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

March 2, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Mar-02 vol. Array (PDF)

L149 - Mon 2 Mar 2020 / Lun 2 mar 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 2 March 2020 Lundi 2 mars 2020

Members’ Statements

Ontario Disability Support Program

Second Harvest

Mental health services

James L. Dunn

Municipal development

Home James

Taxi insurance

Coldest Night of the Year

Speech-language pathologists and audiologists

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Education funding

Education funding

Education funding

Vaping products

Licence plates

Education funding

Ontario film and television industry

Licence plates

Midwifery

Employment services

Skilled trades

Affaires francophones

Education funding

Nuclear energy

Ontario Disability Support Program

Public transit / Transports en commun

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Introduction of Bills

Black Mental Health Day Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la Journée de la santé mentale des Noirs

Motions

Private members’ public business

Committee membership

Petitions

Long-term care

Agri-food industry

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Road safety

Long-term care

Agri-food industry

Long-term care

Nuclear energy

Palliative care

Nuclear energy

Affordable housing

Agri-food industry

Documents gouvernementaux

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 1015.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to acknowledge this territory as the traditional gathering place for many Indigenous nations, most recently the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

This being the first sitting Monday of the month, I would ask everyone to join in the singing of the Canadian national anthem, followed by the royal anthem.

Singing of the national anthem.

Singing of the royal anthem.

Members’ Statements

Ontario Disability Support Program

Mr. Joel Harden: This morning I want to address the troubling development for people with disabilities in Ontario, specifically for recipients of the Ontario Disability Support Program. Two weeks ago, this government announced a pilot project to privatize employment services for ODSP recipients in Hamilton-Niagara, Peel and Muskoka-Kawarthas—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: In other countries—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the member to take his seat.

I recognize that we have new standing orders and that we’re still getting used to them, but I would ask that all members keep their voices to a lower level so that we can hear the member who has the floor.

Again, I’ll return to the member for Ottawa Centre. Continue where you were at, please.

Restart the clock.

Mr. Joel Harden: In other countries where ODSP employment services have been privatized, including the United Kingdom and Australia, the results have been disastrous for people with disabilities. In the United Kingdom, a French corporation called Atos Corp. was given a contract to conduct work capability assessments determining whether or not people with disabilities were fit for employment. Between 2011 and 2014, over 2,000 people with disabilities in the United Kingdom died after their benefits were ended because they failed work capability assessments. Atos Corp. profited handsomely off the misery and humiliation of people with disabilities.

Speaker, in Ontario we cannot go down this road. The 500,000 people who are living on ODSP are already living on miserly low incomes legislated by decades of governments in this province. If we want their dignity to be upheld, if the job of this place is to protect the most vulnerable people in our province, we cannot condone the privatization of employment services for the Ontario Disability Support Program. We’re better than this. Let’s stop it.

Second Harvest

Mr. Roman Baber: Today I’d like to recognize, and tell the House about, a very special, non-profit constituent. Operating since 1985 and located in my riding of York Centre, Second Harvest is the largest food rescue organization in Canada. It works across the supply chain, from farm to retail, to capture surplus food before it ends up in landfill.

Last year, Second Harvest recovered more than 15 million pounds of nutritious unsold food, focusing on protein, dairy and produce. They rescue food before it becomes waste and redistribute it to approximately 1,100 food banks and social organizations across the GTA. With help from hundreds of companies, foundations and the community at large, they rescue enough food to provide over 43,000 meals a day. Since 1985, it is estimated that Second Harvest rescued and delivered more than 155 million pounds of food. Their vision is: “No Waste. No Hunger.” Their mission is to grow an efficient food recovery network to feed folks in need while reducing the environmental impact of avoidable food waste.

I’m proud to partner up with Second Harvest to save more food and feed more people. Last year, I introduced the management of Second Harvest to one of my favourite ministers, the Minister of Agriculture, in the hopes of bridging gaps between Ontario’s farmers and Second Harvest. In September of last year, I was delighted to announce a Trillium grant in the amount of $150,000. The grant will enable Second Harvest to purchase an additional truck and deliver more food to people in need.

I’m sincerely grateful to the great people at Second Harvest for their tireless work for our community. I also invite all members of the House to approach me with any—

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

Mental health services

M me France Gélinas: Today, my colleagues from Parkdale–High Park and York South–Weston will introduce a bill to declare the first Monday in March as Black Mental Health Day.

Black Ontarians are resilient. They are strong. They are survivors. They have made and continue to make significant contributions to our province across all sectors, including politics, education, business and sports.

Unfortunately, entrenched, pervasive systemic racism has resulted in their continued experience of discrimination. Black Ontarians face discrimination and racism almost every single day of their lives, be it in our schools, in our hospitals or on our streets. This constant micro-trauma is really hard on one’s mental health.

Black Ontarians, the NDP caucus and others like myself call on this government to introduce three actions:

(1) Declare the first Monday in March as Black Mental Health Day in Ontario.

(2) Mandate the collection of race-based data by health care providers. We must collect and publicly report health outcomes based on race and ethnicity to drive improvement and accountability.

(3) Fund culturally appropriate, community-based health services to improve health outcomes. We can do this by scaling up good investments, like Taibu CHC.

Speaker, I think we can do this. By next year, Ontario will recognize Black Mental Health Day, will collect race-based data and will have culturally appropriate services.

James L. Dunn

Mr. Percy Hatfield: We just celebrated Black History Month, and in Windsor, our public board did a wonderful thing. They named a new school after the first Black man ever elected as a school trustee in our area. He was James L. Dunn.

Back in 1883, we had three schools: one for the white Protestants, one for the Catholics and one for the coloured kids. The coloured school wasn’t much of one, compared to the other two, so Mr. Dunn tried to enrol his daughter in the white one. They wouldn’t take her. He appealed to the school board. They turned him down. He took them to court. His case was dismissed. So he ran for the school board and was elected. He served four terms, and then he was elected to city council. Our schools were desegregated in 1888, thanks in part to James L. Dunn.

The new school is actually being built in his old neighbourhood. James was the son of former slaves. He started as a clerk in a varnish factory. He did well. He ended up owning that factory. He became a paint supplier to companies such as Massey-Harris. Along the way, he served as a justice of the peace and was a founding member of the Coloured Masons of Windsor. He was only 41 when he died in 1889. He had the largest funeral ever seen in Windsor up to that point.

I hope the school’s future students will channel his spirit, and in his honour continue to fight against anti-Black racism wherever they encounter it along life’s highway.

Municipal development

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve lived with my family in the community of north Toronto since 1982, and in that time I’ve witnessed the transformation of north Toronto neighbourhoods. One of the persistent issues in my political career has been the controls on that intensification of population.

I have worked with local councillors and with residents’ and ratepayers’ associations like FONTRA, the Federation of North Toronto Residents’ Associations; SERRA, South Eglinton Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association; and now the Republic Residents’ Association, to monitor and work to support reasonable development without destroying neighbourhoods. In fact, it was this experience that helped to inform my commitment to reform the Ontario Municipal Board, which happened twice under the previous Liberal government.

Sadly, the reforms that dispensed with the OMB and replaced it with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal under our government, which gave greater control to local councils to determine the development footprint in their jurisdictions, have been reversed by the current government. They have retained the name of the LPAT but have undermined the central purpose of the reforms. Of course, developers are very happy with these changes because, once again, they’ll be able to essentially ignore the quality of life, the infrastructure and the safety concerns of residents.

Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to welcome the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to come to talk to the people who are actually concerned about these issues, about the changes to development charges, about the changes to the community benefits charges. We welcome him, and I hope that this time, if he comes, he will actually talk to the residents who are concerned about these issues.

Home James

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I was pleased to address a luncheon banquet on Sunday, March 1, for this past year’s Chatham-Kent Home James ride program. During the past December festive season, Home James and its over 90 volunteers provided rides to over 1,600 people so that no one drove home impaired from alcohol or drugs. Their slogan is “Make Us Your Last Call.”

Back in 1999, I was the chair for Operation Red Nose. That was 20 years ago. And, Speaker, if you recall that was the year leading up to—yes—Y2K. As chair, my goal on that New Year’s Eve was to ensure that my volunteers remained safe in case of a technology meltdown. But as we all know, fortunately that meltdown didn’t come to pass.

Special thanks to OPP Sergeant Chris Hogg, Jodie Hogg, Chatam-Kent police chief Gary Conn, their executive team and all volunteers and sponsors for making this past year, once again, a huge success. This past Christmas season saw over 526 rides provided and over 16,000 kilometres driven while providing a safe ride home to the previously mentioned 1,600 people.

This is Home James’s eighth year of operation in Chatham-Kent, and I know there will be many more as the communities in Chatham–Kent grow under our great government.

Taxi insurance

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Recently, I met with Hasan Savehilaghi, the CEO of Yellow London Taxi, as well as several other London taxi drivers. With less than 30 days’ notice and without any explanation, these drivers saw their insurance premiums almost double last fall.

Yellow London Taxi is not alone. Across the province, cab drivers, who operate on slim margins already and work up to 18 hours a day just to scrape by, are seeing steep premium increases. Many are older, immigrant drivers who worry they will not be able to find other jobs if they can no longer afford insurance. Some have been forced out by the unilateral cancellation of their coverage.

Speaker, an estimated 1,200 families in London and tens of thousands more across Ontario rely on taxicab industry employment. Ontario residents and visitors count on taxis for affordable, reliable transportation. That’s why the Financial Services Commission called attention to sky-high taxi insurance six years ago, recommending that a committee be struck to solve this problem. That recommendation has been ignored, first by the Liberals and now by the Conservatives. With the recent catastrophic insurance increases, the urgency of addressing this issue has never been greater.

Taxis are already heavily regulated when it comes to rates, equipment and how they operate. Why is this government hanging them out to dry when it comes to their insurance?

Coldest Night of the Year

Mr. Will Bouma: I am pleased to rise today to speak about and raise awareness for an important event that recently occurred in Brantford. On February 22, teams of people from the city of Brantford, the county of Brant and beyond came together for the annual Coldest Night of the Year charity walk in Brantford.

Every year, people from across the community walk to raise money for causes which support people suffering from hunger, homelessness and neglect in our community. This year was no different, with the event seeing excellent participation and support. Twenty-five teams and about 175 walkers participated in the walk and collectively raised over $30,000.

This year, proceeds from the event went to the Why Not Youth Centre, which serves disadvantaged youth in the downtown core of our city. The money raised from the Coldest Night of the Year will go towards the programming of the youth centre for homeless and at-risk youth. They assist these young people by providing food and clothing, helping them learn life and job skills and much more.

I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to the organizers of the walk and a congratulations for another successful year.

Speech-language pathologists and audiologists

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: When we think about audiologists and speech-language pathologists, we might think about hearing loss or stuttering or other speech impediments. But the work of these health care professionals is so much broader. In fact, it’s much more than you think.

Every day in schools, treatment centres, hospitals and private practice, Ontario’s speech-language pathologists and audiologists are helping people of all ages overcome a broad range of disorders and challenges so that they can thrive socially, academically and professionally.

The term “speech-language pathologist” can be a mouthful—I’m not trying to be funny—but when you learn all the areas they touch, they are deserving of a

long title. Speaking, language, literacy, cognitive communication, feeding and swallowing all call for an SLP.

Audiologists address not just hearing, but also balance, and studies show that getting a hearing aid can slow the progression and impact of dementia. Like the symptoms, the causes can be many. It can be something you’re born with, or caused by injury, illness or aging.

It’s safe to say that almost all of us or someone we care about will need the services of an SLP or an audiologist at some point.

Speaker, I ask our MPPs to join me in welcoming to the Ontario Legislature the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists today, because they do so much more than you think. Welcome.

Introduction of Visitors

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome Michau van Speyk from the Ontario Autism Coalition back to Queen’s Park today. Welcome back to Queen’s Park, Michau.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I’d like to welcome this year’s City Shaper OIC 2020 champions: Brianna Lovshin, Muriel Lovshin, Chloe Filice, Harrison Cazzin, Leo Cazzin, Ethan Yam, Jerry Huang, Leela Bhide, Santhiya Kuhan; parents Sherry Darvish, Dennis Cazzin, Kevin Yam, Sharavati Bhide; Coach Eric Borromeo; and Madeline Della Mora. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I would like to welcome the following guests: Mayor Doug Lawrance from the municipality of Sioux Lookout; Chief Lorraine Crane from Slate Falls First Nation; Delford Mitchell from Slate Falls First Nation; Norman Chapman from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug; Bruce Sakakeep from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug; Vicki Blanchard from the municipality of Sioux Lookout; Darrell Morgan from Morgan Fuels, Sioux Lookout; Jason Thompson of Superior Strategies; Michelle Larose from the municipality of Sioux Lookout; and Jody Brinkman from the municipality of Sioux Lookout. Meegwetch.

M lle Amanda Simard: I’d like to introduce and welcome page Finnegan’s family, who are here from my riding because he’s the page captain today.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce a good friend of mine. He’s also the MP for Perth–Wellington, John Nater.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s University of Windsor day in the House today. I’d like to welcome President Dr. Robert Gordon, Chancellor Dr. Mary Jo Haddad, Dr. Michael Siu, Dr. Chris Houser, Dr. Lisa Porter, John Coleman, Mary-Ann Rennie and Jane Boyd. There’s a reception in room 230, and everyone is invited.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I’d like to welcome Allan Fogwill, president of Canadian Energy Research Institute; Babita Gupta, director of Emerging Sports; and Sundeep Misra, journalist and director of Emerging Sports. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Doly Begum: I’d like to welcome a special guest from my alma mater, from University College London: Emily Prince, from the alumni relations team.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I’d like to welcome representatives from McMaster University. Please join them at their reception today from 5 to 7 in the dining room. Everyone is welcome.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I’d like to welcome representatives from McMaster University, which is in my riding of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas: David Farrar, president; Karen Mossman, vice-president, research; Mary Williams, vice-president, university advancement; Andrea Farquhar, assistant vice-president, public affairs, and my neighbour; and Kristen Neagle, public affairs. There will be a reception today at 5 o’clock. Welcome, McMaster University, to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Parm Gill: I’d like to recognize our page captain today: Hamza Sheikh. I’d also like to welcome his family, who are here today: his dad, Basharat Sheikh; Munawar Sultana; and Nimra Sheikh. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Markham–Unionville.

Mr. Billy Pang: I’d like to welcome [inaudible] .

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to welcome two guests: Roger Selman, president of the Ramara Chamber of Commerce, and his daughter Caitlin Selman. Thank you for being here today.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to welcome the entire team from Innovative Medicines Canada, who are here for their lobby day. I invite everyone to join them in room 228 at 5 p.m. this evening.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature Jeremy Istead, my OLIP intern, who is starting in my office today, and who is also a native of Peterborough; and another friend of mine, Rana Shamoon, an all-around great person. Thanks for being here.

Question Period

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last year, the Ford government held consultations with parents, teachers, school boards and students about their plans to increase class sizes and to introduce risky mandatory online learning. Why has the government kept the results from the public?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As you know, the minister has been working diligently to come to an agreement with our union partners. We have brought forward a proposal that would see Ontario still remain with some of the lowest class sizes in the entire country. We’re very proud of that and we hope that, over the coming days, we will come to a resolution that keeps our students in the classroom. Thank you.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Perhaps the Acting Premier didn’t hear my question. Let me be really clear about this: Thanks to documents that were tabled at the Ontario Labour Relations Board last week, we now know exactly what parents, students and educators told this government, and it is the opposite of what the Ford government went ahead and did.

For over a week, the Premier has claimed that parents back his plan for classroom cuts, larger classes, mandatory online learning and conflict with teachers. The Premier has obviously not read the results of his own consultation. I would direct government members to the NDP website, where we are going to do what this government refused to do and make that consultation public.

When will this government acknowledge they’re wrong and parents, teachers and students are right?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As I just said, we’re working very closely. The minister’s been working for many months now to come to a positive resolution, one that puts our students first and keeps them in the classroom. We’re very proud of that. We want to make sure that our students benefit from some of the lowest class sizes in the entire country.

We’ve heard that from parents; the member is quite right. We did have extensive consultations, and we understand that. That’s why we are putting forward very aggressive proposals to keep class sizes at the lowest possible level, some of the lowest in Canada. But ultimately, we want to come to a resolution, an agreement with our teaching partners, one that keeps our kids in the classroom. Hopefully, we can come to that soon.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Acting Premier: It’s mind-boggling. You conduct a million-dollar consultation—I have the

summary report right here—and you refuse repeated requests to make this public. We had to go to the OLRB ourselves to get a copy of this. But we’re going to make it public so that everybody in this province gets to see what you don’t want them to see.

When the Ford government increased class sizes, they claimed that consultations showed support for the idea.

I want to actually share a few of the quotes from this report: “Student achievement will be negatively impacted by larger class sizes.... The decision to increase class sizes is not sufficiently grounded in evidence.”

This is a government that claimed that this was going to make students more resilient. Why would the Ford government claim parents and educators supported this scheme when they clearly did not?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, what parents want is they want their kids in the classroom. That’s what parents have told us. We want to come to an agreement with our partners in the education system, one that is in the best interests of our students. I would hope the opposition wants the same.

That’s why we put significant resources back into education since the day we started. That’s why the Minister of Education has put a plan forward to ensure that our students have better results in math. That’s why we’re putting more resources to ensure that our teachers can teach math.

We want kids to be in the classroom, and I would hope that the member opposite and the members opposite would join us in getting that result. We think we’re close. We want a negotiated settlement with our union partners in education, and I hope we can get to that over the coming days.

Education funding

Ms. Sandy Shaw: To the Acting Premier: Over the weekend, news broke that school boards in Halton and Peel are now putting staffing decisions on hold because they lack answers from the government on their plans for class sizes.

This is just another reason to do the right thing. Will this government do what parents, students, school boards and countless others have begged them to do and tell Ontarians that they will not be increasing class sizes?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As the member will know, we’ve already said that we would reduce class sizes from 28 to 25. That’s very good news but, ultimately, many of these issues can be resolved at the bargaining table.

The minister and the government, the crown, have been negotiating with our union partners for over 200 days. We would expect that over that time period, we could come to an agreement. That’s what parents want. At the same time, parents have told us they want better results for the money they put into education.

Teachers have told us the exact same thing. They want to have a curriculum that puts our students first, and that’s what we are doing—more money for STEM, more money for math. That’s what parents want. Ultimately, we want the same thing as parents: We want better results for students. We want our students in the classroom. We ask our union partners to work with us to get that done because it’s in the best interest of students, it’s in the best interest of parents and it’s in the best interest of taxpayers who are also teachers, Mr. Speaker, and we can get this done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

The results of this short-sighted move are causing chaos in all of our schools.

Will this government just announce today that they won’t be moving to expand class sizes?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we’ve already announced that we would be maintaining the lowest class sizes at the elementary level, the lowest class sizes in Canada. At the same time, we’ve announced a reduction in class size from 28 to 25 in the secondary stream.

We understand how important it is to put more money back in education. That’s why we’ve increased education funding to the highest level in Ontario history. We’re putting more money into math. We’re putting more money into STEM—because that’s what parents have also told us. They want better results for their kids so that they can participate in the progress, growth and prosperity that this government has ushered in in almost two years.

Now we need our union partners, after 300 days of bargaining, to come to the table and put the interests of students first. That’s what we’re doing, and I would hope that our union partners would do the same.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Unlike the minister, the parents and students understand an increase is an increase and a cut is a cut, despite what you say. And day after day, the Premier and the education minister have stood here and have claimed that parents and teachers and students were telling them to keep going. Yet every day, when the Premier said those words, he was sitting on a report that told him parents, teachers, school boards and students actually said the opposite.

No one wants the Ford government’s classroom cuts. No one wants the classroom chaos the Ford government has brought us. No one wants school boards thrown into chaos. Why do the Premier and the Minister of Education keep claiming that they are doing what parents want when the report says that they are doing the exact opposite?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Look, we’re maintaining some of the lowest class sizes in Canada at the elementary level. We’ve reduced class size from 28 to 25 at the secondary level.

I’m a parent. I have two kids in the education system, two kids who are struggling, quite frankly, with math. When I go to the local math tutor, it is full of parents. They pay a lot of money to get extra tutoring. That should be the responsibility of the government, and that’s why we are taking action to put more money back into math and the sciences. When I sat at the local math tutor and I spoke to Lois, do you know what she said to me? She said, “I can’t afford this. This is what you should be doing.”

We can do better and we will do better. That’s why we’re putting more money into math. That’s why we’re giving more money to educating teachers so that they can do a better job. But ultimately, isn’t that our job—to make sure that the youngest generation has access to the best public school system in the country? We’re doing that, Mr. Speaker. And I would ask the members opposite to join with us in helping make sure our kids are in the classroom.

Education funding

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Premier and the Minister of Education keep claiming that parents and students are also clamouring for more online learning and larger classes. What they never mention is what the government’s own consultations have told them: first, that mandatory online learning doesn’t work for all students, and second, that larger class sizes will have the greatest negative effect on Black students and other marginalized students. Why did this government ignore this advice?

Hon. Paul Calandra: We’re working very closely with our partners in education to make sure that we have the lowest class sizes in Ontario. We’ve done that at the elementary stream. At the secondary stream, we’ve reduced class sizes.

But ultimately, Mr. Speaker, what we’re doing is putting more money into the classrooms, more money into education. We are hitting record levels of funding while investing more into math, while investing more into sciences, while investing more into special education. That’s what parents are asking us to do.

We’ve set aside record levels when it comes to capital expansion. We’ve had a moratorium on rural school closures.

We’re getting the job done because parents expect us to get the job done. Now what we need, after 300 days of bargaining: We need our union partners in education to put the needs of students first and keep them in the classroom.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Back to the Acting Premier: I was actually speaking specifically about Black and other marginalized students, but that’s okay.

Here are some quotes. These are quotes from the government’s own consultation. The first: “E-learning courses should be optional.” The second quote: “Increasing class sizes at any grade level will have the greatest negative effect on Black students and other marginalized students.”

The government was warned not to do this. They did it anyway. Why did the government ask for the advice if they never intended to listen?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we listen to parents, and we do so constantly. We’ve heard from parents that they want more money in education. That’s why we increased funding to record levels. We heard parents when they said that their kids are failing in math and sciences, and we are putting more money into math and sciences—and not just in front-line education, but towards our students. When it comes to online learning, we’ve reduced it from four to two.

But there are a lot of other things we can do. We can make sure that the best teacher has the option to teach our students. That’s why we’re talking about regulation 274.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is, after 300 days of bargaining with our partners in education, it is time. It is time to put the students first, to listen to parents, to get our students back into the classroom so that they can continue on and we can continue to build the best education system in Canada.

Vaping products

Ms. Donna Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The number of young people using nicotine vaping products has been increasing. We have seen promotional campaigns in retail stores and the sale of flavoured products contribute to this unfortunate trend.

On January 1 of this year, our government acted to end the promotion of vape products except in specialty stores, which are only open to those 19 years of age or older. This was done after extensive consultation with stakeholders on the causes and impact of youth vaping.

Last week, additional safeguards were announced. Minister, will you update this House on what our government is doing to protect our young people?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for her question.

Our government heard directly from concerned parents who are worried about the health of their kids. We heard from clinical experts who have been observing with alarm the increased usage of these products. We also heard directly from young people through our direct consultations with them.

That’s why, last Friday, we announced protective measures to curb the alarming rise in youth vaping. We are restricting the availability of most flavoured products to specialty vape stores. We’re also increasing access to services that help people quit vaping.

This is an issue that we take very seriously, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to providing more information in my supplemental answer.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an important step in protecting youth from becoming addicted to nicotine. While vaping is considered by some to be a valuable way to quit smoking, we have to ensure that these products do not get into the hands of young people, especially when the long-term health effects are still unknown.

There’s obviously a clear case for action, considering the increase in youth vaping.

Increasing support for those trying to quit is another great initiative.

Minister, will you provide us with more details on what our government has announced?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Now flavoured vape products will be available in specialty vape stores and cannabis stores only, with the exception of menthol, mint and tobacco flavours. Ontario will also regulate nicotine content, with higher-concentration products being confined to specialty stores. We also will work with online retailers to make sure that young people cannot access these vaping products.

Our government has listened to parents and youth, and we will continue to do so. We are going to set up a youth advisory committee on vaping to allow for continued engagement on this issue. Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibility to protect the health of Ontarians very seriously, and we will continue to take concrete action to respond to emerging health risks like nicotine vaping.

Licence plates

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Acting Premier. On Friday, the government made its latest announcement to make their embarrassing and unsafe vanity licence plates disappear—this time, the whole plate. After burying their heads in the sand, pretending that there was nothing to see here, the government has finally decided to throw it in reverse and go back to the original white plates while they try, yet again, to get licence plates right.

Speaker, this week they’re admitting to what last week they were denying. As the #PlateGate saga continues, what can Ontarians expect next?

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

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: To the member opposite, I have to share with her that I completely reject the narrative that she’s trying to perpetuate. The fact of the matter is that we’re a government that listens to Ontarians. We heard their concerns, and we’ve been working diligently to address them.

I’m very pleased to share with you that I appreciate the efforts that 3M has put forward, as well. We are moving forward with a plan that’s going to see our licence plates utilize new technology and introduce some opportunities whereby we demonstrate over and over again that a priority for our government is to listen to Ontarians, address the situation and fix the issue.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: No one in Ontario asked for their licence plate to be branded PC Party blue, and only the Ford government could design licence plates that can’t be read at night, in the light, by some scanners or human eyes, and then spend weeks insisting that they were beautiful and that people like them.

Now that they’ve been forced to recall the plates, the government has committed to bringing back the white plates until new “enhanced plates” are ready. This isn’t good enough when they’ve knowingly been rolling out defective party blue plates for weeks, knowing full well, despite weird public denials, that they can’t be read, and the unsafe blue ones are still rolling out for what will be almost another week.

Speaker, what guarantees do we have that enhanced plates will be any better?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, I want to assure Ontarians and everyone in this House today that we are working very diligently to demonstrate how we’ve listened and how we’re moving forward with our plan to ensure that Ontarians have opportunities to embrace new technologies. Through this process, our government has incorporated feedback from our stakeholders, including public safety specialists and stakeholders. We appreciate their invaluable contributions, and we’re continuing to work with them moving forward. 3M is providing materials to the province, and testing is being completed by law enforcement as well as key enforcement stakeholders, Speaker.

I want to thank the member opposite for the question because it allows us to absolutely confirm, without doubt, that our licence plates are going to be moving forward in a very deliberate plan to ensure that Ontarians have confidence that we listened and we’re addressing the situation.

Education funding

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Apart from the chaos that has been created by the government’s inability to work with teaching and support staff across province, school boards are scrambling to plan for the year ahead. In its pre-budget submission, the Toronto District School Board, the largest school board in the country, has outlined 10 areas of funding uncertainty and concern, including class size and online learning, which are both part of labour negotiations. On top of these, Mr. Speaker, the board has asked the government to ensure that the additional funding for school repairs that has been in place for the past four years be continued.

Under our government, funding had been increased. In addition, we were working with the Toronto board to revamp the education development charge process.

Will the Deputy Premier confirm that the additional funding for repairs will be continued this year for all qualifying boards, and will the minister follow the advice of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association and release this information as soon as possible so that boards can plan?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader to reply.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member for Don Valley West, I’m a parent, as I’ve said, of two kids. Before they were in elementary school, I couldn’t understand why there was a proliferation of all of these Kumons and all these different Mathnasiums and all of these places. But now, as a parent, I understand: It’s because for 15 years, they failed students and parents in this province. They failed them, so now what we’re trying to do is to catch up. We’re trying to catch up. That’s why we’re putting more money back in education.

That’s why we’re putting more money into education than has ever been put in the province’s history. We’re not going to apologize for that. What we’re going to do is apologize for the 15 years that they left students without access to high-quality education.

It is unacceptable that our kids are failing at math, Mr. Speaker. We can do better, and we will continue to do better. That’s why we’re asking our union partners, our partners in education, to work with us to keep students in the classroom.

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

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just say to the member opposite that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that we have one of the best education systems in the world, which was built by government after government, and you also can’t say that you’re increasing funding when you’re actually decreasing perpupil funding.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve been a trustee on the Toronto District School Board. I recognize the unique position of this massive school board, especially as it struggles to deal with the repair and maintenance of its 500-plus school buildings, but smaller boards have different but comparable issues, which is exactly why under our government we put additional funding in place for capital upgrades. That funding should remain in place.

OPSBA has also recommended that the government amend the education development charge regulation and allow for flexibility within a large board like the TDSB—for example, on a regional basis—to collect EDCs. This is exactly the conversation with our government that was under way at the time of the last election. Has the conversation come to a conclusion, and can the minister confirm whether the government is prepared to implement a more rational EDC process?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I guess that question really provides for why we’re in the situation that we’re in—because do you know what? We can actually have it both ways. We can have funding that guarantees that our students have the best-quality education in the country. We can do better on maths. We can do better on sciences.

I’ll take no lessons from a government that closed rural schools like it was sport, that ripped the soul out of community after community. We can do better, and that’s why the people of Ontario put us in this position—because they wanted a better system. They wanted education that worked for students.

So I’m asking very directly and very clearly to our partners in education: Work with us. After 300 days at the table, it is time to put students first, to get our kids back in class, to keep them in class so that we can continue building the best education system in the world.

Ontario film and television industry

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries.

Minister, I think everyone in this Legislature is aware of your passionate support for Ontario’s film and television industry. We’ve seen you work tirelessly along with studio owners, directors, professional associations and other industry stakeholders to attract more productions to our province and to my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Recently a large Apple TV+ show called See, which stars Jason Momoa and Dave Bautista, decided to move their production from British Columbia to Ontario. This is a show that budgets approximately $15 million per episode. Now, assuming that there’s a second season and that it will be approximately eight episodes long, that’s $120 million into the Ontario economy, not including all those jobs.

It seems to me that this type of news signifies that Ontario’s film and television industry is doing well. Minister, can you please tell us how well the industry is faring in Ontario right now?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Well, I sure can. I want to thank the great member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for once again standing up for our film and television industry.

Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I appointed a film advisory panel led by Jim Mirkopoulos, her constituent from Cinespace, as well as Christina Jennings from Shaftesbury, who runs Murdoch Mysteries. What we’re doing is making sure that we have stability in our tax credits, which have brought unprecedented foreign and domestic production into line. We’re building capacity, with over 9,000 film-friendly locations. We’re going to be doubling the sound stage space in this province.

We’re working with the Minister of Colleges and Universities as well as the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development to make sure that we’ve got more below-the-line talent so that we can have crews right across our great province. And we’ve invested in Canadian storytelling and IP, with $2 million to the Canadian Film Centre just last week.

Speaker, we are open for business, we are open for jobs, and you’d better believe we are open for film, television and animation in Ontario.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you to the minister for that amazing answer and for creating jobs in our province. That is truly excellent news for everybody. We’d love to see all these great productions continue in our province of Ontario and in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

For years, I saw movies and shows that were shot in Ontario, but they always seemed to be pretending that they were in American cities. However, lately I’ve seen more productions that are actually setting their background in Toronto.

As you often say, Ontario offers the world in one province. We should continue to spread the good news to create pride of place and pride of people.

Minister, can you please tell us how our domestic film and television market is faring compared to international conglomerates?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: We continue to grow. The news out of film, television and animation is great: Last year, it was $1.9 billion in economic impacts; it has grown to $2.1 billion. That growth came in Canadian storytelling and domestic content.

We have found the sweet spot in Ontario, with an even balance between foreign and domestic production—$1.1 billion in foreign production with stories like Star Trek; and we also have the Umbrella Academy. And we have $1 billion in domestic content: Anne with an E, Kim’s Convenience and Murdoch Mysteries. That contributes to over 44,000 direct jobs. That’s up 7,500 this year alone. And we made an announcement last week that there is room for about 1,000 laid-off GM workers within the creative industries.

Speaker, good things grow in Ontario, and good things are growing in the TV, film and animation industry.

Licence plates

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Deputy Premier. One of the details that remains obscure on this issue—aside, of course, from the plates themselves—is the cost to Ontarians. First, the government forced through the production of their new vanity plates, and then they were forced to recall them. Now, they’ll be forced to redesign and, hopefully, rigorously retest the new plates—all on the public’s dime.

Speaker, will the Deputy Premier tell us exactly how much their #PlateGate boondoggle will eventually cost Ontarians?

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

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much for the opportunity to stand and share with everyone in this House that I very much appreciate the opportunity we have with 3M to address concerns that were expressed by Ontarians. We take those concerns very seriously and, in working together with 3M, we’re moving forward with a remedy.

As the member opposite hopefully appreciates, some of this information is commercially sensitive, so we cannot share it. But the good news is that the real message here is that 3M is working with us to address the concerns we heard from Ontarians.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The Ford government claims that they expect 3M to pick up the cost, but sources also tell reporters that they’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement with 3M. Once again, the Ford government seems to have forgotten the importance of respecting the taxpayer and running a transparent and accountable government.

Speaker, will the government do the right thing and release the full details of their contract with 3M today, including a full breakdown of the total cost of their #PlateGate fiasco to date?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: In response to the member opposite, I want to again express our appreciation to 3M for working with us and addressing the issues and the concerns that were raised by individuals.

In nine short days, we rolled up our sleeves and we worked very, very diligently to address the concerns that were coming forward. The fact of the matter is, our government, unlike the previous Liberal government that the member opposite propped up for years—we’re a government that actually listens.

The fact is, my answer is no. We have to make sure that taxpayers understand the replacements will come at no cost to the taxpayer. That’s the important message here.

Midwifery

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Attorney General. My office has received hundreds of emails from people who are appalled that the government is using valuable tax dollars to fund an appeal of a landmark Human Rights Tribunal decision granting pay equity to midwives.

Midwifery is a field historically dominated by women, and it primarily serves women.

In 2010, an Ontario government report found that the work of midwives is undervalued by 20%; some experts say it’s as high as 48%. The Human Rights Tribunal has agreed and ordered the government to compensate midwives for having earned 20% less than their comparable counterparts.

Speaker, March 8 is International Women’s Day. Will this government listen to the experts, to the Human Rights Tribunal and people across this province who do not want their tax dollars used to fund an appeal of the Human Rights Tribunal case?

Hon. Doug Downey: I want to thank the member from Guelph for the question.

It is something that we have in common in the House—I think all of us agree on the value of midwives in Ontario, the contributions they make in providing safe and accessible 24/7 care for Ontario families.

He is correct; we’re reviewing the decision. We’ve applied for judicial review in the tribunal—a decision up to the courts, so it sits there. As such, unfortunately, as you know, Mr. Speaker, when it’s before the courts, I can’t delve any further to get into the details of it.

We will continue to support midwives in Ontario. Midwifery care in Ontario—we’re going to continue to expand it, build on the tremendous progress over the last several years. We want to make sure that families are receiving the service they want.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Speaker, the government has a strange way of showing support for midwives. They have a strange way of showing their desire to save money, as well. Midwives provide excellent care and help the health care system save money. Midwives effectively reduce hospital stays, and free up beds and hospital resources for those who need them. They contribute a solution to our overburdened health care system. Yet this government slashed funding to the College of Midwives of Ontario in 2018, and now they are appealing the Human Rights Tribunal decision.

Will the government stop the war on midwives, use the money it would spend on this appeal and pay Ontario midwives the compensation they deserve?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: We greatly value the work performed by midwives across Ontario. We can’t talk about the issue because it is a matter that’s before the courts right now. But what I can tell the member is that we have invested an additional $28 million in midwifery services, and we are examining changes to their scope of practice that could allow midwives to do even more than the wonderful contributions they already make.

Our investment in front-line midwifery is making sure that more women, more families can access the care midwives provide before, during and after birth. This is something that more and more Ontarians are showing interest in, and our continued investments show the value that we put into the role that midwives play in our health care system.

Employment services

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. Community providers and the official opposition have been raising red flags for weeks about the government’s privatization of employment services. Now we’ve learned that not only has the government jeopardized good, local jobs and the well-being of Ontarians, but they are repeating the same mistakes the Liberals did 15 years ago.

Between 2005 and 2007, the Liberal government ran an employment services privatization pilot with WCG, the very same for-profit company that won the contract in Peel region. The problem is—and there are many problems—that this independent report showed that the privatization pilot was not more effective than regular Ontario Works programming.

Was the Premier and was this minister aware of this pilot and the lack of effectiveness? And why are you following in the footsteps of the failed Liberal plan?

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

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, what has been a failure in the province for the last 15 years is the fact that every single month, only 1% of people on ODSP and OW are actually finding work in Ontario. That is unacceptable when 200,000 jobs are going unfilled every single day in the province of Ontario.

The Auditor General made it crystal clear in 2016 that of all the people in the province seeking jobs, only 38% of those unemployed were actually finding work.

On this side of the House, we know that people deserve to put food on the table and that jobs give people a sense of dignity in the province.

But let’s talk about other jurisdictions. In British Columbia, John Horgan’s NDP also moved to an outcomes-based model. In fact, they also awarded contracts to a mix of not-for-profit, non-profit and private providers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question. The member for Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I just want to remind the minister that he’s a minister in Ontario, not in BC, and it’s about the Ford government using a failed Liberal policy.

Back to the Acting Premier: The independent report following the Liberal privatization pilot with WCG found that the pilot was no more effective than regular Ontario Works programming and didn’t save the government money, and that outcomes were poor for program recipients. The average span of employment was nine months while they were in the pilot. That’s because most jobs through the pilot were low-paying or short-term jobs and the results-based payment structure may have led to placing clients in inappropriate jobs. The result was that the Liberals abandoned the plan.

Why is the Conservative government dragging us backward with 15-year-old failed Liberal policy? The minister didn’t answer if he has actually seen the report, but I’d be happy to send it over so someone could read it to him.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The minister to reply.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: What is unacceptable is that we have 200,000 jobs going unfilled every single day in the province of Ontario, and the NDP want to continue defending the status quo that is keeping the unemployed unemployed. When 1% of people on ODSP and OW are finding work, that is unacceptable. This government is going to stand with the most vulnerable in our society and give them a hand up.

But let’s hear what the NDP government in British Columbia said. This is a quote from the NDP Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, Shane Simpson. He said this system “will make it easier for more people to find good, stable jobs so they can provide for themselves and their families.”

We will not defend the status quo that kept people unemployed in this province for 15 years.

Skilled trades

Mrs. Robin Martin: My question is for the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues. By 2021, one in five jobs in Ontario will be in the skilled trades. These tend to be high-paying jobs that have great benefits and may offer long-term security. In my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence many apartments and condos are being built, and to build them we need more skilled trades workers. That includes drywall specialists, plumbers, foremen, crane operators and more. Traditionally, these positions have been seen as jobs for men. However, I think everyone in this House can agree that these jobs can and should be filled by women.

Can the minister please explain to this House why it is important to get women into the skilled trades, and what she is doing to encourage more women and girls into those jobs?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the hard-working member from Eglinton–Lawrence for your great question.

As a female who grew up in a home of plumbers, I know the value of the trades and the important role they play in Ontario’s economy. Last week, with the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development, the member from Burlington and the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I met Lorraine and Brandi, who work at Hydro One. Both women spoke about how much they enjoyed their roles in skilled trades and how rewarding their jobs were.

These are some of the great examples of why we need to get more girls interested in the skilled trades and let them know that there are great opportunities for them out there. With huge opportunities for well-paying jobs, we need to change the perception of skilled trades in all of Ontario. Whether it is parents directing their child or counsellors at school, we need to change the stigma of skilled trades, especially for women in the trades.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Ontario faces a looming labour shortage, with roughly 200,000 jobs going unfilled in our province every single day. As the Conference Board of Canada tells us, this gap costs our economy $24 billion in forgone GDP every year.

The skilled trades offer our young people lucrative and rewarding careers, yet a sad fact is that women make up just about 4.5% of all skilled trades workers in Canada.

Will the minister please share our government’s plan to encourage young women, such as those in our gallery, to join the skilled trades and be part of the next generation of leading journeypersons across our province?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for the question and her strong leadership to get more women into the trades.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development, it is my mission to get more young people into the skilled trades; and as a father, I want my daughter to have every chance to succeed. We are ending the stigma, simplifying the apprenticeship system and encouraging businesses to take on more apprentices.

Pre-apprenticeship training programs help underrepresented groups, such as women. In fact, we’ve invested nearly $21 million to support 91 training projects that reach over 1,800 people.

I also recently announced an investment of $12.8 million into our Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program. Female high school students can tour trades programs, participate in workshops and be mentored by female apprentices and journeypersons.

There is a huge opportunity in Ontario for young women to find a career that they wouldn’t trade.

Affaires francophones

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je remercie le député d’Ottawa-Ouest–Nepean de sa question.

Notre gouvernement, après des années de naufrage libéral, travaille à réorienter la province dans un sens productif et viable à long terme. Nous bâtissons ensemble l’avenir de l’Ontario. Mon travail comme ministre des Affaires francophones s’insère dans cet effort d’ensemble de notre gouvernement.

À présent, je m’apprête à poursuivre des tables rondes pour entendre des acteurs économiques du secteur de l’innovation à Ottawa dans quelques semaines.

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

M. Jeremy Roberts: Je remercie la ministre des Affaires francophones pour sa réponse.

Les organisations francophones et les maires de la province voient bien le travail remarquable de notre gouvernement et de la ministre, qui, sans vaines paroles, sans partisanerie et avec un vrai sens du travail et du devoir, font avancer les dossiers importants pour les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens. Qu’il s’agisse, dans le cas de l’UOF, du président de l’AFO ou du maire de Toronto, les paroles publiques positives de la part de nos intervenants et partenaires pleuvent sur notre travail, et nous leur en sommes reconnaissants.

Est-ce que la ministre peut nous en dire davantage en particulier sur sa table ronde économique ce mois-ci à Ottawa, qui affectera les gens de mon comté?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Il est vrai que le maire de Toronto et le président de l’AFO ont salué récemment nos efforts pour l’université.

Je poursuis une série de nouvelles tables rondes qui ont été initiées en novembre avec les décideurs économiques francophones de Toronto. À présent, avec la présence de mon conseiller Glenn O’Farrell, je vais à la rencontre des joueurs importants du domaine de l’innovation technologique, un secteur évidemment clé pour l’avenir de la francophonie et le rôle qu’elle peut jouer dans les secteurs porteurs de notre économie, qui est fortement tertiarisée.

Comme je l’ai déjà exposé à nos homologues de Montréal en décembre dernier, j’entends travailler en collaboration avec mon collègue Vic Fedeli afin de mettre en valeur le potentiel économique des francophones, de miser sur leurs forces, dans les projets qui vont enrichir toute la province, et non seulement les francophones.

Ces rencontres et ces échanges d’Ottawa viseront notamment à faire le point sur les questions de rétention et de développement de la main-d’oeuvre bilingue, en incluant évidemment des échanges précis—

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

Education funding

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Acting Premier. Jeff and Joanne are parents in my riding. They recently gave me a call to share their thoughts about this government’s education plan that makes life worse for families.

Jeff’s a nurse and Joanne’s a teacher. They know how to navigate the education system and the health care system, and yet their family is just barely hanging on. Their daughter is struggling in school because the Conservative government’s cuts mean they’ve taken away resources she needs to succeed.

I asked them what they would say to the Premier if they had the chance, and Joanne said, “Reverse the cuts. Ensure that children who struggle don’t fall through the cracks. My kid matters.”

What does this government have to say to parents like Joanne and Jeff?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I say quite clearly to parents like Joanne and Jeff that everything that we’re doing is for their kids. Everything that this government is doing is for their kids.

I talked earlier about the proliferation of these tutoring centres across the province of Ontario. One parent told me they had to remove their child from dance classes because they were so far behind on math.

The decisions we make have a very real impact on families across this province. I want her children, I want my kids, I want all the children of this province to have the best education possible. Clearly, we can do better. That’s why we’re increasing funding. But it’s not just about increasing funding; it’s about looking at the programs that we have put in place—programs that have failed our students. That’s why we’re putting more money into math. That’s why we’re training our teachers so that they can do a better job of educating our kids.

That’s what we’re doing. We’re working every day for those kids.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, that answer just doesn’t cut it. It’s not good enough for parents like Joanne and Jeff. It’s not good enough for every other family concerned about this government’s cuts to education.

It’s not just parents who are worried. The Thames Valley school board is also concerned about these Conservative government cuts that are going to hurt their students. They wrote to the minister, begging him to “look at this from the perspective of who’s watching and who’s learning about dispute resolution, and that’s kids.”

It’s clear that the Conservatives don’t have teachers, students, parents and now school boards on their side. How many more people do they plan to ignore before they finally do the right thing and stop these cuts?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, we’ve increased funding to historic levels across the province of Ontario, including increasing funding to that board that the member mentioned.

But, ultimately, this is exactly about parents. It’s about kids. It’s about the students who are in our school system. For far too long, decisions made in this Parliament by all sides have failed our students.

That’s what we’re doing right now—we’re getting our students up to a 21st-century education system. When we failed them on math, when we failed them on science and technology—we failed them for many, many years. We can no longer afford to do that. When governments have made decisions to close rural schools, that has an impact on communities. It keeps them in buses longer.

Everything we’re doing is about the next generation. That’s why I’m here. That’s why all Conservatives on both sides of the House are here, and I know ultimately, that’s why the members opposite are here. We ask our union partners to join us. End this. After 300 days, the time has come to put our students first.

Nuclear energy

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is to the Associate Minister of Energy. Our government knows that nuclear energy is the backbone of Ontario’s energy system, providing more than 60% of our province’s power.

I understand that both the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines as well as the Associate Minister of Energy attended the Canadian Nuclear Association conference last week in Ottawa. Will the associate minister please tell the House what he and the minister heard at the CNA conference last week and what our government is doing to support developments happening within the nuclear power industry?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you very much to the honourable member from Oakville for that great question.

Since 1962, when the first Candu reactor went into service, the nuclear industry has become a source of innovation and specialized employment in this country. Today, with the leadership of our Premier and the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, our province finds itself well positioned to be a leader in the development of clean, safe and reliable nuclear energy, particularly when it comes to small modular reactor technology, or SMRs. We believe SMRs will provide the solution for unique energy challenges, such as powering remote and rural communities in our province that currently rely on expensive diesel power.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Terrestrial Energy, in the honourable member’s riding, to hear about the innovative work they are doing in this field. Important steps will be taken in the coming year that will outline our government’s plan for the deployment of such new and innovative technology going forward in the future.

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

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you to the Associate Minister of Energy for that terrific response.

The government’s commitment to deployment and development of SMRs is very exciting for people throughout the province, whether in Oakville or other ridings. The nuclear industry supports 76,000 jobs in the area of science, high tech, engineering and mathematics. This number can only go up as our province develops this groundbreaking technology.

Will the associate minister please tell us more about the number of ways SMRs will be utilized and the next steps our province is taking to ensure successful deployment?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you to the member from Oakville for another great question.

SMRs will offer energy-intensive industries, including the mining and manufacturing sectors, a lower-cost source of clean energy to enhance their competitiveness. Our next steps include working co-operatively to positively influence the federal government to make changes as necessary to facilitate the introduction of SMRs.

The Minister of Energy had a very productive meeting with his federal counterpart just last week at the CNA conference. He understands that nuclear power is poised to provide the next wave of clean, affordable, safe and reliable power. According to a recent report, between 2030 and 2040, the potential value of SMRs in Canada alone is estimated to be $10 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to creating an electricity system that sends a clear message that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs.

Ontario Disability Support Program

Mr. Faisal Hassan: My question is to the Acting Premier. Under this government, we have seen supports for Ontarians with disabilities go from bad to worse when they cut in half a planned increase to Ontario Works and ODSP. ODSP is broken, and this government’s heartless indifference is hurting my constituents, one of whom is Kelly. She has been denied ODSP coverage because apparently she makes too much money. After she pays her copay to her assisted living facility, she is left with only $155 per month for all other expenses.

How does the Acting Premier expect Kelly to live on less than $200 a month?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question. This government knows—I believe everybody in this House knows—that our social services system isn’t working properly, and that was just backed up by our Ontario Auditor General in her report earlier this year. The fact was abundantly clear and highlighted in her report to the Legislature.

The fact of the matter is that we can do better. We’ve increased the rates by 1.5% since we have taken office, and we are continuing to look at how we deliver ODSP and Ontario Works. One of the steps that we’ve taken was mentioned a couple of times earlier this morning, and that is making sure that we’re moving more people from ODSP and Ontario Works into jobs. By doing that, we’ve offered three new prototypes across the province: one in the Niagara-Hamilton area, one in the Peel region and one in the Kawartha and Peterborough region as well. Those prototypes will get results for those people and make sure that we can move as many as possible from social assistance into work.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Back to the Acting Premier: This government cannot possibly think anyone can live on less than $200 a month. Yet this government is asking the most vulnerable Ontarians to do so and to struggle in poverty. We should not be sentencing Ontarians living with a disability to live a life in poverty.

Again to the Acting Premier: When will you stand up for Ontarians with disabilities and fix ODSP so that people are not being unfairly turned away and actually have enough money to live in dignity?

Hon. Todd Smith: On top of moving all people from ODSP and Ontario Works into employment, we’re also taking a look at how we deliver those services in the province of Ontario.

We’re actually reducing red tape in the ODSP sector because we realize that there are far too many people who are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Todd Smith: —in the work of providing services to those on social assistance that are bound up in red tape. That’s why we’re digitizing and making government delivery of those services smarter, Mr. Speaker—so that we can free up those individuals. Nobody I know ever—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Todd Smith: —got into being an ODSP worker or an OW worker to push pencils and paper, Mr. Speaker. They got into that business to be social workers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The official opposition will come to order.

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s why we’re freeing up more time for those individuals to ensure that they are being social workers, and to ensure that they’re delivering the services to those that need them.

We understand that not everybody is going to be able to move from social assistance into the workforce. We want—

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

Public transit / Transports en commun

Mrs. Robin Martin: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last week, members in this Legislature debated the Building Transit Faster Act, which, if passed, will give us the tools we need to ensure shovels get in the ground on time for our four priority projects. Every member in this House agrees that congestion is a cause for concern in our province. We need to get more people to choose public transit, and our government has a plan to make that happen.

Since the election, we’ve been clear that building better public transit and improving Ontario’s transportation network are priorities for our government, because we understand that the delays in getting projects built mean that commuters are facing delays in getting to work and getting home to their loved ones.

Can the minister update the House on what we heard during the second reading of the Building Transit Faster Act?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to thank the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for the question.

This is a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that I’m very proud of. I was pleased to speak to it last week alongside my colleague the Associate Minister of Transportation.

As the member mentioned, there is certainly a consensus that we need to address the congestion crisis, and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

Here’s what the member from University–Rosedale said last week: “The need for transit in the GTHA is certainly real. I certainly agree with the Ontario government and the Minister of Transportation....”

The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s said: “A transit plan that really works for everyone would include increased coverage and frequency of service in transit deserts....”

Mr. Speaker, our plan will deliver rapid transit to communities with poor access right now. The Ontario Line, for instance, will finally bring subway service to areas like Flemingdon Park, Thorncliffe Park and Liberty Village.

What does the NDP and what do the Liberals have, Mr. Speaker? They have no viable plan. They have no viable solution.

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

M me Robin Martin: Je remercie la ministre pour cette réponse. Notre gouvernement a un plan qui a été approuvé par le gouvernement fédéral, notre gouvernement et l’administration municipale. C’est du jamais-vu, et je félicite la ministre pour cette première.

L’appui extraordinaire de notre plan par le conseil municipal de Toronto, le personnel de la ville et le maire montre que tous sont en accord.

Mes constituants, qui ont attendu des années pour voir du progrès réel, sont ravis de voir notre gouvernement garder le cap et respecter cet engagement fondamental de bâtir un meilleur transport en commun.

La ministre, peut-elle nous dire pourquoi les outils proposés dans la Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun sont nécessaires afin d’assurer que le début des travaux respecte les échéanciers?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je remercie ma collègue pour sa question.

Monsieur le Président, nous avons déposé ce projet de loi parce que nous sommes déterminés à faire les choses différemment. Il s’agit d’enlever les entraves qui empêchent la construction de grands projets depuis des décennies.

S’ils sont adoptés, ces outils nous permettront de respecter les échéanciers ambitieux, car nous savons à quel point il y a une augmentation de la demande pour le transport en commun. Sous la direction de notre premier ministre, notre gouvernement lance des projets des plus importants d’infrastructure en Amérique du Nord.

Notre plan est exactement l’action audacieuse dont nous avons besoin pour lutter contre la congestion et pour apporter les mesures que les gens attendent depuis très longtemps. L’appui que notre plan a reçu de tous les paliers du gouvernement est sans précédent, et je demande aux membres de l’opposition d’appuyer notre plan et de voter pour notre projet de loi.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time we have for question period this morning. This House stands in recess until 1 pm.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Mr. Roman Baber: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 159,

An Act to amend various statutes in respect of consumer protection / Projet de loi 159, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne la protection du consommateur.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 77(b), the bill is ordered for second reading.

Introduction of Bills

Black Mental Health Day Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la Journée de la santé mentale des Noirs

Ms. Karpoche moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

An Act to proclaim Black Mental Health Day and to raise awareness of related issues / Projet de loi 178, Loi visant à proclamer la Journée de la santé mentale des Noirs et à sensibiliser la population aux questions connexes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would like to invite the member for Parkdale–High Park to briefly explain her bill.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Anti-Black racism persists in the province of Ontario in our government systems and services. It results in inequitable treatment and unequal outcomes for Black Ontarians across all sectors, including education, justice, employment, housing. and child welfare sectors. Racial inequalities, anti-Black racism, discrimination and the lasting effects of trauma have negative impacts on the mental health and physical well-being of Black Ontarians.

The lack of concrete actions to address anti-Black racism in public services like health care and education and in the area of housing services only increases the toll of anti-Black racism on Black Ontarians’ mental health, regardless of income, education or employment status. For black Ontarians, the lack of concrete action to address anti-Black racism and white supremacy in public services takes a toll on their mental health.

This bill proclaims the first Monday in March of each year as Black Mental Health Day to recognize the ongoing mental health impacts of anti-Black racism in public services and to raise awareness of the specific mental health needs of Black communities across Ontario.

In order to address the lack of evidence-based policy-making and service provision so that we can start to tackle the systemic discrimination and worst health outcomes for Black Ontarians, the bill requires the collection of race-based data. Currently, there’s no coordinated approach or requirement for the collection of race-based health care data despite evidence of racial inequities in health outcomes in Ontario.

Finally Speaker, the bill also—

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

Motions

Private members’ public business

Hon. Paul Calandra: I am seeking unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding notice for private members’ public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent of the House to move a motion without notice regarding private members’ public business. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that notice be waived for ballot item number 6, standing in the name of Ms. Kusendova. on the order of precedence drawn on November 4, 2019.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carried? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Committee membership

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that the following changes be made to the membership of the following committees:

On the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Anand replaces Ms. Ghamari and Ms. Hogarth replaces Mrs. Tangri; and

On the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, Mrs. Tangri replaces Mr. Thanigasalam.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra has moved that the following changes be made to the membership of the following committees:

On the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Anand replaces Ms. Ghamari and Ms. Hogarth replaces Mrs. Tangri; and

On the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, Mrs. Tangri replaces Mr. Thanigasalam.

The member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I don’t intend on going long, but you can never give up an opportunity to say a few things about committees. It’s a pretty routine motion in the sense of—not routine in the regular way; it’s actually a substantive motion. But it’s routine in the sense that we always allow parties to switch out members for various reasons, and this is just one of those motions. Obviously, we’re going to support it.

But I just want to put on the record, just to remind my colleague the government House leader, that committees, quite frankly, are the best way of being able to do business in this House when it comes to the work that we do here. Once a bill is done at second reading and we refer it to committee, if we actually allowed committee to function the way they’re supposed to, imagine the work that can be done in committee by members of both sides of the House.

It is the government’s intention, when they introduce a bill such as the bill we’ll be debating this afternoon from the Minister of Health, to be able to move the yardsticks forward on particular issues—in this case, home care. Imagine how much better we could do, as an end product, if we allowed our committees to do the kind of work that they can do when it comes to them ordering up their own business.

This is the point that I want to make to the government House leader: that allowing the committees, as in Ottawa—and the member knows well, more so than I did, because he comes from Ottawa, along with a couple of his colleagues—to do their own work; to be able to decide how they want to navigate a particular bill through the committee process; how much committee hearings they want; do they want to be able to travel—do they want to be able to solicit people of knowledge when it comes to a particular issue.

Now, I was very lucky when I first got here. I think you might have been on this committee with me, Mr. Speaker: the constitutional committee. I think you were on it with me. We learned a lot, as a Legislature and as members, because that committee was allowed to do its work. The committee decided where it was going to travel, how long it was going to be in particular communities, and who we were going to meet with that were constitutional experts and citizens who had concerns.

Ontario ended up developing an all-party position when it came to what was going to be Ontario’s response to the latest changes that were being contemplated to our Constitution in order to accommodate Quebec. It put Ontario in a very good position.

All I’m saying here to the government House leader and to the Minister of Health across the way—and again, I’m not going to take my full 17 minutes to get there—is that if we actually allowed the committees to be able to order up their own business, to decide how best to navigate a bill through the process, we would end up with a much, much better product in the end.

The bill now is going to start debating second reading this afternoon—the bill that the Minister of Health proposes. I think we all want to get to what the government says its intention is; I somehow doubt we’re going to get there, given the process that we have. I think if we’re truly trying to do the work of the people of Ontario in this House, we should empower our committees to be able to do the work that has to be done so that the committee itself is able to determine its own business.

I’ll just end on this point. The Minister of Health was part of a select committee that dealt with mental health, along with my good colleague the member from Nickel Belt. That committee did some good work. It came back with some very strong recommendations about how to try to address the problems that we have in our mental health system, which are many. We both agree, on this side of the House. The Liberals spoke a good line when it came to reforming what was going on or not going on in our mental health system, but quite frankly, you kind of fell down on the job. I think we owe it to Ontarians to do a good job with what has come out of those recommendations.

I just say to the Minister of Health: You were Chair of a committee that was allowed to do its job. I’m hoping that, as Minister of Health on this particular health bill—and I’m looking to my colleague the government House leader, whom I have great respect for—we actually allow the committee to decide themselves, not this House by way of time allocation, but allow the committee to come together to decide what has to happen with this bill that’s coming forward and other bills that we’re going to have to deal with in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader to reply.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this.

The honourable member, of course, will know that we have been doing just that, as a matter of fact. We’ve had a number of bills that have been proceeding towards committee that have been travelling the province. I know that is something that hasn’t necessarily happened in the past as often as it should have, but we’ve done that. We’ve provided pre-study on a large bill, the consumer choice bundle—I can’t remember the name of the bill itself. But we’re doing just that when it comes to debate in this House.

The amended standing orders have allowed for very fulsome debate on the bills that have been before this Legislature. We have not brought in, at this point, time allocation on any of the bills. In fact, I would suggest that we’ve hit record numbers of hours in order to get that done. I know that members opposite have reached out—as have members on this side of the House—and suggested that they appreciate the changes to the standing orders that allow for more fulsome debate, that allow for question and answer, back and forth.

He referenced Ottawa, and I’m glad he referenced Ottawa. You’ll know that in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, the representation on the subcommittees, which drive the agenda of committees, is proportioned in accordance to how the House votes. So in a majority Parliament, the party with the majority would have, obviously, a majority on the subcommittees, which would then set the agenda for committee study. I appreciate that the member opposite seems to be in favour of such an amendment—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, I appreciate the opposition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Timmins, come to order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly willing to entertain such changes that would ensure that we could travel more often, that we could have more debate in committee, that we could have the opportunity to establish when a bill is studied, for how long it’s studied, and who the witnesses are. I think those are all really good ideas. My priority as the House leader has been to get bills through this Legislature with the maximum amount of debate, both here in the House and at committee.

But I also have a responsibility, as the government House leader, that if the opposition filibusters—I’m not saying that they have done that at this point—or tries to stop the passage of a particular bill, the government has tools at its disposal to make sure that those bills are debated not only in this House but in committee, and in a way that respects the legislative process.

If we can come to an agreement on how long bills should be studied and where they should go, I think that is to the benefit of this Legislature. That has been what we have tried to do. That’s why I’m very excited to hear the member opposite say the same. We will be reaching out to him very soon on a whole host of bills that this Legislature has debated over the last number of weeks and that have met record amounts of debate in this House without time allocation. We will sit down and see if the words that the member opposite has talked about today are then put to paper, and we can come up with agreements on a standing committee.

I’m very, very excited to hear that the opposition is willing to work with the government to make committees better and to make sure that the important business of this Legislature gets done in a reasonable and respectful fashion.

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

Mr. Calandra has moved that the following changes be made to the membership of the following committees:

On the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Anand replaces Ms. Ghamari and Ms. Hogarth replaces Mrs. Tangri; and

On the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, Mrs. Tangri replaces Mr. Thanigasalam.

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

Motion agreed to.

Petitions

Long-term care

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to thank Chantal Chartrand, from my riding in Capreol, for signing this petition. It reads as follows:

“Time to Care....

“Whereas quality care for the 78,000 residents of (LTC) homes is a priority for many Ontario families; and

“Whereas the provincial government does not provide adequate funding to ensure care and staffing levels in LTC homes to keep pace with residents’ increasing acuity and the growing number of residents with complex behaviours; and

“Whereas several Ontario coroner’s inquests into LTC homes deaths have recommended an increase in direct hands-on care for residents and staffing levels, and the most reputable studies on this topic recommend 4.1 hours of direct care per day;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“To amend the LTC Homes Act (2007) for a legislated minimum care standard of four hours per resident per day, adjusted for acuity level and case mix.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask my good page Catharine to bring it to the Clerk.

Agri-food industry

Mrs. Robin Martin: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the agri-food industry employs over 2.3 million Canadians and one in eight jobs in the Canadian economy; and....

“Whereas Canada’s rich culinary culture is worthy of celebration; and

“Whereas fresh, nutritious, locally grown food is necessary for daily life and for proper health and wellness; and

“Whereas locally grown food is an essential component of Ontario’s agriculture sector; and

“Whereas the Food Day Ontario Act would encourage restaurants and consumers to purchase locally produced ingredients and to support our local suppliers; and

“Whereas Food Day Ontario will unite our communities, create jobs, and boost our economy; and

“Whereas the day will promote culinary sovereignty by emphasizing local food, local producers and local businesses; and

“Whereas an annual Food Day Ontario will recognize the hard work and dedication Ontario’s agriculture sector workers put in to providing nutritious and healthy food for so many communities;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the” Legislature “of Ontario as follows:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario pass Bill 163, Food Day Ontario (Food Day Canada in Ontario) Act, 2019.”

I’ll affix my signature hereto and pass it on to page Rudra.

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to thank the Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and PASAN for their work on this campaign to give prisoners access to free phones.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bell acts like a champion of mental health, they jeopardize the well-being of prisoners and their families by putting up barriers to communication;

“Whereas Bell has a monopoly over the federal and provincial ... phone systems in Canada and Ontario;

“Whereas phone calls cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars per month for prisoners and their families, and collect calls can only be made to land lines;

“Whereas disconnection and isolation can result in poverty, mental health challenges, and suicide—and creates barriers for community reintegration upon release;

“Whereas phone companies like Bell and the province of Ontario profit off of the most marginalized among us; and

“Whereas Bell’s contract with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is up for renewal in 2020;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ... ensure free calling for prisoners” is allowed; “direct calls to cell phones and lines with switchboards; and no 20-minute cut-off” on “calls.”

I agree with this petition, and I will affix my signature to it.

Road safety

Mrs. Gila Martow: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas tow truck operators provide an important service across Ontario’s road network; and

“Whereas motorists deserve reliable, timely service from their provider of choice across Ontario; and

“Whereas towing operators deserve a safe place to work in urban and rural communities across Ontario without being subjected to repetitive and punitive costs;....

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To protect motorists and towing companies providing important services by addressing issues around highway incident management;

“To include incident scene management in regulations to address the potential for improper actions on scene;

“To support the towing industry and reduce costs to motorists and third parties by mandating a single provincial towing licence;

“To introduce regulations that ensure long-term vitality of the towing industry;

“To implement a towing mobile rideshare application.”

Of course, I affix my signature and give it to page Nyle.

Long-term care

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I have a petition here from the Family Council Network 4 Advocacy. They’re committed to improving the lives of Ontario residents in long-term care.

“Time to Care Act—Bill 13.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas quality care for the 78,000 residents of (LTC) homes is a priority for many Ontario families; and

“Whereas the provincial government does not provide adequate funding to ensure care and staffing levels in LTC homes to keep pace with residents’ increasing needs and the growing number of residents with complex behaviours; and

“Whereas several Ontario coroner’s inquests into LTC homes deaths have recommended an increase in direct hands-on care for residents and staffing levels and the most reputable studies on this topic recommends 4.1 hours of direct care per day;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the LTC Homes Act (2007) for a legislated minimum care standard to provide an average of four hours per resident per day, adjusted for acuity level and case mix.”

I fully support this petition, sign it and give it to page Daniel to deliver to the table.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is regarding the Food Day Ontario Act.

“Whereas the agri-food industry employs over 2.3 million Canadians and one in eight jobs in the Canadian economy; and

“Whereas the agri-food industry contributes over $47.7 billion in GDP annually to Ontario’s economy; and

“Whereas Canada’s rich culinary culture is worthy of celebration; and

“Whereas fresh, nutritious, locally grown food is necessary for daily life and for proper health and wellness; and

“Whereas locally grown food is an essential component of Ontario’s agriculture sector; and

“Whereas the Food Day Ontario Act would encourage restaurants and consumers to purchase locally produced ingredients and to support our local suppliers; and

“Whereas Food Day Ontario will unite our communities, create jobs, and boost our economy; and

“Whereas the day will promote culinary sovereignty by emphasizing local food, local producers and local businesses; and

“Whereas an annual Food Day Ontario will recognize the hard work and dedication Ontario’s agriculture sector workers put in to providing nutritious and healthy food for so many communities;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario pass Bill 163, Food Day Ontario (Food Day Canada in Ontario) Act, 2019.”

I’m proud to support this bill. I affix my signature and hand it to the page Irma Giselle.

Long-term care

Ms. Catherine Fife: My petition is called “Support Bill 153, the Till Death Do Us Part act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are 35,000 people on the wait-list for long-term care; and

“Whereas the median wait time for a long-term-care bed has risen from 99 days in 2011-12 to 152 days in 2018-19; and

“Whereas according to Home Care Ontario, the cost of a hospital bed is $842 a day, while the cost of a long-term-care bed is $126 a day; and

“Whereas couples should have the right to live together as they age; and

“Whereas Ontario seniors have worked hard to build this province and deserve dignity in care; and

“Whereas Bill 153 amends the Residents’ Bill of Rights in the Long-Term Care Homes Act to provide the resident with the right upon admission to continue to live with their spouse or partner;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Minister of Long-Term Care to pass Bill 153 and provide seniors with the right to live together as they age.”

It’s my pleasure to affix my signature in full support and give this to page Hamza.

Nuclear energy

Mrs. Amy Fee: I have a petition.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas climate change is a challenge facing us all; and

“Whereas this global challenge requires serious solutions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario and across the globe; and

“Whereas Ontario has a proven track record of nuclear power reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of taking millions of vehicles off the road every year; and

“Whereas due to nuclear power Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world: and

“Whereas now is the time to commit to” building “clean, reliable nuclear technology in Ontario’s clean energy future;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To support M91, which calls on the government of Ontario to include nuclear energy and the development of small modular reactors as a clean energy option in its environment, climate change and clean energy planning and policies.”

I fully support this petition and will be giving it to the page to bring to the Clerk.

Palliative care

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I have a petition entitled “Support the Nancy Rose Act (Paediatric Hospice Palliative Care Strategy).

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas for children with serious or life-limiting illnesses, a palliative approach to care can increase quality of life and decrease their pain and suffering;

“Whereas there’s currently no comprehensive, coordinated and funded provincial strategy to address pediatric palliative and hospice care;

“Whereas the Nancy Rose Act would require the province to develop a strategy with the goal of increasing access to pediatric palliative and hospice care across Ontario;

“Whereas the strategy contained in the Nancy Rose Act would include targeted supports for families of children receiving palliative care, including mental health supports and respite;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass the Nancy Rose Act, and we call on all-party support.”

Nuclear energy

Ms. Lindsey Park: I make the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas climate change is a challenge facing us all; and

“Whereas this global challenge requires serious solutions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario and across the globe; and

“Whereas Ontario has a proven track record of nuclear power reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of taking millions of vehicles off the road every year; and

“Whereas due to nuclear power Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world; and

“Whereas now is the time to commit to including clean, reliable nuclear technology in Ontario’s clean energy future;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To support M91, which calls on the government of Ontario to include nuclear energy and the development of small modular reactors as a clean energy option in its environment, climate change and clean energy planning and policies.”

I affix my name to this petition and hand it to page Owen.

Affordable housing

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I have a petition on affordable housing that is signed by hundreds of citizens from London and area. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas for families throughout much of Ontario, owning a home they can afford remains a dream, while renting is painfully expensive;

“Whereas consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments have sat idle, while housing costs spiralled out of control, speculators made fortunes, and too many families had to put their hopes on hold;

“Whereas every Ontarian should have access to safe, affordable housing. Whether a family wants to rent or own, live in a house, an apartment, a condominium or a co-op, they should have affordable options;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately prioritize the repair of Ontario’s social housing stock, commit to building new affordable homes, crack down on housing speculators, and make rentals more affordable through rent controls and updated legislation.”

I fully support this petition, affix my name and will give it to page Paige to take to the table.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Will Bouma: I’m going to read a petition entitled “Food Day Ontario Act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the agri-food industry employs over 2.3 million Canadians and one in eight jobs in the Canadian economy; and

“Whereas the agri-food industry contributes over $47.7 billion in GDP annually to Ontario’s economy; and

“Whereas Canada’s rich culinary culture is worthy of celebration; and

“Whereas fresh, nutritious, locally grown food is necessary for daily life and for proper health and wellness; and

“Whereas locally grown food is an essential component of Ontario’s agriculture sector; and

“Whereas the Food Day Ontario Act would encourage restaurants and consumers to purchase locally produced ingredients and to support our local suppliers; and

“Whereas Food Day Ontario will unite our communities, create jobs, and boost our economy; and

“Whereas the day will promote culinary sovereignty by emphasizing local food, local producers and local businesses; and

“Whereas an annual Food Day Ontario will recognize the hard work and dedication Ontario’s agriculture sector workers put in to providing nutritious and healthy food for so many communities;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario pass Bill 163, Food Day Ontario (Food Day Canada in Ontario) Act, 2019.”

I fully endorse this petition, will affix my name thereon and give it to page Rudra.

Documents gouvernementaux

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais remercier le Centre Victoria pour femmes, M me Thérèse Grandmont et Gaëtanne Pharand pour les pétitions.

« Alors qu’il est important d’avoir le nom exact des personnes sur les cartes émises par le gouvernement, tels la carte Santé ou le permis de conduire;

« Alors que plusieurs personnes francophones ont des accents dans l’épellation de leur nom;

« Alors que le ministère des Transports et le ministère de la Santé ont confirmé que le système informatique de l’Ontario ne permet pas l’enregistrement des lettres avec des accents », trémas, ou cédilles;

J’appuie cette pétition, je vais la signer et je demande à Juliana de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

Orders of the Day

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

Ms. Elliott moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 175,

An Act to amend and repeal various Acts respecting home care and community services / Projet de loi 175, Loi modifiant et abrogeant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire.

Hon. Christine Elliott: It does give me great pleasure to rise today in support of the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020. Before we do get started, I would like to acknowledge that I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. I thank her very much for her support on this, as on so many other issues in the Ministry of Health.

Our government made a commitment to the people of Ontario that we would end hallway health care. We do have a comprehensive, innovative plan in order to keep our promise. This plan has four central pillars.

Our first pillar is one of prevention and health promotion. We want to keep Ontarians healthy and out of hospitals in the first place.

Next, we are investing $27 billion over the next 10 years in hospital infrastructure projects. Our plan is building much-needed capacity throughout the system, including in our hospitals, as well as in other community-based facilities.

We’re also ensuring that Ontarians receive the right care in the right place. While in many ways the backbone of our health care system, we know that the hospital isn’t always the best place for a person to receive care, especially at a time when far too many of our hospitals are operating at over 100% capacity.

Next, we are better integrating care to improve patient flow. For those patients who need to be admitted to hospital, we want to ensure that if they do have to be admitted, they will be in a hospital bed in a proper hospital room, not a hallway or a meeting room.

But some patients are ready to leave the hospital, and could do so with the right support and care. We want to ensure that they are getting the appropriate care for their needs. For many, their needs can be met by home and community care services.

Home and community care services are a critical component to our plan to end hallway health care. These important services are relied upon by many Ontarians. Last year, more than 700,000 people received home care services, and over 600,000 people used community support services such as Meals on Wheels and client transportation.

Care at home and in a community is less expensive, frees capacity in our hospitals, and is where patients actually want to be: at home. However, our current home and community care system is unable to keep pace with the needs and preferences of Ontarians. One reason for this is that outdated, rigid legislation has been creating needless barriers to providing care for the patients we have today and is stifling innovation to serve them better.

Home and community care has been siloed in Ontario’s 14 local health integration networks that deliver and coordinate these services. What we see is a lack of integration with primary care and acute care. There is duplication in assessment and care planning, a lack of data access for the care team and patients, and a lack of coordination among care providers. Furthermore, there is limited virtual care delivery and a lack of innovation.

Speaker, there are many, many dedicated and committed workers in home and community care who put their hearts and souls into providing the best possible care that they can provide to their patients. They do so under the current rules. We are very grateful for their dedication and for their commitment. But the reality is that the current delivery of home and community care services in Ontario is based on an outdated design developed in the early 1990s.

The Home Care and Community Services Act, 1994, was developed 25 years ago and has not kept pace with changing demographics and care needs, nor does it reflect the ministry’s plan for a connected health care system. We need to bring our home and community care plan and system into the 21st century.

Should this proposed legislation pass, health care providers will be empowered to work together with a full picture of the patients’ needs in order to truly coordinate patient care while still operating under strong oversight and accountability. This new approach would expand access to services while removing barriers to ensure seamlessly coordinated services. By moving home care out of administrative silos and into local Ontario health teams, patients will receive the home care they need as quickly and as conveniently as possible, without having to tell their story over and over and over again.

While we anticipate certain Ontario health teams may be able to take on the delivery of home and community care quickly at maturity, the vision would be for Ontario health teams to be responsible for delivering home and community care, understanding a patient’s full health care history, directly connecting them to all the different types of care they will need, and helping people—24 hours a day, seven days a week—in navigating the health care system. Primary care, hospitals, home care and long-term care organizations would be able to collaborate directly.

This does not always happen, Speaker, and that is why we are asking for all parties in this Legislature to support this bill. This would mean that patients would have access to a more flexible, responsive care that recognizes that a one-size-fits-all approach does not best meet individual care needs, and that better access to navigation supports is required to keep people in the community and in their home longer.

If this bill passes, patients would have access to the kind of care they need, no matter where they go. Transition between types of care will be smoother and more patients will be where they want to be—at home rather than in a hospital.

Patients have and always will be our government’s priority and focus, Speaker, and we will create a public health care system that works for everyone. Patients have been at the forefront of our minds as we have gone about developing this new approach. We looked at the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, what was working and what needs to be changed. And we painted a picture of what the patient experience can be like under our current system of home and community care, and what it would be like under the new approach that we’re proposing.

So let’s consider the plight, for a moment, of a patient. We’ll call her Gloria. Gloria is 83 and she lives in Barrie. She lives alone and her closest family is in Toronto. Now, like many people with an elderly family member who lives alone, they are worried about her ability to continue to live at home on her own. Gloria has been managing quite well on her own, but one day she had a very bad fall. Gloria was rushed to the hospital and, on arrival, she found the hospital to be overcrowded. That meant a longer wait for Gloria before she got to see a doctor.

When she did get to see a doctor, after a few tests, they determined that Gloria needed surgery. The arrangements were made and Gloria did have surgery on her own. Afterward, a hospital discharge planner comes to assess Gloria’s needs and develops a written discharge plan for her. The planner explains the plan to Gloria, but due to her excitement about going home, she doesn’t retain many of the details. Once she gets home, of course she’s tired but happy to be there, and that written discharge plan gets put down somewhere and forgotten.

At some point, Gloria has a question and tries to find her discharge plan, but she’s not sure where it went, so she waits. She waits at home without any support until a care coordinator from her local health integration network gives her a call to do another assessment, and then Gloria must repeat her health history over again to the care coordinator.

Gloria is forced to wait again for the services to start, but when the nurse arrives, she doesn’t know the results of Gloria’s assessment. The nurse can’t answer all her questions, and again, once more, Gloria has to repeat her health history to the nurse. Let’s be clear, Speaker—I want to state this very clearly: This is not the nurse’s fault. We know our home care nurses are dedicated and compassionate and are doing the best they can under the circumstances, but they don’t always have the information and support they need to do their job.

One day, Gloria starts to realize she is experiencing a lot of pain in her knee. She’s not scheduled for a visit from the nurse that day and she’s not really sure who to call. So Gloria reaches out to her family in Toronto. Her family wants to help, but they also don’t really know what to do. They haven’t been kept informed about her care plan. They don’t have the answers Gloria needs, so Gloria starts becoming very anxious about her pain.

Deciding she needs to see someone, Gloria goes to the emergency department of her local hospital to have her knee examined, but again the hospital is overcapacity. It’s another busy day in the emergency department, and while the nurses are very sympathetic to her pain, it takes some time for someone to be able to see Gloria. What’s more, they don’t have room available for Gloria, so she receives treatment in a hallway.

Speaker, a hallway, we all know, is no place to receive high-quality health care, but as MPPs, I’m sure we’ve all heard stories like these from constituents before. I know I have heard it many times during my time as Minister of Health, and previously during my time as Ontario’s first Patient Ombudsman.

What’s telling about this story is that while everyone Gloria encounters wants to provide her with the best possible care, it’s the system itself that is failing her. This story makes clear that the system is not very connected or integrated, and it’s not easy for Gloria to figure out who she should call and when. We can do better, Speaker. In fact, we must do better.

With the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020, we want to make the kinds of changes we need to give patients across Ontario like Gloria a better patient care experience with smoother transitions between care providers. In a transformed system, Gloria and her family would be at the centre of her care, using a model of care tailored to her specific patient needs.

Through her Ontario health team, Gloria would be cared for by an integrated team of providers, including hospital, home care and primary care, and because they work together as a team, they are all aware of her health care needs. Gloria’s Ontario health team would be able to provide her with the supports she needs to remain living safely and independently in the community once she leaves hospital. Under a transformed system, Gloria would never need to wait for a referral for home care services. That’s because the home care service provider would already be part of the same Ontario health team as her hospital.

Instead, when Gloria is admitted for her knee surgery, an Ontario health team provider would do one assessment of her home care needs and support integrated care planning according to all of Gloria’s needs.

Speaker, last fall, our government introduced our Digital First for Health Strategy. We are adopting new digital practices and technologies that will improve the patient experience and help end hallway health care by expanding access to digital and virtual care options. As part of our Digital First for Health Strategy, we enabled Ontario health teams to collect, use and share information to allow for better patient care and outcomes. Now that the team can share this information with whomever on the team needs access to it, Gloria would not have to repeat her health history over and over again, and all of her health care providers would have the full picture of Gloria’s health needs and care.

Not only that, but one of the key pillars of our Digital First for Health Strategy is to ensure greater data access for patients. This means more patients will be able to review their secure health record online and make their own informed choices about their own care. In this scenario, thanks to our strategy, Gloria and her family understand and have digital access to her care plan and her expected outcomes, and because her Ontario health team has access to her up-to-date health history, she won’t have to repeat her story over and over again. Instead, the nurse would have digital access to Gloria’s care plan.

The nurse would be able to answer any questions Gloria may have. If Gloria’s nurse can’t answer her questions, because they would be part of an Ontario health team, they would be able to reach out to others to get the answers quickly.

Gloria would also benefit from the fact that it would be the same nurse visiting her regularly. That’s because this nurse would be assigned to Gloria’s neighbourhood, so they would never be too far away. Now Gloria has a busy social life because she doesn’t have to sit at home waiting for her nurse to come. Instead, the nurse would work with Gloria on a

schedule that works for her, and they would connect on the phone between visits. Gloria would always know when her nurse was going to be there.

But the nurse wouldn’t be the only person Gloria would be able to reach out to for assistance. Ontario health teams are also being asked to ensure patients receive support navigating the health system 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is the key part, Speaker: When Gloria starts experiencing pain in her knee, she knows enough to reach out to her care team. Together, they would be able to respond to her needs and advise her that the hospital is not the only place for her to go. Gloria’s primary care provider would be looped in and would be able to provide her with the right follow-up care for her specific needs.

Even if Gloria couldn’t remember who to contact, her family in Toronto would know because they would have online access to her care plan—of course, with Gloria’s permission. Because her physician is connected to her Ontario health team, they would be fully apprised of what was going on. Seeing Gloria’s needs, they would easily be able to arrange home care to help Gloria remain safely at home, which, again, is where patients want to be.

Speaker, the scenario I’ve outlined reflects the vision for our government’s new approach to home and community care as part of a connected health care system. It reflects our overall efforts to modernize our health care system and, of course, to end hallway health care. Gloria’s story reflects not only how our plan would provide better coordinated and better integrated care for patients; it also demonstrates that by ensuring Gloria gets access to the right services for her nee