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

March 1, 2018

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Mar-01 (PDF)

L144 - Thu 1 Mar 2018 / Jeu 1er mar 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 1 March 2018 Jeudi 1 er mars 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Provincial Voter Registration Month

Noble Villeneuve

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Home care

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Pharmacare

Public transit

Motherisk

Children’s mental health services

Consumer protection

PANDAS/PANS

Mercury poisoning

Invasive species / Espèces envahissantes

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Landfill

Health care

Professional engineers

Museums

Public transit

Teagan Harrison

Richard Reid

Annette Phillips

International trade

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

Respecting Municipal Authority Over Landfilling Sites Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le respect des pouvoirs des municipalités à l’égard des lieux d’enfouissement

Petitions

Child and youth care

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Child protection

Family Responsibility Office

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Highway improvement

Health care

Employment standards

Gravel pit

Pharmacare

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Private Members’ Public Business

PANDAS/PANS

Mental health services

Post-secondary education

PANDAS/PANS

Mental health services

Post-secondary education

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Climate change

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Chris Ballard: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 194,

An Act respecting fairness in procurement, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

At such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, 30 minutes of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

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

The vote on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister moves notice of motion number 62.

Minister?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Speaker, I have no debate.

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

Further debate.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I rise today on behalf of the amazing people in my riding of Huron–Bruce, the PC Party of Ontario, and all Ontarians who, from one corner of the province to another, expect democracy to be carried out in this House.

I have to ask: Why is the government of the day, under the leadership of Kathleen Wynne, afraid of debate, afraid of consultation, afraid of deputations? This is totally unfair. They are running around this province under the cloak of pretending to be fair. Well, let me tell the people watching this debate this morning: Everything this government is doing is unfair. Again, they are shutting down debate, they are shutting down consultation, and they even want to skip committee, for goodness’ sake.

They are cutting down opportunities for people to come in and have deputations, to share exactly how Bill 194, under their watch, is completely unfair. Actually, this government is shameful, and I’m going to tell you why, Speaker, in the next few minutes.

So, again, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the riding of Huron–Bruce, the PC Party of Ontario, and as a member of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. But I’m not pleased, though, to have to speak to a motion from this Liberal government that is intended to completely shut down debate on a bill that is far from complete. Something that I could stand before you today and say is that I will not be supporting it in its current form. And I have complete support from the PC caucus in this regard.

Speaker, we have seen this government play some terrible tricks in its time in office, but with this last one they may have saved their best trick for last. From time to time, we see time allocation motions, which the government uses to speed up the process, in their eyes. But from the perspective of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, we see what they’re doing: the use of time allocation as a tool to shut down debate and ultimately shut down democracy. Is this the Ontario we have to be stuck with? I think not, Speaker.

Furthermore, this government of the day—this old, out-of-touch, out-of-ideas, tired government—has taken it a step further. Instead of limiting the amount of debate that this bill will have in the House and at committee, the government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that the legislative process doesn’t matter. But we’re used to that. Ontarians are tired of it, and this government is going to learn its lesson on June 7.

With regard to Bill 194, I will quote the Premier from her minister’s statement just this past week. She said, “I am encouraging all members of this House to put games aside, come together and support the people of Ontario by passing the Fairness in Procurement Act.” Well, you know, time flies. Only a week has gone by, and yet again the Premier’s words ring hollow. It’s like: “Don’t listen to what I’m saying. Don’t watch what I’m doing. Come on; everything we’re doing is fair.” Speaker, that is so not true.

In light of the Premier’s statement from last week, her government’s actions this morning can only be described by words that unfortunately you would probably remove me from the House for using. But because this is the most egregious time allocation motion that I have seen in my time at Queen’s Park—this motion frankly cuts out whole portions of the legislative process—I’m going to talk about it. People in Ontario need to know how “done” this government is. For instance, this motion cuts out the whole committee stage of the democratic process in the passing of legislation.

Why would a government choose—and again, I repeat, the government is choosing not to hear from stakeholders. Speaker, that’s not the type of Ontario you or I can be proud of. That’s not the type of government that you and I were elected to uphold here in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

So I have to ask: What is the Liberal government under the leadership of Kathleen Wynne afraid to hear at committee? What is it that a stakeholder might say that has this government so scared? To quote the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, “We know now why they like these closure motions. Because they don’t want the public to know what they’re doing.” Yes, that’s true. He spoke these words, though, in 2002, and they ring true today as we debate this time allocation motion.

Today we can expect a tired, out-of-touch government to make a lot of excuses. Speaker, I expect them to reiterate the Premier’s accusation that our reasoned amendment last week was a stall tactic, but honestly, we had not been briefed and we had not been given time to ask our questions. There is a very good reason why that reasoned amendment came to the House. I have to tell the people watching today that this tired, old government will try to spin what’s happening right now into some sort of justification of their complete disregard for a legislative process. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Allow me to lay the facts out on the table, because I feel this story is worth repeating. This bill went to cabinet in early April. That’s almost 11 months ago. The government did not reach out to my office once to discuss their bill. They did not indicate that they wanted to work with the opposition at all. Not once in the 11 months since they took this bill to cabinet last spring in 2017 did they come forward to want to work with opposition.

Next, the government indicated, on February 6, that they would be tabling the bill two weeks later. I immediately told my office to reach out for a briefing or for an embargoed draft copy of the bill that, in some cases, happens. We did not receive either in a timely manner. We received our draft copy of the bill on February 20, moments before the bill was tabled. Our briefing was received the morning of the scheduled leadoffs.

Again, this is a government that is acting absolutely unfairly. They had no regard for process. Ultimately, that can be translated into the fact that they have no regard for Ontarians. Again, the Premier, in the government press release on February 6, said—and she clearly stated—that she wanted to work with all parties to pass this legislation. I said during my leadoff that the very fact that they would not allow us to do our due diligence on this bill indicates their unwillingness to include us in the discussion at all. Guess what? The government has now decided to limit debate and just eliminate all committee hearings on this bill.

Again, I ask this tired, old government: What are they afraid of? When exactly was the government intending to work with us, Ontarian stakeholders and ultimately put the thoughts and the priority on Ontarians, like they should? As I said on Monday, through their actions, we have seen no willingness on the government’s part to co-operate with anyone. We, unfortunately, have seen their true colours. They don’t want to work with opposition, the third party or stakeholders. They don’t care about the dismal fiscal realities they have driven this province into. This “my way or the highway” approach is exactly what gets government into trouble.

Now, originally, I thought that this bill was something that we essentially just see from embattled politicians seeking an outside enemy. But now that they have shut down debate and all consultation entirely, their behaviour is more akin to what we see from autocrats. This government pays lip service to co-operation and consultation, but when it becomes inconvenient, again, they choose to ignore it.

I would like to remind this Premier, her entire cabinet and all of her elected colleagues that her government is off the rails. I would like to remind this Premier and her government that they are not all-knowing. In fact, if they were willing to listen, I’m sure that they would realize that there are things that they could fix within this bill, but they don’t want to work with opposition. Again, it’s their way or the highway. Unfortunately, who gets hurt by this unfair practice? Ontarians: our future generations, our taxpayers.

The fact that we have heard very valid questions about this bill is reason enough to continue debate, actually come forward and be brave enough to bring Bill 194 into committee. There are so many valid questions that have yet to be answered.

Going back to our reasoned amendment, we asked: Why? Why is this legislation needed? What prevents the government in their authority, their self-assumed and self-absorbed authority to procure goods and services, from directing government entities and broader public sector entities to select bidders that reflect preferences on trade? We’re still awaiting a satisfactory answer on that. If this motion goes through, we will not have a chance to hear that answer because the government will not allow this bill to proceed to committee.

Again, I would like to remind all of them of the fact that the Auditor General’s report from 2017 revealed that Infrastructure Ontario was not even tracking how many vendors bid on capital projects and which vendors were actually winning the bids. Can you believe it? In fact, Infrastructure Ontario “allowed its external project managers to select vendors from its vendor-of-record list” but “manually add them to the list of bidders,” and 321 projects worth $49 million were selected this way.

Its managers can hand-pick vendors, so why can’t the government just tell these very same managers to exclude New York-based vendors when they do their hand-picking next time? Again, Speaker, they can hand-pick vendors, so why can’t the government tell these managers to exclude New-York-based vendors when they continue to do their hand-picking next time?

It’s actually very shameful, the manner in which this government is acting. We still do not know why this requires legislation.

Beyond the fact that we already know that this government is allowed to hand-pick bidders, let’s take a look at what is happening today.

Ongoing NAFTA negotiations could soon render this whole debate moot.

Chapter 10 of NAFTA directly references subnational procurement. Why this government felt it even had to table Bill 194 leaves a lot of people questioning their tactics. Although the subnational provisions in NAFTA were never finalized or agreed to, the potential remains, especially as many chapters in the agreement are currently on the table. Even more recently than NAFTA, the Obama administration and the Harper government also reached an agreement on subnational procurement, on a smaller scale. This is why we are party to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement.

I ask, Speaker: Why debate this whole issue when those negotiations are ongoing? Have we not seen the rhetoric coming from the United States? Quite simply, we are being provocative and risking further retaliation for the sake of this Premier’s and this government’s desire to score political points.

This debate could have waited until after the NAFTA talks, but the problem was that the timeline wouldn’t be convenient because it would take the government past the upcoming election on June 7. Again, international objectives are being overridden by Ontario electioneering by Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Liberal Party.

I ask: Why would we ever risk escalation when much of the bigger conversation is happening under our federal counterparts?

Not only is this legislation not what we need; it is legislation that is, in fact, opening Ontario up to unnecessary risks. We know what happened when this government of the day tried to encourage manufacturing of industrial wind turbine parts in Ontario. Where did we end up on that side of the legal case? On the wrong side.

I might also add that a compounding risk that could happen right now is the haphazard way the government chose to write this bill. For example, what is, for goodness’ sake, “proportional response” from the government? Do they even know? How is this defined? Is “proportional” defined as not exceeding the damage of an offending jurisdiction in terms of what it does to Ontario? Perhaps it means that the measure with which we retaliate must do at least enough damage to the offending jurisdiction.

They haven’t defined their own

definitions; they don’t have a clue what they want to do within this legislation. Instead, they want to put up this blatant electioneering and decide how to clean up their mess behind closed doors, via regulations. That’s not the type of Ontario that taxpayers and our future generations deserve.

Going back to the “proportional” aspect, this lack of a definition means that we could be opening up the province to massive escalations with American jurisdictions like those we’ve seen as a result of the Green Energy Act, escalations that will cost our economy jobs. For instance, that one company in Tillsonburg: There was a lot of hoopla when they were creating jobs in Tillsonburg building parts and pieces for industrial wind turbines, but when that closed down, so did 300-plus jobs in the Tillsonburg area.

Let’s carry on here with regard to Bill 194. The President of the Treasury Board, responding to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, told us the following:

“While members opposite have referenced issues like escalation—the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, who talked about how we need to apply caution.” Guess what was said, Speaker. “We agree.” But she went on to say, “This is not about escalation, for that very reason. This is about a proportional response, Speaker. It’s important that we keep these things in mind.”

I have to ask, Speaker: Really? When that member was speaking, did they know the true definition of a proportional response? I’m doubting it.

To carry on: Has the President of the Treasury Board even read her own bill? It’s only a couple of pages.

Do you know what’s sad? It wasn’t even properly translated into French. It’s a shame. This government is out of touch. Their knee-jerk reactions to try to garner favour with the Ontario voter, when they’re doing so dismally in the polls, are causing them to rush legislation, and as a result, they’re getting it wrong on so many different levels. As I said, they couldn’t even get the French translation right for Bill 194.

Going back to the President of the Treasury Board: If the minister agreed with regard to a proportional response, then there should have been a reference to proportionality in the bill. We should see a threshold.

How can we know that this bill would not lead to escalation when there are no checks and balances in the bill? Speaker, there are none.

This government has flailed around for 15 years. Time and again they have absolutely thrown Ontario taxpayers, and all of us, quite frankly, under the bus. And here we go again.

Speaker, I was planning on bringing forward an amendment to alleviate this concern in committee, but unfortunately I will be unable to do this very action because of this government’s cynical behaviour that is hitting home here right now, this morning. It’s too bad, because if the President of the Treasury Board agreed with the concerns of the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, perhaps her colleagues could have entertained such an amendment. Unfortunately, if they get this motion through, they are taking away that opportunity in committee.

Again, for those of you watching today, this tired, out-of-touch government, under the leadership of Kathleen Wynne, is trying to shut down Bill 194 with regard to debate, deputations in committee, and consultation with stakeholders.

This government’s time has come and gone. June 7 can’t come soon enough for Ontarians across this province.

Again, Speaker, the problem is that the government did not, at the end of the day, table a viable piece of legislation. Like we’ve been saying all along, this is just a last-ditch attempt to get votes. If they truly cared about Ontario jobs, we would have seen this government take action long ago. They would have seen proper legislation come through their tables and through their doors, and we would have actually seen a government caring about Ontarians. But all they care about is themselves.

As a result, Ontario has bled manufacturing to other jurisdictions. As I mentioned in my leadoff just last week, a manufacturer from my amazing riding of Huron–Bruce—specifically, in the Walkerton area—forwarded an email to me whereby the state of Vermont was telling them that when they want to grow, when they want to expand, the best place to do that is not Ontario; it’s Vermont. That’s what our manufacturers are facing day in and day out.

Continuing on with regard to Bill 194 and with the lack of proportionality in this bill, Speaker, there’s something that I would like to remind everyone of: Trading with other jurisdictions actually saves our government money. Every time the government responds in kind to an American jurisdiction, it represents a contract that Ontario is overpaying for.

And coming from the government that brought us eHealth, Ornge and the gas plant scandal—Ontarians would prefer it if, once and for all, the government did not overpay on a contract. Ontarians have been paying more and getting less in this province for far too long over the last 15 years, Speaker. Every single measure that this government brings into force makes us pay more for less time and time again.

This bill mandates no third-party oversight to report on the additional costs of protectionist procurement regulations enacted under this law. That’s a worry. Do we still have to continue to pay more and more under this tired, old government? Financial transparency could have allowed Ontarians and stakeholders to weigh the benefits and costs of the action that the government would be taking under the authority of this bill. Without a reporting requirement like this, Ontarians could be in for a financial surprise. With this government, we know what these surprises could entail.

Moving on, there’s a deplorable irony to Bill 194. The very purpose of a committee is to consult. Had Bill 194 actually made it to committee, we would have seen deputations from stakeholders and we would have seen their submissions. They all want to speak on this bill. We have the mechanisms for the public to have their say, but this government is taking it away from them. How fair is that? This government is anything but fair.

Then, we’ve lost our opportunity to bring forward amendments in committee. This is a very important lesson for the Liberals. The amendments that we would have brought forward would have allowed us a chance to improve their bill, which has been hastily rushed and tabled and, as we saw today, pushed through our Legislature just so that they can electioneer on, yet again, another bad idea. But, Speaker, I have to tell you, if this bill does not go to committee, it will not be amended. As we know, they didn’t even get the French translation right. This is a story you can’t make up.

Honestly, like I said on Monday, the lack of consultation has been an absolute trademark of the Wynne Liberal government, and the lack of transparency is very concerning.

Again, if we look at this bill, consultation is only an option. They actually wrote into Bill 194 that consultation is an option. Ontarians: Be very nervous about this, because they’re taking every voice that we have in this province away. They’re shutting down consultation and they’re shutting down committee.

I want to go back to the bill and tell you exactly what it 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.” What the heck is that? It’s a blatant punch in the gut to Ontarians.

This government is tired. It’s out of touch. Nothing proves it more than the fact that they’re shutting down consultation and Ontarians’ voices through consultation. No Ontarian should stand for that. I hope they send them a message loud and clear on June 7.

Considering that the government is not even willing to consult with stakeholders at committee or to consult even with the opposition members of this Legislature, this action is completely indicative of how this government thinks. Their thought process is that they don’t need to consult on a bill that doesn’t require them to consult before they make regulations. They believe the public should trust them. Again, trusting them: What did that get us? It got us Ornge; it got us eHealth; it got us the dismal Green Energy Act; it got us the gas plants. We just don’t trust them anymore.

That’s why we think that it’s a travesty that they’re shutting down debate and they’re shutting down consultation. Essentially, they’re shutting Ontarians out of their government.

They believe that the public should just trust them, and we’re not going to do it. After 15 years, we’ve had enough. The public does not trust this government on hydro. The public does not trust this government on jobs. The public does not trust this government on education. The public does not trust this government on health care. And the public does not trust this government on ethics.

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: How can the government possibly expect the public to trust them on delicate diplomatic issues like trade? The fact is, the public can’t trust them to get trade right, because their track record has proven that they’ve gotten pretty much nothing right over the last 15 years.

I have another issue with the bill that I would like to highlight, and I highlighted this in my leadoff. I was hoping to—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. I was more than reasonable with your outburst, but you’ve kept it up. It’s over.

Mr. Wayne Gates: It was funny.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It may be funny to you; it’s not funny to me.

Continue.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I have another issue with the bill that I would like to highlight, and I highlighted this in my leadoff as well. I was hoping to address it in committee, but unfortunately, that opportunity is being ripped away, not only from me but from stakeholders as well.

I will read you the portion in question from the bill. It reads: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations designating an American jurisdiction as an offending American jurisdiction if, in the minister’s opinion, the government of the American jurisdiction has enacted legislation or ... measures that may inhibit or prevent Ontario suppliers from participating or succeeding in procurement processes....” The definition that reads “may inhibit or prevent Ontario suppliers from participating” is very vague.

Instead of heckling and just doing what a tired, old government does, I encourage the members to actually read this bill because, in fact, I’ve read a comprehensive list of those measures in the House during my leadoff. I talked and shared over 50 examples from over 50 states in the United States of America that talked to procurement. I invite them to go back and check the lead-off, because I doubt that many have. Statutes, both big and small, that could allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to designate an American jurisdiction as offending and enabling the government of Ontario to respond in kind, but, of course, with no legislated limits on what proportionality looks like—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’ll remind the member from Durham that when he crosses the floor, he’s supposed to nod—now, a little late.

Continue.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Okay. I’ll repeat that: Statutes, both big and small, that could allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to designate an American jurisdiction as offending and enabling the government of Ontario to respond in kind is what is read in the legislation—but of course, with no legislated limits on what proportionality actually looks like.

They don’t know what that means. They did not take time to define proportionality. This is a huge concern, and another reason why old, tired, knee-jerk Liberal legislation needs to have scrutiny. We should have the right to debate it in the House. We should have the right to take it to committee, and for goodness’ sake, Ontarian stakeholders and Ontarians who are concerned about trade should have every right to exercise their voices via deputations in committee.

What they are actually proposing in Bill 194 could put our trading relationships at risk, our trading relationships with Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. How can we possibly give the government the unilateral authority to penalize all of these jurisdictions without any defined checks and balances?

Did you hear that across the House? In this legislation—because I doubt if you’ve read it—Bill 194 does not define any checks and balances, so you should be going back to your caucus and saying, “What the heck are we doing shutting down debate on Bill 194, and for goodness’ sake, why are we not having an opportunity to correct our own mistakes in committee?” like we’ve seen you do so many times before with regard to other bills. It is just stunning, Speaker, what’s happening in this province under the Liberal watch.

Bill 194 gives the government the authority to respond in kind to measures big or small—measures as big as steel contracts and as small as flag holders; as big as meat products and as small as baseball fields. The way this legislation has been written is absolutely absurd. This government knows this unsettling fact. They know it, and that is why they are afraid to continue debate. That is why they are afraid to take it to committee. That is why this government is afraid to hear from stakeholders.

They don’t want to hear the flaws of the bill and they don’t want anyone to see that they are tired, they are out of touch, they are out of ideas, and they can’t even write proper legislation. They don’t want any of those facts out there in the open.

What’s even more troubling is that the government’s response to this fact has been complete dismissal, as we’re seeing here today. The member from Guelph told this House that the Minister of Agriculture does not find Alaska’s measures against Ontario in the agri-food sector as requiring a response. She views it as a merit to this bill that the government can pick and choose. But, Speaker, I’m telling you, that is a major flaw in the bill. Why would the government not write thresholds into the bill so that we would know what actually warrants a response?

There has been a trend in this short debate over Bill 194 with this government, and it goes something like this. To illustrate my point, Speaker, I’d like to speak to an exchange between member from Kitchener–Conestoga—the really effective, respected member from Kitchener–Conestoga. The exchange was between him, the member from Welland and the member from Trinity–Spadina.

The PC and NDP members brought very legitimate concerns regarding escalation from American jurisdictions and how that could do further harm to Ontario businesses.

The member from Trinity–Spadina responded: “It doesn’t mean that we will do it, if this legislation passes; I’m just saying that this is giving us the legal tool to do so, if necessary.”

To me, that makes sense. This bill enables the government, unfortunately, though, to sit on the fence and do nothing until they decide it’s time to arbitrarily pick a battle. And why do tired, old governments pick a battle? They do it so there’s a distraction; they do it so they can find a villain that the white knight can go up and fight against.

But guess what, Speaker? Ontario is seeing through this act. They want a government that is acting in good judgment. They want a government acting on behalf of Ontarians, as opposed to one trying to find a way to posture as we lead into the election on June 7.

This is cynical public policy at its worst; that’s what Bill 194 is. Right before an election, we see this government suddenly claim that it cares about Ontario businesses and workers. We don’t agree with that; we have not seen proof of that for years.

Another trend we saw in the debate is when we saw the PC members stand, time and time again, to show that this government stood idly by while 300,000 manufacturing jobs left the province or were just shut down.

When the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex joined the debate, he shared the fact that an automotive supplier in Strathroy had to shut down its plant. The fact is, 300 people from his community lost their jobs. That has a ripple effect across southwestern Ontario. This government is blind to the fact that, when it comes to the automotive industry, parts of a car pass through the border eight times before the finished product actually takes to the road. They completely don’t get that, and they are jeopardizing so much.

Another trend that we saw is that our members spoke of rising hydro rates. If this government truly cared about manufacturing and truly cared about procurement of products, they, for goodness’ sake, would take a look at what they themselves have done. Take a look in the mirror. I encourage the Premier and the rest of her tired Liberal government to look in the mirror and actually accept the fact that it’s because of their bad policy decisions that we have lost so many jobs in Ontario. In fact, this procurement piece of legislation is anything but fair. The title, quite frankly, is a joke.

If they really cared about jobs in Ontario, they would be addressing the cheaper hydro rates that are luring businesses across the border into New York.

The member from Leeds–Grenville made an excellent point, and I’m going to quote him directly. He said, “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.” Guess what it is in Ontario? “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.”

Perhaps Ontario businesses do not need this legislation; perhaps they need a government that actually, once and for all, listens to their concerns before pushing ahead with their own priorities.

In my leadoff, I referenced energy prices and their effect on our economy. Does this bill help that at all? Not at all. In fact, we have seen the Auditor General’s value-for-money audits of this government grow thicker and thicker every year.

Have the Liberals included in the bill a provision that mentions the public interest at all? No. Sadly, the answer is no, Speaker. This glaring omission means that whatever action this government decides to take, we will not know the cost of these measures on government entities or broader public sector entities. This means that Bill 194 could make health care more expensive. It could make post-secondary education more expensive. It could make children’s aid more expensive. And of course, it could make electricity more expensive in this province as well.

This bill puts everything on the table. It allows the government to respond in a way that only they see fit, and in a way that is self-serving to them and them alone.

Ironically, with this time allocation motion, they have shown again that when given an inch, they’re going to take a mile. They’re that desperate.

I would like to read a quote from the member from St. Catharines: “Time and again, the government puts the boots to the opposition in this Legislature, as it has this afternoon with this time allocation motion—more ominous, more sinister every time.”

I wonder if he’s recognizing that in his own government right now. I too have never seen a time allocation motion as ominous as the one before us this morning, one that goes as far as to bypass the whole committee process.

In conclusion, Speaker, I think we should all recognize here today that the motion before us is very troubling, and it cannot be supported. Time allocation motions can serve a purpose at times. However, tabling a bill, answering none of our questions, ending debate, removing our ability to bring forward amendments at committee, turning a deaf ear to stakeholders and all of Ontarians, and then actually cutting third reading debate to a mere 30 minutes is a sign that this government is done. They’re done, and they need to check out on June 7.

Every single member of this House should be concerned, if not disgusted. This bill is two to five pages long. It wasn’t even properly translated into French. How long could clause-by-clause have realistically taken?

I will specifically say that the member from Nickel Belt astutely noticed—and I mentioned it earlier—that the French title of this bill is incorrect, and it needed to be changed. But is she going to have a chance to bring that good amendment forward? No. This government just doesn’t want to listen to anyone because they are embarrassed by this dismal legislation that they’re bringing through.

I can recall, during Bill 172 in the last Parliament, that the government brought forward amendment after amendment after amendment because there were so many issues with the bill. They used the committee process to actually fix their mistakes. I was embarrassed for that side of the House.

The French title is one, and my colleagues and I have identified so many others. But none of these potential amendments will ever see the light of day if this government has their way yet again—all because this government refuses to allow the legislative process to proceed. This government refuses to listen to Ontarians.

Speaker, this week, we have seen member after member from both the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party stand up and argue against the tone and timing of this bill. It cannot be supported.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I am not going to say that I’m pleased to be participating in this debate. Quite frankly, I find this a little bit sad for this institution that we all serve.

Some of us were around here before we had time allocation. I know the member from St. Catharines and a few others were here when the standing orders were such that a government actually had to call a bill and have it debated. Yes, at times it took a while to get a bill through. But what would normally happen was, there was sort of an agreement between the parties about which bills they wanted to have more time on and which bills they got along on and agreed on. So some bills would go faster. You might have a couple of hours’ debate at second reading. We would refer it off to committee, and it would do what it had to do and would come back.

Since we’ve had time allocation brought in—and I’m going to say this in the debate, because somebody’s going to say, “Oh, yeah, the NDP.” Listen, every government had their hand in changing the standing orders. In my view, it has been a mistake. I think this motion is the pinnacle of how bad a time allocation motion can be.

We have a bill that New Democrats support. We support the general intent of what the government is trying to do here. We think there needs to be some changes. The government has a bill that we generally agree with, and I’ll get into that in a second as to why, but there’s some difficulty with the bill.

There are probably changes that have to be made at committee on reflection and reading of the bill, and normally that’s done; it’s automatic. We refer all our bills to committee. In this case, the reason I say this is probably one of the worst time allocations I’ve seen since I’ve been here: The bill says we get a very short time at debate this afternoon, like as with this morning, as we’re doing now. By the looks of it, there are going to be 40 minutes from the official opposition and 40 minutes from the NDP. The government is not taking their time.

There will be a vote and then, the next time the government decides to call the bill, there will be a total of 30 minutes. But the real kicker is that there is no time in committee. We’re going straight from second reading directly to third. I think that’s a mistake, and it’s a problem for this institution.

Committees are where we go back and not only fix bills as far as noticing there may be some drafting errors or some policy parts that we need to fix in the bill, but it gives a chance for the public to come before us and say, “Hey, here’s what I like about this bill. Here’s what I don’t like about the bill. Here are the ideas I have about how you can make it better.” The government has decided not to do that in this case. They’ve decided to have a time allocation motion that excludes the public, that completely cuts out the committee process and refers the bill directly to third reading once the vote happens in this House. I think that is dangerous when it comes to how we draft legislation.

I heard some of the government members on the other side a while ago say, “Oh, yes, but we have to do that because the Conservatives rang some bells yesterday.” Those are the standing orders. The standing orders of the Legislature allow the opposition some tools—not very many, I will argue—to try to keep the government to account. At times, they will ring bells. It was the first time I had seen bells rung in this place in probably a couple of years, but I think that only means that the Conservative Party had reasons why they wanted to do that. Now, I may agree or disagree with them ringing bells.

In fact, we voted against the ringing of the bells when it came to the vote, but it’s their right. It’s the ability of any opposition party to be able to hold the government to account by the rules that are set out in the standing orders.

Here’s the difficulty. When I listen to government members across the way say, “Oh, we had to do it because you guys are ringing bells,” it just shows the arrogance of the government and, I think, the lack of understanding on the part of some members—I would not say all, but some members—as to how this place should work. If you think you’re really helping Ontario by short-shrifting the committee process and moving a bill from second to third reading, I’ve got a rude awakening for you: You’re not. At the end of the day, committees serve a useful purpose in the drafting of legislation.

When a Parliament or a Legislature decides that it’s in its best interest—in this case, the government, because they are the majority—to do those kinds of things and keep public out, it is a form of tyranny. I know that’s a strong word to be used in this Legislature. I know there may be some on the other side who are maybe a little bit upset that I would use such a term, but it is a form of tyranny in the sense that the government is utilizing its majority to not just cut out the opposition but, more importantly, cut out the public. The way this Legislature is designed, and the beauty of the legislative process, is that the public always gets its opportunity to have its say.

These days, under the Liberal government and, before that, under the Tories, we didn’t get as much time in committee on bills that I would like. I remember, as the member from St. Catharines does, that we used to have bills that would go into committee in the spring and they’d be back in the fall because the committee work needed to be done in order to make the bill better. It’s just the process. We used to take a lot longer to draft bills and pass them through the process. It used to take a lot longer in the past, and for a good reason.

It allowed the public to come and talk to us and tell us what’s good, what’s bad and how to change it. There was a real exchange between the opposition and the government. I was on the government side at one point of that process, and I was on the opposition side for the other part, and the point is, there was a real exchange. The government said, “Well, you know what? They’ve got a good point here. How do we change this? This is embarrassing for us.” We used all of the political considerations, but at the end of the day, there was a free exchange of, “Okay; how are we going to make this happen?”

I’ve used the example—and I’m not going to go into it in any detail—but I use the sustainable forestry development act that we did or the skidoo trails legislation that the Conservatives did. When those bills went into committee, we made those bills much, much better as a result of involving the public. The opposition members, in the case of both those bills, really were a part of making those bills better. They still stand today and have not been amended.

They have stood the test of time because they had the proper time to be able to do the work that had to be done, get the public involved so that we can hear all sides, and to draft regulation—not draft regulation; that’s a whole other issue—but to draft amendments to the bill that made it a lot stronger.

I just say to the government across the way: You think that you’re being very clever and wise. You think that this will just fix one of your little political problems because you want to be able to wave something going into the next election. Heck, if you’re going to run over the public to get there and if you’re prepared to use your majority in order to squeeze out the public and the participation of this place, I don’t think that’s a good thing. I quite think that that’s actually pretty bad in all things.

As far as the bill itself—I know I’ve got caucus members who want to speak, so I’m not going to do much longer, because I know there are a few people that want to speak, right?

M me France Gélinas: Yes, but you could go much longer.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I could go much longer. I could go much longer; I’ve been known to do that. But I just want to say this to the bill: Do we have a problem with trade with the United States at this point? Absolutely. We have the most unstable trade situation right now, given the current administration and given the mood in the United States as to what has happened over the last number of years in their economy. Legislators and the administration have been doing things in order to protect their side of the border when it comes to economic activity, and some of it very unfairly.

The one that jumps out is the Bombardier deal. Boeing, which is heavily subsidized by the American military—because you’ll know that in the United States, when you build an airplane, a 777 or whatever it might be, as a passenger jet, the money that allows Boeing to operate doesn’t strictly come from commercial sales. A large part of it comes from government sales, which is, in their case, the military, when it comes to building for their four armed forces, if you include the Marines. It’s sizable amounts of money.

My point is, Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers—and there’s only really Boeing these days in the States as the big one—get subsidized quite heavily by the Americans when it comes to operating their company. If I have a branch of my company and it makes a lot of money as a result of government contracts, I can afford to build the commercial airplane for maybe a little bit less. So to make the argument that they’re not subsidizing, I think, is a bit ridiculous.

In the case of Bombardier, Bombardier was slapped with—what was it? a 300% tariff? I think it was 300%. There was a 300% tariff put on the sale of Bombardier equipment from Canada into the United States. We did what we had to do. We went off to the various tribunals and mechanisms by which we defend ourselves in these trade situations, and guess what? There was no case by the United States to slap on a 300% tariff, and they had to take it out.

The point is: We need to have a trade system and we need to have mechanisms in our trade system that allow those types of situations to not run away on us so that the government of a state or the government of a country, such as the United States, can’t all of a sudden decide on a whim, because they’re being lobbied by some organization, to slap a tariff, and goes on and slaps it. You need to have mechanisms to deal with it.

The government, in this particular case, is saying by way of this legislation, “If there are going to be unfair practices in the United States and they unfairly treat Ontario manufacturers and service providers, then we will mirror what they’re doing on this side of the border.”

We’re not going to lead. We’re not going to do it ourselves and say, “Well, we’re doing this and we don’t care what you’re doing.” We are saying, as I understand in this legislation, that should a state decide to do something that affects trade between our province and their state, we would mirror simply what they are doing. It’s not what you would like to do. I don’t think anybody in this House likes the idea that we have to get to this point. But I can understand why the government is doing it.

They want to be able to run around going into the next election and say, “Look at what we’ve done,” and they don’t want anybody saying anything negative on this legislation, because anybody that says anything negative could take away from the shiny bauble that they will have running into the next election with this particular piece of legislation. They made a political decision in order to not have this bill going to committee, so that people are not able to come before the committee and to say what they think is wrong with the bill or what has to be changed with the bill. That’s a really disturbing part.

The other point I just want to raise, because it gives me an opportunity to get into it, is the softwood lumber dispute. Canada and the United States entered into, first, the free trade agreement and NAFTA some years ago. Mr. Speaker, you were probably on the picket lines with me marching against those trade agreements when they were being negotiated, because we felt at that time that the deal and the way that it was negotiated was problematic for Canada. There would be job losses. And, in fact, it turned out to be that way.

Unfortunately, we lost a lot of manufacturing in Ontario as a result of free trade and other pressures that made costs go up on our side of the border and moved the production into the United States, or into Mexico once we got into NAFTA. That was facilitated by the NAFTA agreements. But the one good thing about NAFTA, and this was something that the federal government had negotiated into the provisions of

chapter 19, is that we have a dispute resolution mechanism. That dispute resolution mechanism simply says this: If there’s a trade dispute, either Canada, the United States or Mexico has the right to be able to raise the trade dispute at this panel.

The interesting thing about the panel—the panel is made up of experts chosen by each of the three countries. I can’t remember how many. I think there are 10 or 20 each that we put up and nominate. But they are trade experts. They are people that understand the intricacy of the trade issues between Canada, Mexico and the United States when it comes to the various sectors of our economy: forestry, manufacturing, resources, oil and gas, etc. So we have these experts on the panel that are not necessarily political appointees. In fact, they’re not political appointees.

When they look at the trade dispute and they are asked to make a decision, they are doing it based on law and based on what the actual facts are. We have been quite fortunate that that particular

chapter 19 provision has served us well in the forest industry, in that, every time the United States has slapped a duty, as they have this time, and put a tariff on wood going from Canada to the United States, each and every time, we’ve won. The only one we had a problem with was the last one. We were winning it and the federal government decided to negotiate away a billion dollars’ worth of the money that was held by the United States and gave it back to them. I think that was wrong. We should never have allowed that to happen. But that was the choice of the federal government.

The point is, Mr. Trump is making noises—and I don’t know if he’s going to go there, but he is certainly making noises in that direction. His administration, along with other lawmakers in the United States, are talking about weakening the provisions of

chapter 19 so that the panel would be made up of political appointees. So I’m Mr. Trump and I get to appoint who is on that panel. And do you think that those appointees are going to be in any way influenced by the person that appointed them? Well, absolutely. You are there as Mr. Trump’s person on the panel and you will have instructions as to what the decision should be once the panel hears the case.

Canada, and rightfully so, is pushing back on that and saying we should not allow the panel and the provisions of

chapter 19 to be weakened, because as bad as NAFTA has been for our economy—and I have a lot of colleagues here who have lost plenty of jobs as a result of NAFTA and free trade, in Sudbury, St. Catharines, Timmins and different places. As bad as it has been, the one thing that has helped us has been

chapter 19 when it comes to at least trying to maintain the stuff that’s left. There is already a lot of manufacturing that is gone, but at least we’re able to protect some of the stuff that we have here against unfair trade practices by the United States.

With that, Mr. Speaker—I know that other members of my caucus want to speak—I just want to say one more time to the government: This is the grandfather of all time allocation motions that you have brought forward. The fact that you bring back a time allocation motion on a bill that limits debate at second reading, I can live with. You’ve been doing that for a while. I don’t like it, but I get it. But the fact that you’ve excluded the public by saying that this bill will not go to committee and it will go straight to third reading for a 30-minute debate to me says that this government is tired, it is done, and the quicker we get rid of it, the better we’re going to be.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Before I start, it’s March 1 today, and my wife and I have been married 22 years today. I want to wish her a happy anniversary. We’re looking forward to going out tonight for dinner. To Rita, happy anniversary.

I will say—and my colleague touched on it a lot better than I probably can on the time allocation—obviously stakeholders should have the opportunity to come and present on Bill 194. I think it’s a big mistake. They shouldn’t be cutting off debate.

I’d like to thank you for allowing me to speak today. I think most of the members in this House know what the situation behind this bill is. Obviously, in the United States, we’re facing an issue where the President and certain states have forged themselves an America First policy. We’re looking at our largest trading partner talking about cutting off ties with us because they believe somehow that will create jobs. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction.

I’m an auto worker. I spent my entire life representing auto workers, and I believe our auto sector is a perfect example of why this American policy is flawed. When you’re making a car, the parts in that car will cross the border on average six to seven times before that car is completed—back and forth. If you look at the auto sector, you can see this clearly. If you look at an assembly plant, they’re based around major routes that allow parts to move quickly up and down the highway.

That’s why we’re so strong in supporting the GO train and public transit in the NDP. When the highway is clogged, it slows the transit of parts like these. When those parts get slowed down, manufacturing slows down, and when that slows down, people start getting laid off and losing their jobs. Keeping our highways congestion-free is not only good for the environment; it’s necessary to maintain good-paying jobs. I know that the Speaker worked in the steel industry and he knows exactly what I’m talking about.

But what happens when the border closes? We’ve seen just a small, small part of this happening. Delays at the border cost our province and our nation millions of dollars. We’ve all seen it. You pull up to the border on a busy weekend, and there are 10 booths but only two are open. It’s not the workers’ fault. They’re trying to keep up the best they can, but it’s a staffing issue.

I know this is a federal issue, Mr. Speaker, but it’s a good example of what can happen here when manufactured goods have trouble crossing our borders. The federal government can and should resolve this issue, particularly around staffing.

We have people all over Niagara—and I know the Liberals are listening to this, I think; maybe not. We have people all over Niagara looking for jobs, who would love to work at the border, but unfortunately that’s not how it works. So we end up with borders being understaffed and workers being overworked while we have people willing to work within that town.

But it causes other problems too, and automotive parts, in my eyes, is the best example. Steel and plastic are all good examples. Mr. Speaker, it’s the best example because it’s the most important export that we have in Ontario. These are industries that provide good-paying jobs with benefits and pensions. When your parts slow down, we start producing less, and it starts to be a risk to have an automotive plant here in Canada.

I want to be clear because I listened to the—it tells you how exciting my life is; I actually watched the debate last night around 10 o’clock on TV on CPAC just to get an idea of what parties were saying about this Bill 194. It is rich, with the Conservatives—I want them to listen to it—when they stand up and talk about protecting good manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario. Do you know what they said about the auto sector? I was there. Nobody can deny this. I was at the bargaining table.

I remember the stress that I was under because it looked like the auto sector was in big trouble and we could lose the entire auto sector. We needed the support of all the parties right here in this House—Liberals, NDP, Conservatives—and you know what the Conservatives said about the auto sector? You want to hear it? They said, “Let the auto sector die. We don’t pick winners and losers.”

Mr. Speaker, you are from steel. If that auto sector had died, it would have affected the steel plants. It would have affected plastics, small manufacturers, advanced manufacturers. But they said, “Let it die.”

I was at the bargaining table at that time, and the stress that we were under was incredible. We were going 72 hours around the clock trying to get a solution. What we didn’t need was a party saying, “Let it die.”

What they didn’t know when they said that was that immediately, if the auto sector had died, the people who I represented, who I took great pride in representing—it was one of the highlights of my life, being a president of my local union. Immediately, if they were getting a $1,000 pension—and this is just an example, because they get more than that in pensions—their pension would have gone to $300; 30%, they would have got on their pensions.

But what was even worse—and we were faced with this at that table—was that the pensioners, and their spouses—our seniors—would have lost their benefits immediately. If the auto sector had died, the very next day they would have been cut off their medication, their heart pills, their diabetes pills; anything they were getting was cut off immediately. So it’s a little rich when the PCs stand up like they did yesterday talking about manufacturing.

We should talk, by the way, about how we got into the mess around losing 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Yes, they could have done a better job on the Liberal side, make no mistake about it. You could have. You could have done a lot more. But the reason we lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs was twofold. One was a NAFTA agreement that wasn’t—there’s nothing wrong with trade. We’re a trading nation; we should continue to trade. But it wasn’t fair trade. It wasn’t reciprocal.

What happened in the auto sector, and why we lost 300,000 jobs—I worked out of a plant in St. Catharines. Before NAFTA came in, you know how many people worked in that plant, Mr. Speaker? Your steel mills were the same way; I know they were. We had 10,000 people working in Niagara, in St. Catharines. Those 10,000 jobs supported a parts sector outside of that, based around the plants. Hayes-Dana was there. There was all kinds of manufacturing. Steel plants were there. All that stuff was there.

When NAFTA came in, because it wasn’t reciprocal, those jobs were gone. You go down Ontario Street in St. Catharines today—and I know the member from St. Catharines is here—all there is is a chimney left. That’s all that’s left there, where there used to be 4,000 jobs.

That’s one of the reasons we lost. And who brought in NAFTA? Anybody know?

Mr. James J. Bradley: The Tories.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you. I just wanted to see if anybody knew, if anybody remembered that that’s who brought it in. But having said that—

Hon. Reza Moridi: Mr. Mulroney.

Mr. Wayne Gates: You’re right. I know who it was.

Having said that, there was another issue that hurt us even further as we went down over a period of time, as we were fighting like crazy, as our plants—steel is the same way. The only reason I say “steel” is because I know my colleague has raised pensions in Hamilton and how hard it has been on your members for a long time and how they’ve been under attack. I’m saying “steel” because I know a little bit about his situation as well.

What happened is, we decided, under Harper, to have a high Canadian dollar, a petro dollar. That’s all it was. It went on for years. Our dollar went from being where it is today, which is around 79 cents, I think, when I looked yesterday; maybe 78 cents. We should have a Canadian dollar around 80 cents. That’s about where our dollar should be: 80 to 82 cents. But because they decided to have a petro dollar, what happened was, our dollar went up. It was driven by the west, we know that, at the expense of our province of Ontario and good-paying manufacturing jobs in a number of sectors.

Our dollar went up to a buck 10, a dollar 10, as manufacturers and businesses said, “I can’t compete. I can’t do this.”

You’ve seen what’s happened. Manufacturing has come back. I always said, when I was president of the local and I was on radio station after radio station, “Do not give up on advanced manufacturing. When our dollar goes down, we might get some of those jobs back.” And that has happened. But we’re never getting the plants that we lost, because of NAFTA and because of the high Canadian dollar.

So if we’re going to stand up and talk about trade, we’ve got to take a look at the big picture. And the big picture is—there are a number of reasons, but there was a blatant attack on the manufacturing sector in the province of Ontario by the PC Party through NAFTA and through a high Canadian dollar. That’s how I see it.

When I talk about letting the auto sector die, like I said, I was watching TV last night and there was steam coming out of my ears when I was listening to this. So I thought I’d raise that this morning, and I’m going to continue to raise it until they at least acknowledge the fact that that’s what they said. They’ve never, ever acknowledged that, and I was at the table, and I’ll be honest with you: It just about killed me. Nobody can deny what happened there.

I’ll be honest with you, it would never have gotten done without some of the parties coming together, but it was really the Obama administration that put its foot down at that round of bargaining and said, “We’ve got to get it done. We can’t allow the auto sector to die in the United States and Canada.” We had to get it done, and a resolve was finally come to.

But when you’re at a bargaining table and you have a party that says, “Let those jobs go. We don’t care about pensioners. We don’t care about seniors. We don’t care about their spouses,” that’s a mistake. They should at least acknowledge that it was a mistake.

So we’re talking about—I’m sorry; I got off a little bit on that. Obviously I have passion around it. We’re talking about tens of thousands of jobs involved with each of these plants. But here’s the thing: It’s not just about us. The thing about trade is that it has to go both ways. If you close the border on certain products, it’s going to hurt Canada. Make no mistake about it. But it is also going to hurt New York; it’s going to hurt Ohio; it’s going to hurt Michigan and states all along the border. Simply put, it’s a terrible idea that’s going to hurt workers on both sides of the border.

I’m going to support the bill. But I want to say again: You should not be cutting off the debate. You should be allowing the stakeholders to come and make presentations. You should be allowing the public to come and make presentations on a bill as important as this. To cut off debate is a mistake. You shouldn’t be doing it. I’m going to tell you straight out, Liberals, you should not be doing it on this particular issue. You should be ashamed of yourselves on this one.

I have one major problem with the bill, one question I’d like to ask the Liberal government. If you’re worried about trade being unfair or about trade issues hurting our workers, how can you sit there and put your name on the new TPP? You’re going to sit there and pretend you care about auto workers with one hand while with the other hand you’re signing trade deals that will put the automotive sector at risk again.

Let me be clear: I’m not against trade. But trade has to focus on being fair, reciprocal, benefiting both parties. That’s what it’s supposed to be about. For decades, we had fair trade with the United States along our border. When one side was producing more of the assembled vehicles, the other side would produce more parts. That’s how it’s supposed to work, where both benefit.

Yet you have a government that doesn’t care about that. You have a government that, alongside their federal counterparts, supports a trade deal that is going to cost workers. Don’t take it from me; take it from a Liberal press release. After talking about supporting the deal, the press release said:

“The Premier reiterated her support for new opportunities for free trade, but made clear that the benefits of enhanced trade should not come at the expense of Ontario’s auto workers, farmers and food producers. Premier Wynne called on the federal government to fulfill their commitment to provide transitional assistance to help Ontario’s automotive and agri-food sectors adjust to the new realities created by the CP-TPP before ratifying the deal. The province is requesting at least $1.26 billion over 10 years in assistance for the auto sector and at least $1.4 billion over 10 years for the agri-food sector in Ontario.”

So here’s the question, Mr. Speaker: If the Premier believes this is good for Ontario, then why are you asking for money to give to workers to cover their losses? That statement makes it clear. She expects the auto sector and she expects agri-food to lose jobs. We don’t want to lose jobs in the province of Ontario. We want to create jobs. We want opportunities for our kids and our grandkids. She expects them to take a hit when the government signs this deal. I’m saying to the Liberal government: Say no to an agreement that’s going to attack workers in the province of Ontario.

What the government of Ontario is trying to do is soften the blow of a trade deal. But what happens when the money runs out in 10 years? What happens to those workers in the plant who started only a few years ago, our young people, our grandkids? Do their lives and their pensions not matter? Or is this just a problem for another government—push it down the road?

Mr. Speaker, I know I’ve only got a couple of seconds left. What we see in this bill is an attempt by this government to look like they’re standing up for workers. Well, if they really cared, why not truly stand up for workers? Why not stand up to the federal government and fight for a fair trade deal, one that actually benefits our workers, like the old auto deals we used to have with the United States?

Here’s the problem: Ontario is going it alone. We can’t compete head-on against—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m sorry; the time is allotted.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It is 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to introduce one of my constituents to the Legislature: Justin Mawoko, who is here at Queen’s Park today with the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Justin.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It also gives me pleasure to introduce two of my constituents: Ms. Nadia Aftab, professional engineer, and Ms. Emily Pascual, professional engineer, here with the engineers today.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: On behalf of my colleague the MPP for Ajax–Pickering, Mr. Joe Dickson, it’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. Manraj Pannu from Pickering. He is also with the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.

Welcome to you and all of your colleagues here from the society today.

Mr. Bill Walker: On behalf of my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga, Michael Harris, I’d like to introduce Shelly Deitner, board director of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and a constituent in Kitchener–Conestoga; Thomas Riedel, a proud member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and a constituent in Kitchener–Conestoga; and Arjan Arenja—a little shout-out to the government liaison program chair of the Georgian Bay

chapter of the Professional Engineers Ontario.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome some guests who have joined me here for the reading of my motion this afternoon. I would like to introduce, from Children’s Mental Health Ontario, Alicia Raimundo, Leah Sullivan, Caralyn Quan and Karen Leiva.

Also, from Good Shepherd in Hamilton, we have Alex Chavez, Norma Joaquim, Loretta Hill-Finamore, Salina Brien, Ashlea Clegg, David Da Silva, Tyler Henderson, Tyler L., and Hoden and Sierra Smith.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Laura Albanese: I want to introduce Mr. William Lytwyn. He’s a professional engineer with the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, here today at Queen’s Park. I would like to welcome him.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to introduce Ingersoll mayor Ted Comiskey and councillor Marcus Ryan, who are here today for the introduction of my private member’s bill, and to share the message that municipalities deserve the right to approve the location of landfills. I want to thank them both for joining us here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome representatives from the Canadian Red Cross here today at Queen’s Park: Tanya Elliott, the vice-president of the Canadian Red Cross, Ontario; and Tyler Hague, a disaster management officer. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have a number of guests I’d like to introduce today.

Today marks the first annual Professional Engineers Day in Ontario. I want to welcome a few of them to Queen’s Park: Jonathan Hack, president and chair of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers; Sandro Perruzza, chief executive officer of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers; and Miro Forest, a professional engineer and a constituent in Don Valley West, as it happens. I’d like to welcome them all to Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to welcome a constituent of mine, Mr. Speaker. It’s his first time in the Ontario Legislature. He’s a student at the University of Toronto. I want to welcome James Hooks to Queen’s Park.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if you would indulge me, I’d like to introduce the members of my family who are here today. My partner, Jane Rounthwaite, is here. My daughter Jessica Cowperthwaite is here. Her partner, Stanley Wesley, is here, and the three people through whose eyes I see policy every day: Olivia Wesley, Claire Wesley and Hugh Wesley, my grandchildren.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’ll continue with introductions, and I beg the members to be brief and short. We’ll get through all of the introductions. Never fear; we will.

Mr. Ross Romano: I want to introduce Jonathan Hack, president and chair of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and I want to recognize this organization’s continued support for the Ring of Fire.

My second introduction: It’s very important to me today to introduce my wife—my much, much better half—Heather Mendes. She’s in the back gallery here.

You’re allowed to wave, dear.

She didn’t want to stand and wave.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome, from my riding of Hamilton–Mountain, Mr. Nabeel Nassar, a proud member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, who is here today to celebrate Professional Engineers Day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m delighted to acknowledge and welcome Mr. Paul Acchione, a past president and chair of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, who is here with us in the gallery.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I would like to introduce, up in the members’ gallery, the executive director of PANDAS/PANS Ontario, Kerry Henrikson, and her son, Jonah; and Erin Kwarciak, Janet Trider, Ellen Nicol, Erica Mills, Mike Boland, Doreen Crombie and Don Crombie, to support me in my private member’s bill today on PANDAS/PANS.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. Brian Smith, a constituent of Waterloo and a proud member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I would like to extend a warm welcome to the professional engineers who are here today, including Ms. Anita Sparre, who is a member of the Ontario society and a constituent of the town of Milton, and also, my good friend Marisa Sterling, who is here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

If I may, I also extend a warm welcome to Tanya Elliott of the Red Cross, who is also a good friend.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Today is the professional engineers’ of Ontario’s special day. To commemorate it, they’re having a reception.

I have Mr. Tim Kirkby here; Roger Jones, from the executive; and Yousef Kimiagar. They’re all proud members of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’d like to welcome an engineer who is no stranger to here: Jeannette Chau, from Mississauga, a very special guest. Welcome.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today I would like to welcome three students who are visiting us from the Orillia campus of Lakehead University. Sami Pritchard, Aaron Hiltz and Jessica Kearney are at Queen’s Park today with the Canadian Federation of Students. Welcome.

Also, on behalf of the member from Trinity–Spadina, the page captain today is Reed Benzie. I would like to introduce his mother, Rhonda McMichael, and his sister, Ella Benzie. They are in the public gallery this morning. Welcome.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to introduce the following guest from Mississauga: Ms. Jeannette Chau, professional engineer and manager of the government liaison programs at Professional Engineers Ontario, a proud member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and, of course, a proud resident of the great city of Mississauga. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Gisoo Akhavan, who is an international student from Iran. She’s studying at Glendon college, York University.

As a former engineer, with a small “e,” I also want to welcome all engineers to the Ontario Legislature as we celebrate March 1, engineering day in Ontario. Welcome.

Hon. Harinder Malhi: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Lawrence St-Onge, who is a proud member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and a constituent of my riding of Brampton–Springdale.

Hon. Michael Chan: I’m delighted to rise in the House today to introduce Mr. Kam Leong and Mr. Paymon Sani-Bakhtiari. They are proud members of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and they live in Markham.

I would also like to welcome Maxford Thomson to Queen’s Park today. He’s not living in Markham; he’s from Australia.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a warm welcome to the Kingston-based members of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, including Sadiq Bdour.

As well, my very best wishes and welcome to Kingston-based OSPE member and past director Steve Rose. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: On Professional Engineers Day, I want to welcome all the professional engineers to Queen’s Park, and especially my constituent Mr. Peter Chackeris, professional engineer. Welcome.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It’s my pleasure to welcome all of the engineers visiting here today on the first Professional Engineers Day here in Ontario.

A special shout-out goes to Sandro Perruzza, who is CEO of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and a friend; another good friend, Marisa Sterling, who was just recently elected as the vice-president of Professional Engineers Ontario; and a huge shout-out to two engineers from my riding of Davenport, Mr. Alberto Quiroz and Mr. Benjamin Hendry. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, please join me in welcoming, from the beautiful riding of Dufferin–Caledon, in the Speaker’s gallery, Lauren McDonald.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: We’re all celebrating Professional Engineers Day in Ontario and welcoming them to Queen’s Park today. I’d like to extend a special welcome to Jonathan Hack, who is the president and chair of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and a proud constituent of mine from Burlington. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Mehemed Delibasic and Ian McDougall, who are constituents of mine. They are here today at Queen’s Park to celebrate Professional Engineers Day.

Hon. David Zimmer: Reed Benzie is the page captain today. He has been introduced, his mother has been introduced, and his sister has been introduced, but his proud father, Robert Benzie, who is sitting up here with his camera, should be introduced also.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I also would like to introduce two engineer constituents of mine: Arthur Sinclair and Marisa Sterling, who of course has been introduced a few times.

I’ve also got Erica Mills here. She’s here to support the member from Sarnia–Lambton’s private member’s motion on PANDAS/PANS.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d like to introduce three guests who are here: Ms. Emily Thorn Corthay, who is the board director of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and a constituent of Etobicoke Centre; Ms. Marilyn Spink, who is the vice-president of Professional Engineers Ontario, a political action network member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and a constituent of Etobicoke Centre; and Mr. George Comrie, who is a past president of Professional Engineers Ontario, a member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and a constituent of Etobicoke Centre. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: You’re obviously saving the best till last, Speaker. I’d like to introduce three constituents of Oakville who are here for our province’s very first Professional Engineers Day: Dr. Tom Murad, who is the head of Siemens engineering and a proud member of OSPE; Mukul Asthana, member of the research and innovation task force; Oakville constituent Sandro Perruzza, the chief executive officer; and Jeffrey Lee, who works for the town of Oakville. Please finally welcome them to Queen’s Park, Speaker.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Just on the off chance that there’s an engineer here today who hasn’t been welcomed yet: Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Chris Ballard: There are a couple of great engineers from my riding of Newmarket–Aurora. Robert Baynit and Oscar Bazante are both professional engineers and both from Newmarket.

Hon. David Zimmer: Two of Ontario’s finest engineers are here from Willowdale: Nanda Lwin and Sell Selvarajan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Anyone else? The Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome all the children here in the Legislature today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As you can see, we do have some guests in the Speaker’s gallery today. I would like to introduce one of our commissioners and the staff who are here. We have with us today Lauren McDonald, Aroona Shahid, Jessica Pellerin, Cara Des Granges, Jennifer Pain-Andrejin, Nina Jhooti, Yasmine Jeofry, Shikha Vyas, Deborah Danis, Lalitha Flach, and the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, Greg Essensa. Welcome. Thank you for joining us today.

We do thank them for all the work that they do during election time. We appreciate the hard work that all of your staff do to have an election run that is comparable to anything in the world. We appreciate your work.

We also have with us today in the gallery a student delegation. These are our future political leaders in the United States of America, and I know we would want to welcome them. This is the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School for Government and International Studies from Richmond, Virginia. Welcome.

There being no further—I suspect there is one more introduction to do. The member from Durham.

Mr. Granville Anderson: Not an introduction.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would call upon the member from Durham on a point of order.

Mr. Granville Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe you will find we have unanimous consent that members be permitted to wear pins today to recognize Professional Engineers Day. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham is seeking unanimous consent to wear the pins. Do we agree? Agreed.

Provincial Voter Registration Month

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think we have another point of order.

Point of order: the member for Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Speaker. I believe you will find we have unanimous consent that members be permitted to wear pins to commemorate Provincial Voter Registration Month, and, in recognition of the month, have a representative from each caucus speak for up to two minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is seeking unanimous consent to wear the pins and for up to two minutes to have each party recognized. Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Speaker. I’m delighted to take this two-minute opportunity to welcome Mr. Essensa to the House, and his staff.

Voting is the cornerstone of our democratic privileges here in the province and across all democratic institutions in the world. Registration is that first step that we need to do in order to exercise our democratic privilege. This being Provincial Voter Registration Month, I’m delighted to announce that Elections Ontario has found a very important new way for people to register. They’re helping remove barriers for Ontario voters in order to get them registered, to facilitate their ability to vote on election day, or in the days leading up during advance polls.

Voting was a privilege that my father imprinted on me at a very young age. My dad ran in 1963 for the Ontario Liberals. At the age of six, I had the opportunity to campaign with him and go into the voting booth when he signed his first ballot. It’s a tradition that I carried on with my children, to ensure they were fully familiar with the voting process, and I’m pleased to say that my daughters, Robin and Dara, are active participants in the electoral system. They make sure they’re registered in every location where they live, so they have a chance to exercise their democratic right.

Elections Ontario has launched its new tool that will modernize the voter registration process and help meet the needs of Ontarians who are used to accessing information online. We have a new online service, so that there will be no excuse. I would encourage all those who are watching today to disseminate the information that they can go to eregistration.elections.on.ca and register, to be sure their names are there.

Speaker, as you know, when you file your taxes, you can check off a box on your tax return to make sure you’re registered to vote in the federal system and the provincial system, so that your name is attached to your residence where you’re filing your taxes. I, of course, encourage everybody in this taxation season to be sure to do just that, so our lists are as up to date as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s an honour to speak on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus and our leader, Vic Fedeli, to speak in support of Provincial Voter Registration Month in Ontario.

Ontarians should take great pride in our strong and enduring democracy, especially when we look to troubled places around the world where the basic right of citizens to decide who represents them doesn’t exist. The right to cast a ballot without fear or intimidation is something generations of brave Canadian soldiers put their lives on the line to defend. We must never take it for granted, nor can we become complacent by assuming our system is perfect.

Many members of this Legislature join me in expressing grave concerns about the state of our voters list following the 2014 provincial election. Casting a ballot for a candidate of your choice is a fundamental act in any democracy, but it’s only part of the process. If people aren’t registered and don’t have the information about where or when they vote, they’ll never get to mark a ballot. They are disenfranchised, Speaker. That’s what was happening in too many cases in my riding and across the province.

So I’m so very pleased that Elections Ontario has recognized this problem and has launched this initiative to ensure that every Ontarian who is eligible to vote is registered. Ontario PCs are proud to stand with all the parties today to proclaim the month of March as Provincial Voter Registration Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further comment?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I rise on behalf of Andrea Horwath, leader of the NDP, and our caucus in order to congratulate our friends at Elections Ontario for this initiative. I think it has been said how important it is that people can find themselves on election lists when they go to the ballot box to exercise their right to vote.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming more and more of a problem. Although this is a step in the right direction—nobody’s going to say this is a bad idea; in fact it’s quite a good idea—I hearken back to a day when you had people who went out and actually did enumeration, so that when you got to the door, the enumerator would show up, and they would find out who’s living in that house, that apartment, and how many voters were eligible to vote. It would be on the list, the corrections would be made, and you would have a list that reflected who’s in the community and who’s able to vote.

How many times have we all seen in our own individual ridings, in our elections, on all sides of the House, somebody show up at poll 23, but they’re registered somewhere else? They’ve got to be able to get in their car, if they have one, and get from point A to point B in order to be able to vote again, or they’ve got to go through a pretty elaborate process at the poll. In fact, I remember that happening in your by-election when I was helping my brother, hoping that he would be here instead of you. But congratulations nonetheless.

It is an issue that we need to deal with. What’s happening is, our electronic lists for voting are not as accurate as they need to be. Our leader raised that yesterday in the debate that took place at Ryerson, and she was right. We really need to have a system so that every voter who is able to vote, who is a citizen of the right age, is able to find themselves on the list, listed at the proper poll, so that they can execute their democratic franchise.

Is this a good initiative, what Elections Ontario is doing? Yes, but it shouldn’t be the only one. We should go back to door-to-door enumeration so everybody gets on the list and we have less confusion on election day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their comments and again, one more time, reinforce our gratitude and thanks to the commissioner and his staff for the work that they do during our elections. I appreciate it very much.

Noble Villeneuve

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I therefore call upon the member from Simcoe–Grey on another point of order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to commemorate the passing of Noble Villeneuve. Noble served in this House from 1983 to 1999 for the riding of Stormont–Dundas–Glengarry and East Grenville. He’s a former minister responsible for francophone affairs and a former Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask all members in the entire House to please rise to show respect for Noble Villeneuve.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): God rest his soul.

It is therefore time for question period.

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

The Liberals today debated one of the most appalling time allocation motions this Legislature may have ever seen. As the government tries to stop debate on their flawed Buy American bill—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Mr. Steve Clark: The truth hurts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not helpful.

Indicators are that we need to go to warnings, and I will. The next outburst, we’ll go to warnings.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: As the government tries to stop debate on their flawed Buy American bill, they are flying in the face of democracy. It is an affront to this House and to all members. They are not allowing any committee hearings in Ontario and only 30 minutes of debate—30 minutes to discuss legislation attacking our biggest trading partners.

There is no longer any doubt, Speaker, that this bill is simply a crass political ploy. How can the Premier stand in this House and support such an affront to democracy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am standing in this House and standing up for the workers in this province and standing up for the businesses in this province. I find it quite remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition would not understand how important it is that we support and stand up for the businesses and the workers in this province—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Both sides have had their turn at it. We’re now in warnings.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Our government values the deep and long-term relationship that we have had with the United States. I just came back from Washington. I met with 38 governors, with congresspeople and with senators. The impression that we are leaving in the States and the work that we’re doing to bring people together to push back against the protectionist wave that is going across that country—that is something that is very important to the well-being of the economy of this province. I would have thought that he would have understood that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: They are stopping debate when they don’t have any idea of the impact of this legislation.

Inside Trade magazine asked the Premier, “Was there any analysis done to determine if your bill would be WTO-compliant?” The answer: “There’s always a legal analysis and I actually don’t know the degree of risk.”

They asked, “Are you worried that this might be illegal at the WTO, that this might result in a challenge in Geneva?” The Premier: “We’re pretty sure that we’re okay....”

“Pretty sure” isn’t good enough. They were pretty sure that Windstream was NAFTA-compliant, but now we’re still on the hook for millions. Is the Premier pretty sure she’s okay with stopping debate on a bill that could end up in the courts?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I am absolutely certain of is that it is extremely important for us to have a proportional response to protectionism on the part of the United States. It is absolutely critical that, in this time of uncertainty, we establish that we are going to protect and we are going to support the workers and the businesses of this province. We don’t want to get into a trade war with the United States—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right. We’re there. The member from Huron–Bruce is warned.

Finish please, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The last thing we want is a trade war with the United States, but we must respond. We are working extremely hard to make sure that everyone who has a decision-making role in the NAFTA discussions understands how integrated our economies are. But if there are Buy American policies that are going to threaten our businesses and workers, we’re going to make a proportional response, and the opposition should be supportive of that.

Interjections.

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

I’ve got two on my radar now—because of my standing.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: “The Ontario Chamber of Commerce believes that the best approach for Ontario is the formation of positive bilateral co-operation with our American neighbours,” not retaliatory legislation.

The editor of the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The President of the Treasury Board is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The editor of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives magazine is quoted as saying, “Reality is US states have a WTO carve-out permitting Buy American while Ontario restrictions on US bids will be illegal.”

But it’s clear this crass political ploy will only lead to more trouble down the road, whether it’s directly with a state or with the World Trade Organization.

Is the Premier still pretty sure the bill won’t hurt Ontario’s businesses? Because I think the answer is pretty clear.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, let’s just finish the quote that the member opposite started. This is the quote that he began, from Rocco Rossi, who is the president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

He said: “The Ontario Chamber of Commerce believes that the best approach for Ontario is the formation of positive bilateral co-operation with our American neighbours. This is the approach the Premier and her government have taken to date and they must continue to do so....

“We acknowledge the province has already been active on this through their state engagement strategy.”

Mr. Speaker, we are on this. We’ve been on this long before the opposition even was aware that there was an issue. We recognize that meeting with folks in the States—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s pretty difficult to ask any one individual to stop when both sides are yelling back and forth at each other, but I can find you.

You have a wrap-up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We recognize that working hand in hand with our federal government to deepen relationships in the United States is important, and we’ve been doing that. But we’re also going to stand up for Ontario businesses and workers.

Mr. John Yakabuski: So you’re saying this is just a political question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

New question.

Home care

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, when questioned about the SEIU-backed home care agency, the Premier said, “We are working with personal support workers. We are working with the people who are on the front line ... We’re going to do that, we’re going to support them.”

Speaker, that can’t quite be correct, because the Ontario Personal Support Workers Association doesn’t support this agency and 95% of the providers are suing the government. Will the Liberals actually work with PSWs and scrap this home care agency?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said yesterday, we are talking about the people who are doing the important work of caring for the most vulnerable people in our society, whether it’s the aged or whether it is people with disabilities, providing care for folks in our communities who otherwise would not be able to have dignity.

The work of PSWs is incredibly important, which is exactly why we have been working with them. It’s exactly why we delivered on our commitment to raise the new base wage for publicly funded PSWs to $16.50 an hour. We made it clear that they had not seen increases and they needed to be supported. We created the $10-million PSW training fund, which has supported training and education for PSWs working in home and community care.

We believe that the people who are doing this work need to be supported, and they need and deserve to have a professional organization. That’s why we’ve been working with them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Again, when questioned about the SEIU-backed home care agency, the Liberals cited other countries and states that use this model.

Washington state: Great; that’s one rife with controversy, alleged malfeasance and several lawsuits. They mentioned Australia, which actually does not use a central government agency. In fact, none of the countries the Liberals referenced have created a central government agency outside of that one in the US.

The Ontario model does not make sense—not for patients, not for providers, not for PSWs. It is clear this is only for the SEIU. I again ask: Will the Liberals scrap this agency?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To what the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care said yesterday, let’s just make sure we understand that what we’re trying to do is make sure that people who need the services of PSWs have choice, that they have the opportunity to get—

Mr. Steve Clark: Oh, we understand: donations first. That’s how your government operates.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —are able to get the care when they need it and where they need it.

So, to that end, we’ve committed further investments to PSWs in our 2017 budget, including a continued investment of $250 million in 2017-18 for community and personal support services, and up to $10 million annually for eligible organizations for education and training in the home and community care sector through that PSW training fund. These investments will help meet the increased demand.

We recognize that there’s increased demand. We recognize that there is pressure on PSWs, which is why we are working with them to make sure that they have the tools to deliver, as I’ve said, the care that people need, and that patients have access to the choice that they are looking for.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Eleven agencies that represent 95% of the providers are suing the Liberal government. Their judicial application reads, “Home care patients, including those who would be served by the agency under the ministry’s plan, are amongst the most vulnerable individuals in Ontario, and the government’s unilateral decision to create the agency will cause distress, confusion and anxiety.”

The agency will cause distress, confusion and anxiety. It’s shameful that the government is proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, is a home care system full of distress, confusion and anxiety really the best system for Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Let’s be very clear about what we are talking about when we’re talking about our model for self-directed care. We estimate that only 1% of all home care clients in Ontario would be eligible for the services of this PSW-employing organization. The program will only be implemented in a small number of regions in the province at the outset. Some four LHINs will be involved. These self-directed care initiatives will be subject to the most rigorous third-party evaluation based on looking at cost effectiveness, and I think the most important piece is client satisfaction.

Our goal is to look after clients in their homes with a particular model where there is continuity of care, where the PSW involved is totally involved in—

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

New question.

Hospital funding

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. Donna Simmonds is an 87-year-old constituent of mine. On Tuesday, Donna’s daughter stopped in to visit her at her home, and her mom wasn’t looking very good. She rushed Donna to the hospital in Welland right away. They were told Donna had had a heart attack.

What happened in the ER should never happen to any family in the province of Ontario. For nine hours, Donna, a senior, 87 years old, was put in a wheelchair in a crowded emergency room hallway to wait for a bed to become available. The hospital was so overcrowded that there wasn’t even a stretcher available to lay an 87-year-old senior who had had a heart attack on.

How can the Premier hear these stories day after day in this House and continue to say that there isn’t anything going wrong in our hospitals in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, let me say to the family that I’m sorry they are going through that difficult time. It would be stressful for anyone. I’m very sorry that that mother and daughter had to go through that experience.

Mr. Speaker, we know there is more to be done. We know that there is more that needs to be done in terms of alleviating the stress on hospitals. That’s why $500 million was in our last budget. That’s why we’ve invested in 1,200 new beds, and those are being extended.

We recognize that there has been, as the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has said, a particularly difficult period because of the flu surge right now. We recognize that we need to continue to support our hospitals, as well as—to the previous question—care in the community, because there is an increasing need because of the aging demographic. We understand that and we are working with our hospitals to ensure that we continue to put the resources in that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Donna was in severe pain for nine hours. She’s 87 years old. She’s a senior. She has severe arthritis in her back. She was forced to wait nine hours in a wheelchair in a hallway. She should have been in a bed, on a heart monitor. Donna is still in the emergency room waiting to be moved to a floor, one of two floors in the Welland hospital.

How does the Premier hear stories like this, stories like Donna’s, day in and day out, and continue to make Conservative-style cuts to our hospitals and health care system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I also, of course, am very touched and concerned about what we’ve just heard today from the member from Welland.

As the Premier said, of course, we have been taking steps to alleviate these sorts of situations. As I think everyone knows, in the 2017 budget, we invested over $500 million in funding—that’s over half a billion dollars—in Ontario hospitals, giving a really significant increase to the hospital sector. So we are working on the hospital side of things.

But in this particular case, we’re talking about a senior. We are working very hard on the community side, hopefully to prevent such situations as we’ve just heard. In addition to adding these 1,200 hospital beds through the funding increase, we’re also providing some 207 affordable housing units for seniors who need additional community supports when they’re discharged from hospital. We’re also creating a number of transitional care spaces outside of hospital for a further very large number of patients.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: Hospital overcrowding and hallway medicine are not new. They really are a reality in this province, and the situation didn’t get like this overnight. The last Conservative government fired 6,000 nurses and closed 28 hospitals. The Liberals have shortchanged hospitals for the last 15 years—$300 million last year alone—forcing cuts to hospital staff and to people like Donna, who I talked about today, in the emergency department.

Why is the Premier carrying on the Conservative tradition of cutting health care services for Ontario families and people like Donna?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course the hospital beds are most important in the acute care system, but some of these other community supports are exceptionally important as well.

I just want to make sure that the member opposite knows about the 150 new transitional care beds at the Reactivation Care Centre—this is particularly to serve the northern Toronto area and York region; it’s very important in my community—and also 75 beds at University Health Network’s former Hillcrest site to provide care for those transitioning out of hospital.

I do agree, certainly, with the comments in relation to the previous Harris government, but I’d like to remind the member that when the NDP were in power, they closed 24% of acute hospital beds in the province. They closed 13% of mental health beds, and closed a grand total, in their last budget, of 9,645 hospital beds.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre.

The Hospital for Sick Children is a world-class hospital. Its amazing doctors and health care professionals perform little miracles every day.

Yesterday I toured SickKids hospital and spoke with children and parents. It was very clear that the Premier’s answers yesterday were a huge disappointment in light of the crisis that they are coping with. SickKids is running out of room. It has been overcrowded every single month for the past year. In January, staff treated more than 8,000 children in their emergency department, setting a record for more patients than at any point in the hospital’s 143-year history.

The overcrowding at SickKids hasn’t been solved; it’s getting worse. Why won’t this Premier do what’s right for children and stop the overcrowding in our hospitals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We certainly do recognize the stress placed this past year on our hospitals, and particularly on SickKids. Having interned there, and having had my daughter have surgery there, I think we all know what excellent care that hospital provides.

We know that our health care providers are stressed. They are working overtime. They’re doing their very best, with their unwavering commitment to patient care.

But to go back to what we did this last fall, we invested $100 million to create 1,200 new hospital beds across the province. That’s equivalent to six new medium-sized hospitals. We’ve begun to see how valuable this additional support has been to our hospitals, and we’ve already made the commitment that we’re going to renew this investment, increasing the new funding to our hospitals for the coming year to $187 million.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: The incredible health care professionals at SickKids are doing the very best they can in very cramped spaces, but it is this government that is not doing enough to help. The neonatal ICU is running at 115% occupancy. Nurses are tripping over equipment. Every hallway, every nook and cranny, is jam-packed. Children who receive bone marrow transplants have to stay in a tiny room without a bathroom or a shower for six long weeks.

SickKids needs immediate relief now, and capital investments to rebuild and expand its facility, so why is the Premier refusing to stop overcrowding and to help SickKids?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Specifically to SickKids, through the 2017 budget, our government increased annual funding to SickKids by some $9 million to continue to support them in their delivery of world-class health care to the children most in need. Since September, Ontario has provided SickKids with funding for 20 new beds.

We commit to this ongoing work with our hospitals to analyze exactly what they need and to provide it over time.

This year, as has been said, has been particularly difficult. Influenza B, one of the strains that was circulating, particularly affected children in this last year. The need for the surge capacity obviously has been proven this year. We will continue to analyze the needs and accommodate as necessary.

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

M me France Gélinas: For too long, people across this province have been asked to settle for overcrowded hospitals or for cuts to our health care system. It should not be that way. It absolutely does not have to be that way. SickKids should not be forced to operate at 115% occupancy in its neonatal intensive care unit. It shouldn’t be losing world-class surgeons, and it should not be forced to provide 21st-century medicine to the sickest of children in spaces that have not been updated since 1949.

What will it take for this Premier to stop denying the problem, stop making excuses and start providing the capital investments that SickKids needs right now?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Certainly, we are looking very closely at the capital needs of our hospitals. There has been some allocation of funding for planning and for new construction. I just want to make sure that the member opposite does understand, because since 2003, we’ve increased our investments in health care each and every year. There have not been any cuts. We have been increasing funding to treat more patients, so we have been able to improve care each and every year and to reduce wait times to some of the very shortest in the country.

We have more to do. We acknowledge that, but we’re listening to our hospitals and we’re working towards, obviously, maintaining this world-class system that we have here in Ontario.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. A little Jeopardy for the minister: This hospital’s emergency department had the busiest month in its 143-year history in January 2018. For the past year, this hospital has been over capacity, and since December, the occupancy rate has been over 108%.

Mr. Speaker, this story is nothing new. The dire straits that Ontario hospitals are facing today are not rare or even occasional occurrences in the province anymore. It’s happening across my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, and in Sudbury, Hamilton and Ottawa. In fact, I would have an easier time telling the minister where the hospitals that aren’t chronically overcrowded are.

Speaker, based on the challenges I’ve described to you and the questions that I’ve posed, could the minister tell me which overcrowded Ontario hospital I’m speaking about?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I do want to say to the member opposite that we have a very comprehensive system of health care in this province. It includes some 144 hospitals, I believe; 143, perhaps. There have been some amalgamations. But of course that’s not all. We have so many ancillary community support services, and we are committed to looking regionally at the needs. We know that the demographics in this province do vary considerably.

This is why our government established local health integration networks, so that we have that local input to ensure that we have individuals—obviously, everyone knows LHINs are governed by boards. They have divisions looking at and analyzing constantly the needs of their communities.

So we respond as a ministry to what we hear from the ground, and we do our very best to accommodate those needs in a thoughtful, analytic way. We will continue to make this progress that we have made very substantially over the course of our government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: What we’ve seen over the past 15 years is this government invest in large-bureaucracy administration. We’ve seen them form the CCACs, where 39 cents of every dollar go into administration. We’ve seen the Ministry of Health expand from five assistant deputy ministers to over 20, with a full complement of staff.

What we’ve seen, though, is a cut in front-line services and overcrowding in our hospitals. The situation I described previously is at SickKids, just down the street: a world-renowned children’s hospital conducting cutting-edge research and providing innovative, life-saving care. But it’s bursting at the seams. Children in critical care are having to squeeze into a room with five other patients and their families, sometimes in the most stressful and scary times of their lives.

Speaker, this government should have seen this coming. It’s not because it’s a one-off year. It’s years of underfunding despite warnings from SickKids and other hospitals in the province. So will the minister finally listen and commit to fully funding our hospitals in this upcoming budget?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, any suggestion that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is a bloated bureaucracy is a complete myth. In the past 13 years, the health ministry budget has almost doubled, increasing from about $30 billion to $52 billion, while administrative staff have decreased by 50%.

We are committed to ensuring that Ontarians have the health care that they need where and when they need it. I’d like to ask the member opposite: Where exactly does the opposition party stand on this? As far as we know, the PCs have absolutely zero dollars for hospitals in their platform.

Pharmacare

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, my constituency offices, like probably every constituency office in this House, have been having parents come to our office completely stressed out that their children, who used to get medication by the private coverers—the coverage that they got from their work benefits—once they show up at the pharmacy, if the drug is not covered by pharmacare, they end up being rejected and having to go back through an entire bureaucratic process of trying to get the medication covered.

For young kids, this is a very serious issue, as you well know, because a number of them can’t be off the medication for a period of time, because of their medical condition.

Why did the government put in place a program if you hadn’t figured out how to make sure that people would not have interruptions when it comes to getting the drugs that they need?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: The reason we have instituted OHIP+, of course, is to ensure that every child in this province has access to the drugs when and where they need them. We have four million children and youth who can now access 4,400 drugs. These are essential, of course: antibiotics to treat infections, asthma inhalers, insulin, seizure medications, antidepressants, etc.—everything that a child needs.

Obviously, we have instituted this to level the playing field, to ensure that every child has the opportunity to thrive and to have good health. We instituted this program, and so many people have already taken advantage of it. I’ll give some more information in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, as New Democrats, we don’t need to be preached to on the benefits of pharmacare; we’re the ones who came out with it. The fact that you followed, that’s a good thing.

But the point is this: I can tell you that if we were to put together a pharmacare program to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Come to order.

Finish, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You have a responsibility when putting together such a program to make sure that kids don’t fall off the system. I have at our constituency offices—I’m sure that we have it at all our constituency offices, as you do—people coming to our doors and saying, “I want to renew the prescription for my child, and I was not able to because of the bureaucratic bungling of the creation of this new plan.”

My question to you is: What are you going to do to fix it, so kids don’t have to go without the medication that should be covered by the plan in the first place?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: This Premier and our government have taken a historic step in a program of this magnitude, a program that is positively benefiting four million children and youth here in Ontario.

Leading up to January 1, we worked closely with a number of prescribers, specialty clinician groups and insurance providers to ensure a smooth transition to coverage through OHIP+. So in fact, over 800,000 young people aged 24 and under have already had their prescriptions filled at no cost under OHIP+. More than 1.7 million prescriptions have been filled to date under OHIP+, so the numbers continue to grow.

Of course, we know that while this program does cover some 4,400 drugs, there’s also the opportunity, if a drug is not covered in this way, to access a drug through the Exceptional Access Program. I, as a physician, remember very well taking advantage of that excellent program.

Public transit

Mr. Han Dong: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. When I’m out in my community talking to residents about their thoughts and concerns, I always hear, “Transit.” Transit can make or break a person’s day. That is why it’s so important that we not only have enough transit, but we also have to have good-quality transit that people want to use.

I know that the people of Trinity–Spadina live very busy lives. When they are on the move, they are often responding to their work emails, arranging plans for dinner or taking care of one of many other tasks they have to do on a daily basis.

Would the minister please tell the members of this House what our government is doing to improve the transit experience for riders by making it easier to get online while riding on our GO network?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I really want to thank the member for Trinity–Spadina for his question, but also for his staunch advocacy on behalf of transit riders in his community.

Speaker, last week I was really pleased to be in the member’s community at the UP Express station at Union Station to make a very exciting announcement: Our government is bringing WiFi to the GO network.

In June 2017 we released an expression of interest for WiFi providers. Now, coming this spring, we’ll be testing the service on two trains and four GO buses. This approach will allow us to receive important feedback from commuters so that when we roll out WiFi across the entire network, we get it right.

WiFi on GO trains and buses is the number one customer service improvement requested by GO Transit riders, and that’s exactly what we’re delivering. This is a major step forward, and I look forward to seeing the results of this trial as we plan to bring WiFi service across our entire GO network.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for her great work and the answer.

I know that WiFi will encourage even more commuters to take transit. Making transit more enjoyable and more convenient helps commuters to make the choice to leave their cars at home and hop on transit at their local GO station or streetcar, bus or subway stop.

Speaker, I know that we need to continue to make these types of improvements. At the same time, we can’t afford to press pause on building new transit and increased services. This is some