and mitigate some of the concerns around noise and construction, and if those concerns could not be mitigated, then the option to go underground is something that should” have moved forward with this.

Our critic says, “I have met with Ministry of Transportation officials as well as Metrolinx officials, and they have not shown any interest in moving forward on the city of Toronto’s requests.”

I can see my time is limited, but I want to touch on just a few points: the change and the expropriation rules process reduces the ability of citizens to deal with unjust, unfair or simply erroneous decisions on expropriation. You’re going to need expropriation in this situation. You’re going to need it with any major project like this. But frankly, to say to citizens, “If we made a mistake, tough luck,” is not the way to approach it. It undermines people’s confidence that, in fact, they’re dealing with a fair and reasonable system.

Speaker, there’s much that I had to say, but I want to just quickly address this. The minister says that these powers will just be used as a backstop. I don’t believe that’s the case. If the government wants to get transit rolling, it needs to rewrite this bill, it needs to move away from privatized construction design, the private-public partnership model, which the Auditor General of Ontario has said cost Ontarians so much money—in the many billions. It needs to build real community support, which means real consultation and a willingness to vary design based on what’s heard, and it needs to allocate the money.

And if it does those things, if it has community support and good design, then this will go ahead quickly. And if it doesn’t, it won’t.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions?

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I personally take the GO train and subway every day to Queen’s Park, and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of commuters I talk to—and I do talk to them on the GO train and the subway—are supportive of our government’s plan with respect to transit. Try taking the subway at peak hours right now. It’s unbelievable. There’s absolutely no room, and there’s been no major subway expansion in decades in Toronto due to government incompetence. All three levels of government have supported our approach to transit.

I ask: Why is the official opposition not supporting us like the other levels of government from different political parties? This has never happened before in Canada, with all three levels of government supporting transit. My question to the member opposite is: Does he not recognize that the Building Transit Faster Act—how important it is for future generations?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: There are a few points that I’d like to address. First off, I support transit expansion. My party supports transit expansion. When your party cancelled the Eglinton subway back in the 1990s, we opposed that. When the Ford administration at city hall cancelled a fully funded program of building LRT, we opposed the Ford administration doing that. So now you’re saying, decades later, “Well, now we care about transit.” Well, so do we.

But the fact that those projects got killed off, and now you’ve killed off the relief line, which could be under construction now, it really makes me doubt that you have that great support for transit. If your government did, it would not have killed off the relief line. That is the exhibit A of this case.

Yes, we need transit. We’re going to have to see what can be made out of the Ontario Line, revamp it, deal with the design issues—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. Question?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I want to thank the member from Toronto–Danforth for his contribution to this debate. We know that transit is an issue throughout Ontario. Even in the city of London, there have been challenges around transit.

But the member brought up an interesting point about the above ground line that’s going to be two kilometres in Toronto–Danforth, as opposed to the line that’s going to be underground when he referred to the riding of the Premier. I’d like to know: What evidence did the government present to justify it, other than the dollar amount? Our member talked about how there is a discrepancy, and it’s actually cheaper. What additional evidence does the government provide to justify that underground as opposed to above ground in different ridings?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I haven’t seen any evidence from the government to justify that. All we had from the Premier with regard to putting the Eglinton West LRT underground was that this is a busy highway. It probably is a busy highway. Eglinton is a busy road. We have busy roads in the city; I’ve noticed that. But the economics are—it’s a $1.4-billion difference—that putting an LRT along a main road saves a lot of money. Putting a subway above ground, down through a residential area built up against a railway line, I don’t think is justifiable.

I haven’t heard from the government—even the numbers; I can’t get the numbers. I’ve asked what the underground cost and what’s the above ground cost is on the Ontario Line in my riding—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Response.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Sorry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I have to join the debate today and ask a question of the member from Toronto–Danforth. I heard him, during his debate, talk about his concern over noise. Through the years, we have agreed to disagree on certain things, but when I heard him today speaking about his concern of noise, I can’t help but be a little heartened. I have to ask the member from Toronto–Danforth: Are you going to exercise that same concern in rural Ontario when it comes to industrial wind turbines and the noise that’s created for the people who live within 550 metres of those turbines?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question from the minister. It’s a salient question. I think that there does need to be a barrier in distance between a windmill and a home, and I would ask that the same criteria be applied to the Ontario Line in my riding. At 500 metres, you would have to go underground. In my riding, we would accept 500 metres. We’d accept it today—offer given, offer taken. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Question?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank my colleague the member for Toronto–Danforth for his remarks. He ended his speech with some very serious cautions about engaging or expanding P3 models of transit building. He mentioned the Auditor General’s report, which found that taxpayers are paying significantly more for P3 projects than they would if they were publicly funded. I am interested in hearing his thoughts about the P3 model and whether this is an appropriate way to proceed with transit projects in Ontario.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question from my colleague. No, obviously, I don’t think it’s a good way to proceed. What we’re having is a rewrite of environmental assessments to accommodate P3s. That in itself raises huge questions about proceeding with the project before it’s completely assessed, and, frankly, undermining the ability of the public to intervene and help reshape a project when problems are obvious and the private sector proponent is going to ignore everything that the community has to say. That’s one level.

The other level is just simply cost. We’ve looked at the Eglinton Crosstown, which is a P3. These public-private partnerships were billed as taking all the risk out of public hands, putting it in private hands and making sure things got built on time. It’s much slower than promised, and it’s way over budget.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question, of course, is to the member from Toronto–Danforth.

The role of the opposition, clearly, is to oppose policy, legislation—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Well, it is—that is presented in the Legislature, and we’ve heard that. Members across the aisle have opposed almost every aspect of the Building Transit Faster Act, despite the fact that if you travel anywhere in the city of Toronto, you are forced to deal with increasing congestion. You have opposed this piece of legislation, but like so many other things that we have brought forward, you have not brought a solution forward.

What is your proposal to get transit projects built faster in the city of Toronto?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I appreciate the question from the member. I guess there are a few things: Don’t cancel projects that are ready to be built. The relief line was ready for construction. We’d be under construction now if you hadn’t cancelled it. That’s one suggestion: When you’ve got a shovel-ready project, build it. That isn’t what has happened. I think we’d have less congestion if you’d decided to go ahead with the project that was there, but you didn’t.

Don’t cancel projects like the light-rail transit that had been proposed and cancelled in 2010 by the Ford administration in the city of Toronto. We would have a whole bunch of transit built and operating.

Don’t stop subway construction that’s already under way and fill the tunnels in with concrete if you think you’re in favour of transit.

If those two things in 1995 and 2010 had not happened, we’d have a lot more transit in the city and much less congestion. So when I have this government come and say—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you.

We have time for a very quick question and a very quick answer. Question?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m going to concise my question: This government does not have a good track record on public consultation. I wanted to ask the member what advice he would give the government in order to engage the public better around consultation with this massive transit project that they’re proposing.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I guess a few things: In terms of actually holding meetings, don’t just have an open house where you have placards around the room that people can look at and ask a few questions of staff who are there; have a forum where people as a group can ask questions and have those questions answered by politicians and senior staff. That’s one thing.

Let people know what’s going on. I know that people in my riding had geophysical testing happening on their streets without notice it was going to happen. Suddenly, they had these big boring machines up and down their streets, asking themselves, “What’s going on here?”

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

Mrs. Daisy Wai: It gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill 171, the proposed Building Transit Faster Act, legislation that will help deliver Ontario’s four priority subway projects on time and on budget.

As the MPP for Richmond Hill, I know that my constituents are excited to see the government build a world-class transportation network that will boost economic growth, relieve congestion, and get people to work and back to their homes and to their loved ones on time. This legislation is a key step forward to unlocking the gridlock, relieving congestion and generating long-term economic and employment opportunities in the greater Toronto area.

My constituents in Richmond Hill have experienced many disappointments in the past decades. The need for a good transit system has been demanded by my community for a long time. It has been a great challenge for the business community. The travelling time to serve clients, especially downtown, is far too time-consuming. We all know that time is money. It cuts right into their profit margin.

Not only does it create challenges for businesses; it makes it difficult for students attending universities downtown. Travelling time eats into their studying time and, often, into their sleeping time, while most parents—I’m sure some of you have the experience—have to rent an apartment for their children to relieve them from time-consuming travelling.

Each year, we lose billions of dollars due to gridlock. We are the government who will finally put an end to the problem and provide necessary relief for commuters.

Having a subway right into Richmond Hill and making it easier for all of York region is the number one request from my constituents in Richmond Hill. I made the promise in my election campaign to bring the subway into Richmond Hill. When I got elected, I did not have to push much, in fact, to get this on the agenda, because the government already understands the urgency and is committed to getting the province moving. This is why the announcement of a subway to Richmond Hill last year was overwhelmingly received. Thank you for helping me in fulfilling my promise to my people. I am proud of my government that when promises are made, promises are kept.

Not only do we have a subway to Richmond Hill through the Yonge North subway extension; we also have the brand new Ontario Line, the three-stop Scarborough subway extension and the Eglinton Crosstown West extension for a total of $28.5 billion in investments.

What a brilliant plan, especially the Ontario Line, connecting the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place. It gets people moving from Don Mills all the way to downtown, without just crowding over to the Yonge subway line. It will stimulate the economy and tourism in Ontario. Not only that, but expanding transit creates thousands of sustainable jobs for the future and it will spark investment in the city. It will finally get people moving out of cars and onto public transit, and help the environment by reducing GHG emissions.

Now that we have the plan, to build it on time can be a challenge. Too often, Ontarians were disappointed and they started to lose faith in the hope we’ve given them. They realize there are many things that will hold up construction. Even when they see the shovels in the ground, it doesn’t mean that it will be completed on time as they are hoping for.

Our government is not going to let that happen. We are committed to building the following:

—the Yonge North subway extension: five stations by 2029-30, a 7.4-kilometre extension of TTC’s Line 1, the Yonge-University line, that will connect north from Finch station to Highway 7, connecting Toronto and Richmond Hill;

—the Ontario Line subway: 15 stations, 15.5 kilometres, as early as 2027. It will run between Exhibition Place and Ontario Place, through downtown Toronto, to the Ontario Science Centre. It will bring rapid transit to neighbourhoods such as Liberty Village and Flemingdon Park. It will help address dangerous overcrowding and provide needed relief to the TTC’s Line 1 and Bloor-Yonge station;

—the Scarborough subway extension is three stations and eight kilometres. It will be completed by 2029-30. It is an extension to the TTC’s Line 2, from existing Kennedy station northeast to McCowan Road and Sheppard Avenue; and

—the last one, the Eglinton Crosstown West extension is also one that has been waited for for a long time. With multiple stops along the Eglinton West corridor, it will be completed by 2030-31. The western extension of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT—future Line 5—will increase connectivity along Eglinton Avenue from the future Mount Dennis station to Renforth Drive. Ultimately, through the future phases of this project, the province is committed to establishing connectivity with Toronto Pearson International Airport as well. Wow.

In order to achieve this, that is why we introduce the Building Transit Faster Act today. This legislation is about cutting the unnecessary red tape and redundant steps that hold up major transit projects. We have waited too long. We just have to keep our promise so that everything is on budget and on time and we’ll not disappoint our people here. It will give the province the tools needed for Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario to deliver the following priority transit projects faster within the committed time frames:

—Yonge North subway expansion, by 2029-30;

—Ontario Line, 15 stations, delivered by 2027;

—Scarborough subway extension, three stations, by 2029-30; and

—the Eglinton Crosstown West extension, by 2030-31.

The strategies the government is proposing to use to deliver the four subway projects are appreciated by a lot of Ontarians:

—modified environmental assessment process to reduce delays while maintaining strong environmental oversight;

—ability to enter lands for due diligence, removal of obstructions and encroachments, addressing imminent danger, and for monitoring compliance with corridor development permits;

—framework enhanced coordination of utility relocations;

—streamlined land assembly process;

—an approach to ensure timely access to municipal services and rights-of-way;

—establish a clear, agreed-upon process for ensuring building code compliance for transit infrastructure development; and

—requirement for owners of adjacent land and infrastructure to obtain a corridor development permit for construction and development activities that may interfere with subway construction.

As you can see, we are thorough enough to go through all the things that might hold back this plan that we have—the desire that our people want us to build the subway on time and on budget.

We are introducing this stand-alone piece of legislation that will, if passed, provide the tools needed to get our four priority subway projects built on time. These provisions will only apply to these projects. This proposed legislation will include:

—ability for the minister and persons accompanying to enter property for specified purposes, subject to notification and other requirements;

—provision for stronger coordination of utility relocations, within prescribed time frames;

—exemption of lands assembled for the four priority subway projects from the formal hearings process under the Expropriations Act;

—ability for the minister to issue an order outlining conditions under which Metrolinx could use or modify municipal assets, such as roadways and municipal services;

—provisions to require development and construction activities within a defined buffer zone of the subway corridor to obtain a permit in order to proceed, and enforcement authority;

—ability for the minister to issue an order outlining conditions under which Metrolinx could use, occupy or modify municipal assets, such as roadways and municipal services; and

—provisions to require certain development and construction activities within a defined buffer zone of the subway corridor to obtain a permit in order to proceed, and enforcement authority.

Accelerating transit delivery is part of our government’s plan to build new transit faster, as people can get where they want to go when they want to get there.

Speaker, we’ve reached a pivotal moment in history when all three levels of government agree on one single unified plan to get the subway built. The previous Liberal government neglected transportation throughout Ontario, and as a result we have more and more gridlock. People have been screaming that we have aging infrastructure and overcrowded, outdated transit systems. It is clear that the current approach to build transit wasn’t working. We needed to cut the unnecessary red tape and redundant steps that hold up major transit projects and to identify the roadblocks that cause the transit projects to be delayed, because delays are costly.

As mentioned earlier, as a result of congestion, we know that the GTA loses $11 billion in productivity each year, adds $400 million to the cost of goods, and has a detrimental impact on our environment as well. Our infrastructure lags behind other major cities, and taxpayers deserve better. So, in June 2018, the people of Ontario voted overwhelmingly for a government committed to getting the province moving, and we are doing just that. This is why we are taking all the actions to address the key challenges when building transit infrastructure to deliver a realistic, sustainable, integrated transit network that the greater Toronto area deserves.

I want to thank the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Caroline Mulroney, along with the Associate Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Kinga Surma, for bringing this act forward and for working tirelessly across the government as well as with the city of Toronto and Metrolinx to get transit built as quickly as possible. I want to thank PA Thanigasalam for working so hard in making all these things possible for all of us. I have already heard from many of my constituents in Richmond Hill, who really appreciate your hard work and our government’s commitment to public transit on time and on budget.

Now let’s hear from some of our industry partners on how they all agree and how excited they are. Jan De Silva, president and CEO of the Toronto Region Board of Trade, said: “Building transit more quickly is a key priority, not just for the business community but for residents as well. Clearing unnecessary roadblocks to ensure key transit projects are delivered on time and on budget is critical.”

Phil Verster, president and CEO of Metrolinx, said: “We are committed to delivering transit as efficiently and effectively as possible so we can get more people moving sooner. It will be important to work closely with our city partners in order to minimize the disruption and inconvenience for residents along these lines.”

I also have support from Anthony Primerano, director of government relations, LIUNA. He said: “LIUNA supports the accelerated transit proposal that will help expedite the much-needed transit infrastructure on time, on

schedule and on budget. Cost certainty is essential to create confidence in the market, which will translate into needed construction jobs for our workers.”

We also have a comment from Mayor Frank Scarpitti, city of Markham. He said, “I am encouraged by the provincial government’s move to streamline processes to build critical infrastructure and ensure priority transit projects like Yonge North subway extension are built on time, eliminating unnecessary and costly delays.”

Speaker, we did consult and we did hear from our constituents and all the great representatives across Ontario. May I invite everyone in this House to pass the bill as soon as possible and get our province moving faster.

To end, I would like to say one example from my own personal experience. Even coming downtown to attend Queen’s Park, I have tried travelling from Richmond Hill every day. In the first couple of months, I got so disappointed. I cannot believe that it can take me as much as five hours to and from Richmond Hill in one day. There was one time it took me three hours, which, usually and easily, can take between 30 and 45 minutes, max. This is what we need in Richmond Hill.

I remember that time when I was late. I was three hours on the road and I was late for my committee meeting, which I thought I had allowed two hours and 15 minutes for. I was late by 45 minutes. How embarrassing. I can only imagine if it is for businesses to meet with a potential client; they will miss their contract.

What I did is I finally realized that it was getting into my sleeping hours. Five hours is sleeping hours that I need, so, finally, out of my own pocket, I paid for a place that I rent downtown. It’s only 38 kilometres from Richmond Hill to Queen’s Park; we need 50 kilometres to get our housing covered, but I would still rather pay it out of my own pocket to be on time for my commitments.

On time and on budget is so much required for anything that we do, not to mention the projects that we have put forward that everybody in Ontario is so excited about. We have waited long enough, and we really have to put the shovels in the ground. This act is really able to deliver that.

Thank you very much. I ask for the opposition and everybody to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions?

Mr. Ian Arthur: Thank you for the comments on this bill. I don’t know if there’s a better example of the audacity of successive governments than the transit file in Toronto. Each government comes in and they have this brilliant new plan which is going to actually finally get things done, but part of that is ripping up the old plan, no matter how far along it had progressed, and the conversation is ended about all the progress that had been made on the previous relief line and all the work that had been done on the previous relief line. The government tears it up, moves on to the new one, and their plan is somehow better, stronger, faster and, hopefully, on budget.

You’re gutting the environmental assessment part of this. You’re pushing forward. Environmental assessments are meant to foresee unforeseen things, to account for all of that. What’s going to happen when this government encounters things that would have been covered in the environmental assessment that they do not yet know about?

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you, member opposite. Yes, we have to build this faster and on budget. In June 2018, the people of Ontario voted overwhelmingly for a government committed to getting the province moving, which is why we are doing it as fast as we can.

We have reached a pivotal moment in history, when all three levels of government agree on the unified plan to get the subway built. Last fall, Toronto city council endorsed our subway plan with an overwhelming vote of 22 to 3, and, in addition, only one member of council voted against the motion to accelerate the delivery of transit expansion in Toronto. This will include working with municipalities to develop and facilitate the streamlined processes. In fact—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. Questions?

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Good morning. It’s interesting. The member from Richmond Hill—thank you for that this morning—talks about how the Liberals didn’t get anything done. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the individual who sat in my seat before was a Liberal cabinet minister for transportation? I’m going to look at my colleague from Kitchener Centre. Do you remember any progress in transportation during that time? No. Cambridge still does not have a GO train stop. We had a Minister of Transportation. This is something we heard a lot during the election. It’s really disappointing that it never got done.

So I’m going to turn back to the member from Richmond Hill and just ask: You’re coming from Richmond Hill. The commute is bad, as is mine. What kind of information and what kind of feedback do you hear from your constituents about this issue: transit congestion, traffic, things like that?

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you, member from Cambridge. Yes, like your constituents, my constituents in Richmond Hill have been asking me for this for a long time. In fact, the only one thing that everybody asked for when it was my election time was, “Make sure we have a subway back into Richmond Hill.” When we got the announcement, they were all very, very excited because it will resolve the problem of travelling time into downtown.

Yes, they are very, very supportive, like your constituents.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions?

Mr. Ian Arthur: Just to actually go back to my previous question—it was about environmental assessments and how they’re supposed to foresee the unforeseen. They’re complex, they’re hard to do, and they’re supposed to take into account aspects of a plan that might otherwise not be considered when pushing it forward.

I am honoured to stand in this Legislature and try to debate intelligently, to the best of my ability, on the issues of the day. So when I ask a question about environmental assessment and I am met by the member opposite with a line about how she had an unprecedented mandate to get things done and then to repeat talking points from a speech that was written by a 20-year-old comms person instead of actually addressing the question I asked, I wonder how the member feels that this honours her role in this Legislature as an MPP.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you to the member from Kingston. In fact, we have really analyzed and assessed everything. Our minister and our PA have been working very hard every day, checking on everything before they get the people to move forward. We respect the environment and we respect all the assessments. We do have a team that is working together with us in moving this forward. What we have for the minister is so that they can work together in making sure they’re on top of the

schedule that we have so that we can deliver it on time and on budget.

Yes, we will respect the environment. We will respect all the assessments. Our minister, our associate minister and our PA have been working very, very hard to ensure that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Question?

Ms. Donna Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cambridge mentioned that the previous transportation minister was from Cambridge—a woman I recently went on a political blind date with, by the way. She didn’t want to talk about the government’s previous record.

But my question is to the member from Richmond Hill. You spoke eloquently and passionately about the need to address congestion in the city of Toronto. Of course, this particular bill addresses that: getting projects built faster. But not only will it have an impact on the people of Toronto—it really will; this will have an impact on people across Ontario. I’m wondering if maybe you could expand on how congestion in the GTHA impacts the rest of the province.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you, member from Flamborough–Glanbrook. Yes, the congestion impacts everybody, not just in Richmond Hill and in the York region area, because we are expanding into the north, south, east and west. The congestion that we experience right now is holding everybody up. Even going to the airport sometimes is a struggle for many people, so the west Eglinton expansion is hope for that one day.

So we’re working toward that. We are answering the demands from the people. In fact, I was at the meeting the other day, and everybody was saying, “Yes, it’s a good plan,” for the transit plan, “but how can I really believe it? Even when the shovel is in the ground, it does not mean that it is done.” But this act, especially this act, is going to do just that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Question?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to pursue a little bit more the questions that my colleague had asked about the environmental assessment process.

Given that three of the four lines that are specified in this legislation have already had the environmental assessment process completed, and given that the transportation EA process is already compressed, streamlined and short, I don’t understand why this government feels that it’s necessary to even further compromise environmental protections in this province and also suggest somehow that environmental assessment is the cause of the delay for moving forward with transit projects. I wonder if the member can respond to that.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you, member opposite. Actually, we are not doing this on behalf of our environment. We have done a lot of things—there are examples of various tools and processes being used around the world to accelerate public infrastructure. We are not expediting just in the environmental area; we are making sure that all the red tape is being taken care of.

Trust me; we have been working with the environmental specialists to make sure that all the things that we need to care about will be worked on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We have a very short period of time for a very short question and a very short answer.

Ms. Donna Skelly: To the member, maybe you could just expand a little on some of the comments you hear from your constituents about the need for faster-built transit.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member from Richmond Hill has 28 seconds.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you, member from Flamborough–Glanbrook. Yes, from my constituents, they have been travelling—congestion is all in York region, not just around the Richmond Hill area. They find, just as I did, that they’re having a hard time travelling to downtown and to around the east and west. They have been—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you.

Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m looking forward to participating in this debate on Bill 171, the Building Transit Faster Act, as the first non-GTA member of the official opposition caucus. That’s an important point, Speaker, because this legislation is specific to four GTA projects: the Ontario Line, the Scarborough subway extension, the Yonge North subway extension and the Eglinton Crosstown West extension.

In the context of the need for transit in this province and the need to move forward with a transit plan that is going to address the needs of all Ontarians, I think that certainly Torontonians deserve consideration of their transit needs, but so does the rest of the province, Speaker. You will know yourself, as a member of a southwestern Ontario riding, that last month we saw this government release a draft transportation plan for southwestern Ontario. That plan included 43 recommendations.

I think this was a good start at opening up this discussion about what kinds of transit projects we need to see in our region. But the missing piece of that document was how to link southwestern Ontario’s economy with the GTA. Certainly, people in southwestern Ontario immediately recognized the shortcoming of this plan in supporting transit needs in our region.

I want to quote from an

article in the Windsor Star that came out just after the launch of the plan. It states:

“The transportation plan that was first promised by the Tories last fall does little to draw the region closer into the Toronto area’s commuter orbit.

“Toronto is in the throes of its own mobility issues, many of them from gridlock. But without a better system to lace southwestern Ontario to the mega-city, leaving only traditional ground and air transportation options, it appears the idea of living in this region and working in the GTA, or the other way around ... remains a non-starter.”

Sarnia mayor Mike Bradley, who has been three decades in office and has seen transit plans come and go and change and get concreted over, noted, “The GTA connection is critical, it’s absolutely critical for this region, and that’s the part that I don’t think is that strong in that report.”

Speaker, we need to be having this discussion about transit in the GTA, but we also need to be looking much more broadly at the transit needs of other regions in this province. From my perspective as MPP for London West, London’s transit needs are obviously a priority for me and for other MPPs who represent the London region.

Earlier this month, Statistics Canada released a report that acknowledged the London area as Canada’s second-fastest growing region. That is significant because the growth that we are seeing in London is largely a result of people who can’t afford housing in the GTA and are being pushed out into the Kitchener-Waterloo area, into London. They are keeping their jobs in the GTA, but they are locating in outlying communities because the housing is more affordable.

I’m not saying, Speaker, by any means that housing in London is the solution for people in this province. London, like everywhere else in Ontario, is struggling with a housing crisis. We have a vacancy rate of just 1.8%, which is the lowest it has been in almost two decades. We have seen rent increases going through the roof. Average rents are $1,200 a month. Home prices are continuing to skyrocket. In January, we saw the average sale price increase almost 14% from the year prior. This housing affordability crisis is obviously a concern for Londoners.

But in particular for Torontonians, who are facing even higher housing costs, to move to London seems to be one of the few options that they have available, but then they can’t get transit to get back into the GTA, where they are employed.

The other pressure that we are experiencing in my community with regard to transit is how we get around within the city. In London, the city did an analysis of GHG emissions and found that London’s greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation are much higher than the overall average for Ontario. So 55% of our greenhouse gas emissions are related to transportation.

Within that, personal transportation accounts for about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions within our community, and about one third of those emissions are associated with in-town trips, so trips that could be taken by bike or on transit, if there were convenient transit routes.

But because we haven’t had that support that we would have hoped for from successive Liberal and Conservative governments to enable us to expand our transit options and the operations of our transit options—in fact, we just saw this government cancel the planned doubling of the gas tax, which is a vital source of revenue for London to operate our transit systems.

But because we haven’t seen that support—again, we just saw an analysis that was released at the end of January of this year that said that London is one of the worst cities in Canada for time spent in traffic. In fact, that was looking at all cities in Canada, including the large mega-cities or very large urban metropolises. But when you actually look at small and mid-sized cities or cities with a population less than 800,000, London is the worst in Canada for the congestion that London drivers experience. Londoners see congestion on our roads 23% of the time.

In Ontario, the next cities below London are Hamilton at 19% and Kitchener-Waterloo at 16%. Londoners want to do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we want to use public transit, but we have to have a provincial partner who will work with the city to improve the transit services to people who live in London.

Within that context, Speaker, I now want to focus on some of the measures that are proposed in this bill to expedite transit projects in the GTA. As I mentioned, the bill is specific to four transit projects: the Ontario Line, the Scarborough subway, the Yonge North subway extension and the Eglinton Crosstown.

I just want to quickly highlight some of our major concerns. While we support expanding transit, and accelerating transit projects in a responsible way is something that we would be very interested in, we are concerned that the specific provisions that are set out in this bill will actually undermine transit planning and, in fact, may compromise environmental protection provisions and they may also undermine the rights of homeowners and businesses who are located along proposed transit routes.

This bill is predicated on the notion that the measures that are set out are simply backstops. It claims to be supportive of good-faith negotiations between the Minister of Transportation and local stakeholders such as municipalities, utilities, developers, property owners etc. The concern is that the powers that are given to the minister in this bill are not limited, so there is no guarantee that this will simply be a backstop. That is a major concern because of the extent of these new powers that the minister is given to quickly end disputes that could slow down the delivery of transit infrastructure.

Around this idea that it’s disputes between the province and utilities or municipalities: I think we have to be clear, Speaker, that there’s a big difference between disputes between the ministry and stakeholders and outright political meddling. Many of the members in my caucus have pointed out the issue of the Harris government filling in the hole that had been dug for the Eglinton subway and how that set transit back decades in Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. It is now 10:15, and I have to interrupt the member.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Property taxation

Ms. Jessica Bell: Clinton’s Tavern has been a neighbourhood institution for the past 83 years. It’s a hub for concerts, trivia nights, choir meet-ups and other local events. This weekend, Clinton’s Tavern closed its doors.

Clinton’s closure is part of a larger trend. Across Toronto, local and independent businesses are struggling to survive. Some businesses have seen a 500% increase in their property taxes because of our highest-and-best-use policy, which means that some corner stores are being taxed as if they’re a mythical 80-storey condo. Other businesses are being pushed out by sky-high rents because there’s no rent control for commercial space, and then a big chain store moves in. We are seeing this trend in Kensington Market, Chinatown, Little Italy and Ossington.

Local stores, restaurants and music venues are more than just businesses. They make our community unique, they employ our neighbours and they keep our local economy strong. The closure of an institution like Clinton’s is a big loss. As your MPP, I support the staff who are working so hard to keep Clinton’s open, and as your MPP, I will continue to support measures that we can take here in Queen’s Park to help local independent businesses in our city thrive.

Andy’s House

Mr. Norman Miller: A few weeks ago, I had the honour of announcing provincial funding for three hospice beds at Andy’s House in Port Carling. Andy’s House has been 15 years in the making and will bring comfort to many patients, their families and caregivers.

This beautiful facility is named in honour of Andrew Potts, an OPP officer who was killed when his cruiser hit a moose in 2005. In 2006, Andy’s father created the Andy Potts Memorial Foundation. In 2012, the Andy Potts Memorial Foundation partnered with Hospice Muskoka, and the two organizations have raised more than $2.7 million from the community. In December, the district of Muskoka contributed $200,000.

I want to thank all the donors and volunteers and, in particular, I want to recognize Brock Napier, who made a very large donation, and Officer Matt Hanes, who was Andy’s partner. I also want to recognize Sandra Winspear, the executive director of Hospice Muskoka, and her team.

Construction on Andy’s House started in 2018 and is almost complete. The rooms overlook the Indian River, and each room has a patio with a door wide enough to take the bed outside so the patients can enjoy the fresh air and beautiful view.

I want to thank Health Minister Christine Elliott for providing $315,000 in annual funding to open and operate the first three hospice beds. Congratulations to all involved in making Andy’s House a reality.

Education funding

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Jenny is a mom in Beaches–East York whose son, Henry, is a sunny, bright kid who loves to read. Quite suddenly, at eight years old, Henry developed serious mental health problems. He became aggressive, disruptive and even suicidal.

After a number of months, Jenny was able to get Henry psychiatric help, but he also needed help at school. He needed an educational assistant to help calm him when he was having an episode. The school had two EAs for 500 kids, but they were on constant duty, helping kids who were “runners” and in danger of leaving the school, and try as they might, the school was unable to get a third. So Henry’s teacher coped with him by having his best friend walk him up and down the halls to help calm him down.

Jenny knows that Henry’s condition worsened considerably over those months. At nine years old, he has now had to be hospitalized, but hospital mental health wards don’t cater to children that young, and his care is far from ideal. Jenny wonders how much better Henry might have been doing had the school had the resources to help him when he most needed it. It is a question that haunts her; it is a question that should haunt this government.

Parents and teachers have shared story after story with me about schools trying to do too much with too little. How many Henrys are there who have been hurt—perhaps permanently—because schools can’t cope? The Ford government needs to reverse the education cuts now.

Education funding

Ms. Donna Skelly: I’m proud to rise today to applaud our government for its accomplishments in protecting what matters most, and that is our education system. Our government is investing in local schools and ensuring that students have the skills they need to succeed.

In my city of Hamilton, approval has been given to proceed with the construction of two school additions in Stoney Creek. The $8.6-million addition to Mount Albion school will provide new spaces for 230 elementary school students. Over 200 new spaces will be opened up for elementary students with a $10-million addition at Collegiate school. The investments will also include new child care centres for 50 children, to serve Stoney Creek families. The Hamilton-Wentworth school board is contributing more than $6 million to improve conditions at these schools.

Our government is protecting what matters most by working with local school boards to invest in capital projects that advance student learning. In addition, our government is investing up to $1 billion to create up to 30,000 new child care spaces in Ontario over the next five years.

Over the next decade, millions and millions of dollars in capital grants will be dedicated by this government for new schools, additions and major renovations. We are providing school boards with an historic $1.4 billion in funding to—

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

Special Olympics

Ms. Catherine Fife: This May, Waterloo region will welcome hundreds of athletes for the 2020 Special Olympics spring games. I’m so proud of the way our community has come together to prepare for the games. People have signed up to volunteer, and money is being raised to support athletes from across the province.

Waterloo Regional Police Service and Chief Bryan Larkin have gone above and beyond to support the upcoming games. The chief recently took the plunge at the second annual Polar Plunge. The event was hosted by Waterloo Regional Police Service and Wilfrid Laurier, with all proceeds going to support Special Olympics Ontario. The 112 plungers raised over $45,000.

As the director of sponsorship and fundraising, local businessman Ron Caudle has also stepped up to support the spring games. This past Thursday, Ron received the community leader of the year award at the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards. Ron challenged us to put our compassion into action.

Ron and Bryan and so many others have stepped up, and you can, too. Every bit of support counts, so if you can, please volunteer or make a donation to Special Olympics Ontario. These athletes have so much to teach us. Let’s show them that we are ready to learn and to support them on their journey.

Black History Month / Mois de l’histoire des Noirs

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It is my pleasure to rise to recognize Black History Month, which is winding down.

The year 2020 marks the halfway point of the UN’s International Decade for People of African Descent. The objective of the decade is that people of African descent in the diaspora would have full enjoyment in society, education, the economy, justice.

I had the pleasure of kicking off this year’s Black History Month at the Ontario Black History Society’s fundraising brunch. This year, their goal is to call for the preservation and maintenance of Black history and heritage sites in Ontario.

Part of this historic event was the unveiling of the Canada Post Black History Month commemorative stamp for 2020. It featured the Colored Hockey Championship. Like other aspects of Canadian society, historical racism extended into the realm of sport. In the Maritime provinces, Black churches hoped to use hockey to attract young people to their organizations. From 1895 to the 1930s, about 400 players left their mark on the sport—including the creation of the slapshot.

This year also marks the milestone birthday of Canada and Jamaica’s treasure, Ms. Louise Bennett, who made Canada her home.

The more we understand each other and respect each other’s diversity, the more we can realize the promise of diversity.

Enfin, j’aimerais souhaiter de joyeuses célébrations du Mois de l’histoire des Noirs—

Le Président (L’hon. Ted Arnott): Merci beaucoup.

Property taxation

Mrs. Robin Martin: Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with a number of small business owners across my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence about the challenges they are facing, and I heard one common theme: Their municipal property taxes, combined with rising property values in areas of transition, are making it difficult for them to survive.

In the city of Toronto, commercial property taxes are 3.8 times higher than taxes on residential properties. Some of the business owners I spoke with are now paying as much in property taxes as they are in rent.

For those on Eglinton Avenue, this is on top of the impacts they have been facing for many years due to the construction of the Crosstown LRT. Thankfully, the amount of construction at street level will be minimized in the coming months as remaining work goes underground.

Mr. Speaker, when our local restaurants, coffee shops, dry cleaners and convenience stores are unable to stay in business, it affects the entire neighbourhood. Empty storefronts discourage people from shopping local and are bad for business and community life.

To those businesses struggling, I assure you that we are listening. I will continue to work with our government to examine ways to provide municipalities with more tools and flexibility to address the concerns of local small businesses.

To everyone else, let’s increase our efforts to shop local and make sure that our main streets stay open for business and are vibrant spaces in our communities.

Education funding

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, like most members in this assembly, we’ve been getting emails on a number of issues, but one of them, obviously, is from parents, teachers and students in regard to the government’s agenda of doing cuts to education—namely, what’s happening with increasing class sizes and also what’s going on in regard to e-learning.

I have a letter from Natalie Poitras, who is with La Clef, which is a francophone organization that deals with alternative adult education in the city of Timmins. She writes a very long email but makes two very valid points. The first point is, first of all, they are mandated, as teachers in the alternative ed programs, to offer e-learning to students. The experience is that when they offer the e-learning, kids have a harder time trying to complete those courses. When they offer them in the classroom with a teacher, attendance shoots up and there is a higher completion rate. We already know by our own experience that mandatory e-learning is not the answer.

The second thing that she talks about is larger class sizes. She works with children who have had all kinds of issues, and she lists what those are—everything from mental health to abuse; you name it. What she talks about is that these children often go through the school as invisible people and, as a result of having larger class sizes, they will become even more invisible to the system when it comes to offering them help.

Make sure we have teachers in the classroom to serve these kids.

Employment

Mr. Toby Barrett: Since my party formed government in June 2018, employment in Ontario has increased by 307,000 jobs. In fact, we’re leading the nation, with 76% of our country’s new jobs being created in Ontario.

The majority of these jobs are full-time jobs; they’re private sector jobs. Unemployment is down and wages are up. Despite all this good news, we now know there’s more work to be done. Only 1% of people on social assistance find jobs each month. This isn’t good enough for me; it isn’t good enough for our province’s most vulnerable people.

That’s why I’m delighted that our government is piloting a new approach to employment services, one that encourages local solutions for local job market problems. In our area, a group that includes organizations like Community Living was selected to manage our system. The principal proponent has over 85 years of experience in helping those with disabilities find work. Funding is tied to results, and I look forward to seeing the improvements they deliver.

Speaker, it’s very important that we do everything that we can to help people find and also keep good, stable jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Please stop the clock. I’m going to ask the members to quieten down a bit so that we can hear the member who has the floor with their statement.

Start the clock. The next member’s statement?

Mississauga Muslim Community

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I rise today to highlight the tremendous work and community contributions of an organization close to my heart. Also known as MMC, the Mississauga Muslim Community’s operating theme is “Neighbours Helping Neighbours.” For many years, the MMC has been doing just that through an annual walkathon on Ontario’s Family Day weekend.

I’m proud to say that since its inception in 2011 the walkathon has been raising funds for Trillium Health Partners’ Credit Valley Hospital. So far, the MMC has raised $250,000. Additionally, this year, the MMC annual Family Day Walkathon has pledged to raise another $250,000, bringing the total to half a million dollars.

The purpose of the walkathon, besides raising funds for charity, is to raise awareness and support families who may be facing challenges such as single parenthood, domestic violence, teenage pregnancies, youth crime, mental health challenges and addictions, and so on. The message of MMC is that we all need to stand up and work together, regardless of race, gender, culture or religion, to build and maintain a safe and happy home for all of our families.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot find enough words to express my gratitude to MMC—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. That concludes our member statements for this morning.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It is now time for introduction of visitors. I’ll remind the members that we have five minutes for this. Introduce your guests by name, by riding, by organization, and keep it to that.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome my constituent from London North Centre Wesam AbdElhamid Mohamed, whom I met with, from the Canadian Federation of Students. Wesam is also the VP of advocacy for the Society of Graduate Students at Western University. Welcome to the people’s House.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I have the honour of introducing a great group of students from St. Dominic school in Oakville; their teacher, John MacPhail; and Kristin Courtney, founder of the Oakville Veterans Appreciation Luncheon. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome our own page Irma Giselle Mendoza Saldana’s family, from my great riding of York South–Weston. Here with us are her mother, Irma Ramirez; her dad, Oscar Mendoza; her sister, Larissa Mendoza; and her teacher, Daniela Faloma.

Also, I would like to welcome Jewish social services agencies who are here with us today. Welcome to your House.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I also want to tell everybody that today is the Jewish social service agencies advocacy day. They’re sponsored by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

There are too many personal names, although there are lots of wonderful people from my riding of Thornhill, so I’m just going to list the names of the organizations: the Bernard Betel Centre, Circle of Care, JACS Toronto, Jewish Family and Child services, JIAS Toronto, JVS Toronto, Reena, Jewish Family Services of Ottawa, UJA Federation of Greater Toronto, Chai-Tikvah, Kayla’s Children Centre, Hillel Lodge, Beth Tikvah Hamilton, Shalom Village, Hamilton Jewish Family Services, and Kehilla. Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d also like to welcome CIJA social services—I had the pleasure of meeting with Toronto and Ottawa—and Hamilton Jewish Family Services. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

And from the Ontario Autism Coalition, we have Michau van Speyk. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Greg Rickford: All the way from Kakabeka Falls, my good friend Brandon Postuma is here today, and we welcome him to this magnificent House.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to welcome Felipe Nagata from U of T Mississauga, Kayla Weiler from the Canadian Federation of Students, Christopher Yendt from Brock University in St. Catharines, and Sean Mitchell from U of Guelph. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome a constituent of mine, Chloe Craig, to the Legislature today. Thank you for your speech this morning. Welcome.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome the Ontario undergraduate students’ association, the College Student Alliance, the council of universities and Colleges Ontario. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park to raise the issue of post-secondary mental health.

Mr. Stan Cho: Very quickly, I just want to welcome Barbara Stevens, my good friend, to the Legislature today.

Ms. Doly Begum: I would like to welcome Md. Abu Nasar, Fariduddin Ahmed, Khorsheda Begum, Monowara Begum, Md. Mubarak Mia, Md. Khalequzzaman, Delaware Sultana, Sabbir Bakhtiyar, Paral Malek, Shamima Nargis, Tahmina Akter, Md. Rabiul Islam, Sufia Begum, Bilkis Ara, Afsana Chowdhury and Ayesha Shirien. They’re all from the seniors group at West Scarborough Neighbourhood centre. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: I would like to welcome Jude Athanasyar and Anne Yarlini Athanasyar. They’re the parents of page captain Jessica.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome two constituents from London West: Lauren Goldsack, who is a member of my London West Youth Cabinet, and her father, Cory Goldsack. They have joined us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Will Bouma: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House some municipal politicians from my riding of Brantford–Brant. From the county of Brant, we have Mayor David Bailey, Councillor John Peirce, and my friend and former seatmate John Wheat, whom my kids call “Papa John.”

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to welcome my dear friend Peter Landry, who is the provincial Liberal association president from Bay of Quinte. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ross Romano: I would like to acknowledge some of our guests in the House today. Representatives from the College Student Alliance, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, Colleges Ontario and the Council of Ontario Universities are here today, working together to improve mental health services on post-secondary campuses all across this province. Today, they have launched the In It Together report, which I encourage everyone to have the opportunity to—

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

Just to explain what we did this morning, there are five minutes. I tried to be systematic about it. I know most members would like to be acknowledged first when they stand up; some would expect to be acknowledged first when they stand up. I tried to start at both ends of the House and work my way down. Tomorrow, I’ll start at that end of the House and work my way up. Okay? We’ll see how that works. Thank you very much.

We were able to get everybody on because everybody adhered to the new standing order. Thank you for that, too.

Question Period

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier.

It looks like another stressful week for students and parents. Yesterday, Catholic teachers ended negotiations, saying that they were frustrated by the Ford government’s insults, attacks and lack of any proposals. Elementary teachers echoed these same concerns. Meanwhile, the Premier claimed parents are telling him, “Keep going. Do not back down.”

As parents watch talks break down and classroom cuts take their toll, does he really expect us to believe that parents are sending the government messages of their support?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I’m hearing that everywhere I go in the province. I guess I just don’t hang out with the heads of the unions. That’s what I don’t do. I talk to the real people.

I’ll tell you one thing: I’m not beholden, and neither is our party, to the heads of the unions. We’re beholden to the teachers. We’re beholden to the parents. We’re beholden to the students. That’s what we’re focused on.

But I did talk to a single mom the other day. Her sick days and vacations expired. So guess what? On Friday, she never got a paycheque, because the unions decided to go on strike. It’s time the unions put the students over politics and compensation, and work with the government to keep these kids in the classroom.

We’re protecting full-day kindergarten, maintaining the smallest class sizes in Canada for early years. It’s a fact: the smallest classroom sizes for early years. We’re investing more in math and special education to make sure—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier should have been here on Friday to talk to 35,000 students, parents and teachers, or any other place in the province where hundreds of thousands of folks were walking the picket line against this government’s cuts to education.

On this side of the House, however, we thought that the Premier’s claim was very unbelievable. In fact, we asked everyday Ontarians what they thought of it, and here’s what they said. Kyle told us, “Parent here: big nope. Invest in education, pay public sector workers fairly, and build the province up instead of tearing it down.” And Kim sent us a note that said this: “This parent strongly disagrees.... Our kids and our future economy need investments in education, not the harmful cuts this government is imposing. I support Ontario’s educators.”

Are Kyle and Kim wrong?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: As they had 35,000 people down here, there were hundreds of thousands of people in the back of factories who had to take time off who can’t afford a day off. It’s costing them personally; it’s costing their families. It’s tough enough to get ahead under the NDP and the Liberals, how they destroyed our province over the last 15 years.

We’re listening to the parents and the students. We have reasonable bargaining at the table right now. We reduced class sizes from 28 down to 25. We reduced mandatory online learning from four to two courses. We’re working day in and day out. I know that my champion—and he is a champion—Minister Lecce is at the bargaining table working hard to keep the kids in the classrooms.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don’t know why the Conservatives are having such a hard time with this, Speaker. Monique—not our Monique; another Monique—told us, “I haven’t met a parent in the secondary system yet that said yes to bigger classes or e-learning!”

Fiona reached out to us to say that the Conservative spin was “funny, because anyone I talk to—parents, kids, teachers—are deeply worried about what’s happening.”

Again to the Premier: The Conservatives have called teachers fat cats. They’ve called them babies, and they’ve called them thugs. Don’t they think it’s finally time to spend a little less time name-calling and a little more time actually listening to what families really want?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Members will please take their seats.

Order. I recognize the Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you, Speaker. It’s time to get a deal in this province. That is why we went to the negotiating table yesterday to get that deal. We tabled reasonable, positive proposals that are good for students. Let me enumerate what those were.

We committed to keeping classroom sizes low. We committed to protecting full-day kindergarten in writing. We committed to a 100% investment in special education funding; in fact, providing more funding in spec ed services.

In this negotiation, we committed to a fair 1% enhancement of compensation for education workers, whom we value, who are friends and our family. We’re asking our union partners to work with the government to put students over union interests and rejoin our efforts to keep kids in class.

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Parents, students and teachers have been very clear. They see the cuts in their classrooms, teachers getting fired and a government that doesn’t seem to have a strategy besides “do not back down.” Does the Premier really think that’s what parents want?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Parents want a deal that works for their students, not for the unions of this province. That’s what we’re advancing at the negotiating table each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, we went to the table yesterday to get a deal. We gave our negotiating team the ability to drive that outcome. Yet, even still, with a commitment to maintain full-day kindergarten, with a commitment to keep classroom sizes low, with a commitment to ensure a 100% investment in special education funding, more money in spec ed services, even still, compensation remains the true issue at that table: a benefit ask, an enhancement to benefits, when we know students need more supports for them, for their success and for their future prosperity. We’re going to fight for students each and every day of this negotiation.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I want to share another note that we got from a parent named Catherine, who wrote us to say, “I’m ashamed and embarrassed that my Ontario government is behaving so selfishly and irrationally. It’s time to stop behaving like middle-aged frat boys with a superiority complex....

“Stop. Putting. Our. Children. Last.”

Isn’t it time to listen to everyday Ontarians like Catherine, or is this government going to continue to act like and pretend that they know best when it’s obvious they don’t?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We’re going to continue to stand strong in the defence of student interests over union interests each and every day in the negotiating process, and parents expect that. They want the system to work for their kids.

We are spending more in education, a 60% net increase since 2003-04, and yet the question for parents, the question for every parent in this province, is: Do you see the comparable result? Do you see improvement from that investment?

The point for our government is that we expect better. We are committing in this negotiation to keep classroom sizes low, to ensure full-day kindergarten is protected in writing, to invest 100% more money in special education, and yes, Speaker, we ask for consent by the unions for a 1% increase in compensation.

This is a fair deal for workers, but most importantly, it’s a solid deal for students. It’s time for the unions to work with the government, to get back to the table, to negotiate in good faith and get a deal that keeps kids in class.

Applause.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No amount of accolades that this government gives itself is going to drown out the fact that the all-star Minister of Education and the Premier don’t have a clue what everyday families—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. I need to be able to hear the member who has the floor, whether they’re asking a question or whether they’re responding. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition.

Please start the clock, and I would ask her to place her question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thanks. I think we need a Zamboni driver to replace the Minister of Education here in the province of Ontario.

But look, the fact of the matter is, parents don’t want classroom cuts. They don’t want mandatory e-learning or larger class sizes. They don’t want 10,000 teachers to be fired. And they don’t want an education minister attacking teachers he’s supposed to be getting a deal with. It doesn’t work that way, Speaker. You don’t poison the well and then expect to get a deal.

Will this Premier stop pretending that parents are on his side, stop pretending that educators are on his side, cancel the cuts, replace this minister even if it means with a Zamboni driver, and work on actually getting a deal done?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I find the cult of personality obsession by the Leader of the Opposition and the union presidents about me is really unhelpful. With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, it isn’t about you. It isn’t about me. It’s about our kids, and it’s about time you accepted that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members take their seats.

Restart the clock.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: In the interests of our students, we’re proposing a solid, positive deal for our kids. We’re going to keep classroom sizes low. We’re going to commit 100% investment in special education. We’re going to maintain full-day kindergarten and we’re going to offer a fair 1% enhancement to our workers. I want a deal. This caucus wants a deal. Let’s get it done.

Indigenous affairs

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the OPP arrested Tyendinaga Mohawk land defenders. I asked a question about what the Premier knew about the police action by the OPP and what role did he, his office or cabinet play. I’m not sure if I got the answer, so I ask again: Was the Premier briefed about the police action prior to the arrests and the dismantling of the protest camp at Wyman Road, and has the Premier or members of the cabinet been briefed since the arrests were made?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Indigenous Affairs to reply on behalf of the government.

Hon. Greg Rickford: To the member opposite, here is what we knew: We knew that it was important to be respectful, to support, encourage and facilitate Indigenous leadership to help address this situation. As time wore on, we protected the principles and the recommendations of Ipperwash. We don’t provide instructions to the police. In stark contrast, we worked closely with people on the ground to ensure that we had a peaceful outcome.

We’re satisfied that we went to the farthest lengths possible to achieve that end, and we hope that we can move forward, not just with Indigenous leadership, not just with the members of that community, but across this province to ensure that these kinds of events are handled more appropriately from all sides in the future.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Mr. Speaker. We have to understand that these demonstrations are the result of 150 years. But instead, the Premier thought it was good to say, “Enough is enough. The illegal blockades must come down.”

Since the arrests yesterday, there are now more protests. The streets in front of Parliament Hill were shut down. The International Bridge in Sault Ste. Marie was shut down. Community members have shut down Highway 6 at Six Nations and the rail line at Hamilton.

Speaker, we’re aware what the Ipperwash Inquiry concluded, and I hear a lot of words about dialogue with hereditary chiefs, hereditary leaders and respecting Indigenous law. So I ask: What has this government done, beyond these words?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Thank you for that. As a government, we’ve taken an across-the-ministry approach, a whole-of-government approach, to ensure that Indigenous people have their rightful place in just about every piece of legislation and policy option that this government is moving forward with. Take, for example, the Far North Act: a piece of legislation shoved down the throats of the isolated and remote northern communities by the previous government, absent any consultation. We are now working directly with them through the NAN leadership to ensure that decision-making moving forward is shared between the government and the Indigenous communities who—wait for it—actually live there.

I was in Thunder Bay just last week, announcing $1.5 million to mobilize more than 300 people to work on the east-west tie. We went to the Anishinabek training centre there at the Thunder Bay library to ensure that there are resources to ensure Indigenous peoples, young peoples in particular, are mobilized and ready for a new workforce, a new complexion of a workforce, all across northern Ontario.

I have a list here, Mr. Speaker. It’s very long. Hopefully I’ll get an opportunity—

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

Mississauga economy

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question is to the Premier. Premier, I’m proud to represent the great people of Mississauga and, in particular, my constituents of Mississauga East–Cooksville.

As we know, Mississauga is the sixth most populous municipality in all of Canada, generating $55 billion per annum of economic output. Under the previous Liberal government, Mississauga was continuously taken for granted. Economic and business leaders have raised concerns about the policies put in place by the Liberal government, which prevented growth and made life harder for citizens.

Premier, can you please elaborate to the Legislature how Mississauga is turning around economically, thanks to our government?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank not just an all-star, but an all-star champion from Mississauga East–Cooksville.

Thanks to the policies of our government, Mississauga is booming economically like the rest of this great province. Mississauga was recently ranked the most business-friendly midsize city in the western hemisphere by the Foreign Direct Investment’s American Cities of the Future report, out of 421 locations in North America and South America. That is an incredible feat. Mississauga also placed fourth in economic potential and third in cost-effectiveness and connectivity.

Mr. Speaker, our plan to build Ontario is working. Our economy is firing on all cylinders. Over 300,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario since we took office. That’s 307,000 new opportunities. That’s 307,000—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Back to the Premier: Premier, thank you for the support you are providing to the people of Mississauga and to the rest of Ontario. You are right: Mississauga is turning around once again. We are becoming stronger economically, with more people finding work and being able to provide for their families and loved ones.

The city of Mississauga’s business community is made up of over 98,000 businesses, 1,400 multinational firms and 76 Fortune 500 companies. We are a major economic hub in this province, and our government wants to work with Mississauga and champion our entrepreneurs and business leaders. Premier, can you share more information about new economic investments and the companies who are now investing in Mississauga?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank our great MPP from Mississauga. Mr. Speaker, Mayor Crombie had a great stat which she shared the other day: Mississauga creates 27 new jobs every day. That adds on to our 500 a day that we create across the province. This builds to the great news of Ontario’s economic strength, new jobs being created. Think of this, Mr. Speaker: A new job is being created here in Ontario every three minutes. As we sit here, new jobs are being created.

Just this past December, Bombardier announced that Mississauga would be home to their new global manufacturing centre for its global business jet series. This is a massive investment of $350 million. That is going to be high-paying jobs—hundreds and hundreds of high-paying jobs.

Another great company, Concentrix, is creating 300 new positions in Mississauga. They’re opening up every single day—

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

Licence plates

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. Premier, while your government is doubling down on the rollout of your partisan plates, the problems multiply. From durhamregion.com, Steven Kemp, Durham region’s manager of traffic engineering and operations, flags that there is a problem with the design: “When it says ‘Ontario’ on the plates, it’s very small. When the provincial officer looks at the image they can’t always see ‘Ontario.’”

Minister, you’ve blamed the manufacturer but then tell us they stand by the plates and that you stand by them, but the government House leader says they expect the company will foot the bill for the repair and replacement of the plates. It’s really hard to keep up.

How did we get here? Who was responsible for testing? The minister said in an interview that this government did testing. She’s never said anything about 3M’s testing. Who was consulted during your government’s exhaustive testing and where is the proof of any testing? Since they don’t work in bright light, dim light, at a distance, in Durham and Toronto intersections or in the sun, will the minister please tell us, if you can: Where do the plates work and how can you back it up?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I want to be perfectly clear at this moment. I’m going to be very, very pointed when I say that we take the concerns of Ontarians very, very seriously. We’re listening. We continue to listen, and we are taking action with our partners.

I am telling you, Speaker, I’m so appreciative of the fact that our partners are working around the clock to address what we’ve heard. Through this process, our government is working with and incorporating feedback from public safety stakeholders—our partners in terms of processing. I can assure you that 3M is working diligently alongside us to, again, address the concerns that have been shared. We are going to be rolling out and keeping everyone updated on our progress in the days and weeks to come.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I hope that they’ll reconsider and hand over the proof of that testing.

Speaker, this morning we read on WKBW Buffalo that on the US side of the Canadian border, “Supervisory CBP officer Michael Taylor said US Customs and Border Patrol is aware that some of the new Ontario licence plates cannot be read by the automatic licence plate readers at the border crossings.” Taylor says wait times haven’t been affected yet because there have only been a handful of plates at the border so far. Yet, Speaker, this government is still putting new plates on the roads. They are doggedly clinging to the hope that people will love these plates and maybe by extension love them.

Give us a real answer about how many white plates are still in stock that could be used. The minister says, “We’re listening. We’re hearing.” But, Minister, people need you to be looking and seeing, so open your eyes. Will this government please stop wrecking things, stop scapegoating, be responsible and stop putting these unsafe, problematic partisan plates on our roads?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Most importantly, Speaker, we’re doing. We’re taking action and we’re listening and consulting with the people who matter in terms of making sure that Ontarians have the type of plates that embrace technology, that take us into the 21st century.

We also need to ensure that people understand that their voice matters. Again, I can’t stress enough, Speaker, that we are listening and we are taking action. And again, we’re standing with 3M, who have assured us that they will deliver an enhanced product in the weeks to come.

Speaker, again, I look forward to continuing to update this House and the member opposite as our progress continues. We are taking action and we will be delivering an enhanced product in the coming weeks.

Indigenous affairs

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. It is the responsibility of this House and all members to raise matters of public interest and importance. It is our responsibility to seek to end injustice and to debate policies. But on Indigenous policy, we have been silent for far too long.

It is past time that we create a standing committee on Indigenous relations in this House, a standing committee where Indigenous peoples may be heard, policies examined and deliberated and solutions found.

Speaker, we cannot be silent any longer. I call upon the Premier to act and create a standing committee on Indigenous relations; for without honest, ongoing and respectful discussions from all sides, the mantra of reconciliation is empty and hollow.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Indigenous Affairs to reply.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for the motion he tabled this morning. I understand that it will be debated at second reading on March 5. I look forward to reviewing it in some detail and getting some reflections and input from all members of this place and, in particular, from my Indigenous critic on the content of what he’s put forward.

I can say that this government at every turn, as I mentioned in a previous response, has taken the opportunities available to us to work directly with Indigenous communities on major policy positions and economic development. We continue to be hopeful that this relationship will be ongoing. We’ve had Indigenous leadership host proactive receptions here to build relationships, and we hope that, moving forward, we will continue to make all of these opportunities with Indigenous communities and leaderships a top priority with this government.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Premier—and I appreciate the minister’s response, but I believe the supplementary is deserving of a response from the Premier.

The people of Ontario expect their government to uphold the rule of law. They understand that there are inequities and strains in our relationship with Indigenous peoples. The conflation of facts and opinions that surround this relationship makes it difficult for everyone, native and non-native alike, to have honest discussions and debates.

I’ve asked today that the Premier create a standing committee on Indigenous relations. It is overdue. The committee must have the discretion to investigate related matters and report back to this House for open debate.

It is not my ballot day on March 5, Minister. We can do this by unanimous consent today.

Hon. Greg Rickford: Regardless of the specific date, I think the official opposition and the Indigenous critic would have some important things to say. There’s a

preamble here, as I look at the motion or the letter in its content. But some of the subject matter, I think, could and should be discussed.

Indigenous land claims: This government is moving at the fastest pace that I can recall in federal time and provincial to settle those land claims.

Indigenous impact benefit agreements: We’ve moved forward on a number of key legacy infrastructure opportunities with Indigenous communities all across northern Ontario.

The development of resources on native lands: The Ministry of Natural Resources, through the Far North Act, is dealing directly with Indigenous leadership.

Education and curriculum: We moved forward with reciprocal education policies and embedded Indigenous history mandatorily in the curriculums of elementary and secondary students.

These are all important subject matters, and we’ll look—

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

Next question.

Employment

Mr. David Piccini: When I got elected, I spoke to too many constituents who spoke of a broken employment system. In fact, the Auditor General reiterated this when she said that only 1% of people on social assistance were finding work each month. With one job being created every three minutes across the province, and with our province’s largest chamber of commerce finding that 82% of businesses polled report having difficulty recruiting and finding new employees, my question to the minister is: Please explain how our government is making the system work better; and how are we supporting those people who are trying to navigate the employment system?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South for that very important question.

Mr. Speaker, getting people into jobs is a top priority for everyone in this government. When job seekers have trouble finding work, while jobs go unfilled right across Ontario, it’s clear that the system we inherited isn’t working. It isn’t working for employers who need workers or for workers who need a job.

We’ve engaged three different system managers to make the system work better. They will be funded on whether they actually help people find jobs.

Mr. Speaker, jobs are important. They put food on the table and a roof over families’ heads. More so, having a job gives you a sense of dignity. We need to do everything possible to help people find good, stable jobs in Ontario.

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

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you, Minister, for that response. It’s exciting to hear how the government is helping connect people, particularly our most vulnerable citizens, to jobs.

I think of my local constituent Jim, who spoke about how he struggled with navigating an employment system that separates Employment Ontario, ODSP and Ontario Works, often administering overlapping and conflicting programs.

Even as the government supports a competitive business environment and makes investments to help people prepare for jobs, the old system failed to help people find those jobs.

Could the minister please share more on how our government’s changes will help workers across the province of Ontario, like my constituent Jim?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to thank the member for that supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker, helping people right across Ontario, in every single community, is why we’re making this change. The system managers will find local solutions to local problems. Instead of being rewarded for failing while following processes laid out by Queen’s Park bureaucrats, they’ll be accountable for finding people work. The first communities to benefit from this will be Peel, Hamilton-Niagara, and Muskoka-Kawarthas. Job seekers in each region will benefit from a one-window approach for ODSP and Ontario Works recipients.

We want everyone in Ontario to participate in the prosperity that’s happening since Premier Ford got elected. Over 300,000 people are working today who weren’t working 18 months ago. Wages are going up for the first time in a decade. And for the first time in 30 years, we have the lowest unemployment rate in Ontario.

Health care funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Today, the Patient Ombudsman released their report. They received thousands of complaints pointing to one thing: The strain on our health care system continues to grow, after years of cuts by the Liberal government. But instead of fixing the Liberals’ mess that left us with a hallway medicine crisis, ballooning wait times for long-term care and a shortage of qualified personal support workers, this government has cut more from the health care budget, ignored the needs of the front lines and prioritized the reorganization of the health care system above all else.

Ontarians tell us that we need more investments in health care, not cuts.

Premier, will your government listen and provide the necessary health care investments in the upcoming budget?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question.

I am very familiar with the work done by the Patient Ombudsman. I thank them for their report and I look forward to reviewing the details of it. The work that they are doing is really important for the people of Ontario. However, it is my hope that over time, with the new local Ontario health teams coming into play, they will be able to rectify a number of the concerns that have been relayed by the Patient Ombudsman’s report recently.

We are actually increasing investment in health care services in Ontario considerably, by $1.9 billion this year over last year. This is a huge increase in volume—and it’s not just the amount of money that’s being invested; it’s where the money is being invested. We want the money to go to front-line services. That’s what the people of Ontario have told us over and over again.

The transformation that we are working on right now with the local Ontario health teams, where those teams plan and provide the services and fill in the gaps that have been identified by the Patient Ombudsman, is going to result in high-quality—

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

M me France Gélinas: This Conservative government moves fast when it wants to, like when they released their vanity licence plates that can’t be read. But the Conservative government is missing in action when it comes to helping everyday Ontarians; for example, when they seek help to care for their elderly parents, like my constituent 87-year-old Bertha, who refuses to leave her long-term-care room, who refuses to eat, because she misses her husband, Rhéal, 89 years old, across town away from her in a different long-term-care home—unable to reunite them for the last 13 months.

They are missing in action when people need help to pay for their medication. The Ombudsman’s report also pointed out that not too many people even know that they can seek help from the Patient Ombudsman. Perhaps that’s because the position has been vacant for nearly two years.

Why has the Premier taken so long to even start the search for a new Ombudsman for our health care system in crisis?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, the Patient Ombudsman is a very important position. The search has started. There is an independent group that is taking a look to select the right person to be the next Patient Ombudsman. However, the work in that office continues. There’s no slowing down of the work that they are doing.

In terms of what we are doing in the Ministry of Health, I can tell you that we are taking swift action. We have talked to thousands of people across Ontario. We know that there are concerns that people, when they are leaving hospital and need home care, aren’t necessarily getting the services that they need. They often don’t know who will be coming to provide the home care, when they will be coming, or who’s providing the service. That is changing with the new local Ontario health teams.

People will know before they leave the hospital who they will be connected to for home care and they will be followed for that to make sure that there aren’t complications that are going to bring them back into hospital again.

We are taking action on primary care. We’re also taking action on mental health and addictions care. Our plan will be released very—

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

Pharmacare

Mr. Michael Coteau: Premier, when you announced that OHIP+ would no longer cover medication for those who had private insurance, you reassured families and their children that any additional costs not covered because of those changes would be covered.

Recently, a family from Oakville contacted my office and shared their story on how they are now forced to pay nearly $500 per month for a required prescription of nutritional formula for an autistic child. While OHIP+ used to cover this, they are no longer eligible because of their private insurance.

To the Premier: Why is this family forced to pay nearly $500 a month when your government promised Ontarians that the changes to OHIP+ would not result in a loss of coverage?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: OHIP+ does cover virtually all of the costs that people will incur. If people are not able to pay any additional costs, of course there’s always the Trillium program that they can apply to. That is what we promised the people of Ontario. We don’t want people who don’t have insurance coverage to have to pay those additional costs.

We would be happy to take a look at that particular circumstance, because we are aware of several areas that people were concerned about where we have provided coverage. In this particular case, I’d be happy to speak to you about it to make sure that we are able to provide that person with coverage if they’re not able to pay for it themselves.

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

Mr. Michael Coteau: We actually did reach out to your office, because I thought maybe something was overlooked; maybe there was a mistake that was made. The answer that came back from your office was a big no.

These cuts are part of a bigger pattern that has taken place here in the province of Ontario over the last 20 months, where we’ve seen cuts to after-school programs, teachers, libraries, autism services, complex special needs—even cuts to children’s breakfast programs.

Premier, you made a promise to Ontarians that they would not lose coverage. You made that promise that they would not lose coverage with OHIP+. If that was true, why is this family now forced to pay almost $6,000 a year for a prescription that is necessary for the health and well-being of this child?

Speaker, the Premier made a promise to Ontarians. Will his government reconsider these cuts to OHIP+ so that this family and many others will have coverage restored?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, without understanding the particular circumstances of the person that you’re describing here, I can’t make a comment on that. I would be happy to discuss it with you afterwards.

What I can tell you is that we want to provide more front-line coverage to people, more services for people and more prescriptions for people. That’s one of the issues that we need to discuss with the federal government, quite frankly, more prescriptions rather than a pan-Canadian pharmaceutical program.

Let’s talk about the issues that are really a concern for governments across this country, which are rare and orphan disease drugs. Those are the things that we are finding it increasingly difficult to cover. It’s wonderful that these drugs are being discovered, but they are incredibly expensive. That is a good point of discussion for us with the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Don Valley East, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Energy, come to order.

I apologize to the Minister of Health for interrupting her. She can conclude her response.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much, Speaker.

In conclusion, the issue of rare and orphan disease drugs and other drugs that might not be covered under the provincial program right now will be discussed with the federal minister. That is a good point of discussion for the provincial-territorial ministers with the federal government when we have our first meeting, which should be coming up within the next month or so. We need to start talking about the things that are really an issue for provincial governments, and I know from my colleagues that that’s certainly one of them, and something that I certainly intend to present when we do have that meeting.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question? The member for Burlington.

Ms. Jane McKenna: My question is for the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Don Valley East, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Don Valley East is warned.

Once again, I’ll explain what we do with warnings. If I have to speak to the member again after the member has been warned, he will be named without further warning.

Please start the clock. I apologize to the member for Burlington.

Death registration

Ms. Jane McKenna: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. The Babcock family saw first-hand how a lengthy and exhausting legal process to obtain a death certificate can make an already devastating life event even more challenging. In July 2017, an Ontario jury heard sufficient evidence to find that Laura Babcock had been murdered even though her remains had not been found. Although a court convicted two individuals of Ms. Babcock’s murder, her family faced many challenges registering her death because her body was not found.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell us more about the Babcock family’s advocacy work that spurred changes to how the province facilitates death registrations in cases where a person disappears in circumstances of peril and no remains are recovered?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I want to thank the member from Burlington for asking this important question because, again, it demonstrates how our government is listening and taking action.

I’d also like to share my appreciation with the Babcock family. You have been amazing advocates, leading with your heart, to ensure that no other Ontario family experiences what your family went through.

Bureaucratic barriers made the grieving process for the Babcock family more difficult than it really needed to be. So Laura’s parents wrote to our government asking that something needed to be done, and asked that Ontario families have an easier path to take when they find themselves in very unthinkable, unfortunate situations.

So I’m pleased to share with you, Speaker, that my ministry worked alongside the Office of the Attorney General to introduce changes that have made the death registration process less burdensome and more compassionate.

I want to thank the Premier. I want to thank the member from Etobicoke Centre. I want to thank—

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

The supplementary question?

Ms. Jane McKenna: Mr. Speaker, the situation that the Babcock family went through is heartbreaking. Can the Attorney General tell us about the steps our government has taken to ensure that no other family in the Babcock’s position will have to endure a lengthy and complicated course of action in order to complete the death registration process?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General to reply.

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you to the member from Burlington for the opportunity. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the Babcock family for raising this issue with our government.

Our government has made changes to the Vital Statistics Act that amend the death registration process to ease the burden for families faced with registering the death of a loved one in the absence of their remains. Laura’s Law, as we have named it in honour of Laura Babcock, would provide a simpler method for families to obtain a death certificate in tragic circumstances. This change will provide tools to the courts, in particular crown attorneys and judges, to facilitate the registration of death in these cases and ensure that families have the necessary support.

Laura’s Law will ensure that in the future the death registration process is less burdensome for families who experience a similar unthinkable tragedy. Mr. Speaker, the coordination between ministries and the leadership of the Premier was critical in making this happen.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: My question is for the Premier. Steven Graci, a resident in my riding of Humber River–Black Creek, saw his auto insurance premium jump by 20% just before Christmas, despite having a clean driving record. It turns out that Steven is not alone, because both the Liberal government that was here just earlier and the current Conservative government have allowed auto insurance premiums to go up nine consecutive times.

Since the Premier campaigned on lowering auto insurance rates, can he tell Steven and the rest of us why our auto insurance rates are continuing to go up, just like the Liberals did before them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Finance, to respond on behalf of the government.

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for his question. Yes, dealing with the auto insurance rate issue has been an issue that has been a top priority for this government. Mr. Speaker, you’ll remember that the new blueprint that was released in our June 2019 budget addressed in a very systematic and appropriate way the things th