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

February 27, 2018

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Feb-27 (PDF)

L142 - Tue 27 Feb 2018 / Mar 27 fév 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 27 February 2018 Mardi 27 février 2018

Orders of the Day

Fairness in Procurement Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’équité en matière de marchés publics

Introduction of Visitors

Resignation of member for St. Paul’s

Philip Kaye

Oral Questions

Home care

Long-term care

Long-term care

Long-term care

Long-term care

Long-term care

School facilities / Installations scolaires

Long-term care

Mental health services

Indigenous economic development

Long-term care

Public transit

Anti-racism activities

Long-term care

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Sacred Heart School Mildmay

Assisted housing

Health care

Public libraries

Howard McCurdy

Pharmacare

Kaden Young

Savanna Myers

Federal budget

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Emmanuel Bible College Act, 2018

Kingston Health Sciences Centre Act, 2018

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Lunar new year

Black History Month

Lunar new year

Black History Month

Lunar new year

Black History Month

Visitors

Petitions

Injured workers

Wasaga Beach

Accident benefits

Hospital funding

Injured workers

Dietitians

Employment standards

Long-term care

Employment standards

Opposition Day

Long-term care

Adjournment Debate

Long-term care

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Fairness in Procurement Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’équité en matière de marchés publics

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 26, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 194,

An Act respecting fairness in procurement / Projet de loi 194, Loi concernant l’équité en matière de marchés publics.

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I don’t believe a quorum is present, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A quorum count, please.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is not present.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members—a five-minute bell.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since a quorum is now present, further debate. I recognize the Minister of International Trade.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity. I rise in the House today to continue debate on an important bill that, if passed, would enable Ontario to take measured actions and ensure the fair treatment of our industries, our businesses and our workers. Over the next few minutes, I will explain the importance of open and fair trade in our Ontario. I will discuss the proposed legislation, emphasizing the significance of fully understanding what is being put forth. I will finish with a discussion on what this legislation means for Ontario.

As the minister responsible for international trade, I promote Ontario globally and vice versa. I demonstrate that Ontario is not only a great place to invest and grow your business, but is also a great place to live, to work and to raise a family. We believe in free and fair trade. This is an attitude that this government prides itself on. As Minister of International Trade, the protection and prosperity of our workers and businesses is a top priority, to ensure that, through our trade relations, Ontario’s businesses are being given reciprocal opportunities and are treated with fairness, and to maintain that when there is discrimination, that there are consequences.

Ontario understands the importance of free trade. Trade brings investment to Ontario, creates new jobs, fosters new global relationships and boosts our GDP. International trade makes up 36% of Ontario’s economy and employs over 1.3 million individuals in Ontario. These numbers illustrate the magnitude of trade on our economy. Although the opposition may deny or even ignore the importance of international trade as a whole, they cannot deny the numbers.

Government procurement is an important part of the broader business relationship that we share with the US. This includes open access to bid on government procurement projects. Ontario recognizes that open and competitive contracting benefits people on both sides of the border. Of late, there has been an overwhelming resurgence of Buy American policies. Buy American policies require preferences to be granted to American-made products or services when awarding procurement contracts.

Such policies preclude Ontario businesses from participating in government procurement contracts, and they hinder the invoking government’s ability to get the best value for taxpayers. Additionally, these policies create an uneven business environment for our industries to operate in.

Our government has been very clear that our preference is for open, fair and competitive procurement processes, but it is paramount that this government stand up for what is right. The proposed legislation, the Fairness in Procurement Act, will ensure a level playing field between our province and our American partners. It is the introduction of reciprocal but measured legislation against America’s increasingly protectionist trade policies. This is a direct response to Buy American policies, which discriminate against Ontario’s open government procurement process.

I want to be clear that when we say “reciprocal legislation,” we mean responsive and equal. The proposed legislation will give Ontario the flexibility to choose whether and how to respond to discriminatory actions. This means that Ontario would have the ability, but not the requirement, to act. This is very important and must be reiterated: This legislation gives Ontario the ability, but not the requirement, to act.

This decision should be of no surprise. Along with the former Minister of Economic Development and Growth, the member from Scarborough Centre, I traveled to Albany, New York, in March 2017. The purpose of this business trip was to advocate on behalf of the province against Buy American legislation. As a result of our government’s proactive advocacy and outreach, Buy American policies were limited in scope.

During our meetings, we made clear that we will always protect and promote the prosperity of our businesses and our workers. We also spoke about reciprocal legislation—that we were prepared to invoke such legislation if the time came.

Speaker, Ontario is tabling reciprocal legislation to protect Ontario’s businesses against the increasingly protectionist atmosphere in the US. Although this is not our first choice, and it is a choice which is taken after much deliberating, it is the best decision for our province’s prosperity.

Ontario greatly values the deep and long-standing trade relationship that we have built with our partners across the US. We will continue to expand those ties, while also diversifying internationally. The people of Ontario and America have benefited greatly from our close and integrated relationship. This is a relationship that relies on its deeply intertwined economies. In many ways, our economic success is linked directly to our strong business relationships with the US. It is of common understanding that businesses operate more effectively when we tear down barriers and build bridges that connect us and strengthen our ties.

Beyond economic integration, Ontario shares many social values with the US. Progressive values guide our socio-economic activities and interactions and provide our citizens with a higher quality of life. These shared values have helped to cultivate open and fair opportunities—values that are not reflected in the protectionist measures found in sub-national Buy American policies. Protectionist Buy American policies at the state level threaten our mutually beneficial relationship and the core values this relationship has been built upon.

The legislation that we are debating today illustrates this government’s willingness to fight for Ontario—to fight for our workers, our businesses and our consumers. With this bill, we are taking action to respond to the spread of Buy American policies into other US states. Our government will continue to advocate on behalf of Ontario businesses and workers. We will emphasize the importance of reciprocal access to government procurement projects, and we will continue to strengthen and promote our long-standing business relationships with our partners south of the border.

And as we take decisive steps to ensure fair treatment through the proposed Fairness in Procurement Act, our diplomatic channels remain fully open.

Mr. Speaker, this is about supporting the fair treatment of Ontario businesses because it is the right thing to do. The government owes it to Ontario businesses to do its due diligence to ensure that they are protected in the event that diplomatic efforts are insufficient.

We look forward to working with all parties in the Ontario Legislature to ensure swift but measured passage of this important legislation. We will continue to fight for what is right, and this legislation is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s an honour to join in the debate on Bill 194. But I have to tell you, it’s a bit rich, coming from a government that drove over 300,000 manufacturing jobs out of Ontario—to suddenly wrap itself in a flag and claim it’s standing up for workers. Where were you when those companies were fleeing Ontario as a result of your policies, leaving devastated families and communities behind?

Of course, Speaker, what else would you expect from this government, so close to an election, from a desperate, scandal-ridden government?

In my riding, in Leeds–Grenville, we’re connected to New York state by not one but two international bridges. And you know something? It’s not Buy American legislation that’s threatening jobs in my riding right now. It’s the fact that these Liberal policies have taken away our competitive advantage to New York, which has a full-court press. New York state has a full-court press to lure companies across the St. Lawrence River.

Given what this government has done to hydro rates, you can imagine what their sales pitch is. One business gave me this comparison, so listen up over there: In Massena, New York, the all-in price for electricity is 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour. In Ontario, the cost is 17 cents plus HST. That’s the imbalance, Speaker, that’s costing us jobs, and this bill is not going to answer it. You know what’s going to answer it? The fix to this problem is going to come on June 7.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: This is very topical right now for the province of Ontario. I fully expected the minister to talk at greater length about why this piece of legislation is so important for the province of Ontario.

Yesterday, we had the Ontario Chamber of Commerce here to the Legislature. They had a full lobby day. The member from Windsor-Essex and the member from Oshawa met with OCC members and they talked about confidence. They talked about the lack of confidence that they have in this government in the way that you are handling the economy in the province of Ontario. They have a full-court press right here in Ontario just to try to find their footing as businesses. They have surveyed their members—every MPP received this information—and they highlighted the cost of hydro as being one of the major issues that they are facing to hold the jobs here and to build the economy here.

One company in my own riding, Kraus carpets, starts the year off $1 million down because Quebec has the most competitive energy rates. So they start the business year from a deficit position. I’m not talking about the energy poverty that Ms. Caroline Mulroney is talking about. This isn’t about buying hockey equipment or going out to dinner. These are keeping people employed so that they can do the best for their family.

One of the first priorities that the OCC came to us with is to allow Ontario businesses to buy into surplus electricity before it’s exported to our competitors. Give the businesses in this province a fighting chance before you give the competitive edge to our competitors on energy rates. What about starting there? Surely someone on that side of the bench sees the value in this idea.

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

Mr. Brad Duguid: I just want to say unequivocally that what we’ve heard from the member opposite, in particular the Conservative member, was nothing short of—how can I say this in a parliamentary way?—a misstatement of facts. The fact is our economy is growing very, very fast. We’ve created 800,000 jobs. They try to make things up like somehow that’s not the truth. That’s what’s happening out there. We’ve led the G7 in growth for the last three years going. We have the lowest unemployment rate we’ve had in 17 years. We can’t make that up, Mr. Speaker.

That’s Stats Canada; those are the numbers that come out of Stats Canada. That’s the reality of the economy right now. We’ve led the G7 in growth—the lowest unemployment rate. They try to tell people something else because they don’t like it when the economy is going well, because it’s all about politics to them.

To us, Mr. Speaker, it’s about growing our economy so we can create jobs. That’s what it’s about for us. This is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan issue if I ever saw one.

The opposition are turning themselves into pretzels trying to find ways not to support a very sensible bill. All we’re saying, Mr. Speaker, as we invest $190 billion in infrastructure, is that if other states are saying our companies can’t have a part of their infrastructure investment, well, it’s just not fair for our companies to be precluded from that and then allow their companies to come in full-out. The opposition are saying, “We don’t care. We’re not going to stand up for our companies. We’re not going to stand up for our workers. It’s all about politics to us.”

I say that the member from Hamilton—Miller got it right. He’s splitting from his party. Others should too. He’s standing up for workers. Where are the others—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to join the debate today because we just heard from the member opposite that we’re searching for reasons to vote against this bill. Well, we don’t have to search too far. One blatant aspect that jumped out to us with regard to Bill 194 is the total lack of consultation. But again, that’s the MO of this tired, out-of-touch, out-of-ideas government. They are choosing to do everything behind doors through regulation. If you look at Bill 194, it’s a mere couple of pages, but I have to tell you that a big concern and why we’re voting against it is their total lack of consultation.

I want to explain this to you. This is a government that is choosing to do everything behind closed doors. This is the government that brought us the Green Energy Act, which caused us to experience high electricity prices that are driving every manufacturer south of the border. This is the government that bought us the eHealth, Ornge and gas plant scandals. Can we really trust them to do things behind closed doors? Absolutely not.

I want to tell you this, Speaker: Let me be clear. This is a choice that this government is making to go and hide behind regulations, to keep things out of the public arena. The Liberals have made a choice to avoid consulting with stakeholders. The Liberals have made a choice not to consult with opposition parties.

In fact, let’s take a look at the exact text of the bill. In the bill, it reads that consultation is an option, not a duty. Can you believe it? This actual, miniscule bill points out the fact that consultation is an option, not a duty.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Scarborough Centre.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: In fact, the bill reads, “Before a regulation is made under this act, the minister may consult, in the manner that the minister considers appropriate, with any persons ... the minister considers appropriate given the content of the proposed regulation....” You can’t make this stuff up.

This government is out of gas. They need to go. Life will get better after June 7.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Minister of International Trade for final comment.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker. Of course, I want to thank the members from Leeds–Grenville, Kitchener–Waterloo, Scarborough Centre and also the member from Huron–Bruce.

I really want to confirm my agreement with the member from Scarborough Centre. We have created 800,000 jobs. Those are real numbers. Those are numbers that cannot be denied. Our economy right now is sitting at an unemployment rate of 5.5%. It has been better than the national average for, I would say, 30 months. That’s a long time. This is excellent. It’s a demonstration that Ontario’s economy is very ripened. We are the best among the G7 countries. I’m so disappointed that the opposition seems to want to talk down our economy. They do not want to defend our workers’ right to fairness, to open trades.

Speaker, I myself, as the minister responsible for international trade, travel abroad to many countries. The input from them is that this is a globalized world. Countries want open. They want fair trade. They want to tear down barriers among countries so that we can trade more efficiently, we can be more competitive and we can do better for our workers and, in this respect, for our workers in Ontario.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning on Bill 194, the so-called

An Act respecting fairness in procurement. It’s interesting that while the Legislature was in recess the Premier suddenly came to the conclusion, with June 7 just around the corner, that she needed another foil, and that foil would be Donald Trump. That would be Donald Trump and American trade policies, and she would focus on the state of New York because the state of New York was in a very, very minor way talking about procurement issues, even though trade is an international issue that is negotiated by federal governments, and we’re in the midst of NAFTA negotiations as we speak.

You remember the Liberals all across this country campaigned viciously against free trade when it was on the agenda for the 1988 election.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: You guys were for it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We most certainly were, and thank goodness for Prime Minister Mulroney, at that time, fighting to preserve and build the Canadian economy by securing a free trade agreement with the United States at that time. It was before NAFTA but it was when there was a Canada-US free trade agreement. Liberals railed against it. They were the protectionists at that time.

But here we are now, on the eve of an election, and the Premier needs something to go to the people. She wants to somehow portray herself as the champion of Ontario: “I am the defender of Ontario.” Where was that Premier when our manufacturing sector was hollowed out under her watch? Under her watch and her predecessor’s watch, we lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Company after company left Ontario because of the policies of this government.

They can talk about jobs being created. Well, the reality is our population has continued to grow dramatically as well. Ontario is a growing province. We are now near 14 million people. It is growing at a tremendous rate. So when you talk about a few hundred thousand jobs versus the number of people who actually live in the province of Ontario, our growth rate has not been significant. Job growth rate has not been significant.

But the jobs that we lost were some of the best jobs that exist in this province. We were a manufacturing powerhouse in the province of Ontario. And why did we lose that? We lost that because of the policies of this government. They decided that it was more important to sign expensive energy contracts with Liberal friends than it was to defend Ontario jobs. I don’t know; maybe they just somehow had their head in the sand and they actually thought that this would work out, that we’d build a few turbines in Ontario and somehow that would make up for all of the manufacturing jobs that were lost as a result of electricity prices skyrocketing here in the province of Ontario.

My colleague from Leeds–Grenville talked about businesses, particularly border businesses. Speaker, you would be well aware in your riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, as well, of the greenhouses that have either moved or are planning to move out of Ontario because they can’t afford to produce plants with the electricity rates and the energy rates that exist here in the province of Ontario. So while the Premier is getting on her high horse—involving herself in a battle that should be fought at the national level—only for political purposes, those jobs continue to be threatened here in the province of Ontario.

Interestingly enough, it’s a hollow argument, a hollow threat. When you read the bill, it’s actually so empty. It’s all “mays” and “maybes” but the Lieutenant Governor in Council can forgive the whole thing and forget about it if they deem that maybe it’s okay in this case and not okay in that case. There are no real teeth in this bill. This is a political document, much like their changes to the Employment Standards Act, and Bill 148, the minimum wage bill, much like their pharmacare bill that pays for drugs under the age of 25. It is all predicated on the politics of the 2018 election.

Speaker, this is not how government should operate today in the province of Ontario. Government should operate on the premise that they’re actually doing something that stands up and protects Ontario and speaks in Ontario’s best interests.

In the old days, they used to say “sabre-rattling.” This is sabre-rattling. It’s posturing and sabre-rattling on the part of the Premier, so that she can go around in May and say, “I’m standing up for Ontario. I’m fighting for Ontario. I’ve got your back.” She has already been doing that, going around and saying, “We care about you. We’re the party that really wants to take care of you in Ontario.”

Yeah, they sure have taken care of the manufacturing sector, haven’t they, over the last number of years? And all through that time, members of the Liberal Party—supporters. When I say “members”—many of them may be card-carrying members; I don’t know. Supporters of the Liberal Party have been enriched dramatically, tremendously, by being able to sign lucrative contracts for energy that we don’t need at this point, because first they closed all the plants. Well, if the plant is closed, do you know how much power is being used there? Nothing; zero. So the plants have been closed or moved.

Many of them are closed but have shifted their production elsewhere. That’s going to continue to happen under the policies of this government.

Yet all of those Liberal friends that they signed those lucrative contracts with, they’re still going to the bank. Even with their so-called hydro mitigation plan, or whatever you want to call it—hydro rate mitigation plan—those contracts are still being paid out as per usual. It’s just that they’re borrowing the money, putting more on the mortgage of each and every family and individual and small business and large business all across this province. They’re putting it on the bill, to be paid tomorrow. But all of those Liberal friends that signed these contracts are getting paid like nothing ever happened.

Could you get a better deal than that? You keep getting paid, even though the public would think that, “Oh, maybe we’ve actually renegotiated or gotten new contracts,” or maybe all of those companies realized that those contracts were so exorbitant that they have willingly said, “These are unfair, and we’re going to make a better deal, because we believe it’s important to be fair to the people of Ontario.” Well, that hasn’t happened. The contracts keep rolling. They’re paid the same as they ever were, getting their money up front.

The people of Ontario are being told, “We got you a new deal.” But after the next election, for four years—I believe it’s four years—the rates will rise, commensurate with the rate of inflation. But that’s already skewed, because other requests to the Ontario Energy Board for increases fall outside that part of the legislation. Other than that, they rise to the rate of inflation. Then, after four years, it’s going to be a free-for-all again for the Liberals. They’re going to raise the rates, jack them up, more than they ever were before.

So if you think manufacturing is in trouble in this province today, where is it going to be when those rates go back to where they would otherwise be, because of these exorbitant contracts signed by the Liberals?

It all started with the Green Energy Act in 2009, when the Liberals decided that they were going to decide which was the best way to procure energy here in the province of Ontario. Because they were so fixed on the ideology, they were unconcerned about the price.

Well, if you’re in the manufacturing business, or if you’re in any business that requires a product, that requires a commodity, then the price is very important. You cannot ignore the price. The price can never be ignored, because that product is available elsewhere. And if that product is available elsewhere at a much lower price, then the people who use that product, the people who buy that product, are going to buy from that alternative source.

It’s never that simple with electricity because it has to be transported through transmission lines and everything else. But what happened was that the companies decided that, even though it was a major change for them, “You know what? We’re picking up stakes and we’re actually leaving Ontario.” Do you know how hard a decision that is, to shut your shop down in one jurisdiction and move it to another? You have to go through an awful lot of considerations before you come to that conclusion, Speaker.

But they actually made that conclusion because they felt the immediate threat was so bad in the province of Ontario, because of this Liberal government’s policies, that they could live with the cost and the capital cost of having to uproot yourselves and move to another jurisdiction. They made that choice because, in the long term, they felt it was the right one to do.

That exodus hasn’t stopped. They are still being plied by other jurisdictions, as my colleague from Leeds–Grenville mentioned. Companies on his side of the St. Lawrence River, in Ontario, are being courted by folks in Massena, New York and other jurisdictions in New York. You think about it: an all-in price for electricity at 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour. If you’re in manufacturing, electricity is one of your biggest input costs. With the exception of labour, in most cases, there is nothing that is a bigger cost for you than electricity in manufacturing.

When you’re being offered electricity at a cost that is two and a half cents a kilowatt hour, it is not hard to make the decision that, “Unless something changes here in Ontario, we’re going to pull up stakes.”

We have so many things to be proud of in Ontario. We have advantages. We have a tremendously capable and well-trained workforce. We have a tremendous group of people who work here who are top-notch, bar none—better than any. So for a company to make that decision, they’re going to lose some things too. They’re going to lose their workforce because people just can’t go across the border and decide to start working in New York.

One of the things that has also kept them here is the fact that they care about Ontario. These people who run companies care about the people who work for them. They care about the people who raise families here in Ontario. They care about the people who build this province. The government seems to have forgotten those people. The government doesn’t seem to care about those working families that strive every day to put food on the table for their families and build their communities.

When you look at some of the communities that have lost plants here in Ontario, I think of, in Brockville, Proctor and Gamble, a major employer—gone. Caterpillar in southwestern Ontario; Hershey’s in Smiths Falls; Xstrata up in the north, who just simply moved their entire operation to Quebec because they couldn’t afford the power in Ontario.

So when this government starts to talk about caring for Ontario jobs, that really is rich. Anybody who really wants to start to think about it knows that this bill, which is hollow in itself, is really quite vacuous in what it actually does. It is nothing but a political document so that the Premier can drive around Ontario and fly around Ontario during the campaign talking about how she is the one who is in the best position to protect Ontario. That is absolutely false.

They’ve had 15 years to stand up for Ontario and have failed to do so at every opportunity. Who they have stood up for, at every opportunity, is the Liberal Party and its supporters. If you now look at the motivations of this government, of the Liberal Party here in Ontario, everything they’re doing, every piece of legislation that we’ve seen in the past six months come to this Legislature, has absolutely nothing to do with making life better in the province of Ontario. It is aimed at one target: the voter that they are targeting in the June election.

Every piece of legislation is shaped and formed with the absolute intent of moving votes. It is not about making Ontario stronger, better, richer, more prosperous, more productive—any of the above. It is simply about moving votes here in Ontario.

I get it. In politics, moving votes is part of what we do—we understand—or the attempt to move votes. That is part of what we do. But when you are the government, you also accept a responsibility, because you are the only ones who can actually pass a bill in this province, in this Legislature, notwithstanding private members’ bills. Particularly in the case of a majority government, no private member’s bill ever gets passed in this House unless the government approves it. No piece of legislation gets passed in this House without the government being in favour of it.

They’re the only ones who can table a bill—a government bill, other than the private members—and they’re the ones who set the legislative agenda.

When you take on that responsibility to govern here in the province of Ontario, you take that responsibility not as the Liberal Party. You are the elected government that is supposed to stand up for Ontario, not to bring hollow, partisan legislation, sabre-rattling, trying to pretend you’re picking a fight with New York and the United States. We get it. Let’s not mince words. I hardly think that Donald Trump would win an election in Ontario. We all get that. He is not popular in the province of Ontario.

He simply would not be a good person to be attaching yourself to in the province of Ontario, and the Premier wants to make sure that she is the anti-Trump when she talks about this legislation as she travels around Ontario.

That is nothing more than an attempt to deflect away from what is the sorry record of the past 15 years. If the Liberals want to talk about anything in May and early June, they want to talk about anything but their record of the past 15 years. Their record of the past 15 years is, in fact, a dismal one. This trade bill is another diversion away from that record. They could have had opportunities to pass a bill such as this on many occasions, but they chose not to. They chose not to bring in legislation like this, which could have been done at any time. Does it not seem a little suspicious to you, Speaker?

I know you can’t offer your response to that. But does it not seem a little suspicious that on the eve of an election, at this time—the Buy American chorus has been going on since 2015, but it is only now, as we almost reach the spring of 2018, that the Premier has a response to this?

This is more than rich, Speaker. There is no way that anyone can view this step, this move by the Liberals, as being credible in the least in any way, shape, or form. This is simply political posturing, sabre-rattling to try to make herself look good. If she really wanted to stand up for Ontario’s people and Ontario businesses, she would have done something to lower the cost of living in this province and lower the cost of operating a business in this province.

Speaking of the cost of living, those hydro rates that I’ve talked about for manufacturers—it hasn’t just been manufacturers; people in this province have been hurt, deeply hurt, by the electricity policies of this government. Food banks have been busier than ever as a result of their policies.

It’s time to stop politicking and it’s time to truly stand up for the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am glad to start this fine day with a chance to speak on behalf of the fine folks in Ontario, and specifically in Oshawa, in answer to some of the comments from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on Bill 194.

It’s really nice to hear us standing up and defending the fine workers in Ontario. When we talk about manufacturing jobs and we talk about the loss of all of those manufacturing jobs, and over 300,000 jobs in the province of Ontario, we have a local story. We have felt it personally.

But I take exception to listening to the heckling from the other side. When the minister on the other side says, “You’re living in the past,” you know what? We’re not actually able to live in the past because in Oshawa we’ve had to move forward; we’ve had to keep driving forward, so to speak. We don’t have the luxury of living in the past. The wheels keep turning and we have to keep going. We have to keep building industry and futures with skyrocketing hydro costs. We have to do that in the shadow of a government that ignores the realities and just sort of stays the course for their friends and folks. That isn’t how you strengthen a province.

We stand here after 15 years of this government, and everyone in Ontario knows that we’re not better off for it, that we are not stronger. We need better options moving forward, and this is a reminder. Here we’re talking about a bill that, the fine member from Timiskaming–Cochrane pointed out, yes, it gives the government tools to retaliate; but there’s no such thing as a piece of legislation that is retaliatory in nature that’s only about procurement.

So what is it about, then? What is this about? We’ve heard it discussed as leverage. The member that just spoke called it a political document. And isn’t it? We’re three months out from an election. How much leverage can they have? And is it leverage over the States, or is it leverage over Ontarians? It begs the question.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to join the debate and to pass some comments on the remarks from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

This bill is about standing up for the people of Ontario as we go through some very, very interesting times internationally on the trade front. The Premier of this province has travelled all over the United States. She has invited the governors of the states to visit us here. I think it’s taken every opportunity to outline the strong trade channels that exist between American states and the province of Ontario.

If you look at a lot of the American states, their biggest trading partner is the province of Ontario. So any threat, any impediment, any policy that puts at risk jobs in the province of Ontario also puts at risk jobs in the States as well. Our preference is, clearly, that free trade agreements continue to exist between the province of Ontario and the States.

Various states have stepped forward and have implemented Buy American policies that could potentially have a detrimental effect on the people of the province of Ontario. What this legislation allows us to do—it’s not something we would prefer to do, but what it allows us to do is to take action very, very quickly should that happen. It just really, I think, shows the consequences of what happens if you go down that road, if you want to risk damaging the trade relationship you have with this province.

What this clearly is, is very Canadian. It’s very Ontarian. We don’t go out and pick a lot of fights, but when we feel threatened, when we feel jobs are being threatened, when we feel that somebody is trying to put one over on us, there is nobody that will stand up as quickly as a person from Ontario and a person from Canada. That’s exactly what this legislation does. It says we’ll play fairly, it says we’ll continue to be co-operative, but don’t try pushing us around.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from Nepean–Carlton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s great to see you today. I hope you’re having a great day.

It’s wonderful to be here and to be able to speak to Bill 194, which the government deems “fairness in procurement.” I do find it curious that they are tabling this piece of legislation a month before the Legislature will rise and we will be into an election campaign that will lead us into June 7. I think if the government were truly committed to making Ontario more competitive, then they would have probably abandoned some of their job-killing and catastrophic policies that have forced thousands of jobs outside of our jurisdiction—many of them, of course, into the United States of America. To now play politics at this level really speaks to some of the cynicism that people see in politics.

I don’t have to remind you that in the month of January alone we lost 51,000 jobs here in the province of Ontario as a result of some of the impacts of Bill 148—with the rapid increase in minimum wage, but also because of some of the regulatory changes.

As the finance critic for the opposition, I’ve had the opportunity to speak to many small business owners—many of those job creators who have had to pull back hours, who have had to lay off staff, or who have had to make the decision that they won’t expand their business as a result of what the Liberals have done. That’s not just Bill 148, of which my colleague is the critic—but there are other issues as well. It is the high cost of hydro in the province of Ontario. There is a steep regulatory burden—a lot of red tape—in this province.

That’s why the Ontario Chamber of Commerce said last month that a majority of its members do not view the business climate in Ontario to be optimistic. When you’re talking to job creators—they are the ones who are making sure that we have a good revenue base in the province of Ontario and who make our public services sustainable.

I think that most people will look at this cynically. Therefore, I’ll continue to speak at it—but I look forward to further debate on it.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate.

I do question the timing of this bill. This is a government that has been in power for 15 years. They have had counterparts at the federal level—their Liberal brethren—and also some pro-trade proponents in the Conservatives, and yet we’ve seen a full-on attack of Canadian workers and Ontario workers through NAFTA for years—for 23 years, in fact. I have heard not a whisper from either Liberals or Conservatives about the

chapter 11 investor-state dispute settlement regime and its effect on Canadian businesses and those workers. We are the most sued jurisdiction on the planet when it comes to trade—$219 million and $95 million in legal fees. That trickles down to employees. That trickles down to workers who are let go when this country is sued, mainly for our environmental protections—and not a whisper from our federal government or from this provincial government.

There’s this new-found bravado, and they could be excused that it comes from a necessity to respond to the incoherent policies of Donald Trump when it relates to trade—or any other thing that he says tends to be incoherent and sends mixed messages, really.

Let’s remind viewers today that we stand in a province that has absolutely no coherent manufacturing strategy to protect our companies and our workers domestically. It has absolutely no agricultural strategy to ensure that we can feed ourselves and to ensure our national and provincial sovereignty. This is a government that is just wandering through the weeds to try to find itself with any direct purpose that will affect and protect the workers who should be our primary concern here.

So we’ll take a look at this, but we don’t think it’s genuine and sincere. There’s a whole lot more work that they could do to protect workers in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for final comment.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to thank the member from Oshawa, the Minister of Labour, the member from Nepean–Carleton and the member from Essex for their comments.

I did want to touch on, while I was speaking—and the member from Oshawa mentioned it—when I talked about manufacturing, the Minister of Labour heckled, “You’re living in the past.” This bill is primarily about the steel industry. Is the minister suggesting that the steel industry will disappear from Ontario, as well? The Liberals seem to think that manufacturing no longer belongs in Ontario—that when we try to protect manufacturing jobs, we’re living in the past. If that’s truly what the minister believes, then he should actually say that and be straight with the people of Ontario—that they’re not concerned about losing manufacturing jobs, that their ideology comes before that.

He also really betrayed what we’ve been saying all along, that the true thinking behind this bill—when he stood up and said, “We won’t be pushed around.” That’s the message they’re trying to put out there: that we won’t be pushed around. Even though they’ve had all this time to stand up for Ontario, now, on the eve of an election, they’re trying to tell the people, “This is Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal-government Ontario and we won’t be pushed around.” That’s a bunch of hokum. Speaker, that is just cheap talk.

It is just posturing and sabre-rattling because they have had a chance to stand up for Ontario for the past 15 years and they have failed. As they saw jobs bleed out of this province, one after another, company after another, they could have stood up. They could have said, “We won’t be pushed around and we will protect Ontario’s jobs.” And they failed at every turn.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning. As the critic for research and innovation, economic development and jobs, this is an issue that is close to my heart. As I had mentioned in my two-minute response to the minister, I have been very focused on what’s actually happening in the province of Ontario. But I do want to say that I think New Democrats share the distrust that other party members have expressed with regard to the intentions of this legislation because, quite honestly, this government has a serious trust issue.

There is a level of cynicism associated with the politics of the Liberal Party of Ontario which is now grounded in 15 years of evidence and annual Auditor General reports and annual Financial Accountability Officer reports. We have a lot of evidence that this government has allowed conditions to deteriorate in this province, which has compromised the confidence of the economy in Ontario.

So when the Premier goes down to 40-some-odd states and uses language like—this is from Kristin Rushowy’s piece in the Toronto Star from today. This is the Premier saying that “US states that enforce Buy America policies will ‘pay a price.’” So she’s beginning the conversation with threatening language. She goes on to warn that the Ontario Legislature is debating this bill, which will give the government the power to retaliate.

It’s very interesting because it doesn’t actually do anything. It creates the conditions for action and, for the most part, leaves them to regulation. So I just want to be really clear about what our concerns are around the efficacy of this tactic and the efficacy of this legislation if it will pass. Of course, it’s a majority government so it will pass. Despite the intentions and, as my colleague has referenced, the sabre-rattling, and the language from the minister yesterday around talking tough and defending workers—I could do a whole hour on the workers that have been left vulnerable in this province.

With regard to Bill 194, despite the

preamble, there are no requirements in this legislation that the province’s regulatory response to any Buy American policies be proportional or reciprocal. There is only the requirement that the regulation be retaliatory. That’s a fundamental difference in the language that the government uses and then what the legislation will do. The goal is to be retaliatory. This doesn’t bode well for actually moving forward in a progressive and positive way as we negotiate with New York, and with Texas as well.

This means that if New York state passes legislation that says that they must buy US steel, Ontario would not be required to pass reciprocal legislation that says that the province must buy Ontario steel. You can see that there’s a huge disconnect, which has become a huge theme for this Liberal government, in the words and then the action and how the legislation would play itself out. Instead, what would happen if, say, New York passes buy-US-steel-only legislation, Ontario could pass legislation saying that the province can’t buy New York pharmaceuticals or software. Or Ontario could choose to do nothing. There is no requirement to act when a Buy American policy is enacted.

This is really becoming a little bit of the theatre of the absurd here, Mr. Speaker. This truly is this last-ditch effort on the part of this government to appear as if they really have some sort of sense as to the desperation of some of the businesses in the province of Ontario.

As I referenced earlier, when the Ontario Chamber of Commerce came for their lobby day yesterday—and they have been tracking through their members. They survey their members across the province, in the north, the south, the east, the west. Last year, confidence was at about 38%—a lack of confidence. Now 49% of businesses in the province of Ontario have expressed genuine concern of the success rate they will have going forward, their ability to retain employees and their ability to contribute to the economy.

This is what they have from their Vote Prosperity lobby document. It says here, “Ontario businesses are the backbone of our economy....” Everybody in this House pretends to understand that is true. High input costs, alongside the ongoing burden of operating in one of the most regulated economies in Canada is a constraint on businesses’ ability to invest in the human and physical capital required for growth. “To ensure that the next provincial election addresses the most important issues to their survival”—that’s the language that Ontario businesses are using. They’re using language like “survival.”

They put forward four principles. I’ve mentioned one of their first priorities is to allow Ontario businesses to buy into surplus electricity before it is exported. For those who are watching, which includes my mother and my father, you will have heard this theme throughout the entire management of the Ontario Liberal government on the energy file for now—we’re in our 15th year here.

The energy costs in this province have become so prohibitive, they now detract investment. Companies are not looking to come to Ontario because they look at the cost of energy. One such company in my riding is Kraus carpets. As I mentioned, they start every year off at a million-dollar deficit because Quebec has a very competitive and business-friendly energy management system.

When you look at the Auditor General—and I know some people’s eyes glaze over when I talk about the Auditor General. But listen, the Auditor General deemed the reason that these reports are so important and so tangible is that she is an independent officer of the Legislature. She doesn’t look at these issues through a partisan lens. She looks at it as the value for money for the people of this province. She reflects back on how the money was spent and how policies affect people. I know it’s quite a concept for people.

In this last report from 2017, she says that despite the repeated warnings from the Ontario Energy Board’s market surveillance panel over 15 years, the IESO and the OEB have allowed private gas and coal plant operators to rip off Ontario ratepayers for hundreds of millions of dollars, and this could be just the tip of the iceberg. She’s raised the red flag for years now, and the Auditor General before her raised the issue of privatization of our energy sector.

In the 2015 report—I used to have it with me all the time because it is a number that keeps me up. She has identified in the 2015 AG report that we’ve already overpaid to the tune of $37 billion to private energy operators. How do you recover from overpaying for something that should be—well, one, it’s a basic right. This is where I say that when the Kathleen Wynne Liberals and the Liberal government of Ontario sold off Hydro One that was the largest transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector.

Then, before Christmas, the Liberals would say, “No, the 407 was the largest transfer of wealth from the public sector,” because we paid for the 407. We built the 407, and then Mike Harris sold it for a bargain-basement rate. Now we have to pay just to use this basic infrastructure that we already paid for. So the Liberals say, “No, it’s the 407. That’s the largest transfer. Stop talking about Hydro One.”

But the difference is that you need hydro. Hydro is a basic right. There are people who get their hydro cut off in this province, and we certainly don’t want the government to go to the pay meter program, where you put money in and then you get your hydro. We’re not a Third World country here. But the fundamental difference is that the Liberals want us to redirect attention to the 407, but truly, when you look at the long-term consequences of privatizing Hydro One, this will be the legacy of the Liberal government. Those privatization rates and the high cost that the Auditor General has identified will be the legacy of this government, and it hurts our economy.

If the government wanted to actually improve the confidence of the people of this province and wanted to help businesses, then they actually would follow through on this first request by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which asks that businesses have the opportunity to buy surplus electricity before it is exported. By doing this, you would not be giving a competitive advantage to our competitors just south of the border, because that’s where we export some of our energy to, and to other provinces.

What about this? “Conduct and publish the results of a comprehensive review of the electricity sector ... and then pursue cost-reducing measures based on the results.”

Is there a way for us to make the energy sector more affordable? It’s really interesting because the Auditor General, in the 2017 report, also said that the industrial conservation initiative is quietly shifting more and more global adjustment costs from large industrial ratepayers onto all other ratepayers, such as residents, small businesses and farmers. In the first 10 months of the program, starting in 2011, $245 million in costs were shifted from 65 large industrial consumers to everyone else. As of June 2017, large ICI consumers are paying electricity rates that are half of what everyone else pays.

The Auditor General recommended that the government be transparent about the impacts of the industrial conservation initiative. You have a policy that on paper looks like you’re being business-friendly, but it’s spreading the pain, essentially.

Within the context of how this bill is actually being rolled out and the language and how it’s being navigated, if you will, through this Legislature, where one party says that this must be done when I’ve just explained that it doesn’t really do that much—also, there are very few limitations on what sorts of policies and measures could be taken under this act, especially since this act will supersede any other act. The only real requirement is that any measures taken under this act can only be done in retaliation to a Buy American law that has been enacted or a directive that has been issued.

This is essentially just enabling legislation. The substance of the act will be determined through regulations on an ad hoc basis. Nobody trusts that process. Nobody trusts this government to just change regulations on an ad hoc basis at the whim of the minister responsible for Treasury Board. Why is this even a Treasury Board bill?

Once again, the Liberals are governing through regulation, skipping the Legislature and a healthy democratic process. I can see in some respects why they don’t want to hear this perspective. They have a 15-year record which has progressively undermined the confidence of businesses here in Ontario.

Aside from the energy piece, we really are looking at the relationship that we have with the United States. Listen: I’m the first person in this House to have some empathy with the situation of having to deal with a president like Donald Trump. This is an individual who has bragged about sexually assaulting women. Sometimes I think that we are one temper tantrum away from a tweet which escalates a very unstable international situation, from an economic perspective, an environmental perspective and certainly from a basic human rights perspective.

So I want to be sure that we understand that negotiating with someone like Donald Trump is a difficult prospect. I hope that we could all agree on that, based on past patterns.

But we have strange relationships with the United States on certain issues. For instance—and this may come as a surprise to folks—we send patients down to the United States to have health care procedures on a regular basis. Some people would say, “Well, what’s going to happen with this retaliatory piece of legislation and the way that we send patients to the United States?”

The Auditor General says that there’s limited capacity for stem cell transplants in Ontario. Why? We invest in research. We are an innovative province. We actually have invested in researchers to address stem cell technology and research. This issue was identified back in 2009 and has required the province to send patients to the US at an average cost of $660,000, five times the cost of transplants in Ontario.

Having a productive, reciprocal relationship with a major trading partner like the United States and individual states within that nation will potentially impact this very strange disconnect that we have, where we say that in Ontario we have the best health care system, and yet we ship patients down to the United States for stem cell transplants at a cost of $660,000 per patient. The Ministry of Health has paid US hospitals $35 million for 53 patient transplants, about $28 million more than it would have cost in Ontario if the capacity existed here.

I raise this as an example: Instead of opening the doors to economic opportunities for US hospitals and US doctors—never mind the stress and the turmoil that you would experience as a patient having to go down to the United States—why not create the capacity in our own hospitals here in Ontario? We have some amazing hospitals.

I know that the Minister of Health resigned, effective immediately, yesterday. There are good things happening in our hospitals, but there is certainly a disconnect between the Ministry of Health and the reality of what’s happening in the province from a patient perspective. Of course, we have been raising these issues in this House at question period, trying to avoid some of the drama of what’s happening to our colleagues here to my right, and trying to stay focused, quite honestly, on the real lived experiences of Ontarians.

So you have a retaliatory piece of legislation which shakes its fist at New York and Texas and which actually, from a legislative perspective, doesn’t really accomplish what the language and the rhetoric from the Premier pretends to. Then we have huge disconnects in policy where the confidence of Ontario businesses—and when the chamber does come here and gives you the evidence, gives you the surveys and shows you the data about how confidence is so compromised and so undermined, just on the energy file alone.

We could talk about some of the nonsensical regulations. We can talk about procurement, which, I have to say, until I became the economic development critic, I wasn’t fully aware as to how important that was. Having a progressive procurement policy that actually provides businesses in the province of Ontario the ability to bid on business here at the government makes a lot of sense.

To have the Auditor General identify the IT disconnect—because I think it’s safe to say, given our eHealth record, that the government has not fully embraced the idea of technology. To rule out 300 small businesses from bidding on government business around updating and improving the capacity of government from an IT perspective does not make sense either.

Just to summarize: Once again, we have a Liberal government that is very focused on appearing as if they are fully embracing a protective stance for our workers, when for almost 14 years they have created conditions where workers in this province and businesses in this province have been compromised by the very policies of this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments at a later date, the next time this bill is brought forward.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is now 10:15, and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to introduce, to you and through you, to members of the Legislative Assembly a constituent from my riding of Leeds–Grenville who is here as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. I’d like to welcome Kemptville’s Katie Nolan. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’d like to introduce the family of page captain Sullivan Pearson from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. With us today is his dad, Jason Pearson; his brother, Maxwell Pearson; his grandparents Mary and David McEwen; and family friend Debra Lamers. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I too wish to introduce Roger Harrop, from the Fergus area, who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Welcome, Roger.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome Fred Hahn and some of his colleagues from CUPE Ontario here to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce Nick Huybers from Wyoming, who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Welcome, Nick.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to welcome representatives for the Canadian National Exhibition Association here at Queen’s Park today. This includes John Kiru, president; Virginia Ludy, CEO; Justin Brown, senior director; and Sarah Fink, corporate secretary. I’m sure a lot of us here in the Legislature have been to the Ex once or twice and fortunate enough to try some of their unique attractions. It’s always a lot of fun and it gives me great pleasure to be able to welcome them here today.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I too would like to welcome page captain Sullivan Pearson’s family, but particularly their friend Debra Lamers, who is a constituent of Beaches–East York.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce Paul Legge from Chesley, who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Welcome, Paul.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome some friends of mine, Randy Simpraga and Mike Lundy, who are here. They are members of the OPSEU corrections division. I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park here today.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a warm welcome to the Ontario Legislature to Dorothy Cotton, who is a mental health advocate and will be inducted into the Order of Ontario this evening. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d like to introduce Valerie Stone from Brant, who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Today’s page captain is Morgan Sanderson from Parkdale–High Park. Morgan’s mother, Kim Sanderson, has joined us in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

L’hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: J’aimerais accueillir, d’Ottawa–Vanier, des représentants d’OPSEU. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to introduce Kelly Armstrong from Renfrew, who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Kelly.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I know that members of the Canadian Federation of Students of Ontario, led by their chairperson, Nour Alideeb, are here today to discuss important issues for post-secondary students across the province with MPPs. I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to introduce Brendan Byrne from Essex, who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to welcome Anna Bahlieda from the city of Thunder Bay, here with a large delegation of representatives for the Ontario Good Roads Association. Welcome, Anna.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I would like to introduce Brenda Miller-Sanford from Guelph, who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to welcome Fred Hahn and everybody else from CUPE to Queen’s Park today. I especially want to thank Marc Parr, Lorrena Salvé, Anita Schwabe and Cindy Seaton, who came and talked to me about the Time to Care Act. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome all the class for the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, class 17, whom I had the opportunity to meet bright and early this morning at 8:15 a.m.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’d like to welcome Paul Hoekstra from Cambridge who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome the Ottawa members of CUPE who are visiting Queen’s Park today. I had a very good meeting with them this morning about long-term care. Thank you for their hard work in our community in Ottawa.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I would like to introduce Laura Bowers from Ailsa Craig, who is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Thank you for making Ailsa Craig proud.

Ms. Soo Wong: I would like to welcome the Mortgage Professionals Canada, who have been—and I encourage all the members to attend their reception later today.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Legislative Assembly another constituent of mine from Leeds–Grenville, who is here this time with the mortgage professionals. I’d like to introduce to the members Corinna Smith-Gatcke, born and raised in Lansdowne. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to welcome Ahmed Khalifa. He is here from Windsor with the Canadian Federation of Students, Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Now that they’re seated, I want to welcome the grade 5 students from St. Denis school who are here today with their teacher, Lisa Martins. Many of them played on the Potts Panthers soccer team and they won this year. Congratulations. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I am very happy to welcome two close friends of mine. Mr. Yeon-soo Kim is the president of the National Unification Advisory Council, Toronto, Canada, chapter. This organization comes right under the authority of Korean President Moon Jae-in. Another friend is Mr. Danny Yoon, president of World in Canada online news media.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome Yasmeen Mirza, who is here today with CUPE and is one of the residents of Hamilton Mountain. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I just noted two individuals who are working very hard every single day in our corrections institutions: Mr. Mike Lundy from our Thunder Bay institution and Mr. Randy Simpraga, who is here. Welcome to them and thank you for the great work they do every single day in our corrections institutions.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to introduce Janice Danen from Stratford, Jeff French from Mitchell, and Bernice Weber Passchier from Palmerston, who are here today as members of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: On behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, we want to recognize the members of the Canadian National Exhibition Association who are with us today in the gallery: John Kiru, president; Virginia Ludy, CEO; Sarah Fink, corporate secretary; and Justin Brown, senior director, external relations. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Krista Cressman from New Hamburg. She is here today as a member of class 17 of the Rural Ontario Institute’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I too would like to welcome my fellow alumni—or I guess you’re not graduated yet, but you will be. As class 6 of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, I am very proud to introduce the remaining members of class 17 of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program: Erica Murray from Seaforth, Rhonda Ryan from Walton, Erin O’Hara of Croplife Canada and Rebecca Egan of the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. I’d also like to recognize John Zandstra, Tanya Stuart and Julie Cayley, organizers of class 17, and also the newly minted Senator Rob Black, who is moving on from the Rural Ontario Institute into a senatorship.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: On behalf of the government caucus and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, I’d like to welcome from the Canadian National Exhibition Association here to Queen’s Park: John Kiru; Virginia Ludy, their chief executive officer; Justin Brown, their senior director of external relations; and their corporate secretary and government relations manager, Sarah Fink, who are joining us today in the members’ gallery. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park. It’s nice to see you.

Resignation of member for St. Paul’s

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of resignation of Eric Hoskins as the member for the electoral district of St. Paul’s, effective February 26, 2018. Accordingly, I have issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issuance of the writ for a by-election.

Philip Kaye

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Also, as members know, I’ve developed a practice of inviting assembly employees who have retired, or shortly will be retiring, in the House to have the assembly recognize them for their service.

In that regard, in the Speaker’s gallery today, I would like to introduce Philip Kaye, manager of the legislative research service, who, after 37 years with the Legislative Assembly, will be retiring at the end of this week. When he started at the assembly in 1981, Philip was among the first group of researchers hired to join the newly formed research service. He became its manager in 2007. Please join me in thanking Philip for his years of service and wishing him all the best in his retirement.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do know, Philip, that every single member appreciates the research that all the researchers do for them. Thank you very much.

It is therefore now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Home care

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health. First of all, let me say congratulations to you.

Applause.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Congratulations on your new ministry.

I know that you’re well aware that home care providers are taking your government to court. For heaven’s sake, Speaker, the VON is suing the government. The Liberals are putting home care patients at risk with their SEIU-backed provincial agency. The application for judicial review says, “The decision to introduce an untested home care delivery model, centred on an agency with no track record ... jeopardizes Ontario home care patients.”

The organizations fighting this government account for 95% of the services in this system. Speaker, why continue the fight? Will the new minister’s first order of business be to scrap this SEIU-backed agency?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the members of this House for congratulating me on this new role. I know that I have very big shoes to fill following in the footsteps of former minister Hoskins, but I assure every member that I will do my very best to fulfill the role as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

In response to the member’s question, I would also like to say that we are very conscious of the wonderful work that is done by our front-line staff in health care, those PSWs and those support staff who support some of our most vulnerable people in this province in terms of their needs for home care. In the supplementary, I will address his question more directly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, it doesn’t sound like the new minister is going to scrap the plan, but as I stated, the VON is suing the government of Ontario. In June 2016, SEIU Healthcare started lobbying the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to adopt this exact model for personal support service. In the same month, the former minister gave a speech at an SEIU convention in Detroit, bragging about the government’s strong relationship with this group. In that speech, the minister stated that with the advice of SEIU, his ministry was seeking a “common employer for care providers.”

Mr. Speaker, are the Liberals undertaking this massive change in care delivery solely at the request of SEIU?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: On this side of the House, we certainly believe that Ontarians should have the option to have more control and choice over their home care services. That’s why our government is launching a new self-directed care model that patients could opt into. It would provide home care clients with funding to purchase services in their care plan or to employ people to provide these services.

What we believe is that there will be a small group of patients with chronic long-term-care needs, where they want an especially strong relationship with their care provider. We know that continuity of care for the elderly, when it comes to home care, is a very important aspect of the care plan. We know that our front-line workers provide not only physical support, but very importantly, that emotional support over the long term.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: In November of last year, the CBC reported on the cozy relationship between the Liberal Party and SEIU Healthcare, and that included past Liberal Party president Michael Spitale, the senior lobbyist for SEIU.

The Ministry of Health has no track record employing PSWs and has never directly provided this type of care. The government set up this agency with no consultation and no explanation of how it will benefit our most vulnerable. This makes it painfully obvious that this agency is set up solely to benefit the SEIU.

Mr. Speaker, are the Liberals risking the service that Ontario’s most vulnerable depend on in order to further their political relationship?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Our self-directed care agency will help individuals with the navigation process that allows both the PSW and the client to focus on what is important, and that is the care. This is a model that has been very successfully implemented in other jurisdictions such as Washington, California, Australia, Germany, France and Scotland. We will be slowly implementing this model to ensure that it meets our goal of excellent care for our very vulnerable seniors and others with chronic conditions.

Our government has supported PSWs through major investments. We delivered on our commitment to raise the new base wage for publicly funded PSWs to $16.50. We also created the $10-million PSW training fund which has supported training and education to PSWs working in home and community care. There’s more to do, but definitely on the right track, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Both sides have indicated to me that you want to pick up where you left off yesterday. I will, too. You know what that means.

New question.

Long-term care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care—and congratulations, Minister.

After 14 years of inadequate investments in long-term care, your government has forced municipalities to fill bigger and bigger funding gaps. This means local property taxpayers are footing more of the operating costs, about $300 million every year and, sadly, the number keeps going up. Meanwhile, your government hasn’t so much as kept up with inflationary increases in long-term care. Minister, will you stop this egregious downloading?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It’s great to have you as my critic again.

I’m very familiar with the long-term-care homes in this province. In my former capacity as the commissioner of health services for York region, I had the responsibility for the administration of the two municipal homes in York region, the Newmarket Health Centre and the Maple Health Centre, so I’m very conscious of the issue of long-term-care funding.

Of course, our government has been increasing funding, in really quite a dramatic way, over the last number of years. We certainly believe that every Ontarian deserves to grow old with dignity, in a safe, secure and compassionate environment, so we’ve always made it clear that support for long-term care is important. That’s why we’ve continued to make critical investments in this sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: Over the holidays and into the new year, the Seaforth and Clinton hospitals were filled to capacity, in part due to a lack of long-term-care beds. Staff, patients and families alike tried their very best to deal with this difficult situation.

Speaker, they all deserve better, so through you to the minister I ask: What is the minister going to do to alleviate the need for long-term-care beds in rural Ontario?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to elaborate on what we’ve been doing over the last number of years.

First of all, funding for long-term-care homes has increased by $348 million, or 9%, since 2013. Our investment in long-term-care homes increased by $80.5 million this year alone. We’ve opened 10,000 new long-term-care beds and redeveloped 13,500 long-term-care beds since 2003, and we’ve announced that we will be opening 5,000 new long-term-care beds over the next four years, as well as providing 15 million more hours of nursing, personal support and therapeutic care annually for residents in long-term-care homes.

This is part of our 10-year plan to create more than 30,000 new beds over the next decade—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary? The member for Niagara West–Glanbrook.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is to the new Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As a beautiful and welcoming place, Niagara has seen an enormous influx of retirees that shows no signs of stopping. According to region of Niagara numbers, from now until 2031, seniors 65 years and older will account for 60% of our population growth.

Senior after senior in my riding has expressed concern about the lack of long-term-care capacity in Niagara. Right now, the average wait time for a bed in the Niagara Peninsula is close to four years. This is almost twice the provincial wait time of two years.

The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has not built new beds in my riding since Woodlands of Sunset was completed in 2004. That’s over a decade ago. Will the minister today commit to building more long-term-care beds in the Niagara region?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’ve certainly talked about all the investments that we’ve made and that we continue to propose to make, so now I’d like to turn to what we know about the opposition position on this question.

We now know that four of their leadership candidates have committed to absolutely no action on climate change, and since the commitments in their People’s Guarantee platform were largely funded by—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask the minister to stick to government policy.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just trying to show a contrast between what we’re proposing and some of the comments made across the way.

Basically, what we’re hearing from the opposition is that they have no plan to increase any of the long-term-care homes that we have asked for applications for. We now have a proposal call for applications which will be closing very soon, and we will be announcing the successful applicants—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

Long-term care

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier. Ontario’s front-line health care workers—many of them are here today with us—are some of the most talented and dedicated people I know. But health care providers who work in our long-term-care homes are being asked to care for our parents and our grandparents—frail elderly people—with fewer supports from this Liberal government than ever before.

Why is this Premier standing by and doing nothing while our long-term-care system fails both the dedicated workers and the frail residents needing care?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, I want to welcome all the members of CUPE who are here in the House today. They are, as we all know, very hard-working members of our community, working in our long-term-care sector.

Just this morning, I had the opportunity to have a sit-down downstairs with some of the CUPE members from Ottawa who work in different communities, like Ottawa South and Ottawa–Orléans, and to hear directly from them the kind of challenges they’re seeing. I assured them that our government has a plan to ensure that we have more long-term-care beds in our community.

As you know, the government has announced additional investments, in creating 5,000 new long-term-care beds over the next four years, and our commitment to increase—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re not helping.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —the number of hours of care that is required to appropriately help our seniors who live in long-term-care settings.

There’s nothing more important than to look after our elderly, our parents, our grandparents. They’re the ones who worked hard to build this great society that we live in, and we owe it to them to provide proper and appropriate care to them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Ontario used to have a legislated minimum hours of hands-on care, but this Liberal government abolished it. Since then, there is no law in Ontario that guarantees the amount of care that the seniors in our long-term-care homes should get.

As it stands right now, we have some very good homes in Ontario, but we also have many, many seniors who are not getting the care they deserve. We have many front-line health care workers running off their feet, trying to do the best they can, working shift after shift after shift.

If the Premier asks the incredible, dedicated long-term-care workers who are in the House with us right now whether the residents get enough individual care, she would hear a resounding no. They would tell the Premier that we need a minimum standard of four hours of hands-on care. We’ve been needing it for a long time. So why hasn’t the Premier done it?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I want to assure the member opposite that, certainly, on this side of the House, we appreciate the wonderful work that is done by our front-line staff. In particular, we know that members of CUPE are here and need to have the good work acknowledged at every opportunity.

We have talked about the 15 million more hours of nursing, personal support and therapeutic care annually for residents of long-term-care homes. This will increase hours of care to an average of four hours per day per resident. But we’re doing a lot more in terms of other supplementary areas of care, because we are absolutely committed to providing resident-centred care and investing in people who support our residents each and every day. So we’re providing additional staffing through targeted streams, including $18.5 million per year invested under the High Intensity Needs Fund claims.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Those good people travelled a long distance to come here today, to deliver one message: We need a legislated four hours’ minimum standard of hands-on care. Nothing else will do.

The government has chosen to sweep the problem under the rug. We’ve seen understaffing getting worse. Facilities need to be updated. We’ve seen wait times increase by 270%. And the list of people waiting for long-term care now sits at 33,000 people.

Year after year, the Liberal government told people that four hours of hands-on care was not necessary—“We are already doing it,” they say—although the body of evidence and the front-line workers will tell us that four hours of hands-on care is exactly what we need.

It is time to care, Minister. Why don’t we have four hours of hands-on care?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I want to make it very clear that delivering resident-centred care means all licensees are responsible for providing appropriate levels of staffing based on the individual and changing care and safety needs for all residents at all times. In other words, individuals get the care that they need.

We are increasing the hours of care to an average of four hours per day per resident. Some of these ancillary areas of assistance—one of the others that I think is of extreme importance is an additional $10 million for behavioural supports for specialized services for residents with cognitive impairments who are exhibiting challenging and complex behaviours. We know that in many long-term facilities this is an issue. This is bringing our government’s base funding to $64 million.

Long-term care

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Acting Premier. In her 2017 annual report, Ontario’s Auditor General criticized the Liberal government for not providing enough information to the public about the performance of individual long-term-care homes. In January, we learned through media reports that the Premier and her Minister of Health are keeping a secret list of long-term-care homes that they consider medium or high risk for Ontario seniors.

Families with a loved one in care and the front-line health care workers who care for them are now being left to wonder if their loved ones—their mom, their dad—are in a facility that the ministry itself calls high risk. Will the Premier release the list immediately?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, as we’ve said so many times, all residents living in Ontario long-term-care homes deserve to be cared for in a safe, secure and compassionate environment. Our government is absolutely committed to ensuring their safety and well-being through a rigorous inspection system and a regulatory framework that we are continuously working to improve. Every long-term-care home in Ontario undergoes a comprehensive resident quality inspection each year to ensure they are in compliance with the Long-Term Care Homes Act. When there’s a complaint, there will be an unannounced inspection also.

The results from every inspection are posted online for the public to see, as well as in long-term-care homes, and we’re actively working to provide even more information online which will be available in the very near future. We’re also enhancing our oversight through the Strengthening Quality and Accountability for Patients Act to ensure all operators are addressing concerns promptly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: According to the Auditor General, about 10% of Ontario long-term-care homes are high risk. A home’s risk level is determined by its record to comply with laws that govern long-term care. Why does the Premier think people living in these homes and the front-line staff who take care of them don’t have a right to know if they are at risk?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As I’ve already said, we do inspect very thoroughly and we’re working to provide more information online. It will be available in the very near future and it will include specifics related to the performance of individual homes in relation to other homes in the province.

We are doing a number of things through the Strengthening Quality and Accountability for Patients Act, and I’ve just described some; but we’re also partnering with the Michener Institute on a personal support worker registry that will improve transparency for patients and families.

We have a comprehensive plan to increase safety in our long-term-care homes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: What New Democrats want for Ontario is zero homes to be on a high-risk list. We want the long-term-care system fixed and for every home to be a safe, caring place. But this Liberal government has refused to take a serious look at the long-term-care system with a broad, public, find-and-fix inquiry.

The Liberal government won’t show Ontarians the list, and it’s pretty clear the government is not taking action to fix the problems in long-term care. Why are the Premier and the government continually sweeping the problems in long-term care under the rug?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Well, it appears that our goals are exactly the same, because obviously on this side of the House we are committed to the safety of the residents living in our long-term-care homes. This is why we have taken so many measures to strengthen the quality and the accountability for residents living in their homes.

As we continue, there’s always more work to be done. We’re always open to positive ideas for improvement, but I think the measures that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please, Minister.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We’ve made so many changes to enhance our oversight system. We are also increasing financial penalties for home operators with recurring care and safety concerns that are not being addressed.

Long-term care

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: I would like to congratulate the minister on taking on her new challenge. We all know that this government has created many challenges.

The ministry numbers do not add up. They state that my region is oversupplied with long-term-care beds beyond 2030, yet our residents already face long wait times and our seniors population will double during that time.

Moreover, once a patient is assigned to a bed, they’re confronted with a broken system. Chronic underfunding leaves less than six minutes for our overworked PSWs to complete a patient’s morning routine, including the highlighted weekly bath. Which fantasy world does this ministry live in?

When can we expect the fair and realistic funding required to give our seniors the care they truly deserve?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Perhaps I need to reiterate all the investments that our government has made in the long-term-care system.

We know that our population is living longer and developing care needs that are becoming increasingly complex. That’s precisely why our government has increased funding for long-term-care homes by $80.5 million this year. We’ve almost doubled the funding since 2003.

We have committed to the average of four hours of care per day to residents so that they do receive the high-quality care and access to supports that they need. I’m sure the member opposite will recognize that the behavioural supports that I’ve been speaking about, which I have observed in a home in my riding that cares for those with Alzheimer’s, are ensuring excellent quality for the most vulnerable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care—and as a former Minister of Health, I want to extend my condolences to the new Minister of Health.

Minister, my offices are flooded on a regular basis, as you can imagine, with inquiries from people seeking help in either finding a bed in a long-term-care home or accessing a personal support worker.

One recent example is a 57-year-old man suffering from Alzheimer’s. Right now he’s sitting in a retirement home, waiting for a bed in long-term care. His wife works full-time. She’s raising their six-year-old daughter. She’s also juggling the $4,600 monthly cost of the retirement home along with her regular household expenses. The man’s priority for a bed, Minister, recently increased when he was physically attacked by another resident in his retirement home.

Mr. Speaker, the government’s neglect of long-term care is appalling. Can the minister explain why her government has failed to build the necessary long-term-care beds to keep up with our aging population?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: That’s precisely what we’re doing. Since 2003, we’ve opened over 10,000 new long-term-care beds and redeveloped over 13,500. We know that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We’ve certainly heard from communities about the need for additional beds, so we will be supporting our growing and aging population. We put together our action plan for seniors, and we’re responding to our seniors’ growing needs. That’s precisely why we are creating 5,000 new long-term-care beds over the next four years.

The first phase of those long-term-care beds—the applications are being reviewed. The proposal time limit is coming up very shortly, and announcements will be made in the very near future. We are doing exactly what the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Long-term care

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Since December, I have been advocating for the reunification of Patricia and Don Deighton. They have been married for 64 years but are being forced to live apart, without each other, because of Ontario’s broken long-term-care system. In fact, when I can, every Friday I’ve been driving Don to see Patricia. They are a loving couple and they miss each other.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health claims that a new reunification regulation has solved the problem, but the Deightons are still separated. In fact, Patricia’s LHIN care worker has asked 387 residents to switch homes and make space for Don, but the list has been exhausted and there is no hope for reunification in sight. This is completely unacceptable.

Can the Minister of Health explain why this Liberal government is saying that there is no longer a problem with couple reunification in our long-term-care homes when Don and Patricia are still living apart?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Certainly, stories as illustrated by the member opposite really touch us all. I think we all understand very clearly the need for spouses to continue to live together whenever we can support them in that goal. We know that it’s really important for families and for the emotional support that they need from each other, and so our government has been giving a very high priority to residents who are seeking to be reunited with a spousal partner. We’re taking a number of steps to ensure that this process is as smooth as possible for families.

We do know that there’s more that we can do, and we recently made changes that designate a number of reunification priority access beds in every long-term-care home. These beds will help to address delays in reunification, for those in crisis to be reunified with their loved ones in a long-term-care home.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Minister of Health: The MPP for Nickel Belt has been trying to reunite 91-year-old Gottfried Adler and his 88-year-old wife, Hildegard, as well. The Adlers have been separated for over six months after 67 years of marriage. Like the Deightons, the Adlers are emotionally distressed because of their separation. Ontario seniors shouldn’t have to settle for a long-term-care system that repeatedly breaks promises and hearts.

Will the Minister of Health direct her ministry to reunite the Deightons and the Adlers today? I am asking for your direct intervention to help these families.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I would certainly say to all members of this House that if one is aware of a particular situation in one’s constituency, please feel very free to approach me to draw my attention to that particular item. I have operated like this since being the Minister of Community and Social Services because sometimes there is a solution that can be found more readily. But as a systemic issue, going back to the fact that we do have reunification priority access beds, we do encourage families to work with their local LHIN partners to ensure that seniors do have access to the care that they need and the best quality of life in their later years.

We are responding to the needs of our growing and aging population. I’ve mentioned the number of beds that we are increasing over the next short time, and we will continue to work in this regard.

School facilities / Installations scolaires

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is not for the new Minister of Health but for the Minister of Education. Ontario is now an international leader in education, thanks in part to our historic investments in building new schools. In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, we have recently opened two new schools: Molly Brant Elementary School and, just last fall, St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School. It’s a state-of-the-art building. It’s designed with a beautiful open concept and many collaborative spaces.

Our government recently announced a number of new investments that will bring new and improved schools to students in communities across Ontario. Speaker, through you to the minister, what is our government doing to build on historic improvements and investments to ensure that students are learning in new and improved schools that support student achievement, equity and well-being?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for this very important question. Giving our kids the best possible start in life is one of the most important things we can do as a government.

That’s why I’m proud of the strong investments our government has made in education. In fact, no government in the history of this province has invested more in building and expanding Ontario’s publicly funded education system. That’s because we know that investing in our schools is about more than bricks and mortar. Building better schools builds better learning for our students. That’s why we’ve made a historic investment of more than $18 billion since 2003 in schools, building more than 860 new schools and more than 840 additions and improvements across Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, these investments in modern learning environments ensure that our students are on a strong path to success.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: We are extremely proud of the investments made in Ontario’s publicly funded education system. We know that giving students the best possible learning environment—high-quality and modern buildings—is part of our plan to grow the economy, create jobs and bring fairness and opportunity to the people of Ontario.

The French community in Kingston and the surrounding area is growing, and our government is doing more to support that growth. Recently, I had the honour of making a very special announcement in my riding.

C’était une annonce où j’étais fière, tellement fière, de voir toutes les parties se réunir et collaborer avec une telle intention pour nos étudiants.

Recently, you announced $784 million to build, expand and renovate 79 schools across the province. Minister, can you please tell us more about the project in Kingston and how we are providing student achievement with investments in new and improved school facilities?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thanks to the member from Kingston for this important question. We are committed to supporting school boards by providing modern learning environments for our students because we know these places put our kids on a path to success.

That’s why we recently announced $24 million for the construction of new, joint-use facilities for l’école secondaire publique Mille-Îles and l’École secondaire catholique Marie-Rivier. C’était une annonce où j’étais fière de voir toutes les parties se réunir et collaborer pour nos étudiants.

Mr. Speaker, these investments not only build schools but also build communities. This new facility includes 49 child care spaces and will accommodate 600 students.

This total capital investment will support more than 46,000 students with the learning spaces they need to thrive. These investments in new schools support student achievement, fairness and opportunity.

Long-term care

Mr. Ross Romano: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Let me, first off, congratulate you on your new position. I believe you do find yourself in an unenviable position, given the challenges within your ministry, especially those in long-term care. I want to speak to you specifically about those challenges as they relate to Sault Ste. Marie.

Currently in Sault Ste. Marie, we have over 1,000 people in long-term-care beds, and there are about 700 people on waiting lists, waiting upwards of three years to secure a long-term-care bed. Our local hospitals are constantly operating over capacity, and they lack the resources and the space to be able to keep up with the demand. To say that our long-term-care situation is reaching a breaking point would be an understatement. Recently, the CEO of our local hospital, Ron Gagnon, indicated that we need 750 new beds in Sault Ste. Marie now in order to relieve our future and current demand.

My question is, will you commit to building these beds immediately in Sault Ste. Marie?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As we have announced, we will be opening 5,000 new long-term-care beds over the next four years, and we have now opened the call for applications to understand the needs at the community level to determine where the new beds should be allocated. We certainly intend to continue to actively engage in further consultation with the public, long-term-care home providers and placement coordinators to establish a long-term plan to meet the growing and changing needs of Ontario seniors, no matter where they are.

We recently announced, just before Christmas, 50 new long-term-care beds in London and an additional 128 new beds for the Havelock community. We are listening to communities and we’re opening beds where they’re needed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock,

Ms. Laurie Scott: Back to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: Congratulations on your new post. For years, long-term-care capacity issues have been one of my constituents’ biggest concerns. That’s because Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has the highest ratio of need-to-available beds in Ontario. There are currently 2,169 people on the wait-list for long-term-care beds in my riding. On any given day, 30% to 40% of local hospital beds are occupied by people who should be receiving care in long-term-care homes. This government is failing our seniors, Mr. Speaker. It’s unacceptable that our mothers, fathers and grandparents are waiting years to get the care they so desperately need.

So my question to the minister is: How does she explain this government’s failure on this file to the more than 2,000 people waiting for long-term-care beds in my riding?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, we are addressing the capacity challenges that the member opposite is referencing, and we are aware of different demographics in different communities. Certainly this is why this call for applications is being looked at so closely, to make sure that we match the new beds with the need in the community.

She referenced some of the issues around hospital overcrowding as well. I do want to remind her that we have created 503 transitional-care spaces outside of hospital, for up to 1,700 patients who don’t require care in a hospital. We’re trying to address each piece of this issue of capacity. I believe that we’re going in exactly the right direction.

Mental health services

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The mental health unit at London Health Sciences Centre has been overcrowded for years, and it’s getting worse, not better. Psychiatric beds have been forced to operate at 140%, 150%, even 165% occupancy, day after day, which is far above the safe occupancy rate of 85%.

Now we’ve learned that 10 new psychiatric beds will finally be added, but the beds won’t come with funding for new doctors or health care workers to care for patients. Speaker, adding beds without adding staff will not fix the overcrowding crisis. It will only make the problems worse.

Why is this Liberal government refusing to fund both the beds that are needed and the appropriate staffing for mental health patients in London?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Certainly, the member opposite has referenced an issue that I think we all acknowledge is extremely important, and that’s the care of those with mental health issues and addictions issues. As a former member of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, I certainly would like to see as much as we can possibly do to address this particular area.

Our government has been making major investments in this particular area. I’m so very proud to be part of a government that has increased mental health spending every year. We’ve now committed to putting forward more than $1.9 billion over the next 10 years.

We’ve been building on our mental health strategy, Open Minds, Healthy Minds, and we’ve been taking immediate action on recent recommendations made by the Ontario Mental Health and Addictions Leadership Advisory Council.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Since this Premier came to office in 2013, London Health Sciences Centre has seen $141 million cut from its budget. That’s the equivalent of nearly 500 full-time health care workers.

As a result, we’ve seen chronic hospital overcrowding, especially for mental health beds, and not enough staff to care for patients. Currently, the hospital is staffed for 71 psychiatric beds but there are 28 extra beds in operation every day. There are mental health patients lining the emergency room hallway on a daily basis, waiting for a bed. It’s gotten so bad that people in mental health crisis, who should be in hospital, won’t go to the ER for the help they need.

Why is this Liberal government refusing to fix the hospital overcrowding crisis that Liberal cuts have created in London?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I have just been informed that apparently five psychiatrists and one nurse practitioner are being hired now at the London Health Sciences Centre. And to continue on the number of investments that we’re making, we’re developing a province-wide, publicly funded, structured psychotherapy program that will help people with things like mood disorders, anxiety and depression, and other supports to manage their needs. We will be the first province in Canada to do this.

We’re creating, along with the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, a network of integrated youth service hubs that will provide one-stop access to mental health services as well as other health, peer-to-peer, employment and housing supports.

Indigenous economic development

Ms. Deborah Matthews: My question also is not for our superstar Minister of Health and Long-Term Care; it is for the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Our government is committed to creating fairness and opportunities for all Ontarians. However, barriers to economic participation and continuing inequality in income and employment rates are major challenges for indigenous peoples in Ontario, particularly in northern Ontario. Over the past 15 years, Liberal governments have taken many actions in close collaboration with our indigenous partners to drive economic development and build a better future for indigenous communities after years of inaction, neglect and worse under the Harris Conservatives.

Can the minister tell us more about how our government is supporting indigenous communities to fully participate in our economy?

Hon. David Zimmer: Since 2008, we have provided $136 million through our New Relationship Fund to close the socio-economic gap and support indigenous economic participation, including nearly $25 million for the First Nation in Kiiwetinoong. Our $95-million Indigenous Economic Development Fund, which the PCs voted against in 2014, has provided $25 million in funding to date. It will provide another $70 million in additional funding over the next seven years.

Our Indigenous Community Capital Grants Program has provided $34 million in funding to key infrastructure projects. Through our $650-million Aboriginal Loan Guarantee Program, a major initiative under the Green Energy Act, which the PCs say they will repeal, we have continued to support meaningful participation in renewable energy projects for indigenous communities in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Deborah Matthews: The PCs say they support economic development for indigenous communities but actions speak louder than words, Speaker. The truth is that they’ve consistently voted against the key investments we’re making to support Ontario First Nations. Education is key to indigenous economic development and to reconciliation, and it’s a shame that the Conservatives voted against our landmark OSAP overhaul, which has helped drive a 35% increase in one year in the number of indigenous students receiving OSAP over the past year.

What’s more, just this December, they voted against the historic $56-million investment in indigenous institutes, allowing indigenous learners to gain the skills and trades they need to be successful in the workplace.

Can the minister tell us more about how our government, despite this lack of support, is actively supporting—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Let’s stick to policy.

Minister?

Hon. David Zimmer: The fact is the PCs have no real plan for indigenous economic development. They voted against our fair hydro plan and the First Nations Delivery Credit, which were commended by none other than Ontario Regional Chief Isadore Day as an important step to reduce poverty and support economic development. They voted against our landmark $1-billion commitment to the Ring of Fire infrastructure in the Matawa tribal council area.

Reconciliation is more than words—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, it’s about action. By voting against key actions we were taking, the PCs made it clear they are not with us on Ontario’s journey towards reconciliation. Billions in cuts are coming if the PCs form the next government—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

Long-term care

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Welcome to day one.

I would like to share a heartbreaking story from a family in Dufferin–Caledon who were struggling to find care for their father. A 93-year-old dad from Belfountain, he was forced to go to London, three hours away, to find a long-term-care placement. Three hours away from friends and family. To quote his daughter: “Something needs to be done to help the seniors of Ontario to live out the rest of their lives in dignity in a facility that is able to deal with their needs.”

Why is this government failing to provide the care that Ontario seniors deserve?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Certainly, when we hear of stories as the member of Dufferin–Caledon has related, we’re obviously extremely sympathetic. We know that we need to ensure that people live out their lives in dignity and in safety.

That’s precisely why we have announced the addition of some 5,000 more long-term-care beds over the next four years. This is something that will be tailored to individual communities through the application process. The first tranche of this is coming to a conclusion very, very shortly.

I would simply say to the member opposite that we are doing exactly what I think she is intending for her constituents, to have access to the kind of care that they require.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for Whitby–Oshawa.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Back to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: According to the Ontario Ministry of Finance, the number of seniors is expected to more than double by 2036—200,000 seniors alone in Durham region.

The Central East Local Health Integration Network, which includes the region of Durham, has the highest number of patients waiting for long-term-care placement in Ontario, thousands and thousands of men and women waiting. Clearly the Liberal government isn’t meeting the long-term-care needs of thousands of seniors in the region of Durham.

Speaker, will the Liberal government commit today to address the long-term-care crisis in the region of Durham?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Yes, the demographics of individual areas are certainly the subject of study. I know that under a former Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, MPP Deb Matthews, this was an area of intense concentration. That’s precisely why we have issued the application process in the way that we have, so we can ensure that the beds go where they are needed.

We are making substantial investments. Just to reiterate, we’ve doubled the funding for long-term care over the length of our mandate, and we will continue to work. We know there is more to do. I look forward to being able to make an announcement in the near future as to the success for beds.

Public transit

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday we received further confirmation that Ontario’s $23.1-billion GO expansion program has been reduced to little more than a Liberal re-election scheme.

We already have evidence that the former Minister of Transportation intervened after Metrolinx rejected a proposed new station in his riding. Yesterday, we found out that another rejected station, this time in the riding of the Minister of Housing, is suddenly back on the table.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: You should read the updates.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development, come to order.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Meanwhile, GO riders from Toronto who use existing stations are getting their promised service frequencies—

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Do your research.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Economic Development and Growth, second time.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Health.

Interjections.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You should be.

I believe you finished your question?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: No, I did not.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You have more?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You will have a wrap-up, please.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Why is the Premier putting regional express rail at risk just to serve the short-term political interests of the Liberal Party?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Metrolinx’s board of directors approved the addition of 12 new GO stations in June 2016. As they’ve stated, this decision comes as a result of initial business case analysis, extensive consultation with municipal and regional representatives, community engagement, and collaboration between the Ministry of Transportation and Metrolinx on wider regional transit and transportation plans. All proposed new stations require additional technical and planning analysis, which has been made very clear.

Metrolinx has done substantial work on their business case analysis methodology. They have now committed to posting business cases prior to board decisions for all new GO stations. The business cases and recommendations still need to be approved by Metrolinx’s board of directors on March 8. I look forward to seeing the results of their deliberations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Acting Premier: The estimated costs of new GO stations have skyrocketed, coincident with the decision to procure RER via public-private partnerships. Not only is the Premier using Metrolinx to help re-elect her ministers; she’s also offering up billions in public dollars to private investors while delivering less service to riders.

Toronto-area transit has been in a permanent state of chaos since the Premier, when she was transportation minister, agreed to rip up Transit City and the Big Move, and as the Premier has allowed her ministers to rewrite evidence-based transit plans to suit their own political needs. How can the Premier expect the public to trust the government to invest transit dollars wisely when she keeps putting her political ambitions ahead of the public interest?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I want to express that our government is making the single largest investment in Ontario’s history, much of which the NDP has voted against. As part of this investment, we’re continuing to move forward with one of the largest transit builds in the world today. Through our $31.5-billion Moving Ontario Forward plan, we’re investing $13.5 billion in GO regional express rail to increase transit ridership, reduce travel times, manage congestion, connect people to jobs and improve the economy, all of which the people across the way have voted against.

This is part of our $21.3-billion transformation of the GO rail network, making it the largest commuter rail program in Canada. We continue to work very closely with Metrolinx to bring regional express rail to the GO rail network. We will hope to have the support of the opposition members in order to provide transit to the people of Ontario.

Anti-racism activities

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the minister responsible for the Anti-Racism Directorate. Last Thursday, Speaker, I co-hosted a town hall about racism in my community with my MP colleague Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The minister responsible for the Anti-Racism Directorate was in attendance, as was MP Iqra Khalid, who talked a bit about the federal initiatives going on to fight racism in our communities. We had approximately 200 people attend to discuss this very important issue.

As we know, conversations about racism are often very difficult to have. At this particular meeting, the conversations got quite heated at times. The meeting was continually disrupted by a vocal few who questioned whether racism existed and an anti-racism strategy was necessary or warranted.

Public discourse is difficult, Speaker, but I want to raise this issue in the House because I think it’s important for all of us to engage in a conversation to better understand what happened. I represent the great area of Beaches–East York, and I wonder if the minister could please initiate a dialogue with us here today about racism.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to just take a quick second to thank the member from Beaches–East York for hosting the town hall. In fact, I believe it was the first town hall hosted by an individual MPP here in Ontario specifically where I was invited to speak about racism.

It is a difficult situation. These types of conversations can get emotional, often ugly, but it is a conversation that we need to have in Ontario, because like I always say, there is a cost to standing still. If we don’t do something about racism today, it will continue to erode our values here in the province of Ontario. I want to thank the member for having the courage to have that conversation in his riding.

Mr. Speaker, just under two years ago, we started the Anti-Racism Directorate. It was the Premier’s commitment to look for ways to fight systemic racism here in Ontario. In the supplementary, I’d like to talk about some of the accomplishments we’ve been able to accomplish.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to thank the minister as well for attending. His presence at that meeting was such a calming influence in what had become a very heated situation. He is to be commended for the incredible work he’s doing with the directorate and bringing these issues to light in Ontario.

These meetings are extremely important. At the town hall, we heard very real concerns expressed about carding, corrections issues, racial disparity in jury selection, appointments processes, identity-based data collection and First Nations