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

March 5, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Mar-05 (PDF)

L074 - Tue 5 Mar 2019 / Mar 5 mar 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 March 2019 Mardi 5 mars 2019

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Tuition

Government accountability

Hunting and fishing

Autism treatment

Government accountability

Services de police

Correctional services

Government accountability

Rural transportation

Public transit

Taxation

Mercury poisoning

Visitors

Correction of record

Private members’ public business

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of sweater

Members’ Statements

Autism treatment

Blair Buchanan

Tenant protection

Face Off for Mental Health

Health care

International Women’s Day

Education funding

Autism treatment

Yellow Brick House

Community safety

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

9-1-1 Everywhere in Ontario Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le 9-1-1 partout en Ontario

Petitions

Autism treatment

International trade

Autism treatment

School bus safety

Fish and wildlife management

Child advocate

Environmental protection

Animal protection

Autism treatment

Veterans memorial

Emergency services

Health care funding

Autism treatment

Request to the Integrity Commissioner

Orders of the Day

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

Adjournment Debate

Government accountability

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 66,

An Act to restore Ontario’s competitiveness by amending or repealing certain Acts, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Monday, March 18, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 66:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 10 a.m. on Friday, March 8, 2019; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee and their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 1 p.m. on Friday, March 8, 2019; and

—That each member of the subcommittee or their designate provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk, by 12 noon on Tuesday, March 12, 2019; and

—That each witness will receive up to six minutes for their presentation, followed by 14 minutes divided equally amongst the recognized parties for questioning; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 6 p.m. on Monday, March 18, 2019; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 6 p.m. on Monday, March 18, 2019; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government shall be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 20, 2019 from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Monday March 25, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Monday, March 25, 2019, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, March 26, 2019. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

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

That in the event of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 20 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The minister has moved government motion number 32. Does the minister want to lead off the debate? No? Further debate?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: It’s a real privilege to be able to rise today in the Legislature and represent the good people of Niagara West as we speak to the various issues that arise in this provincial Legislature.

Of course, today we have the opportunity to speak to a time allocation motion with regard to Bill 66, an important piece of legislation that I feel confident needs to move forward in the legislative process expeditiously. I’m going to be speaking a little bit about that.

Speaker, I first wanted to quote Haruki Murakami in Dance Dance Dance when he says, “Unfortunately, the clock is ticking, the hours are going by. The past increases, the future recedes. Possibilities decreasing, regrets mounting.”

Speaker, we enter the seventh month of a four-year term that our majority government was given last June. To those of us who were elected prior, it has been an amazing time to see the amount of action that a government such as ours is taking for the good people of Ontario, moving forward with a clear agenda for good jobs, for prosperity, putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Ontarians, cleaning up hallway health care and increasing trust and accountability in government.

It’s incredibly inspiring for me, as a young person, to see how quickly our government is taking action to turn this province around, to make sure that there’s a bright future for those young people who, quite frankly, up until very recently, had been losing hope, who had seen skyrocketing debt under the former Liberal government, who had seen a lack of jobs and youth unemployment rising, who had seen an increasingly out-of-touch government that failed to see where the future was going when it came to the emerging economy, that had failed to properly equip young people for the jobs of the future, and that, frankly, was indulging in burdensome regulation and red tape that was cutting back on businesses.

Because I’m speaking to a time allocation motion this morning, I want to be very careful with where I go in this regard, but since time allocation is one of those subjects that I know arouses quite a fury of emotions from all the sides of the Legislature, I want to also quote Roy T. Bennett, who, in speaking about time, said, “Don’t waste your time in anger, regrets, worries, and grudges. Life is too short to be unhappy”—a very, very wise quote from a wise man. I wanted to, of course, bring that to the attention of those in the opposition who, I fear, may speak to this motion from a concern around this time allocation motion.

We don’t do these types of things too flippantly. We do them because it’s necessary to move forward with an agenda that will set the future course of Ontario in a prosperous direction, one where there are jobs, one where there is prosperity for all Ontarians. That’s really what the motivation is behind Bill 66 as well. It’s why we feel it’s so important to move this forward.

The last seven months have been a bit of a blur, I think it’s fair to say, for all of us now being back here in the Legislature for the last few weeks. I can’t believe it has already been a few weeks since we came back. In that time, we’ve already moved forward with transformative health care legislation. We’ve moved forward on Bill 66 as well. It’s because of these pieces of legislation that I see hope springing eternal in the hearts of youth across Ontario when I speak to them about where our government is going.

One of those reasons is because when we saw what happened under the Liberal government, whether it was quantitatively or qualitatively—the increase in red tape and burdensome, onerous pieces of red tape on the lives of small businesses, on job creators and on individuals, simply was ballooning out of control. The numbers spoke for themselves. Having over 280,000 regulations under the former Liberal regime was a number that we have nothing to be proud of, frankly.

When we look at jurisdictions such as British Columbia, with roughly 170,000 regulations—and a pretty good place to live, if I may say so, having some family out there myself and having visited a number of times—it’s impressive that the former government was so willfully blind to the damage that they were doing to the entrepreneurial spirit here in the province of Ontario, to those hard-working men and women who wake up every morning hoping to make ends meet, hoping that they can employ one more person, hoping that the risks they’ve taken investing their home, taking out a line of credit, perhaps, on their home to start a new business, remortgaging their home, will pay off, that they’ll be able to move forward in the economy, that they’ll be able to provide for themselves and their family.

One of the things that we heard time and time again—and I know it wasn’t just me; it was many members in this Legislature, including those from the opposition benches. We have heard from small businesses in our communities who say, “One of the major problems we’re facing is this burdensome, choking red tape”—this red tape that, again, takes time. We’re talking about a time allocation motion. Time is money. Time is money for these businesses. Every hour that we stand here debating this legislation, not moving it forward in the next step of the legislative process, means that’s another hour that these businesses are facing that burdensome enemy of red tape holding their businesses back.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “You may delay, but time will not.” So I want to urge the opposition members, as they speak to this motion, to think a little bit about where this legislation takes us—how it takes us to a place where people don’t have to worry about putting food on the table because they know they have a steady, reliable job at the end of the day; where people aren’t so concerned about whether or not they’re going to have that position in a year, because they know there’s a government that’s working hard to make sure that there are good jobs, that we’re competing with our neighbours south of us, and that we’re more competitive than our neighbouring jurisdictions.

It’s so important, in this House, as we think about time, as we look at the time that we have left in our mandate, as we look at the time pass, that we consider if what we’re doing is for the good of the people, and I’m so convinced that Bill 66 is. I’m so convinced that this time allocation motion is necessary to move the clock forward and make sure that we’re doing what is in the best interests of Ontarians.

One last quote, Speaker: I just want to quote Jean de La Bruyère, in “Les Caractères,” who says, “Those who make the worst use of their time are the first to complain of its brevity.” So I hope the opposition won’t complain about my brevity this morning.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ll start like I started yesterday: debating yet another time allocation motion. It does not please me to participate in this debate. Normally, members get up and say, “I’m so pleased and honoured to be able to comment on this law” or whatever it might be. But this is, yet again, another time allocation debate.

Before I get into this particular motion, I just want to respond to some of the comments that were made by the member opposite and to talk about how necessary this time allocation motion is.

My Lord, Mr. Speaker, did you know the world is going to come to an end if we don’t pass this time allocation today, and there will be no bread on the tables by tomorrow if we don’t do this today? That’s essentially the argument we’re getting from across the aisle.

They forget that the British parliamentary system, which was designed over a period of hundreds of years, put in place some checks and balances so that governments, being the executive, when they propose a law and bring it to the legislative—which is us here in the chamber—that there is due process and ability for members to adequately debate the bill—I wouldn’t argue you have to debate bills ad infinitum—so that the issues can be put on the table, so that the government can reflect: “Oh, we haven’t thought about that. Maybe this has to be changed,” or whatever.

More importantly, they established a committee process. A committee process, Mr. Speaker, isn’t about you and I as members; it’s about the public, and it’s the one place in the British parliamentary system in which it was designed that the public can get to us when we draft legislation. Because this is the people’s House. We are spending the money of the people of Ontario by virtue of the decisions that we make here in the Legislature and what the executive decides at cabinet when it comes to where they want to spend the money.

I would think that those who give us the money should have the respect of being heard when it comes to what governments are doing, good or bad. If the government has a law that people are happy with, they should have as much right to come before committee to talk about the good parts of the law that they believe in, as a person who comes before committee who may have a problem with the law.

For the government to stand up and say, “Let me quote Benjamin Franklin; let me quote Mr. Bennett and others” about how we have to be moving things quickly because if we slow things down, at the end of the day it’s going to be the end of the world, because it’s just so darn important, flies in the face of over 300 years of history when it comes to how a Legislature is supposed to work.

The people are what this place is all about, Mr. Speaker. If the Legislature, and, I would argue, the government as the executive, decides that it doesn’t want to hear from the public and circumvents the process and shuts the public out from having its say about a bill—good, bad, or indifferent—then shame on them. Because it means to say that the government—in this case, the “government of the people”—is not about the people; it’s about corporate interests and the people that they write the laws for.

Does anybody believe that Bill 66 is about constituents in our ridings that are working hard every day, trying to go to work to make a living? This bill is about helping those people that they want to help in the business community.

Now, the government will argue that this is all—

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: No.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They’re heckling over there, but that’s okay.

The government is arguing, “All you’ve got to do is get rid of all this red tape and everything is going to go away,” and that any government regulation is called red tape. Well, let me put this akin to something: Is the speed limit on a highway red tape? Imagine if you didn’t have speed limits on Highway 11 or Highway 7 or whatever highway it was. We’d have a lot more accidents than we have. We came to a decision.

We made a conscious decision about posting speed limits based on experience on highways, in order to provide for public safety and to better give the ability to travel from point A to point B, and to get there in some reasonable amount of time and not be stuck behind a bunch of accidents.

When they talk about regulation being red tape, it’s a little bit the same thing. For example, Mr. Speaker, there was a town. I think it was called Walkerton; you might remember it. In Walkerton, the regulations—as they say, “red tape”—were very lax when it came to what they could and couldn’t do when it came, as in cities across Ontario and towns across Ontario, to the handling of water. At the time the Premier—I think his name was Harris: another Conservative.

And boy, they just didn’t want to do anything in order to burden down the private sector in being able to make money and do the things that they had to do, so they were very lax when it came to what kinds of regulations they were going to stand for when it came to the handling of water.

Well, we all remember what happened, Mr. Speaker. The lack of proper regulation, when it came to Walkerton, is what led to the deaths of a number of people. About a dozen people died in Walkerton after they opened the tap in their home and they drank the water. Thousands of people got sick, because the regulations didn’t provide for protection of the water, especially what happened in the groundwater. It was a question that the groundwater had gotten contaminated from certain actions. The regulations didn’t provide for proper protection of the water, and as a result, people died and people got sick.

So, guess what? The Harris government, the Conservatives—they were the anti-red-tape Conservatives—decided to tighten up the regulations because they understood that all regulations are not necessarily bad.

Are there some regulations that could be changed? I would argue probably yes, but the basic concept of regulations is that when something such as Walkerton goes very badly and people get hurt or killed, we learn from that and then we try to make laws and try to make sure the regulations to those laws are written in a way to make sure that that type of tragedy doesn’t happen again. This government argues all red tape is bad, and I’m just saying that that’s a very simplistic view.

There used to be a time called the Middle Ages and the Dark Ages when there was no red tape; there were no regulations. The King’s word was law; it was as simple as that. If they decided to take your head off, they did it. But over the years, we decided that we have to have laws to protect citizens, protect property and protect various things, and so the people took it upon themselves to create Legislatures in order to protect laws to protect themselves from the avarices of too much power.

These guys across the way are trying to bring us back to the Dark Ages. If I listen to the logic of what the Conservatives talk about in this Legislature when it comes to red tape, their logic is: All red tape is bad. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. Can some of the red tape and regulations be made in a way that works better? I would argue that that’s probably not a bad thing. But if you want to do that, there’s a committee in this Legislature called regs and private bills. There’s a whole

section in our standing orders about how the government and the members can use that committee to review regulations in order to see if they need to be modernized. I would argue that some of them need to be modernized. But to make an argument such as the government has been making in this bill that we’re now time-allocating, that all regulation is bad, is, quite frankly, a pretty dangerous argument, because there are plenty of things that we do in order to protect the people, the environment, and our society.

Let me just give you but one. I come from a place called Timmins. It’s kind of a mining centre. We have mines, and have had mines for over 100 years, in Timmins. As you go underground and you develop the underground, or you go open-pit and you develop the pit, and you process the ore, you have tailings dams. We take the rock, we crush it, we mix it with water and various chemicals, we put it through mechanical processes, and we extract the gold or the copper or whatever you might be mining. The residue is what we call, in mining terms, slimes, which go into tailings.

Guess what? There are regulations as to how you build a tailings dam. You think that may be a good idea? Because I’ll tell you what’s a bad idea. Did you see what happened in South America? How many people died, member from Danforth?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Forty.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Forty? The tailings dam failed for Vale—it happens to be a mining company that operates a pretty significant mine in Sudbury. Where there is a lack of regulation, where there is no red tape, where you can do what the heck you want—because, quite frankly, government has given those people the ability to do so—the tailings dam failed and 40 people died. We call that red tape? I call that bad government. I call that a failure on the part of a South American government to deal adequately with how you store tailings behind a tailings dam. If that happened, it happened because of that lack of protections that are needed.

Here in Canada, we have regulations when it comes to tailings dams. You don’t see the types of failures that you’re seeing in places like South America, because in our mining community—and right now we’ve got the PDAC, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, in Toronto as we speak. There are mining jurisdictions from around the world that are here—people in the mining sector, people from government—and they come to Toronto to this convention.

One of the reasons they come here is that Ontario, and Canada, is one of the best places to mine, not only because of geology but because we got some pretty good rules about how to do it. We say, when you develop a mine, that you’re not going to kill all the workers by way of injecting them with dust and chemicals and fumes. We’re going to make sure that the mine is safe; that when a miner goes to work in the morning, he or she can come back home at night and be relatively sure that they’re going to get home; and that whatever we discharge into the atmosphere is done in a way that makes it less harmful to the atmosphere overall.

So I challenge any one of you to come to Timmins and take a look at our mining community and look at our mining operators. They’re pretty good customers. They do a pretty darn good job. They make sure that when they dump their effluent into the tailings dam, it’s done in a way that is safe and that we protect the environment and the people around it.

I live at a place called Kamiskotia Lake. I hear people back there talk about God’s country. I don’t have curtains in my place. I’ve got all windows on the wall facing the lake. That’s God’s country, every morning, when you look at that lake. But I also happen to live by one of the worst mining disasters, when it comes to a tailings dam, in the history of Ontario and Canada: the old Kam Kotia mine. What happened there, at a time when there was no red tape—the member from Davenport would know this. Is it Davenport? No, not Davenport.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Toronto–Danforth; sorry. He would know that there was no red tape back during the Second World War. They decided to go after the copper in this mine, and there was another mineral—I can’t remember what it was called—that was essential to making steel. The Ontario government gave them an operating permit to start up a mine and to mill the ore as quickly as possible in order to provide for the war effort. They essentially made very poor tailings dams. The tailings dams that the effluent was put in behind were very structurally unsound. They failed.

As a result—I invite any of you to come out to where I live, out at Kamiskotia Lake—the environmental disaster that that mine created was horrendous. Essentially, the tailings dams failed, with the entire ground going towards the river, which flows out of the lake I’m on—the tailings dam effluents were going into that river. It was also going north of there into Big Kamiskotia River.

I remember going for a fishing trip with my brother. I got to the point where the groundwater coming up from the ground into the river was red plumes. It was like cyanide. It killed the river. There were no more fish there. Myself and other people, when we saw it, we reported it.

Thank God that when the NDP was in power, we created the mine reclamation act, which provided for regulations about how you do this stuff. It started under the Harris Tories, because the law that we created while we were in government made it that mining companies that operate a mine have to put money aside to make sure that when they close, they rehabilitate the ground back to what it was before they actually started the mine.

In cases of mines like Kam Kotia that were closed, defunct and bankrupt, there was a fund set up that we could draw money from in order to do cleanups. We have spent literally tens of millions of dollars on the Kam Kotia mine cleanup. As you drive there today, we’re pulling all of the tailings off of the ground from the Little Kamiskotia River all the way up to the mine and putting it back in new tailings dams. They’re digging into the ground to get that all out.

They’ve been recycling the groundwater for the better part of 15 years so that the water table can come back. Our lake was not affected. We were lucky, because the spill happened on the outflow of the lake. But if we would have been on the other side—in other words, if it had been the intake—we would have lost the lake entirely, and all of the people who have cottages, and people who live on that lake, like I do, would have had to move. It would have been worthless, all because there was no regulation, all because—exactly what the government wants—there was no red tape.

The mining community back then had no red tape. They just did what they wanted, and they made money; no question. They made lots of money. But guess who’s paying for the cleanup today? You and I, out of our taxes. They’ve absconded with the profits that they made while they ran that mine, until about 1978, and they skipped the country, and they left us holding the bill. It’s always you and I, the taxpayer, who are on the hook to pay. That’s why governments put in place regulation: in order to prevent that type of stuff from happening.

I listen to this government across the way saying, “All regulation is bad and gets in the way,” and we get the scholarly speeches. I just listened to the scholarly speech from my colleague across the way. What they’re going on about is that red tape is bad. They’re trying to say that regulation equals red tape, and that equals bad for business. I argue that there’s a reason why we put regulation in place. When it comes to the Kam Kotia mine, that’s exactly why you need to have regulations.

If you don’t believe what happened to the Kam Kotia mine, take a look at what happened in South America at the tailings dam over there, where over 40 people were killed because there was no regulation to contain tailings behind a tailings dam. So, yes, we have regulation.

The government says in Bill 66, “What we’re going to do is that we’re going to weaken the provision of the toxic chemical act”—

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Your comparison is weak.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Minister of Transportation, you’re not being helpful this morning carrying on across-the-aisle dialogue as we’re trying to listen to the member from Timmins discuss the bill that your government introduced.

The government members will please come to order. It is never too early to be warned or named, just as a reminder. It can happen in the morning and it can carry over into the afternoon and during question period as well.

We’ll return to the member from Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I had to stop to listen to the heckle because I thought I heard what I heard, and it was as silly as what I heard.

It’s actually a right-wing government that’s in power there, as you know, and it was a right-wing government for years. There are socialists that have taken over at times, but, by and large, the regulatory process established in South America is far from what it needs to be. If you’re thinking that regulations are a bad thing, I’m just proposing you take a look at the environmental disasters and the lives which have been lost as a result of not having good regulation, and just ask you to look at that for a while.

My argument is this: I’m not arguing that government should be placing a burden on business in order to give them a hard time. What I’m saying is, you have to have rules that allow the public interest to be protected, and the public interest is everything from safety of life, safety to the environment, and the social responsibility that we all have as citizens of this province, both as individuals and as corporations, because we have responsibilities to each other. I can’t run a mine in Timmins or run a factory in Waterloo and not have my social responsibility taken seriously.

I have to take my social responsibility seriously when it comes to how I’m going to affect the area in which I operate. That’s why government writes laws and that’s why there are regulations.

The government across the way can argue all it wants that, “Oh, this is so important. If we don’t pass Bill 66 today, the end of the world is going to come.” I’m just saying, talk to the people of Walkerton and see what they have to say about lack of regulation. We’ve already seen what they’ve had to say about this bill. There are people who have spoken out in Walkerton and said that some of the provisions that were originally proposed in this bill, when it comes to water regulations, are pretty darn scary.

Weakening the toxic chemical act: not a good idea. If there’s a way of being able to make it so that it’s better, I agree with you; let’s find ways to make it easier. But there are basic responsibilities that we have, and there are various sections in this act where the government is cutting regulation as a way of being able to supposedly help businesses, but that at the end may put the public at risk.

For example, in the daycare policy, they’re making it that we’re going to have more kids per daycare worker. There was an inquiry, a coroner’s inquest, that was done as a result of deaths in a daycare because there were too few staff per child. The inquiry looked at this whole matter and said, “Here’s what we’re recommending when it comes to how many daycare workers per child there could be at various ages, either infants or toddlers or kids a little bit older,” and it came up with a number.

And those regulations—“red tape, burden to business,” as these guys would call it—were put in place because we lost children in daycare because there was not enough supervision of the children. The parents of the children and those people involved in daycare participated in the coroner’s inquest and said, “Let not this happen again.” So there were recommendations that were made and rules were made when it came to what the proper staffing ratio should be.

If the government is saying that it’s okay to have fewer daycare workers per child, I want to see the evidence that says you’re right, because all I know is what I remember: that when that coroner’s inquest took place, they said directly, “Those kids died as a result of not having enough daycare workers per child.”

But the government tries to put this forward as a great way of being able to assist the private sector to get government off their backs and government out of the way so that they can make more money. Well, they have a social responsibility, as I do. We, as citizens—all of us in this chamber are citizens. We can’t go out on the highway and speed. If you get caught, you’re going to get charged. You can’t go out and steal at the bank. If you get caught, you’ll get charged. You’ll be convicted. There are consequences to your actions in a society.

That’s what makes us a civil society: We have rules about what you can and can’t do. To suggest that businesses and corporate entities don’t have a social responsibility when it comes to their responsibility to us, to our environment, to the people and to the economy, you’re sadly mistaken.

I will argue that this failed ideology on the part of the Conservatives here, in Ottawa and in other places has been proven to be wrong time and time again. So I just say to the government across the way: When I hear people argue that less red tape is all this province needs to get the economy going and working fast—listen, if you want to run to the Middle Ages, you guys can go to the Middle Ages, to the Dark Ages. We got out of that years ago, and I’d just like to make progress. I don’t want to go backwards.

Now, specifically to the time allocation motion—that was related to the time allocation motion, as you know, but now I want to speak to the specifics of the time allocation motion. First of all, there’s not a bill that this government won’t time-allocate, which to me is ridiculous. All the government has to do, the House leader’s office—and we’ve already sent the government a letter in regard to Bill 74, the health bill—we’re prepared, as an opposition, to accommodate the government in order to be able to get more time in committee.

And committee is not about me getting time to speak; it’s about the public having a chance to have their say, so there are certain bills where we’re going to want more time in committee, such as your health bill, to be able to give the public a chance to have their say. We’re about to go through what the government calls—this is the government, not me—the “largest health transformation in the last 50 years.” We’re about to change health care on its head in this province.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, you may be applauding. Wait until four years from now, until you’re knocking on doors. I don’t think you’ll be applauding too much.

The difficulty that we have is that even if the government is right—let’s say that the argument that the government puts forward is right, that by essentially creating these health teams, it’s going to mean that health care in areas is going to be consolidated under one organization. Places like northeastern Ontario, the northeast, may end up under one entity—let’s say the Sudbury hospital as an example—that will manage most of our health care services across the north. That could happen under this legislation. The legislation also provides for increased privatization.

Let’s say the government is right. Let’s say that that’s where you have got to go. I disagree, but let’s say that they are right. Then why aren’t they allowing this bill to go into committee and travel, as we suggested to the government House leader, for a couple of weeks so the public can have their say? If you think that the public is behind you and it’s a great bill, don’t be afraid of the public. Go out there and hear what they have to say, and learn from what they have told you, so that you can strengthen your bill.

It’s the same thing when it comes to this bill, Bill 66. If you’re so intent that you think this is the best thing since sliced bread and this is really what the economy needs to get it going—I disagree; I think, quite frankly, that this is going in the wrong direction. But let’s say that it is. What are you afraid of? Why wouldn’t you allow the bill to go into committee and to get some time and to travel?

It used to be in this place, when I first got here, Mr. Speaker, that a bill would come in in the fall. We’d have a short or a longer debate at second reading, depending on the negotiations about how the bill would proceed, but we would send the bill out in the intersession for committee hearings, and it wasn’t uncommon to have two or three weeks of hearings. That happened under our government, the NDP. It also happened under Mike Harris, even after time allocation at the beginning. Even the Tories under Harris allowed bills like the Planning Act to travel.

I was on the bill that made changes to the Planning Act, and I think we travelled for three weeks in the intersession, and guess what? The government learned some things as a result of that.

We travelled the bill having to do with the creation of the snowmobile trails across this province. It was a bill by northern development and mines under the Tories. We travelled that bill for maybe one or two weeks across the north. It might have only been a week. But the interesting part of that is, when we did go into communities and heard what the public had to say, we actually learned things that we never contemplated when it came to the drafting of the legislation. And the government—I think the minister at the time was Mr. Hodgson—went, “Whoa, that’s a good idea.

Maybe we need to amend the bill.” So the government actually amended the bill as a result of the public hearings. It strengthened the bill, and guess what? It’s still the rule that we use today, 20-some-odd years later, when it comes to how we run snowmobile trails across Ontario. Ontario has probably the best snowmobile trail system in Canada, and we can take some credit for that because the public hearings allowed that bill to be drafted in such a way that allowed the bill to be strengthened.

But here’s the problem: The government in this bill is saying—this is pretty draconian. You can’t make this stuff up. This is the type of stuff you have in horror pictures. We’re going to have one day of hearings, on March 18. That’s it: one day, in Toronto. We have a bill that has some of the largest changes to regulation in a long time, and this government is going to allow one day of hearings in Toronto—because the rest of Ontario doesn’t exist. You know, Kenora, Ottawa, Kingston, St. Catharines, Sault Ste. Marie, Attawapiskat: None of that exists. Everybody’s got to come to the centre of the universe. We’ve all got to come to Toronto.

I love Toronto; don’t get me wrong.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, Windsor. Don’t forget Windsor. But I just want to say—this is not a rant against Toronto. I love Toronto. Toronto is the most dynamic city in Canada and, I would say, one of best cities in the world. I’ve travelled around the world and this is a very hard city to beat. It’s an amazing place. But there are other amazing places across this province, places like Ottawa, Timmins, Windsor or wherever it might be. We’re saying the bill will have one day of hearings only, March 18, here at Queen’s Park.

So if you live in Windsor and any community outside of this place, and you have thoughts about this bill and you don’t have the money to get here? Sorry, democracy is not for you. It’s only for those who can afford to be here.

This is the government of the people, Mr. Speaker? This is the government that purports to be the government of the people? How can you be for the people when you won’t let the peeps in? This is a government of the well-to-do and those who are wealthy enough to gain from what the government is doing.

Then they’re giving you a deadline to appear before the committee. If you want to come to this committee on the 18th, you have to apply to the committee by 10 o’clock on Friday, March 8. We’re on the 5th today. How are people going to even know the darn thing is in committee unless the government calls them? That’s what this is all about. The government is going to call their friends and say, “Come to committee and say nice things about our bill.”

Those people who are mildly interested in the bill or very interested in the bill won’t see anything being advertised until at least March 6, I would argue, by the time the Clerks are able to put the postings out electronically. And if they put them in the papers at all, people are not going to find out about being able to come before committee and have their say. You have to apply to appear before the committee before March 8, and I’m saying that limits the ability of the public.

I’m saying shame on the government. For the guys who call themselves the government of the people, you’re leaving the peeps out. You gotta let the peeps in.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: And the same with Bill 68.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Bill 68: It’s all the same. All their time allocations are the same.

Then the wonderful one is on amendments. Let’s say that you take the time—let’s say that you live in Windsor, and you find out that you have to apply before 10 o’clock on March 8 to appear before the committee. You apply and you get picked to come to committee. Let’s say that your time to present at committee is 4 o’clock, because it’s up until 6 o’clock that day, and the committee all of a sudden hears something from the presentation that says, “Oh, this is an amendment that should be written.” “Wow, yes, we should fix that. What a great point.” The amendment has to be filed by 6 o’clock the same day.

How do you draft an amendment on the fly and essentially capture the change that you’re trying to make? Because amending that particular

section may affect another section, and it just creates bad legislation.

The government is saying—not only do you not have adequate time to notify people to show up; not only is this committee not travelling; not only are you limited on how much time you can present to committee, but when it comes to amendments, we’re virtually not giving legislators the adequate time necessary to draft a meaningful amendment.

Being on committee, if I hear somebody at 4 o’clock coming in trying to propose an amendment to the bill and they’re asking me, as a legislator, to write an amendment to the bill and have it filed before 6—I may get it wrong. I would argue that even the Clerks may get it wrong.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I know the Clerk is saying, “Oh, my God, we never get anything wrong.” I can have an argument with you on that one, and we know what we’re talking about.

But the point is, we’re not going to get it right.

So the government is doing short shrift when it comes to the legislative process—this, from a party that says, “We’re all about running this like a business. We’re efficient. We’re Conservatives. We’re business people. We know how to run things. We’re better than everybody.” You can’t run your way out of this place in the dark, or even if I turned on the lights. You’re trying to draft legislation in a way that if the private sector were to run their business that way, they would fail.

Imagine going to a business and saying, “All right. You’re thinking of expanding your product line. You have till tomorrow to make up your mind. Once you make up your mind, you have to put all the money on the table by this date and it’s all over.” Well, who’s going to invest in that climate?

What sane business person is going to put themselves in a position of having to make a decision that is going to cost them thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars, when it comes to investing in a new product or service, and not having the time to do the proper market research and the work that needs to be done to make sure that their business plan makes sense? Imagine, if you ran your business that way, what would happen.

Let’s say that you’re in the retail business and you’re thinking of bringing in a new line to sell, and you think it might be a good idea, and you’re told, “You’ve got to make up your mind in 24 hours or 48 hours. If you don’t make your mind up in 24 hours or 48 hours, forget it.” You say, “Oh, okay, I’m in.” Then you find out that, holy jeez, that was a bad decision. What do you do then? You spent the money. That means to say that you probably are going to be in a lot of trouble financially. No business would operate that way.

So why are you, as a government, supposedly a right-wing government—I will argue you are right-wing—and you’re supposedly all great business people, managing in a way you would never manage your own businesses? Nobody would manage their business in the way that you’re managing the legislative process here at Queen’s Park.

For example, on Bill 66, there is a huge amount of change that is being proposed in this legislation, and you’re not giving the business community or the public adequate time to look at the bill and to have their say. We know there are going to be problems with this legislation, because I don’t know a government, since I’ve been here—and I’ve been here under the guise of three different governments: NDP, Liberal and Conservative—there’s not a government that gets legislation right the first time.

The legislative process is meant to be slowed down. It’s not slowed down in order to be deleterious; it’s purposely slowed down so that you can get it right. It’s like a business.

We’ll go back to that retail business that wants to get into a new product line. The owners of the business will say, “What do you think? That sounds like a good idea. Let’s do a little bit of market research. Let’s look at what this means to our costs. What do we have to do vis-à-vis staff? What is that going to do to our bottom line?” There are a whole bunch of questions that have to be answered. Once they’ve done due diligence on the decision—is it good or not good to invest in this new product?—they make a decision. So at least if they decide to go ahead with a new product line, they’ve done so in an informed way.

This government is suggesting that this Legislature should close its eyes, hold its nose and pass legislation without due process. And I’m saying to you, no business in Ontario would operate like that. So why is the government—supposedly a government that represents the virtues of the business community—forcing the legislative process to do something as silly as passing bills without proper time in order to hear from the public and proper time to deal with amendments? If you choose to support the amendment or not is entirely up to you, but at least you should hear what the public has to say.

So I say to my friends across the way, you’re not doing anybody any favours. When we have speeches like we heard this morning, talking about, “Everything is about time; we’ve got to go, man—just run,” it’s silly. The reality is that it takes time to get things right. No corporation, no business in this province makes decisions without really contemplating what’s going to happen if they make that decision. They look at the pros and the cons. They study the situation so that when they make the decision, they do so in an informed way.

Why are we allowing legislation to be passed in this House without making sure that we inform ourselves in the proper way about, is the bill okay in its present form? I may agree or disagree with a bill; that’s irrelevant. What’s important is that we at least get it right. What I will argue is, you’re not going to get the bill right when you do this.

Again, when it comes to the issue of health transformation that the government is moving forward on, the single largest expenditure that the province of Ontario has is health care. It’s almost 50% of what we spend. Our budget is about $137 billion, and about half of that is health care. Are there ways of running health care differently that might be able to demystify the system for the public and make it more efficient? There are always ways of doing that. Nobody is arguing on any side of the House that just the status quo is okay.

My basic problem with what the government is trying to say is that they’re trying to say that the system is completely broke. Are there problems? Absolutely. There are problems in our health care system as there are problems in the way that you draft legislation and pass it through this House. But by and large, our health care system does work.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that about four or five years ago, I suffered a heart attack. I was very lucky. No damage was done. But this was my experience: At 3 o’clock in the morning, I feel a sensation. I end up at the hospital about 3:30 or 4 o’clock in the morning. They had air-ambulanced me to Sudbury in order to do stents by 9 o’clock that day, in the morning. Less than six hours after my heart attack, I was in a bed in Sudbury getting angioplasty. Is that a failure of the system? I think that’s pretty darn good.

Are there problems with our health care system? Oh, yes, there are. Sometimes we mess up when it comes to air transfers with air Ornge. I’ve seen that happen. Sometimes there are errors made by surgeons. Sometimes there are administrative errors that slow things down. Sometimes there are long waiting lists for certain procedures that we need to shorten. We can have those debates. But for the government to argue that our health care system is broken and you’ve got to fix it is a bit of a weak argument. This is not about fixing health care; this is about transforming health care in your image.

Do you remember the last election? I remember it well. All of us ran in it. Do you remember how the then leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Ford, would argue, “Oh, they’re a bunch of left-wing ideologues. No, you can’t put those guys into office.” Instead, they gave us right-wing ideologues, and look what we’ve got in office. They’re doing things that, quite frankly, they never ran on. Nobody, when voting Conservative in the last election, was thinking that their health care system was going to be changed in the way it’s about to be changed.

We are going to see a massive change in health care when it comes to administration that is going to affect how services are delivered in the province of Ontario. That is not going to be very acceptable to a lot of small, rural and northern communities. We’re worried in our area that health care decisions will no longer be made in our communities. If you’re in Smooth Rock Falls or Kapuskasing or Timmins or Attawapiskat, decisions are going to be made far away from your home, and that’s not what the public wants.

This is about increasing the creep of privatization into the system. That’s what this is all about.

Hon. Christine Elliott: No, it’s not.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, the minister says, “No, that’s not the way.” Read your own legislation. I’ve actually read the bill, and what the bill allows you to do, as minister, is to pull together—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Actually, I have read the bill. Unlike most people in this place, I read the legislation.

The bill does a couple of things. The bill will allow the minister to merge together various health care agencies into some sort of entity. That entity can be either private or public. That’s what the bill says.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Time allocation.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, it is time allocation. It is. Yes, it’s all about time allocation.

My point is, we’re about to make these massive changes, and the government doesn’t want to engage the public when it comes to the process of how you draft legislation. That’s what my basic argument here is: If the government is proud of what they’re doing, as they are with Bill 66 or they will be with Bill 74, then what they need to do is stand up and be proud of the bill they’re bringing forward, and they’ve got to allow a proper time at committee for people to have their say.

As I said—and I’ll leave the rest of the time for some of the colleagues on our side who want to say a few words—the private sector would never run a business in this way. The private sector would never make decisions about how to invest money in the types of timelines you guys use when it comes to drafting legislation. And let me tell you: This is a lot more money than most businesses will spend when it comes to their decisions.

Even a large mining company, on a big project of a billion and a half dollars—that is nothing compared to the amount of money that we spend as a result of Bill 66 or Bill 74, and you guys are trying to circumvent the process of making sure you get the legislation right.

I may not agree with what you’re doing, and that’s fair. You won a majority in the last election. You have the right as a majority government to pass your legislation; rules allow for that. But the point is, you have to have the ability to have your bill stand the scrutiny of the public, and where the public comes in is at committee. You have to allow the public to speak to your bills. If you’re proud of them and you think they’re great bills, you have nothing to hide; you have nothing to fear. Just go to the public and hear what they have to say. If they think it’s great, they’ll tell you it’s great; right?

But if they also tell you it’s great and they think changes need to be made, you should listen to that and amend your bill. If you hear that the bill is bad and you have to make changes or withdraw, maybe you should do that as well.

The last point I’ll make is this, Mr. Speaker: This is the people’s chamber. We spend the people’s money here. It’s the people of Ontario who pay taxes that provide the money that we spend in this Legislature and that cabinet utilizes in whatever initiative they’re doing when it comes to managing their ministries. When we disrespect the taxpayer by not allowing them to have their say, I think it is a grave, grave error. That’s what weakens our democracy in the long term, and that’s what weakens the strength of the legislation that you’re trying to pass.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am—actually, I’m not pleased to rise today, as my colleague the member from Timmins expressed earlier today. It is a pleasure to rise to participate in debates on such substantive bills as are addressed in this motion. Bill 66 is really an omnibus bill that includes—let’s see—12 schedules that make a variety of amendments across many different ministries that multiple, multiple stakeholders would like to have an opportunity to weigh in on and perhaps make some suggestions to the government about how the legislation could be improved.

But instead of continuing that debate on Bill 66, this very substantive omnibus legislation, we are, this morning, talking about time allocation on that bill. In particular, we’re talking about a process that allows people in this province to apply to appear before a committee by this Thursday. Just a couple of days away is going to be the deadline for people to request to appear before the committee.

I have to say that this government has taken some steps to at least go through the motions of appearing to consult. When we first came back under this new government, what we saw was that bill after bill went straight from second reading to third reading without any committee, without any opportunity for public input. Maybe one could say that this is an advance, that with this time allocation motion—the time allocation motion that we debated yesterday—we see this government putting on a show of pretending to be interested in what people might have to say about the legislation that is being debated.

But the problem is, Speaker—yesterday my colleague the member for Waterloo talked about it as drive-by consultation. When the consultation is not actually meaningful; when there is not enough time allocated for people to come and present before the committee; when there is not enough time between the last presenter and the debate on potential amendments, we know that this government is not actually interested in hearing what the people have to say. They’re not interested in ensuring that the legislation we’re debating actually serves the people of this province.

All they are interested in is this pretense that they’re going to allow public input and they’re going to consider recommendations for amendments that could be made to strengthen the legislation. But they’ve created a process that doesn’t allow that to happen.

The process limits the time that people can appear before the committee to such an extent that it’s impossible to imagine that a bill that has 12 schedules—and each schedule, I think, addresses a different ministry, so we have stakeholders from 12 different ministries who all may want to weigh in on the sections of these bills. The time that has been allocated for people to appear before the committee to offer their suggestions to improve the legislation is so limited that there is no possible way that the proper due diligence can be accomplished, when you have such limited opportunity for people to appear.

Once again, Speaker, this does highlight the problems with omnibus bills, and why many people raise concerns about omnibus bills as being a way of undermining democracy. When you package so many different legislative changes in one omnibus piece of legislation, it prevents the kind of analysis, the kind of debate and the kind of input that one should have as the goal to try to achieve.

The same thing goes for public input on omnibus legislation. Of course, when you have such a limited time for people to appear, it’s quite possible that there could only be maybe one or two presenters for each

schedule that is set out in this bill. That is not the kind of fulsome public debate and discussion that we should be aiming for and that this government should welcome.

This government should want to hear from the people. They should want to hear suggestions for how the legislation could be improved, how it could be strengthened, how it could actually address the needs of the people of this province. But instead, they have set out this process which is not actually a process that will enable public input and scrutiny and analysis and improvements to the legislation.

The other concern, as my colleague the member for Timmins has pointed out—I live in London, and London is two hours away from the Legislature.

I have to say, Speaker, as you know, being from Windsor—and we often cross paths on the train on our way in—it’s not particularly easy for people from London to get to Queen’s Park to come to appear before a committee, and it’s not easy for people from your community of Windsor to get to Queen’s Park to come and appear before a committee, and it’s especially not easy for people from Timmins, northern Ontario and beyond to get to Queen’s Park and come and appear before a committee.

But what we see here is a process that requires people to travel from all across the province if they want to come and have a say on this bill.

There is a provision to allow written input to be submitted, so I’m sure that this government wants to argue that, “Well, people from northern Ontario, people from southwestern Ontario, people from eastern Ontario, they can participate; they can just send in written input.” But you know, Speaker, the timeline—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It doesn’t work that fast.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Yes. And the timeline that’s set out here has the deadline for the receipt of the written input for the last speaker, who is designated to have the final spot in the delegations that are going to appear to address the bill. But then the turnaround for when the amendments have to be filed with the Clerk is just ridiculous.

It’s nonsensical to think that there are meaningful opportunities for people to come and make suggestions about how it can be improved, and then all of that written input, the public input, is all going to be analyzed, and people are going to do a thoughtful review and really think through what has been said, really think through the kinds of suggestions that people have made to improve this legislation, and then come up with some amendments that actually address some of the gaps and some of the concerns that have been raised.

That we’re going to be able to do all this in a period of not much more than 24 hours is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. It can’t happen. It actually makes a mockery of the process in which we’re engaged. It really makes a mockery of any claims that this government might want to make to being open to hearing what people have to say and wanting to bring forward the best possible legislation.

If that’s what they really wanted to do, they would allow maybe a week of public input and maybe two weeks of public input. Travel the province; go to where the people are. Make it easy for people to come and present their ideas about what they want to see in these legislative changes that are proposed.

And then allow a period of time between receiving the input and talking about amendments to the legislation, so that the amendments actually do what they’re supposed to do. Amendments are intended to improve legislation. They’re intended to make sure that the legislation is responsive to the issues that are identified by the people of this province when they provide input on bills. But that’s not what we have in this time allocation motion.

We don’t have that one- or two-week opportunity for people to weigh in. We don’t have direction for a committee to travel the province to allow people from different regions of the province to participate in the public input process. And we certainly don’t have the time that would be necessary to really consider the input that’s received and turn that into amendments that would help improve this legislation.

Speaker, I want to give an example of some possible amendments that people in my community in London might be very interested in bringing forward, if they could possibly manage the timeline that’s listed here, if they were able to put in their request to submit quickly enough so that they could be one of those very, very few delegations that’s going to be scheduled to present at that single day of public input.

I met with the Licensed Child Care Network in London. The Licensed Child Care Network is an organization that encompasses almost three quarters of all early learning and licensed child care organizations in London and Middlesex. They have some very significant concerns, Speaker, about this bill. In particular, they have very significant concerns about

schedule 3 of this bill, which makes amendments to the Child Care and Early Years Act and the Education Act to increase the maximum number of children younger than two years old who can be in the care of home child care providers or unlicensed child care providers.

They made a written submission to the government with some suggestions about how

schedule 3 of Bill 66 could be improved. One of the things they point out is that the provisions that this government wants to remove around the numbers of children in home child care providers—those provisions were put in place by the Ombudsman following the deaths of infants and toddlers in this province. Those provisions were put in place to protect families, to protect children from being put at risk by having their safety jeopardized.

They raised concerns about evacuation. What if there is a fire and there’s a home child care provider with three infants who are unable to walk, and the home child care provider is supposed to gather up those three infants and gather up the other children who are in that home and safely evacuate them? No, Speaker, this is not an amendment that is in the best interests of children in this province. The Licensed Child Care Network in London and Middlesex may well have wanted to come and appear before this committee to raise some of their concerns.

I was fortunate enough to visit Western Day Care Centre, which is in my riding and is one of the members of the Licensed Child Care Network. They highlighted some of the safety mechanisms that are in place in that child care centre that would be lost if these amendments go through.

This is just one example, Speaker, of why it is so important to have a process that really does enable people to come together to provide input into legislation and really does enable the development of amendments that improve the legislation that’s being debated.

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

Mr. Tibollo has moved government notice of motion number 32, relating to allocation of time on Bill 66,

An Act to restore Ontario’s competitiveness by amending or repealing certain Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Seeing the time on the clock, this House is in recess until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s my pleasure to introduce Nicholas Vourakes, who was a volunteer in my election campaign last June. Welcome to the House, Nicholas.

Hon. Bill Walker: He’s not a visitor to this House, but he’s a very special person. I would like to congratulate Constable Greg Rogers, a valued member of our Legislative Protective Service and the proud grandpa of seven-pound. nine-ounce grandson Kowen Jordan Clarkson. The proud parents are his daughter Samantha Rogers and Jordan Clarkson. Congratulations, Grandpa.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes, congratulations. Introduction of visitors.

Mr. Joel Harden: It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge some of my Ottawa friends from OPSEU today, and all of the great people from OPSEU who fight for people working for our provincial government every single day. I want to name, in particular, Melissa Coenraad. I see Joe Chang and Smokey Thomas over there. Thank you so much for the work you do in making our work possible. I look forward to meeting with you today.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I am so happy to welcome to Queen’s Park, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, the Six Nations elected council to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and we are delighted to have you here. I will have an occasion to speak to you.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome, from my riding, Gayle and Pat Ferris, who are here with their son and grandson, Wesley and Parker, to visit their nephew Tom Keys-Brasier, who just recently started the amazing page program here at Queen’s Park. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to welcome to Queen’s Park members from OPSEU Hospital Professionals Division. They include physiotherapists, occupational therapists, respiratory therapists, genetic technologists, med lab technologists and social workers, just to name a few. I’d like to highlight Sarah Labelle and Smokey Thomas for joining us. Everybody else, thank you for being here.

My second introduction: The Heart and Stroke Foundation is at Queen’s Park. I think we will get to talk about them in a few minutes. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s a real pleasure today to introduce Rotarians from Guelph who are visiting: Sue Ricketts and Joanna and Robert Penfold. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I would also like to welcome to the Legislature representatives of the Heart and Stroke Foundation who are here at Queen’s Park to raise awareness and discuss their efforts to improve access to defibrillation.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I believe that you’ll find that we have unanimous consent to wear red heart pins today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Sorry, could the member repeat that request?

Mrs. Robin Martin: I believe that you’ll find we have unanimous consent to wear the red heart pins today in honour of the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to wear red heart pins today in the House in recognition of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Agreed? Agreed.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order: the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion regarding a full public inquiry to investigate the appointment of Ron Taverner and the dismissal of Brad Blair.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Horwath is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion regarding a full public inquiry to investigate the appointment of Ron Taverner and the dismissal of Brad Blair. Agreed? I heard some noes.

We’re still in introduction of guests. The member for Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I want to note the presence among us of Deb Matthews, who was the former Deputy Premier. She was the minister responsible for free tuition and changing loans to grants. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s an honour and a privilege for me this morning, having had a fantastic meeting with three wonderful ladies from the Ontario Heart and Stroke Foundation. They are Eden Klein, Stacey Leake and Angela Brown.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: It’s my privilege to welcome Ed Arvelin from OPSEU, from Thunder Bay, to the House today.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I had a great breakfast meeting this morning with some OPSEU delegates who are providing front-line services to our patients in our hospital system. I would like to welcome, from Ottawa, Hervé Cavanagh, Alana Long and Elizabeth Pickles, who I had the pleasure of meeting this morning.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I’ve got the honour today of introducing and welcoming the 540 Squadron, the Golden Hawks, Royal Canadian Air Cadets from Oakville. With them are Major Mike LaCombe, Second Lieutenant Anthony Vukojevic, administrative officer Helen Chen, squadron warrant officer Cynthia Parker, and all of the cadets. Welcome here today.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’d like to welcome Chief Ava Hill and the council from Six Nations. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I would like to welcome representatives from Innovative Medicines Canada to the Legislature today. IMC member companies help discover, develop and deliver innovative medicines and vaccines, and also create thousands of high-value jobs that help drive Ontario’s economy, many headquartered in the region of Peel.

On behalf of all the members, I welcome Innovative Medicines Canada to the Legislature today. Thank you. Welcome.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’d like to introduce Kingsley Kwok from OPSEU, Shelagh Pizey-Allen from TTCriders, Sébastien Lalonde from the Canadian Federation of Students and other Canadian Federation students. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I’d like to welcome one of my constituents to Queen’s Park: Teresa Chafe. She’s here with OPSEU, and I look forward to meeting with her later today.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to welcome members from OPSEU—Len Elliott, Philip Shearer, Sandra and June—as well as members from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, including Christine Faubert, Caroline McNamee and Dr. Adam Kassam.

I’d also like to extend a warm invitation to Deb Matthews, the former member from London North Centre. Thank you for coming.

Mrs. Amy Fee: This morning I would like to welcome my two daughters to the Legislature, Sarah and Irene Fee.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome members of OPSEU: Joe, Jacqueline and Joanne. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Will Bouma: While I’ll be bringing more formal greetings tomorrow, I would also like to welcome the Six Nations elected council to this House today. Not every member has eight nations in their riding; I do. Thank you so much for being here.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I’d like to welcome the members from OPSEU, as well as Warren “Smokey” Thomas.

Mr. Jamie West: Along with the members from OPSEU, I’d like to welcome Len Elliott and congratulate him on all the work he has done to improve health and safety in the province.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to welcome the Six Nations council here. They’re neighbours of ours from Hamilton—good neighbours.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I, too, wish to welcome a former member, Deb Matthews, who has already been introduced. We’re delighted to have you back here in the Legislature today.

Also, we have with us in the Speaker’s gallery His Excellency Kerim Uras, the ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to Canada. He’s accompanied by Mr. Erdeniz Şen, the consul general of Turkey in Toronto. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests to the Legislature today.

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Acting Premier. As acting OPP commissioner, Brad Blair showed incredible integrity and courage standing up for the independence of the Ontario Provincial Police and standing up to the Premier when he tried to install his friend Ron Taverner as the commissioner of the OPP. Why did the Premier have him fired?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I will once again reiterate that Mr. Blair’s employment with the OPP was terminated as a result of a nine-member deputy minister committee of the Public Service Commission. To be clear, that recommendation to terminate his employment was in consultation with the commissioner, Gary Couture.

No one is above the law. Whether you are a constable or a deputy commissioner, you swear an oath to uphold the laws of our province. Mr. Blair breached his duties as both a police officer and a public servant. That is why the recommendation was made to terminate his employment and that is why his OIC was rescinded.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For months, the Premier and the ministers forced to defend his actions insisted that hiring the Premier’s oldest friend as commissioner was a coincidence and that buying an off-the-books van with a reclining leather couch was a cost-saving measure. Now they want to attack a dedicated career officer who had the courage to blow the whistle on this government.

Why should anyone believe that this is anything but the Premier trying to settle the score?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, I think, in the interests of clarity, we’d better read from the dismissal letter that was sent to Brad Blair, which was made public earlier today:

“You have no authority to unilaterally disclose confidential government emails in furtherance of your personal interests.

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

It “is a clear attempt to use your professional status to further your private interests by implying that the legal activities in which you are engaged are part of your official duties and/or sanctioned by the OPP.”

This individual chose to sully the reputation of the excellent OPP officers who serve our public and the people of Ontario. He was terminated as a result.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, every PC MPP should take a moment to ask themselves if their constituents sent them here so that the Premier could install his personal friend into the top job running the OPP and fire anyone who doesn’t agree with him.

Maybe it was because Brad Blair blew the whistle on political interference. Maybe it was because he said that the OPP wouldn’t make off-the-books purchases for the Premier. Maybe it was because the Premier was worried about the investigation into the 407 data breach. People deserve answers—answers this government has not provided.

Will the government call a public inquiry today to clear the air and give people the answers that they deserve?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, in the interests of clarity, I will confirm Mr. Blair’s employment was terminated as a result of the nine-member Public Service Commission decision. That recommendation was accepted. We have now moved forward.

We need to ensure that the integrity of the OPP, the integrity of the people who choose to serve in our Ontario Provincial Police and in the OPS—are prepared to withhold and prepared to make sure that they prepare their oath of office.

We have individuals in the OPP who are excellent, and yet we have an individual who chose to—and I will quote again: “You have no authority to unilaterally disclose confidential government emails in furtherance of your personal interests.”

He was terminated as a result of a recommendation from the Public Service Commission. That led to a revocation of his order in council. It’s done. We need to move on.

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier.

I think it’s shocking that the minister says it’s done, nothing to see here. This thing reeks. It reeks like a stinking mess, and this government needs to clean it up, Speaker. They need to clean it up.

The OPP says that the acting commissioner, Brad Blair, was fired on the orders of Mario Di Tommaso, Ron Taverner’s former colleague and the man who changed the OPP commissioner job description in order to lower the bar so that Ron Taverner could qualify to apply. But yesterday, the Minister of Community Safety claimed that the decision was made by the Public Service Commission in consultation with the OPP, independently. Whose version is accurate: the minister’s or the Ontario Provincial Police’s?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The leader of the NDP can’t have it both ways. You asked for an independent public service. You asked that there be no involvement and intervention. Yet, when I explain the process, when I talk about the Ontario public service, the commission that made the decision to terminate Mr. Blair’s employment with the Ontario public service and the OPP, you are suggesting that in some way we now need to get involved. I vehemently disagree.

I support the Ontario public service, I support the recommendation, and I’m happy to endorse it entirely.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I dare say the minister and her Premier had better figure out whether this was a political appointment or it wasn’t. They can’t have it both ways.

Yesterday the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services said that her deputy minister, Ron Taverner’s friend, Mario Di Tommaso, recommended the termination of Brad Blair. The minister claimed she didn’t ask why Mario Di Tommaso was doing this. Supposedly he didn’t give her his reasons for wanting to fire Brad Blair, but she approved the decision anyway. Why would the minister approve terminating an OPP deputy commissioner without seeking any explanation or rationale for the decision?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, in the interests of clarity, again, I will read from the dismissal letter given to Mr. Blair:

“You have no authority to unilaterally disclose confidential government emails in furtherance of your personal interests.

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

It “is a clear attempt to use your professional status to further your private interests by implying that the legal activities in which you are engaged are part of your official duties and/or sanctioned by the OPP. This is also a contravention of your obligations under the conflict of interest regulation....

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

Enough said.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the Ford government says the OPP decided to fire the acting commissioner, Brad Blair. The OPP says it was a decision coming from Mario Di Tommaso, the deputy minister, who is also a friend of Ron Taverner’s. The Premier has been saying for months that Brad Blair should be punished for speaking out.

Can the Acting Premier tell us: Did the Premier or his chief of staff have any conversations about this matter with the deputy minister before he recommended the firing?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m going to repeat this in the interest of ensuring that everybody is clear: No one is above the law. Whether you are a constable or a deputy commissioner, you swear an oath to uphold the laws of this province. Mr. Blair’s employment was terminated as a result of the Public Service Commission’s nine-member committee. This action was taken in consultation with OPP Commissioner Couture.

I think that it is perfectly appropriate that someone who used their uniform and position as a deputy commissioner to further his own personal gain—he violated the use of his office and, frankly, sullied the reputation of every excellent OPP officer who serves the province of Ontario and the people of Ontario.

We need to make sure that the people who choose to serve in our Ontario public service and with the OPP respect that oath of office. That is what the commission has done by terminating his employment.

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. The deputy OPP commissioner was ultimately terminated through an order in council that was signed by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Did anyone in the cabinet ask any questions about Brad Blair’s termination before signing the order in council that removed him? Or are we supposed to believe that the Premier asked no questions about this unprecedented termination?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think, in the interest of clarifying process, it is important to note that the order in council occurred after Mr. Blair was terminated as a deputy commissioner for the OPP. You cannot have an order in council of an individual who is no longer actively engaged in a role as commissioner of the OPP. That is why the recommendation was made to me, as minister, to revoke the order in council. After the termination occurred on Monday morning, we revoked the order in council, as was appropriate.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier claimed that it was a remarkable coincidence that his oldest friend was awarded the job of OPP commissioner even though he wasn’t qualified to even apply for the initial posting. Now he expects us to believe that impartial civil servants and the OPP decided spontaneously to terminate the decorated officer the Premier has been complaining about for months.

Why won’t the Premier stop asking people to believe the unbelievable and put all of the facts on the table with a public inquiry? That’s what the people of this province deserve. That’s what this government should do. It’s the only way—the only way—to get to the bottom of this cesspool.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It’s pretty clear that the individual who did not ultimately get the offer of employment to serve as the OPP commissioner is a little angry. But that in no way excuses him and allows him to be above the law.

Again, the dismissal letter sent to Mr. Blair, which was made public today: “You have no authority to unilaterally disclose confidential government emails in furtherance of your personal interests.

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

It “is a clear attempt to use your professional status to further your private interests by implying that the legal activities in which you are engaged are part of your official duties and/or sanctioned by the OPP.”

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

I’m going to caution the opposition members: Some of the interjections are dangerously close to the line of unacceptability in terms of parliamentary language.

Next question.

Tuition

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Speaker, I know from listening to students and families that skyrocketing fees for university and college in Ontario became increasingly unaffordable under the previous Liberal government. In fact, since 2006, undergraduate tuition for Ontarians has risen from an average of $5,000 to almost $9,000.

My classmates at Brock University have been clear to me that a sustainable and affordable post-secondary education is crucial to them and their future.

Can the minister tell us what steps this government is taking to make university and college affordable for students and their families?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member from Niagara West for the question.

Speaker, for years student groups and even the opposition have been calling for relief from unsustainable tuition fees. Our government is taking unprecedented steps to provide tuition fee relief, and for the first time in Ontario’s history, we’ll be reducing tuition fees across the board by 10%. While the NDP is more concerned about the ability of institutions to handle a 3% reduction in funding, we are focused on delivering a total of $450 million in tuition relief to students and their families.

In addition to this historic reduction, we are creating the Student Choice Initiative. This initiative will allow students to choose whether or not to support optional fees, so they can find additional savings.

Speaker, our government is putting students first by making post-secondary education more affordable and putting more money back in their pockets.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you to the minister for that response.

It’s shameful that under the previous Liberal government, tuition was allowed to skyrocket. Since 2006, undergraduate tuition for Ontarians has risen from an average of $5,000 to almost $9,000. Many professional degrees, including medical degrees, computer science degrees and business degrees, are even more expensive for students.

I know that the 10% reduction and Student Choice Initiative will see particularly large savings for students and families in those programs.

Can the minister tell us how much students in my riding could save in these programs because of our government’s historic action?

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

Speaker, the member is right to say that students and families will see real and substantial savings from our 10% tuition reduction. In the member’s riding, a student studying game development at Niagara College will save $650 next year, thanks to our government’s changes; a student studying an undergraduate degree of commerce and business at Brock University will save $890 next year; and a student studying a master’s of education at Brock will save $1,200.

We were elected on a promise to put more money back in people’s pockets, and through our historic tuition reduction and our Student Choice Initiative, we are doing just that.

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, through you to the Acting Premier: Was acting OPP commissioner Brad Blair fired for telling the people of Ontario that the current, part-time Premier requested an off-the-books purchase of a special luxury van complete with a reclining couch, a bar fridge and a widescreen TV?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Mr. Blair’s employment with the Ontario Provincial Police was terminated because no one is above the law. Whether you are a constable or a deputy commissioner, you swear an oath to uphold the laws of this province. He chose not to do that when he didn’t get the job that he wanted. A decision was made by the Public Service Commission to terminate his employment. That is what happened, in full consultation with OPP Commissioner Couture.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: That truly is some Trudeau-level spin coming out of this minister.

Speaker, Brad Blair didn’t have a lot to gain from blowing the whistle on this Premier, but the Premier had everything to gain from firing Brad Blair. He could clear the way for his appointment of his friend Ron Taverner as commissioner. He could get his luxury van complete with reclining couch, bar fridge and widescreen TV. Our part-time Premier has a proven track record of threatening Brad Blair, so when the Premier said that this has nothing to do with—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You can’t impute motive. I’d ask the member to put his question without imputing motive.

Hon. John Yakabuski: And withdraw.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I withdraw.

Speaker, when the Premier says that this has nothing to do with him, why should anyone in Ontario believe him?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, the difference between Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Ford is that Premier Ford stands behind the women in his cabinet and supports them.

Again, I will quote from the dismissal letter sent to Brad Blair, which he made public yesterday:

“You have no authority to unilaterally disclose confidential government emails in furtherance of your personal interests.

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

It is “a clear attempt to use your professional status to further your private interests by implying that the legal activities in which you are engaged are part of your official duties and/or sanctioned by the OPP,” which they were not clearly—

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

The next question.

Hunting and fishing

Mr. Doug Downey: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Mr. Speaker, our PC government was elected on a promise to make life easier for the people of Ontario. For 15 years, the Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, nickel-and-dimed Ontarians. They were more concerned with finding ways to raise taxes than with how to make life more affordable. Under the leadership of our Premier, it’s a new day in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry has been hard at work to make hunting and angling more affordable for the people of my riding, after the Liberals ignored them for 15 years. Recently, the minister announced that hunting and fishing licence fees would be frozen.

My question for the minister is: How much of the money will this initiative put back in the pockets of the folks in Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte who fish in Lake Simcoe and Orr Lake?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member from Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte for the question and his great service to his riding. We’re making life easier for hunters and fishers by putting more money back into their pockets. These are great sports enjoyed by people all across Ontario. It’s also a big driver of our economy, particularly in rural communities.

With our PC government, Ontario is finally open for business and open for jobs. Cancelling the Liberals’ previously approved fee increases, $2 of service fee increases plus the licence fee increases themselves, will make hunting and fishing more accessible to people all across Ontario so they can contribute to their local economy by spending more money on the things that matter to them—perhaps more money at the bait shop; perhaps more money at the tackle shop.

Speaker, I’m pleased to inform the member that this initiative will put $4.3 million not into the government’s pockets but back into the pockets of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Doug Downey: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m always glad to hear how committed the minister is to making life easier for hunters and anglers by putting more money in their pockets. It’s unfortunate that the NDP decided to support the Liberals for 15 years while the cost of day-to-day life became more than Ontarians could bear. However, it’s clear the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry and our government have the right priorities for the people of Ontario, with common-sense initiatives like this.

Mr. Speaker, I know the decision to exempt veterans and active Canadian Armed Forces members who enjoy recreational fishing from needing a fishing licence was also very well received by my constituents, including my friend Aron Garbe.

Ontario is finally on the right track, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister elaborate on the significance of hunting and fishing for Ontario’s economy?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member again for his supplementary. We were very proud, as the government for the people, to exempt veterans and active service people from their fishing licence fees.

Ontario is recognized as a destination for both hunting and fishing, and the impact it has on our tourism industry is significant. We have a bountiful amount of natural resources, and we want people from everywhere to take advantage of that.

Recreational fishing alone is a $2.2-billion industry here in the province of Ontario that contributes so much to the local economies, particularly in rural Ontario. Hunting is an over $400-million business here in the province of Ontario. So when we can have people enjoying those pursuits, those sports, particularly with their families, and we can reduce or eliminate additional costs to make them more accessible, that’s what we do in Ontario, because this government of the people wants to do the things that the people care about in the province of Ontario.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Deputy Premier. I’ve been travelling the province, where hundreds of families have come out to town halls. We’ve heard from parents who are being flat-out denied enrolment for their children with autism at their local public schools. We’re hearing warnings from experts that improper transition out of therapy and into schools is damaging, and parents are feeling the pressure and anxiety of what lies ahead.

Families from all across the province are coming to the front lawn of Queen’s Park on Thursday to make their voices heard. Who, from this government, will come out and speak to them to justify their autism program?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question is to the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you to the honourable member for the question. The system for autism services that our government inherited from the previous Liberal government was both unfair and unsustainable. Currently, just 2,400 children are waiting for a diagnostic assessment. However, more than 23,000 children are presently on the waiting list. Just 8,400 children are receiving the crucial help that they need—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Steve Clark: —which means that three out of four children—

Interjections.

Hon. Steve Clark: I really wish the opposition would understand that what’s happening is, three out of four are languishing on the wait-list. Our government and our minister made a decision that we didn’t want that to happen, that we wanted to reform the system, and that’s exactly what our government is going to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, back to the Deputy Premier who used to care about this file: Yesterday, it was the member from Carleton giving parents false hope. Today, I’d like to share the finance minister’s previous words of support: “This government has a responsibility to ensure individuals with autism can realize their full potential. Instead, after years of waste, scandal and mismanagement, the Premier is attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.” Mr. Vic Fedeli in 2016.

I couldn’t have said it better myself—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll remind all members: We refer to each other by our riding names, or a ministerial name if the person’s in cabinet.

Place your question.

Miss Monique Taylor: I was quoting Hansard, Speaker. Sorry.

I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I wonder if the minister still agrees with himself.

Will the Acting Premier encourage her members to join parents on the front lawn—perhaps the Minister of Finance or the member from Carleton?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question has been referred to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Our government for the people is taking action so more families of children with autism can get the services they deserve.

Over the next 18 months, over 23,000 families will move off the wait-list and get the help they deserve. Again, our government inherited a system that was unfair and unsustainable. Our minister and the members of our government are committed to ensuring that, over the next 18 months, we will clear that wait-list.

Our government’s plan is built out of compassion. Again, we want to make sure that we are responding to the needs of parents, but we can’t have an unsustainable system where three out of four children languish on a wait-list. That’s not fair. That wasn’t a good system. We’re going to change that, Speaker.

Government accountability

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Premier said that he wanted a used van, but thanks to court records, we know that this is not true. What the Premier really wanted was a custom van, fitted out with a 32-inch-screen television, a Blu-ray player, a leather power-reclining bench, a mini fridge and WiFi. The used van was supposed to cost over $50,000, not including the actual cost of the van. This is the real gravy train.

We learned that what the Premier really wants is a hand-selected OPP detail. Why doesn’t he trust the OPP detail that he was assigned? What doesn’t he want them to see? We learned all this thanks to a whistle-blower, a man with a 33-year public record of service to our provincial police. But we now know that the Premier’s hand-picked deputy minister has fired him. Why the cover-up, Mr. Speaker? Why—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw her unparliamentary comment.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question is to the Deputy Premier.

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: To be clear, there is no used van. There is no van. What we have is a decision made by the Public Service Commission that the individual whose employment was terminated by OPP on Monday clearly had a different agenda that did not match with his oath of office.

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

We cannot have individuals who have an agenda, because they didn’t get the job that they applied for, undermining the excellent work that our OPP officers do every day across the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, the—

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: We need to know what the real agenda is. Again to the Deputy Premier: Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects legal rights and allows us to remain free from a police state. Why do you think that the Premier is running the OPP as his own private police force?

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: A Premier taking control of the OPP in this way is a big red flag. The Premier is undermining the rule of law. How is any Ontarian expected to believe that this police force is independent when the Premier is using them in this way? He has fired the whistle-blower and tried to cover up the purchase of a luxury van, and—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’m going to ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary comment.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: He is having his staff use their—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Sorry. You have to withdraw the unparliamentary comment, and please place your question.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I withdraw.

He’s having his staff use their personal emails to carry out this order. When will this Premier do the right thing, not hire Ron Taverner and fire Mario—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. To the minister to reply.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: You know, Speaker, I’ve heard a lot of questions in this chamber in the last 10 years. As a former minister of the crown, it amazes me that this member is suggesting that the nine-member Public Service Commission is in any way influenced or impacted by political decisions.

To be clear, the commission made a decision to terminate Mr. Blair’s employment with the OPP as a result of him no longer being a member of the OPP because, “You have acted in a manner that is incompatible with the faithful discharge of your position as a public servant.” His order in council was rescinded.

This is an individual who was using his office as a deputy commissioner in the OPP for personal gain and a personal agenda because he didn’t get the job—

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

Services de police

M me Natalia Kusendova: Ma question aujourd’hui est pour la procureure générale. Nous, de ce côté-ci de la Chambre, avons un profond respect pour le travail important réalisé par les professionnels de la police. Nous savons qu’ils sont des héros de tous les jours qui veillent à la protection de nos communautés.

Le mois dernier, la ministre de la Sécurité communautaire et des Services correctionnels a déposé un projet de loi très important : le projet de loi 68, la Loi de 2019 sur la refonte complète des services de police de l’Ontario. La ministre ainsi que la procureure générale ont travaillé avec la police et d’autres partenaires de la sécurité publique pour corriger le projet de loi 175 du gouvernement libéral précédent, la mesure législative la plus anti-police que nous avons connue en Ontario.

Nos policiers méritent notre respect pour le travail qu’ils effectuent. Pour notre gouvernement, la protection des familles et des agents de première ligne est une priorité absolue. La procureure générale pourrait-elle nous dire ce que les agentes et les agents de première ligne disent au sujet de ces changements proposés par notre gouvernement?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: J’aimerais remercier la députée de Mississauga-Centre pour sa question. Notre projet de loi, s’il est adopté, fournit de la transparence et de la clarté aux agentes et aux agents de police, aux chefs de la police et à la population de l’Ontario. Il concentrerait les ressources d’enquête là où on en a besoin pour préserver la sécurité de nos communautés.

Bruce Chapman, président de l’association des policiers de l’Ontario, nous a dit que ses membres sont ravis du projet de loi que nous avons proposé. D’ailleurs, il a rappelé que l’APO « a maintenu que le personnel civil et les agents en uniforme de la police avaient besoin d’outils et de fonds adéquats pour préserver la sécurité communautaire. Nous avons réitéré notre soutien à un système efficace, fondé sur des principes de surveillance, de responsabilité et de transparence, afin de rétablir la confiance du public dans notre profession. »

Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement est déterminé à faire régner la sécurité dans nos communautés et à donner aux agentes et aux agents de la police les outils dont ils ont besoin pour accomplir leur travail très important.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me Natalia Kusendova: Merci, madame la Ministre. Je suis heureuse d’entendre que notre gouvernement a écouté les préoccupations des agentes et des agents de première ligne. Je pense que cette nouvelle législation est équilibrée, respectueuse et équitable.

Monsieur le Président, je sais que les agents de première ligne dans ma communauté à Mississauga et à travers l’Ontario seront heureux de ces changements. Les changements proposés par le projet de loi 68 veillent à ce que nous livrons notre devoir aux agents et aux citoyens.

De ce côté-ci de la Chambre, nous savons que nos femmes et nos hommes en uniforme sont hautement entraînés et qu’ils risquent tout pour que nous puissions vivre en sécurité. La procureure générale pourrait-elle exposer devant cette Chambre comment les changements aux enquêtes de l’unité des enquêtes spéciales amélioreront les enjeux à la fois pour les communautés et pour les agents?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Notre gouvernement sait que les femmes et les hommes sont des héros de tous les jours. Pour fournir la transparence et la clarté à la population et à la police, la législation clarifierait le mandat de l’unité des enquêtes spéciales. Si elle est adoptée, elle concentrerait les ressources d’enquête là où on en a besoin, sur les activités criminelles, au sein d’un système de surveillance policière qui est transparent, équitable et efficace.

La législation rendrait finalement clair pour chacun les cas où il y a l’obligation d’aviser, tels les cas où l’utilisation de la force, la garde ou la détention et des poursuites en véhicules motorisés ont eu pour résultat des blessures graves ou un décès, et lorsqu’une arme à feu a été déchargée en direction d’une personne, ou dans un cas rapporté d’agression sexuelle.

Le projet de loi répond également à presque toutes les recommandations du juge Tulloch contenues dans son examen indépendant des organismes de surveillance de la police.

Correctional services

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Over the weekend, there was a violent incident at the Toronto South Detention Centre that resulted in eight correctional staff being injured. Two were sent to hospital. Yesterday, staff withdrew all non-essential services in reaction to the violence.

Minister, there has been a crisis in corrections for a long time. The last Liberal government did nothing about it. What actions is this government going to take to fix the crisis in corrections?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for the question. It was a very serious incident on the weekend. I think we really need to appreciate, as legislators, how legislation policies impact people on the front line.

We often talk in this chamber about very lofty ideas about how we want to make society better, but now we need to make sure that those changes we make don’t actually impact or, frankly, hurt the individuals who are working in our institutions, the people who visit our institutions and the people who are serving in our institutions.

We are actively engaged in those discussions right now. We’ve already made some changes that have been a positive influence. But this is not an easy ship to move. There are a lot of moving parts when you’re talking about corrections and the impact that the justice file has. That is, frankly, why the Attorney General and myself worked together to make sure that changes that happen—

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

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Back to the minister: Howard Sapers, in his report on the state of Ontario’s correctional system, called the Toronto South Detention Centre the most violent correctional facility in the province. The problems aren’t mysterious; Sapers was clear. The shifts where the most violence occurred were the shifts where they were understaffed.

Instead of hiring casual, part-time, on-call staff to fill vacancies left by full-time correctional staff, will the minister commit today to hiring full-time correctional staff at the levels needed to effectively manage our troubled correctional facilities?

Interjections.

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

The minister to reply.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I will put the excellent training and work that our corrections officers do across Ontario up against any institution worldwide. I think that we have excellent people doing excellent work. We as legislators need to make sure that we give them the tools to ensure that they stay safe.

This is about a system that includes the Attorney General, a system that includes the Ministry of Health, a system that includes all of us as legislators to make sure the changes we make actually improve the system and give the corrections officers the tools they need to stay safe. But there is no one who is more proud of the work that our corrections officers do in the province of Ontario than our government.

Government accountability

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ma question est également pour la ministre de la Sécurité communautaire et des Services correctionnels. I am sure that she understands how crucial it is that all Ontarians have the utmost confidence in the independence of the OPP and the appointment process for the OPP commissioner.

The dismissal of Brad Blair after he revealed his concerns raises some questions. The issue that remains unresolved at this point is the process that led to the disciplinary charges being laid in front of the Public Service Commission.

Yes or no: Did the minister have any conversation with Deputy Minister Di Tommaso about the conduct of Brad Blair since the revelations last December?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: When my deputy minister sent a letter as the ethics officer on December 28, of course I was notified. I was made aware that there were concerns that an individual who did not receive the position or offer was upset and was using his office inappropriately.

To point to clarity, again I will lead you to the dismissal letter that was given to Mr. Blair and made public today: “You have acted in a manner that is incompatible with the faithful discharge of your position as a public servant.” This is also “a contravention of your obligations under the conflict of interest regulation.” It “is a clear attempt to use your professional status to further your private interests by implying that the legal activities in which you are engaged are part of”—

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

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: From the answer, I gather that she supported the laying of disciplinary charges against Bill Blair. But my question goes to the integrity of the entire process. By now, there have been so many allegations that the Premier wanted a new commissioner who was a little bit more sympathetic to some of his concerns on transportation and on staffing.

Does she not agree that at this stage, any Ontarian will not have confidence in the appointment of Ron Taverner, and we need to go back to square one because it’s crucial for Ontarians to have the utmost confidence that the OPP commissioner is not supporting one side of the House but will act in a completely neutral, apolitical way with integrity all the time? That’s what we need in Ontario, and I ask her to go back and look at this process again.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think the member, as a lawyer and legislator, would also agree that no one is above the law. Whether you’re a constable, whether you are a commissioner, whether you are a member of provincial Parliament, you swear an oath to uphold the laws of this province. Clearly, Mr. Blair chose not to do that when he used his personal position as a deputy with the Ontario Provincial Police to try to bolster his argument that he should have received the job.

I cannot understand how you don’t get that he cannot use his uniform and his position as a deputy commissioner to further his own personal gain. This was a clear violation of his trust and the trust we place in the Ontario Provincial Police.

Rural transportation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next question? The member for Sarnia–Lambton.

Applause.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you. That applause is well deserved.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Our government for the people is committed to ensuring we are supporting our small rural communities across Ontario because they tend to lack the population base or resources to support a public transit system like the urban areas. I know that the minister represents rural areas, as do I and many of my PC colleagues. We understand that rural communities need support from all levels of government to continue to thrive, but also to get their residents to and from where they need to go.

We value our municipal partners, working collaboratively with them to deliver the best possible service to Ontarians across this province. Our government for the people was elected on that promise to get people moving, and we are doing just that.

Can the minister share more about how our government is working with our municipal partners and getting the people of Ontario moving again?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I want to thank the member from Sarnia–Lambton for that great question. It’s great to be a colleague with him over these past eight years. He’s such a champion for the people of Sarnia–Lambton. He’s also the master of private members’ business. We should all take a lesson on how Bob can work on both sides of the House and get his bills passed. It’s great of him to do that.

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, I do represent Elgin–Middlesex–London, which has many of the gems in this province in rural Ontario. Our government for the people is committed to continuing to work with and support municipalities and rural communities across the province. That’s why I was pleased to announce just recently that our government for the people supported transit projects in smaller communities across this province through the Community Transportation Grant Program. This program is making life better for people throughout rural and northern Ontario, because they have access to fewer public transportation options.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak more on this in the supplementary.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the member for that answer and for his ongoing support of smaller communities and municipalities. It’s great to hear that our government for the people is yet again working with municipalities to support those programs that help Ontarians stay connected in their communities. The previous government, propped up by the NDP, had 15 years to find a solution on transit in this province and failed. The only thing the Liberals and NDP seemed to be good at was racking up a $15-billion deficit. The people of Ontario, especially those in rural Ontario, cannot afford the delays and financial mismanagement of the previous government.

I know my community of Sarnia–Lambton was thrilled to hear about the announcement of the Community Transportation Grant Program. Can this minister please share more about this great program?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks again for that question. Mr. Speaker, our government for the people is working with smaller community support programs that will help Ontarians stay connected with their communities, access employment and social programs, attend appointments, visit friends and families, and maintain an independent and active lifestyle. Over five years, the program will provide $30 million to 39 municipalities. Municipalities will use this provincial funding to partner with community organizations to coordinate local transportation services.

This is yet another example of our government for the people keeping its promise to get Ontario moving. Since the inception of the program, more than 28,000 people have used new services to make more than 105,000 trips. Our government for the people is committed to getting the people of Ontario moving, and we are doing just that across the province, which is more than the previous government, supported by the NDP, did over their 15 years in office.

We’re proud of our work so far on the transportation file. We’re proud of working with rural and northern Ontario, and we’re going to keep on doing this over the next four years.

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. York region and GO buses used to travel to the centre of York University, but now these buses drop people off at a TTC subway stop up to three kilometres away. Thousands of students and workers now must make an unfair and costly choice: Pay another fare to ride just one or two subway stops, or walk up to three kilometres in the cold.

This is hurting people like Bonnie Cormier from Whitby. Bonnie’s commute has increased by up to 40 minutes a day and she has to pay extra for worse service. She also has to pay extra for child care because she now has to drop her 14-month-old off early and pick him up late, because of her longer commute.

Minister, when are you going to show leadership and bring back the buses to York University?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you for that question. We do take issues that you’ve raised, like Bonnie’s, quite seriously.

But just to be crystal clear to this House, York University is the one that requested GO buses be removed from their campus. We did so after their direction. Only after Metrolinx advocated on behalf of students and commuters did York University agree to the buses coming back until the end of January, but they have now left. Unfortunately, York University was all for removing these buses, until staff and students protested the fact that they removed these buses. York University was unable to provide safe access for where these buses would resume services.

So we—Metrolinx and the university—are ongoing discussing how we can get these buses back to the campus. We only wish we had more of a willing partner with York University to find a solution that we need.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: York University has a very different understanding of the problem, Minister. What we also know is that this is a transit problem that has been going on for six months. People like Bonnie and thousands of people like her are paying higher fares for worse service. You are the minister. You can fix this problem. Tell Metrolinx to return bus service back to York University and move forward on fair fare integration so that riders who use two different local transit systems don’t have to pay a double fare.

Minister, when will you direct Metrolinx to return service to York University?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before the minister replies, I’m going to remind all members to please make your comments through the Chair.

Minister?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Back to the member: To solve this problem, we actually need to have two partners at the table willing to find a solution. Metrolinx is sitting at the table, willing to put a solution forward that would be acceptable to the staff and students at York University. Asking buses to come back to the campus but not on the bus loop doesn’t make any sense, as there are no other safe alternatives for the students and staff to get off.

We’re willing to sit down and work on this. I would hope that the NDP isn’t using this as an opportunity to politicize the situation, which can be solved at the table. We’re looking for