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

November 21, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Nov-21 (PDF)

L129 - Thu 21 Nov 2019 / Jeu 21 nov 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 21 November 2019 Jeudi 21 novembre 2019

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Death of member’s father

Oral Questions

Government contracts

Government contracts

Education funding

Federal-provincial relations

Environmental protection

Prescription drugs

Health care

Premier’s business

Sports funding

Cancer treatment

Real estate industry

Tenant protection

Health care

Transportation infrastructure

Natural gas

Winter highway maintenance

Member’s comments

Notices of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Maya Mikhael and Brian Hogan

Automotive industry

Public transit

Skilled trades

Weston Santa Claus Parade

Services for persons with disabilities

First responders

Pearl Hatfield

Abilities Centre

Government services

Introduction of Bills

Doored But Not Ignored Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 reconnaissant les incidents d’emportiérage

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Housing Day / Journée nationale de l’habitation

Petitions

Education funding

Animal protection

Services for persons with disabilities

Food safety

Emergency services

Food safety

Autism treatment

Food safety

Public sector compensation

Long-term care

Food safety

Arts and cultural funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Air Brake Endorsements), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant le Code de la route (inscriptions autorisant l’utilisation des freins à air comprimé)

Defibrillator Registration and Public Access Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur l’accès public aux défibrillateurs et leur enregistrement

Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait à la sécurité publique liée aux chiens

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Air Brake Endorsements), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant le Code de la route (inscriptions autorisant l’utilisation des freins à air comprimé)

Defibrillator Registration and Public Access Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur l’accès public aux défibrillateurs et leur enregistrement

Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait à la sécurité publique liée aux chiens

Orders of the Day

Plan to Build Ontario Together Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le plan pour bâtir l’Ontario ensemble

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 136,

An Act to enact the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 and make consequential amendments with respect to animal protection, 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 Justice Policy; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 136:

—That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet on Friday, November 29, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. for public hearings on the bill; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 3 p.m. on Wednesday, November 27, 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 4 p.m. on Wednesday, November 27, 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 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 27, 2019; and

That each witness will receive up to 10 minutes for their presentation followed by 20 minutes divided equally amongst the recognized parties for questioning; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be Friday, November 29, 2019, at 5 p.m.; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be Monday, December 2, 2019, at 12 p.m.; and

That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy shall be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 5 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 Wednesday, December 4, 2019. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed 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 Justice Policy, 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; and

Third reading debate is to be limited to three hours, with one hour and 20 minutes for the government, one hour and 20 minutes for the official opposition, and 20 minutes for the independents.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Jones has moved government notice of motion number 70. Further debate? I recognize the Solicitor General.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Good morning again, Speaker. I’m pleased to join the debate on this motion for time allocation on Bill 136, the animal welfare services act.

I would like to start my remarks by thanking the members from both sides of the House who have risen to speak to Bill 136 during the debate thus far.

One theme that has emerged throughout the debate is that many members of this assembly have their own personal stories of having a pet. Many members shared their stories of growing up with a cat or a dog—or, in the case of the member from Perth–Wellington, growing up with his dairy calf. It is clear that so many of us have a cherished pet in our lives. For example, we know that 60% of Ontario families own at least one pet, and we know that Ontarians want an animal welfare system that is robust, transparent and accountable.

Today, I want to speak to why it’s urgent for the PAWS Act to be passed.

As the members will know, after the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ended their role as the enforcement agency for Ontario’s animal welfare legislation, we consulted the public and stakeholders to inform our long-term model. In developing this revolutionary approach to animal welfare, we consulted with over 50 groups and organizations, including technical experts, academics, the agricultural community, veterinary experts, shelter organizations and advocacy groups. We received input from 155 municipalities and 45 police services. I am pleased that over 16,000 members of the public responded to our online survey.

As I’ve said before in this chamber, animal welfare is the topic most frequently written about to my ministry. Throughout all of our public consultations on animal welfare, we have heard loud and clear from the public about how important it is to get the long-term model right. In fact, 89% of respondents—nearly nine in every 10 people—said that the welfare of our animals is “extremely important” to them. The overwhelming direction from the public speaks to the need for this House to pass the PAWS Act without delay.

Of course, that is not the only factor influencing the urgency of passing the PAWS Act. As members know, for over 100 years, the enforcement of animal welfare laws in Ontario was the responsibility of the OSPCA. The OSPCA, a private charity, was the agency responsible for appointing a chief inspector for animal welfare and the inspectors who would enforce those laws. In January of this year, a Superior Court justice struck down key provisions of the OSPCA Act, ruling that giving police powers to the OSPCA without appropriate oversight was unconstitutional.

On short notice, and at a crucial time, the OSPCA announced it would withdraw its enforcement responsibilities despite the opportunity by the courts to resolve these provisions within a year.

The court decision, combined with the OSPCA’s sudden withdrawal, left our animals vulnerable to abuse. That is why I committed to ensuring that a new, long-term model would be in place in January 2020, to ensure that animals remain protected in Ontario and to ensure that those convicted of animal abuse face the strongest penalties in Canada.

The Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act fulfills that commitment by ensuring that those who love or care for animals have peace of mind. Ontarians can rest assured: The new model is robust, accountable and transparent.

I’d like to thank the members from all sides of this House for their words of support of Bill 136. In particular, I am pleased that members from opposition parties have indicated their support for many pieces of the bill.

For example, I want to note the comments from the member for Guelph supporting the increased fines for repeat offenders that are proposed in this legislation, as well as supporting first responders in taking action when animals are at immediate risk.

As well, I want to note the support of the member from Brampton North—the opposition critic on this file—for the tougher penalties and new offences that are proposed under Bill 136.

We can all agree that cross-partisan support is a laudable goal, and I’m pleased that this bill has received some praise from across the floor.

Speaker, I also wanted to address some of the concerns that have been discussed in this chamber. For example, some members have raised the question of funding for this system. While they are broadly supportive of the penalties and offences proposed under the act, they question whether the system will successfully convict animal abusers. The answer is yes. Under the proposed new system, funding allocations would represent a large net new increase over and above what had previously been allocated to the OSPCA for their role in enforcement.

Additionally, the proposed new system would provide for over 100 inspectors to help enforce the law. These inspectors would be part of the broader Ontario public service and would report to the provincially appointed chief inspector, providing a direct line of accountability, which would include specialized teams for agriculture and to provide advice and support to inspectors and/or police.

Not only are we proposing a strong system of offences and penalties to protect animals in Ontario; we are providing the necessary funding and inspectors to enforce the law and to ensure successful convictions.

In conclusion, before I hand things over to my parliamentary assistant, the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I want to conclude with a few comments about the importance of passing the PAWS Act.

This system is a made-in-Ontario model. It demonstrates that our government understands that the people of this province expect us to keep animals safe.

The proposed model would:

—protect animals across the province;

—provide appropriate powers and tools for inspectors;

—start to rebuild public trust by increasing responsiveness, accountability and transparency compared to the previous model; and

—finally, but most importantly, introduce the strongest penalties in Canada for offenders.

I have said from the beginning that animal protection in Ontario can and will be made better, and today “better” is within our reach. I want to encourage all members to stand in support of this motion so that we can turn this model into a reality.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Good morning to everyone. I’m pleased to continue the debate on the motion for time allocation on Bill 136, the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act. I’d like to start by thanking the Solicitor General for leading off this debate and for her continued leadership when it comes to animal welfare and, indeed, all aspects of community safety.

It has been a pleasure to play a role in the debate thus far, sharing my own personal stories about the furry friends in my life and hearing so many stories from members of all parties about the pets in their lives.

In my remarks, I’ll be picking up where the Solicitor General left off by commenting on some of the feedback that we’ve received regarding the PAWS Act.

Here’s what we’re doing.

One of the comments that have arisen from the debate has been about regulations that will be developed under the bill. I’d like to take the time here to discuss what these regulations would accomplish and why they’re so important. In order to highlight that point, it is helpful to look back in time a few months.

Last March, I was incredibly pleased to debate my first private member’s bill, the Protecting Our Pets Act. The Protecting Our Pets Act proposed a companion animal wellness review committee that would make recommendations to the Solicitor General about reviewing the standards of care for companion animals and tackling the critical issues of puppy mills in Ontario. I’m grateful for the support the bill received from the Solicitor General in the House and the unanimous support it received in second reading debate.

Of course, since then, there has been a major change in the animal welfare landscape across Ontario. Before the Solicitor General could introduce Bill 136, the PAWS Act, our government had to fill the void caused by the OSPCA’s decision to withdraw from enforcement. That was a big gap to fill and could not have been possible without a lot of people rolling up their sleeves and putting animal welfare first. Since the House passed the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act (Interim Period)—that’s a mouthful—in 2019, we have acted swiftly and decisively to ensure that animals remained protected and their abusers would still be brought to justice.

In June, the Solicitor General appointed Paula Milne, an experienced OPP investigator, as Ontario’s interim chief animal welfare inspector, to take over the role previously appointed by the OSPCA.

And, of course, we launched 1-833-9-ANIMAL, a new toll-free number for the public to report cruelty to animals and any concerns that they have about animal welfare.

We reached out to SPCAs and humane societies and asked for their support during this challenging time. Many stepped forward even before we asked, as many people who really care for animals always want to be there to help. One of those affiliate societies was Lincoln County Humane Society, led by executive director Kevin Strooband. I was proud to stand with him during both the announcement for my private member’s bill, the Protecting Our Pets Act, and the recent announcement introducing the PAWS Act.

During the interim period, our chief inspector appointed over 66 provincial inspectors, including provincial employees, some who work for local SPCAs and humane societies and some with expertise in inspecting zoos, aquariums, equines and livestock. As the Solicitor General has said previously, under our new proposed animal welfare model, that number of inspectors will increase.

I want to personally say thank you to the many SPCAs and humane societies out there and all of the volunteers who supported our government’s leadership and are helping with the transition to a new animal welfare enforcement model by providing animal welfare enforcement during the interim period. These outstanding men and women allow the government to build a more robust, transparent and accountable animal protection system in the province of Ontario. Speaker, we owe them all our sincere gratitude.

This brings us back to the legislative and regulatory framework for animal welfare that is being developed under Bill 136. As the Solicitor General and I previously explained, through this bill we are proposing a modern and more adaptable legislative framework, which includes the ability to develop regulations to continue to strengthen the system.

A part of this framework that I’m particularly excited about is the establishment of a multidisciplinary advisory table, made up of a wide range of experts, including veterinarians, agriculture representatives, academics, animal advocates and others, to provide ongoing advice to the ministry to improve animal welfare. The table will provide ongoing advice for consideration on best practices, issues and evidence to inform the development of regulations. We are proposing that the table include representatives from a wide range of stakeholders.

Some of the issues that this multidisciplinary table would consider would include tackling the concerning issue of puppy mills, as well as the inappropriate ownership of exotic animals; and the development of strong standards of care for animals, including the potential for standards of care in the agriculture sector, taking into consideration existing national codes of practice.

This framework allows our system to nimbly respond as experts continue to develop new and updated best practices for the care of all of our animals. It also allows us to continuously strengthen the system while ensuring that animals continually be protected. This proposed framework would enable Ontario to be a leader when it comes to continuing protection of animals, and I think we all should be very proud of that.

Madam Speaker, I’d like to chat a little bit about inspectors. As we’ve said before, a major priority in developing this new animal welfare system has been ensuring that it’s robust, transparent and accountable. The people of Ontario expect and deserve nothing less. We know that the previous system was opaque and not at all as effective as it needed to be, as we all heard stories over the last couple of days. It wasn’t working for Ontario, and it certainly wasn’t working for our animals.

During many of the consultations regarding animal welfare, including the consultations that I had in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, that theme emerged time and time again. People shared their stories of how the system was broken. That’s one thing that we needed to do: create a new system. In fact, many of those I spoke with shared their own story about the OSPCA—a time when they were concerned about the well-being of an animal and they didn’t get an adequate response back, which meant they felt the animal wasn’t properly looked after. That is why we are moving to a provincial enforcement model, one that is accountable to the public and has the capacity to respond to concerns.

As the Solicitor General outlined in her remarks, we are increasing the number of inspectors across this province so that the public can have confidence that complaints will be investigated in all corners of Ontario. It doesn’t matter where you live: Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Ottawa, Toronto. These inspectors will be accountable under the chief inspector, who is appointed by the provincial government. This ensures that a direct line of accountability exists from the top to the bottom.

In conclusion, we know that animal welfare is important to the people of Ontario, and that is why nearly 17,000 people responded to our consultation that informed the PAWS Act. That’s a great number of people who care about our animals and their welfare. That’s why nearly nine in 10 respondents told us that the welfare of animals was extremely important to them.

Madam Speaker, we are committed to implementing a system that is robust, accountable and transparent by the new year. That is exactly what we intend to do by voting in favour of this time allocation motion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I am not with any pleasure getting up, yet again, to have a debate on time allocation here in this Legislature. I just want to come at it in a little bit of a different way in the hopes that this House and this government are able to find a better way of moving legislation forward through the House.

There used to be a time—it’s not that long ago—both in the Canadian Parliament and the Ontario and other provincial Parliaments, when we were much more in line with the Westminster model in England, where there are very few rules that allow the government to do the types of things that we do here in Canada when it comes to time allocation. There’s a reason for that, because if you look at the history of how Parliament has been set up, Parliament was set up as a place where commoners—that’s why we call it the House of Commons—were able to come and to keep check on the king or the queen.

Prior to that, kings and queens—mostly kings—ruled; they decided what the law was. If they didn’t like this law, they just did another law. If they didn’t like that law, then just off with your head. They could do what they wanted.

Because of many things that have happened in regard to excesses of certain monarchs in the past, the first—not so much the public, but certainly the landed gentry and others started pushing back. “Hang on. I believe in the monarchy, I believe in the king, and I want to be loyal,” said the citizens of that day, “but there need to be checks put on the king’s power.” So over the years, the House of Commons adopted a way of running its business where the commoners, the people who are elected to represent the people, had the larger say about which direction the country should take and how that should be done.

I think the beauty of the Westminster model is that it has worked. It’s both simple in concept but complicated in its actions, as far as how the rules of this House are put together and work. But the beauty of it is that if you look around the world, most countries governed by a parliamentary system tend, by and large, to do better when it comes to being able to advance the important issues of the day in a way that is meaningful for their citizens. For example, if you look at after the Second World War—was it after the second?

No, after the First World War, the soldiers came back from the front and then the Labour government—that’s the very first Labour government elected—decided that they were going to move in the direction of providing things like health care to individuals, so they didn’t have to pay out of their pocket, and providing pensions for seniors etc. The parliamentary system allowed that to happen even though not everybody was in agreement.

Obviously, the peers, who were the upper chamber, had a bit of a problem with what the government of the day was doing, but the government didn’t use its majority to ram that through. There had to be a discussion amongst all members of the House. Back in those days, it was Labour, Conservative and some Liberals, and the parties from Ireland and others. They had to come to some sort of consensus on how it was going to be done, and so they developed a unique system at that time for Great Britain that still works today.

The same could be said about what happened here in Canada. If you look back in the day when Tommy Douglas was in power in Saskatchewan, they decided—I think it was in his fifth term, actually; it might have been his fourth. I may be a little bit wrong on this. But when they took office, the province was pretty well bankrupt, and the very first thing that the Tommy Douglas government did was to try to balance the books. They did a number of things to put the fiscal house in order. Once that was done, they developed what we now know as our health care system.

The important point here, and how it relates to time allocation, is that the government had a majority back in the day when this particular concept of health care was first introduced in Canada, in the province of Saskatchewan. But they didn’t have time allocation on the books at that time. I don’t even know if they had closure. I guess you could have moved a closure motion. I guess it would not have been out of order, but the Speaker would have had to accept the premise that nobody else wanted to debate.

For those of us who may remember the whole fight that happened as a result of bringing public health care to Canada, there was a huge pushback in Saskatchewan and there was a huge pushback across all of Canada, by the medical community and others in the medical field, and also by a great number of people in the public. Certainly, people on the right wing of politics were very opposed to the idea of bringing in what they called “state-run medicine.” But the parliamentary system prevailed, because the government of the day had to pass legislation through the House.

For that to happen, they had to work with the opposition to come to a model that at least allowed the debate to move forward so that it could finally be voted on. And because the government had a majority, they were able to pass it.

But my point is that the government had to listen to the public and to the opposition, and they had to moderate what they were doing in some way so that they could get the bill through the House, because otherwise the opposition could filibuster the bill back then. Any member could take the floor and talk for as long as they wanted, and there wasn’t very much you could do about it, because that’s the way that the parliamentary system was set up in the model of Westminster, back in the day.

But it served us well, because what it did was provide that a government had to moderate what they were doing to a certain extent and still do what they wanted to do, but listen to the voices out there that may see things differently, and then bring the idea forward, amended based on what they heard.

I think it worked. If we look now, there’s hardly a Canadian politician, left or right, who will campaign against public health care. Why is that? Because the Canadian health care system has been, quite frankly, quite a success story. We often hear people say that our health care system is one of the things that define us as Canadians. So we have all accepted—left and right, Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Greens—that the idea of what Tommy Douglas brought to Canada in Saskatchewan—state-run medicine, our public health care system—is something that’s worth keeping and something worth fighting for and something worth trying to strengthen as much as we can.

But again, let’s remember why that happened. Other than the political will on the part of the government of the day, and the tragedy that was going on when people were getting sick and they couldn’t afford to go, the hospital, and many of them died—I always remember my dad telling me a story. My grandfather died before I was born. I think he died in 1953. He ended up with some sort of an illness. But when he went to the hospital, he didn’t have money in order to get treated. His health care system, my dad would say, was a high-speed rosary: He went back home, he prayed and he died. That essentially was his health care system.

My point is, it became a success because of the way that it was created. It was created within a Westminster model of Parliament that allowed us to develop legislation in a way that is thoughtful and a way that allowed the government to get their way, because the government always has to be able to pass their legislation if they have a majority. Nobody in the opposition will argue otherwise. But there has to be an opportunity for the public to be heard, and that’s the job of the opposition: to bring that other voice into the chamber in representing those that may have a different view of what the government of the day is trying to do.

So this use of time allocation, I believe, is becoming increasingly more relied on, on the part of governments, and I think there’s a direct correlation—that how people are now disengaged in politics is related to how this chamber doesn’t function the way that it used to.

There used to be debates in this House where people would come and sit in the media galleries and in the public galleries to listen to what members had to say, because you had debates of the day that would go on for a fair amount of time where the people had a chance to listen to the debate by way of reading in the paper, listening to the radio, watching TV, or coming to this place, because back then—this place was not televised until about 1987, somewhere around there. Was it 1987? I was looking at the Clerks for an answer, but it was somewhere in the mid-1980s when we televised.

But the point is, people used to pay attention much more to what was going on in the Ontario Legislature, as they did in the House of Commons. The reason for that was the public got to know what the House was doing because the House didn’t speed legislation through in a period of a week or two. It would take introduction of a bill in the fall. There would be debate of some type in the fall; it could be lengthy, depending on the controversy of the bill.

It was then referred out to committee in the intersession, and then it came back in the spring for third and final passage, with a debate of some note when that bill did finally come back to the House. But the public in that process had a chance to engage themselves in what we were doing.

I think we can all remember, as young people growing up in Ontario or wherever you happened to grow up, paying attention to some of those debates of the day. I remember debates—for example, back in the 1960s, the long debate in regard to the Canadian human rights bill. That was a huge debate of the time that was happening in Ottawa, and it was talked about repeatedly by the media, repeatedly by people at coffee shops and at kitchen tables.

People talked about what they were doing in Ottawa because it was important, but it also gave the legislators of that day, in that case federal MPs, the chance to hear what their constituents were saying so that some of the values that were being brought forward by the constituents actually made it into the Canadian Bill of Rights. I think that was good. We didn’t do that in five days. We didn’t do that in 10 days. That debate took the better part of a year. But is that a bad thing, Madam Speaker? I don’t think it is a bad thing.

The problem now is we’ve gotten into this habit that we measure the success of a Parliament or we measure the success of a government by how many bills they’ve passed. Well, if they’re not good bills, I don’t think it’s a very good measure. Even if the government had a great idea and put it in a bill, the odds are they didn’t get it right in the drafting.

I think we’ve all been here long enough to see that when legislation is drafted quickly, the intention might be good—the government may be trying to do the right thing—but when it comes to finding out how that juxtaposes against the reality of life, there are problems in the bill. We’ve all seen it, where governments draft legislation—“We gotta get this done. We gotta get this done now”—and a time allocation motion comes in after six and a half hours of debate, and there’s no committee time, and the bill is passed at third reading.

And before you know it, the LG is signing the bill within a couple of weeks of it being introduced. The government, by the way, is proposing rule changes that would allow them to do that in three days, by the way they’re trying to change these particular standing orders.

I think what the government and all the members of the House have to think about is, who are we shortchanging here by using time allocation in the way that we do? Now, there are cases that you may have to use time allocation. That’s pretty big, coming from me. I’ve always been opposed to time allocation. But there are times where legitimately the government gets caught, where they can’t get something through the House. I was just reading an

article my deputy House leader, the member from London—

Ms. Peggy Sattler: West.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The member from London West gave me an interesting

article written by an intern in Ottawa in regard to the use of time allocation and the use of closure. This is like déjà vu all over again, except that the players are different. Back in the 1950s—would it be the 1950s or 1960s? It depends on which pipeline. The TransCanada pipeline would have been in the 1950s—they were trying to move oil and gas from western Canada into eastern Canada. They had to build a pipeline, and at the time, the Liberal government of the day decided they were going to do that, so they introduced legislation to build the pipeline.

Well, there were parties that were opposed. You’d be surprised who the parties were. It was, yes, the NDP, also the Conservatives. The Conservatives of the day in Ottawa didn’t want to see that pipeline built, for whatever reason. They took a position that was anti-building a pipeline at that time. The debate was passionate. Apparently the debate on the part of those who didn’t want the pipeline to go forward in the way that it was being proposed was passionately debated from the other side of the House, from the then CCF and now the Conservative Party.

Eventually the government had to use a closure motion in order to be able to get the bill to go through the House. It wasn’t the first time, but it was one of the very rare times that closure was used—not time allocation, just closure. That’s when the government gets up and says, “Mr. Speaker, I move closure,” and all of a sudden the Speaker has to determine: Has there been enough debate? Have all members who want to speak spoken to the bill? Is this a repetitive debate, and are people just saying the same things? The Speaker has to come to the conclusion and decide—he or she—if closure should be allowed. That’s the only tool of the day that they had. Eventually the government had to use it.

My point is, I understand. You can be in a situation where you’re trying to get something done and the opposition decides just to put the brakes on entirely. The government may have to use time allocation, or closure, to be able to move things forward. But I think you have to be very measured in the way that you use it.

I speak from experience because I was a member of the government that did use closure. I remember, at the time, feeling rather uncomfortable, but I understood why. We were trying to get, I think, our first budget through the House—or was it the second budget through the House?—and the opposition Conservatives of the day decided to just stop it—in other words, not allow us to move forward with our budget. They did all kinds of things, including naming names of lakes and rivers, as you might have seen in this place before, and taking the floor during debate and not ceding the floor to other members.

Eventually we had to compromise with the then Conservatives and Liberals in opposition in order to find a way for us to move forward, to be able to get our legislation through the House.

I understand that at times a government can be frustrated because they don’t seem to feel as if they’re moving things at a pace in keeping with what they look at as being reasonable. Well, “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. What’s reasonable to you may not be reasonable to another person.

My point on time allocation is, it’s a tool that is used, but should be used sparingly. When governments use it as a regular way of being able to legislate, what we’re really doing is saying to the public, “We’re not listening to you.” “At this point we know we’re right,” says the government of the day, “and we’re just going to pass our legislation. We’re just not going to listen to you, because we’ve got it all figured out.”

And we wonder why there’s only a 50% turnout in elections. We wonder why people are more interested in watching their favourite television show or their favourite YouTube videos instead of tuning in to what’s happening in the House of Commons or the Ontario Legislature. I don’t propose that everybody should be watching us all the time, but they should at least be aware of what we’re doing. Because I think for the public looking into a Legislature like ours—“Well, what are they talking about today? Oh, what happened to that other thing they were talking about the other day?”—they never can get their heads around what it is that we’re doing here.

That’s why it’s important to have, when necessary, a full debate at second reading on an issue. The way that it should work—and used to work here before the time of time allocation—is, there are a lot of bills that didn’t get a lot of debate at second reading. There are a lot of bills where the opposition would say, “Okay, we’re cool. We’re going to have two speakers, three speakers, and then we want to have two weeks in committee in the intersession and a couple of speakers at third reading.” Those bills just went that way, and there wasn’t very much of a fuss.

For example, this bill would have been that type of bill. We probably could have gotten this bill done a lot quicker by doing it outside of the time allocation process; not within the time allocation process, because we had already indicated to the government that we support this particular bill that’s before us now, and that we did not have any strong objections to the government finding a way to get it to move forward to committee and to do what has to be done. For whatever reason, the government never engaged with the opposition to make that happen, which I thought was kind of interesting.

My argument is, this is the type of bill that, quite frankly, we could have come to an agreement on and it could have been through the House fairly quickly—through a committee process where the public gets a chance to have its say, and then we bring back the bill, we look at it and we amend it accordingly.

But the government is now using time allocation—as they do with pretty well every bill that has gone through the House—and we have shortchanged the public’s ability to participate in committee.

We’re going to do that committee work while the House is in session within the next three weeks, which means that if you happen to live in Kenora, Kapuskasing, Cornwall or Point Pelee, you’re not going to be able to come to Queen’s Park, more than likely, to give your ideas about what you like about this bill or what you would like to see changed or where it may be flawed, because there are very limited hearings, there are only so many people who are going to be able to present, and the bill doesn’t travel. It’s only going to be in Toronto.

I’ve got nothing against Toronto. I think all of us who are living here four days a week because of the Legislature think this is a great city. This is a world-class city. I’ve travelled around the world, and it’s pretty hard to beat Toronto as a city. It’s strong, vibrant, multicultural. It has all kinds of things to attract our attention and to make life pleasant living here.

However, there’s more than Toronto in this province. It’s a big province, and people care about this legislation in places across Ontario. This bill would have been better served to be able to have travelled in the intersession last summer. The government knew, because of the court challenge, that they had to get this legislation done within a year. Why didn’t they introduce the bill last spring? We would have said, “Fine. If you want to put it out into committee, give it a couple of weeks to travel around Ontario.” That bill would have been passed at second reading, it would have had hearings by now, and we would have passed that legislation already instead of trying to rush it.

My guess is, and I may be proven wrong on this—I’m not going to stake my reputation on it—that there are probably some parts of this bill that should be changed in order to strengthen it and make sure it does what it is that has to be done. But when you don’t have a strong process by which the public could be engaged and help us draft better legislation, we will not find those errors until it’s too late.

By that time, the bill will be law and the only way to amend it will either be by regulation, if it’s allowed in the bill—which is a whole other debate—or by bringing the bill back into the House for amendment—a new bill, in other words. So I think the government is really shortchanging the public when it comes to the role that the public should play in drafting the legislation.

They called it the House of Commons for a reason—not ours, we’re a Legislature; but in Ottawa. It’s the House where the commoners got elected and came in order to represent their constituents. As I said at the beginning, everybody represents their constituents the best they can—government members and opposition. But when it comes to debating bills, our job is to say what we like about a bill and what we don’t like about a bill, based on the consultations we’ve had with our constituents and the stakeholders we work with on a daily basis here, depending on what your critic portfolio is etc.

I just want to divert a bit onto what has happened lately in England when it comes to Brexit. I think it’s a good illustration of how Westminster actually works, contrary to what Mr. Johnson, the Prime Minister of England, is trying to say. Mr. Johnson is saying that if he wins a majority, he’s going to change the rules of the House of Commons—that you couldn’t have happen what happened, where a Labour Party opposition member tabled a piece of legislation that forced the government—that they just couldn’t jump out of the European Union without coming back for a vote in the House.

He was very frustrated by that, the Prime Minister. But the rules of Westminster are different than they are here in Canada: A member of the opposition can table legislation—as we do here as well—but the Speaker has the right to call that legislation and to

schedule it for debate. In other words, our rules here in Canada are that only the government can move things in the House when it comes to deciding what’s going to be debated. It’s not the opposition. We can propose, but it’s up to the government to call it. In Westminster, it’s different. There is a mechanism by which opposition members can be heard when it comes to issues at hand.

To the point of Brexit: The House actually represents exactly what’s going on in England. There is a 50-50 split in that country when it comes to “Am I in or am I out of the European common union?” There are valid reasons on both sides. I can well understand the nationalistic argument that some people would feel about why they shouldn’t be part of the union, and there are obviously arguments on the other side. For some in the media and others to say, “Oh, that’s a proof that Parliament doesn’t work”—no, it proves that Parliament is doing exactly what it was set out to do. It’s reflecting what the people have to say and what the people want.

But the danger in England is that they may end up going the way of Canada, because the Canadian governments, nationally and provincially, have moved away from the Westminster model to a certain degree, and have allowed time allocation to be used in a way that it was never intended to be used ever.

I just say to the government to think about the way that it orders up the business of the House, because use of time allocation in the end—although it may be necessary at times, and I will say that; there are going to be times when, if we’re government, we may have to use it—I hope would be very measured and not too often. I would hope that governments today and in the future reflect on how we set up our parliamentary system in the beginning, and that is to give the government the ability to govern, the government the ability to propose its legislation, to have it debated in the House and passed.

Governments should always, always be able to pass their legislation, or at least, if enough members in the House vote in favour, but they should never be denied the ability to do so.

Conversely, the government has to listen to the people who are being represented by the opposition. The opposition has a key role to play in the drafting of legislation. I just say to the government across the way that they should think about the use of time allocation.

They should rethink what they’re trying to propose when it comes to rule changes, because where we’re going with the proposed rule changes, if the government decides to do what it is they have proposed, the government will be able to introduce a bill here on Monday and have it done by Wednesday night. That is not good for democracy. That is a completely anti-democratic move and completely freezes the public out of the debate and the process of drafting legislation. I think it will make Ontarians even more cynical about this place and politicians, because the reality is they see us as all the same.

They don’t differentiate. You’re government; I’m opposition. We’re just a bunch of politicians. That’s how the public sees it. When you start having the public disconnect because they’re just saying, “Ugh, there they go again,” it diminishes our democracy.

There are far too many people—we all have family members who have served in wars, or friends who have served in wars, and some who have died in order to protect our right to have the debate that we’re having today and to do it in a way that, yes, may take a little bit longer, so that the public is able to have its say when it comes to the drafting of legislation. I would ask the government to reflect on that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member from Cambridge.

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: We’re playing some musical chairs there, it seems.

I’m very pleased to be able to stand and speak in support of Bill 136, the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, or the PAWS Act, for short. And it’s a pleasure to share the floor with the Solicitor General, and my colleague the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore and the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General with this file.

I know this means a lot, especially to the MPP from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, as her PMB, the Protecting Our Pets Act, is something she worked very hard on, and it means very much to her. I was really pleased to be able to speak in favour of that bill, and this is another great step towards something that she feels very passionately about. So good on you, my friend.

It’s a pleasure—

Interjections.

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Yes.

Previously, both the Solicitor General and the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore have spoken about the urgency of passing the PAWS Act. They’ve touched on our commitment to having animal welfare legislation in place by the new year so that animals remain protected. They have also spoken about what we’ve heard during the debate in this chamber. We’ve heard touching stories from many members about the animals that they’ve had in their lives—like myself with my Cardigan Welsh corgi, Julie, who I think is now on the record in Hansard four times, so I’m kind of excited about that.

I know about Bruce, which is the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore’s animal. I know that my colleague from Ottawa–Nepean, I believe is his riding, has Apollo, his giant-sized Great Dane. So we’ve got a lot of members on all sides of the House who have dogs and cats, and it’s great to be able to hear everyone’s personal stories about their animals.

I’d like to thank all the members for their debate thus far on the PAWS Act. It has been really interesting to hear everyone’s views on this, and the support that it has received. I commend the Solicitor General on drafting such a great bill. It’s not often that we are able to create legislation that is so well received by those from other parties. I know that a lot of thought went into this and a lot of work went into this, so again, thank you for that.

We have demonstrated that consensus has formed around the importance of protecting animals in Ontario among members of this House, stakeholders and the public. I’d like to start with comments from the SPCAs and humane societies that partnered with our government to ensure that animals remained protected in the interim while the Solicitor General developed the PAWS Act.

As members of this House may remember, the Solicitor General introduced the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act (Interim Period), 2019, which this House gave third reading to last spring. That bill allowed our partner SPCAs and humane societies to partner with our government to ensure that animals remained protected in the interim. Last month, when the Solicitor General announced our new animal welfare system, she was joined by Kevin Strooband, the executive director of the Lincoln County Humane Society.

The Lincoln County Humane Society was one of our partners who stepped up in the interim, and I want to join my colleagues in thanking each of them for their important service. Mr. Strooband described this as “an exciting time for animal protection in our province” and described the PAWS Act as “a critical first step for establishing a new solution for protecting animals in Ontario.”

We will continue to rely on the knowledge and experience of Ontario’s dedicated local SPCAs as we continue to develop regulations under the bill.

Similarly, Cindy Ross, the shelter manager with the Sault Ste. Marie Humane Society, said that that it was great day when the Solicitor General introduced the PAWS Act and that she was pleased with our progress on animal welfare so far.

Under this proposed new system, local humane societies and SPCAs will continue the good work they do helping and sheltering animals.

Another aspect of our proposed new animal welfare system is support for crown attorneys. The PAWS Act proposes updated penalties for those who abuse animals—and I have mentioned before that there is a correlation between those who harm animals and those who eventually go on to harm human beings. So it’s important that we are aware of this and that we monitor things like that, which is why it’s so good that the minister is proposing stricter penalties. Examples of those are new minimum penalties, increased maximum penalties, and scaling penalties for repeat offenders, including both individuals and corporations.

While these new proposed penalties are essential in a strong animal welfare system, they must go hand in hand with support for crown attorneys. By supporting crowns through extra training in animal welfare cases, we hope to achieve a higher conviction rate in relevant cases.

I was very pleased to see this aspect of our plan supported by Barbara Cartwright, the CEO of Humane Canada. Humane Canada supports humane societies and SPCAs, and they’ve provided invaluable advice as we moved towards the introduction of the PAWS Act. Barbara Cartwright hailed this support for Ontario’s crown attorneys as a “breakthrough in Ontario ... animal welfare.”

As has been said before, during the development of the PAWS Act, we consulted with over 50 groups and organizations. This includes technical experts, academics, the agricultural community, veterinary experts, shelter organizations and advocacy groups. We received input from 155 municipalities and 45 police services and received feedback from more than 16,000 members of the public who responded thoughtfully to an online survey.

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act is supported by a diverse group of stakeholders. For example, we have heard from animal advocacy stakeholders like Camille Labchuk from Animal Justice, who has indicated her encouragement with how robust the PAWS Act is. Additionally, Liz White—whom I had the pleasure of meeting with yesterday, with her colleague Ainslie—from the Animal Alliance of Canada has said that she welcomes our commitment to train inspectors and that she supports our plan to put in enforcement, which up until last year had been handled by the OSPCA, a private charity, under the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

This is a good opportunity to remind this House that, as the Solicitor General and the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore have said, we are increasing the number of inspectors across our great province. This will ensure that the public can have confidence that complaints will be investigated in all corners of Ontario. These inspectors will be accountable under the chief inspector, who is appointed by the Solicitor General.

I want to thank all of our animal advocacy partners for their input and encouragement to date. We know that they will continue to advocate for the strongest protections for animals.

We also understand that our agricultural sector is unique, and I’m pleased that we have a strong relationship with agricultural stakeholders across Ontario. As the member for Cambridge, whose riding is a mix of both urban and rural—I have quite a few farms in my riding, as I mentioned a few weeks ago when I listed off the amount of farms that we have in the riding—this was especially pleasing to me and to a lot of my farmers. What I’ve really enjoyed so far is seeing the amount of engagement that a lot of the members from this side and from across the way are doing with the agricultural sector.

I think they are an extremely important sector for our province, and engaging with them and ensuring that they have a voice at the table is extremely important. Because at the end of the day, farmers feed cities, so we should support them.

Our proposed new system will work with our agricultural partners and ensure the strongest protection for animals. For example, as part of our deployment of provincial inspectors under the proposed new system, specialized inspectors for agriculture and equines will also be available to provide advice and support to inspectors or police. This will ensure that we leverage the expertise of our agricultural sector. The proposed new provincial animal welfare enforcement model provides a new approach to oversight that increases transparency and accountability, two things which I believe are very, very important.

Addressing concerns about a lack of oversight that existed in the previous system will be done by increasing transparency and accountability.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I’d like to take a moment to share words from a recent Toronto Star editorial in support of the PAWS Act. The writer described our proposed system as “a considerable advance over the old one where” a “charity was given police powers to do the job.”

It is clear that those on all sides of the political spectrum support the need for an animal welfare system that is robust, accountable and transparent. And it is clear, as I said at the outset, that a consensus is forming from a diverse group of stakeholders in support of this bill.

As the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore has said before, our pets have no political stripe. All of us, from advocates to animal experts to those who care for and work with animals and those of us who simply love our pets, including so many of us here in this House, want what’s best for Ontario’s animals. They deserve nothing less.

While I still have the floor, Madam Speaker, if I may, I would just like to say that the nice part about debating this bill has been the healthy debate that we have had during it. I have, like I said before, really enjoyed listening to members of the opposition and our independent member from Guelph talk about how this has affected them, and their thoughts on it. It’s interesting, because owning an animal humanizes people. I know that sounds silly, but in the role that we are in, we are political figures, and sometimes people will view individuals like us as heartless or just not human.

But us speaking about our dogs or our cats, or whatever animal you may own, or even seeing colleagues—like I said, the member from Waterloo was at the Kidney Foundation walk, a few months ago at this point, and she was with her husband and their dog. It’s just great to see people—again, it puts people in a different light. So, I found this has been very nice, a very nice debate overall.

The member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and I often talk about our dogs Bruce and Julie. They sound like an old married couple when you talk about them that way. But it’s something that we bonded over, as we were prior seatmates before things got moved around. It’s just something we both feel very strongly about.

Animals are innocent and, for the most part, defenceless, and it’s really important that we take the steps to ensure that they are kept safe and that people are respectful of life in general, because these animals depend on us. A lot of them depend on us to stay healthy, to be fed, to be sheltered, and we know that, unfortunately, there are individuals out there who don’t do those things.

It’s great that we’re recognizing it, number one, because that’s the first step; that we’re educating, number two, which is the second-most important step, teaching our kids and teaching others that treating animals unfairly is not appropriate; and then, third, actually having some real penalties around this, some real teeth to the legislation, because, unfortunately, human beings are such that when there are no penalties for things, people will continue doing these things.

Again, excellent work, Solicitor General. I very much enjoy working with you. I know we didn’t work together on this file, but I have had the honour of being able to work with you on my file, and your leadership is very much appreciated. I do look up to you and what you do every single day. Thank you for that.

In conclusion, I want to urge all members of this House to support the motion on time allocation because it is such an important bill. And why wait? Why would we wait on this? Why wouldn’t we just get this great bill to move forward, get it passed, and make sure that we’re giving animals the protections that they need, make sure that we’re sending that positive message out to the public to let them know that we need to treat all things with respect, and to let them know that there are real, strict penalties if you’re going to do things like harm an animal.

It also gives us a chance, like I said, to keep an eye on those individuals who are doing this, because they have ulterior motives and they may escalate that violence to human beings. So, there’s that prevention piece that’s included in this bill as well. Unintentionally, we’re preventing further escalation of crimes if we can get these individuals penalized earlier and prevent them from doing further harm.

It is time for us to get moving towards a new day for animal welfare in Ontario. That’s why I will be supporting this bill. I know others that will be supporting this bill. I urge you, if you haven’t thought about it yet, to please support this bill. I look forward to further debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am rising today to participate in the debate on this time allocation motion for the government’s animal welfare legislation, not so much to comment on the contents of the bill but, rather, to raise concerns about the government’s routine use of time allocation as a method of managing this Legislature.

Certainly, we know the Westminster model, the parliamentary democracy in which we live, gives the government the right to govern. No one questions the government’s right to move forward with its agenda. But at the same time, there are some pretty fundamental principles about responsible government, about engaging MPPs who are the voices of the communities where citizens elected us to come to Queen’s Park to bring forward their concerns, as well as the right of the public to participate in the development of legislation and to bring forward suggestions for amendments so that MPPs can then move through the legislative process, as a bill makes its way through the phases of becoming law.

I think it’s important, as we reflect on those principles, to review what has happened since this government was elected 18 months ago. Currently, at this point, 21 government bills have been passed. Every single one of those government bills has been passed by means of a time allocation motion. Seven of those bills had a time allocation motion introduced even before the bill had reached the seven-hour mark of debate. Practically as soon as the government had the ability to introduce a time allocation motion, as soon as the bill passed the six-and-a-half-hour mark, this government was right there with a time allocation motion.

The other important thing to note is that five of those time allocation motions moved a bill right from second reading to third reading. The time allocation motion did not refer a bill to committee so that stakeholder organizations could come—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the side conversations have reached the point that it’s too distracting. I would like to give my full attention to the individual who does indeed have the floor. Thank you.

Please continue.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Five of those government bills that were passed through a time allocation motion, which reflects the entire body of legislation that this government has brought forward, went straight from second reading to third reading without any opportunity for experts, the citizens, the public and stakeholder organizations with deep knowledge about how this legislation was going to impact the organizations and the people that they represent on the ground—no opportunity to have any kind of input into the legislative initiatives that were brought forward by this government.

The other thing to note is that of those 21 bills that have been passed, the great majority have in fact been omnibus bills. Not only has this government limited debate on each of these bills to the very lowest threshold; they have packed so many changes to legislation within a single bill that it has been very difficult for the official opposition, for the people we represent, to unpack what’s in this bill and really look in depth at each of the schedules that are included within the bills that have been brought forward.

When governments govern by means of omnibus bills, when they package numerous amendments to multiple pieces of legislation, when they govern by time-allocating every single piece of legislation they bring forward, when they govern by ignoring public input and not providing any kind of opportunity for public input, that’s not how you improve democracy, Speaker. That’s not how you engage the people of Ontario in the bigger project that we should all be concerned about, which is the health and the well-being of the people that we represent.

Speaker, the final point I want to make about the way that this government has managed their legislative agenda is, let’s not forget that one of the pieces of legislation that the government brought in—in fact, its second bill—was brought in along with the hammer of invoking the “notwithstanding” clause. We had a protracted debate in this Legislature about the appropriateness of using the “notwithstanding” clause to cut the size of Toronto city council in half. The framers of the “notwithstanding” clause were very, very clear that this is a tool that is to be used rarely, only in extraordinary circumstances.

But this government was prepared to use that tool to ram through a piece of legislation that reflected only some kind of historical vendettas that the Premier was trying to move forward with. I think that that really exemplifies the approach to governing that we have seen from that side of the House.

To a much lesser extent, time allocation, like the “notwithstanding” clause, was always envisioned as a legislative mechanism that is meant to be used sparingly. It’s meant to be used by the government when there are urgent legislative initiatives that have to be dealt with because of some kind of external requirement that’s in place. Sometimes it is used to deal with highly contentious legislation, but time allocation is not intended to be used as a regular course of business. Every single bill that this government has introduced, they have time-allocated.

There are other options available to this government to manage their agenda and to help move legislation through this place. The government could engage with the official opposition. The government could have some kind of dialogue and negotiation and discussion about their priorities, and work with the official opposition as to how they’re going to achieve their priorities.

But instead of seeing that kind of give-and-take process—we had some high hopes when we came back here on October 28 after a five-month recess, and after losing 24 sessional days, I might also point out, when we could have been dealing with this legislation. Regardless, we had some high hopes that there would be a change of tone in this Legislature, that there would be more collaboration, more discussion across the way. Instead, the very first bill that this government is moving through has got a time allocation motion attached to it.

We also saw a package of proposed changes to the standing orders that would allow the government to introduce a bill and move a bill through the process even faster than it currently has done, with even less public input than it has currently enabled—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it is 10:15. Therefore this House stands in recess until 10:30.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would like to introduce some guests who are with us in the Speaker’s gallery this morning. From the Ontario Kinesiology Association, we have president Krista Crozier, Devon Blackburn, Steven Fischer, Greg Gillam, Sabrina Francescut, Renee Raymond, Matthew Assiniwe, Jory Kettles and John Armstrong. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re delighted to have you here today.

Mr. John Vanthof: This morning, I had the pleasure of meeting Theresa Osezua. She’s visiting from Orléans to watch her son, Augustine, be the page captain today.

Augustine comes from a long line of pages. Patrick, his brother, was also a page here.

Mrs. Robin Martin: It’s my pleasure to introduce Roberta Scott again from Cardiac Arrest Response and Education, who is here for my private member’s bill this afternoon.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’d like to welcome my constituents Sonia De Laurentiis, Roberto De Laurentiis and Davide De Laurentiis.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: On behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, it’s my honour to welcome the Brown family: Beth, Patrick and Hillary, as well as Jane and Phil, who have come from Illinois.

The Brown family is visiting us at Queen’s Park today to see Luba Brown, who is here serving as one of our pages. I know that the President of the Treasury Board is very proud of her. Welcome to you all from Queen’s Park and this caucus.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to do my daily introduction of parents and advocates of autism: Stacy Kennedy, Angela Brandt and Michau van Speyk. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: They’re running a little bit late, but I have many board members from my riding association here today who are going to be joining us in the members’ gallery: Alan Sakach, Ian Barrett, Phil Besseling, Tom Bishop, Ken Durham, Peter Forsberg, Alice Helder, Ruthann Joosse, Tony Joosse, Dave Klassen, Catherine Kuckyt, Wilma McNall, Aaron Oosterhoff, Evert Ras, John Venneri, Jim Visser, Jim Wheeler, Susanna Campbell and Valerie Cickello. I want to welcome them all to the Legislature. They’ll be joining us shortly.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome a constituent of my great riding of York South–Weston, Renee Raymond. Welcome to your House here—Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to welcome this morning some special guests and friends to the Legislature: Sonia, Davide and Roberto De Laurentiis. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Simcoe West.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Way over here, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Simcoe–Grey. Sorry.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature today—and they’re just coming in—Sasha Haughian of Tottenham, and Beth and Madi Vanstone of Beeton. They’re here to watch question period. As members will recall, these individuals are parents of cystic fibrosis patients, and one is a patient. We welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Doly Begum: I would like to also welcome members from the Ontario Kinesiology Association this morning. They had a wonderful reception. Welcome to your House.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome the fabulous and fabulously tall Roberta Scott, who’s here today.

Death of member’s father

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Energy has informed me that he wishes to raise a point of order. I recognize the minister.

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you, Speaker. It is with a heavy heart that I announce to the House that Ed Yurek, the father of the Minister of the Environment, Jeff Yurek, passed away last evening.

Ed Yurek of St. Thomas was a loving husband to his wife, Mary, who passed away last year. Together, they raised six children: Peter, Mike, Sue, Diane, Joe, and the youngest and our friend, Jeff.

Our thoughts are with Minister Yurek, Jenn and Maggie, and the entire Yurek family during this difficult time.

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

It is now time—is there a point of order?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, we’re going to stand down the leads. I’m told that the Premier is coming, but he’s been delayed.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Are you seeking unanimous consent to stand down the lead questions?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think we’re just doing it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’re not. Okay.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Government contracts

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I do want to, on behalf of the official opposition, send our sincerest condolences to the Yurek family. It’s a very sad piece of news that was shared. We all have their family in our thoughts and prayers.

Applause.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Absolutely.

Speaker, my first question is to the Premier. I hope that he’s going to take the opportunity to answer this question personally, because the buck is supposed to stop with him.

When did the Premier learn that the cost of cancelling renewable energy contracts has soared to at least $231 million?

Hon. Doug Ford: Our condolences also go out to the Yurek family. Our prayers and thoughts are with them. I had an opportunity to speak to him last night and passed on our condolences.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: I am so proud that during the election, we cancelled the cap-and-trade carbon tax, the worst tax on the backs of the hard-working taxpayers. I’m also proud that we saved the taxpayers $790 million. That’s $790 million that would have gone on the backs of companies and the backs of the hard-working taxpayers.

These wind turbines were rammed down the throats of communities that didn’t even want them.

The reason that people are doing their laundry at 9 o’clock at night and 10 o’clock at night is because the opposition and the former Liberal government were gouging, absolutely gouging, the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last year, the Ford government repeatedly claimed that there would be no cost to cancelling these contracts—no cost. We know now that the cost has climbed to at least $231 million, and the Premier won’t say when he found out.

The government has budgeted $231 million for the costs of cancellation this fiscal year. My question is, will there be further cancellation costs added next year?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, the reason that we have the highest hydro rates in North America is because of the NDP and the Liberals. They put this plan together that has destroyed our energy file. As I said out in the news conference, we went to raise some money down in New York and one of the big banks came up to us and said, “Even if we tried to destroy a country’s energy file”—not that they ever would—“no one could have done a better job than the previous Liberal government and the current federal government.” He said that all the investment, billions and billions of dollars, has left the country.

And the NDP condoned this. They’re for it. We saved the taxpayers $790 million as they stood by as the hydro rates were raised to be the highest in North America—again, going on the backs of the hard-working people.

There has never been more of a transfer of wealth from the ratepayers to the political insiders because of the NDP and the Liberals.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Premier and the Conservatives live in a glass house, because they started selling off and deregulating our electricity system when they were in office, which was exactly the cause of the increase in our electricity rates in the history of this province.

But today, we’re talking about this Premier’s leadership. When the world was moving toward clean energy initiatives in the midst of a climate crisis, the Premier took $231 million away from our schools, away from our hospitals and handed it to private companies so that they can tear down wind farms and not supply green energy.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the Ford government didn’t even tell the people of Ontario that they were going to be hit with the bill. Today, the Premier is shameless enough to say that he “couldn’t be more proud” of this mess.

Why is the Premier showing so little respect for the people of this province?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: The only people who were disrespected were the people of this province under the NDP and the Liberal government. They didn’t worry about it.

As I was saying in my previous answer, there’s never, ever, in the history of Ontario, been more of a transfer of wealth from the hard-working ratepayers to the political insiders from the NDP and the Liberals. These people are making tens of millions of dollars off the backs of ratepayers. Something is wrong.

We saved the taxpayers $790 million cancelling these terrible, terrible wind turbines.

Government contracts

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. The people of Ontario simply can’t believe this government when it comes to the cost of these cancelled contracts, Speaker. As the Premier knows, he has the power to request a special review by the auditor. Yesterday, the government refused to do so.

Today, I hope the Premier will actually show some leadership. Will he do the right thing by the hard-working people of this province, who have had $231 million sucked out of their pockets because of this government’s decision—as far as we know, $231 million—and actually ask the auditor to confirm the numbers, to conduct a complete review of the total cost of these cancelled contracts?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, Mr. Speaker, the reason there are 252,400 people working is because we looked at the energy file. We made sure that we’re saving costs rather than increasing costs. Every single company and every single person I went and spoke to during the election, their number one concern was their energy costs.

It came to the point of heating or eating for a lot of people. I remember one person came up to me in tears, showing me their bill that they couldn’t afford, all because of the reckless, careless spending under the NDP and the Liberals. We saved the taxpayers of this province $790 million.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I’m sure that person is still crying, because their bill went up by about 2% just last week.

When the previous Liberal government refused to disclose the real cost of cancelling the gas plants, the Premier himself, at the time, couldn’t contain himself. He said that there was “zero accountability.” This is what the Premier said at the time. He claimed the people of Ontario had been “hoodwinked.” He said, “I can’t wait to bring responsible government to the folks of Ontario.”

Speaker, how can this very same person, now that he sits in the Premier’s chair, possibly justify refusing to call in the Auditor General to make sure the people of Ontario know how much their energy boondoggle is costing them?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: For the first time in 15 years the people of Ontario have seen accountability and transparency. They’ve seen us save $6 billion for the taxpayers, making sure that we lower taxes, cut red tape, cut regulations.

The economy is absolutely booming right now. We need more people to fill the jobs. We need a couple of hundred thousand people to fill the jobs that are out there, to keep up with the production requirements.

But again, the NDP supported their buddies over there, the Liberals, 90% of the time. They were supporting the gas plants. They were supporting the big scam that was going on. Side by side, they were partners, and they’re to be blamed for all the scandals and the disaster of our economy and for losing 300,000 jobs.

My friends, our economy is booming, absolutely booming. People around North America know it. We’re an economic powerhouse in North America because of our government’s policies.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps the Premier doesn’t realize it, but when you get rid of independent officers of the Legislature, you reduce transparency and you reduce accountability, which was exactly the first move this government made when they took office.

But that does not change the fact that governments all over the world are scrambling to embrace clean energy, and the Ford government is handing at least $231 million to companies so that they can tear down renewable energy projects. That’s enough money to completely repair every single school in Etobicoke North and in King–Vaughan.

When people are looking for transparent and honest government, the Ford government, just like the Liberal government with the gas plants, is choosing to stonewall. They are choosing to stonewall, Speaker.

People deserve so much better than this. The Premier can fix it today by calling in the auditor. So my question to the Premier is, will he do that?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, through you, Mr. Speaker: We saved $790 million for the hard-working taxpayers of this province. If we had had a chance—and it’s unfortunate that we weren’t elected 10 years ago—we wouldn’t be in the mess right now that we’re in. We’re in an absolute mess.

We’ve been working hard to turn the corner. We’re turning the corner, increasing health care spending, increasing education spending. The economy is booming. There are more jobs out there than people that can fill them. So we’re going to continue looking at efficiencies.

If we had the chance to get rid of all the wind turbines, we would, because it’s totally unrealistic. We’re paying 80-some-odd cents a kilowatt versus seven or eight cents. Something is broken here. There’s no one out there that agrees on paying 80 cents a kilowatt and making all the wind turbine folks multi-multimillionaires on the backs of the ratepayers.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Education refused to own up to the fact that his actions are actively sabotaging teacher bargaining. The minister changed bargaining teams at the last minute, cancelled meetings and dropped poison pill positions on the table, expecting teachers to thank them for it.

The minister doesn’t have to call a press conference for us to know that this government has no intention of actually negotiating with teachers.

Why won’t the Premier admit that the only deal they’re looking for is one that includes pink slips for teachers and overcrowded, underfunded classrooms for our kids?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to remind the member opposite that it was this government that got a voluntary agreement with CUPE just one month ago by negotiating in good faith. That cannot be left out of the basis of the question.

Let’s not forget that it’s this government that has made reasonable offers at the table with OSSTF and so many others, because we believe that continuing education should not be stopped, should not be impeded because negotiators cannot agree on an outcome.

I want an outcome. That’s why we have turned to mediation. It’s why we’ve looked at this approach in the past. It is our aim, it is the Premier’s aim, to get deals that keep kids in class and improve education for every child in this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Parents are scrambling right now. They don’t really care about what the minister managed to pull off at the last minute during a federal election a month ago.

The government has shown nothing but contempt for the people who teach and support our children. Their refusal to reverse education cuts and their absolutely chaotic approach to bargaining have left negotiations going nowhere.

But despite the government’s actions, teachers remain willing to bargain, and there is still time to reach a deal that protects and strengthens our education system.

Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: Will he stop this reckless game he’s playing, reverse these heartless cuts, and get back to the bargaining table? Or does the Premier just think that students aren’t worth it?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The parents of this province, from Dundas to Davenport and everywhere in between, actually do care that this government got a good deal for parents that kept kids in class. They do care.

They do care that we’re investing more in this budget than ever before. They care that we’re supporting positive mental health in the classroom. They support our improvements to the math curriculum, to go back to basics. They support our initiatives to ensure that STEM is at the front of class.

Mr. Speaker, everything we do is about ensuring that our students are able to achieve their potential, graduate and get access to good-paying jobs. We will not be deterred from our mission.

Federal-provincial relations

Ms. Jane McKenna: My question is to the Premier. I’d like to wish him a happy belated birthday to start off.

Premier, I know that our government, and you in particular, have made the issue of national unity and bridging diverging regional interests across this country one of our key priorities. We have seen a growing concern in this country about regional economic divisions and a sense of national disunity.

This concern was even captured in a recent Globe and Mail Environics Institute poll which indicated the growing concerns of disunity in this country. When asked about the satisfaction and the direction of this country two years ago, there was an 11-point difference between the regions. That gap now stands today at 28 points.

Premier, can you elaborate more on the historic announcement that you made this morning about what steps our government is taking to bring this country together?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the MPP from Burlington. The people absolutely love her out there. So thank you.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the federal minister appointments yesterday. We really look forward to working with them and rolling up our sleeves, getting our ministers involved and having a real collaborative relationship with them and building infrastructure, making sure that we focus on things that matter: the infrastructure, the transit and broadband across this country. As we’ve always said, what is good for Ontario is good for Canada, and what is good for Canada is good for Ontario.

I’m really looking forward to having the Premiers here in Toronto for the first time in recent memory. I can’t even remember all of the Premiers gathering here. It’s going to be great.

We have to respect the concerns of the people from the west. We also have to respect the people from the east. I always believe that there’s always common ground when we come together, because we all get along quite well.

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

Ms. Jane McKenna: Premier, that is truly historic news and speaks to the important role that Ontario plays in the federation.

As we all know, Ontario and, specifically, past Ontario Premiers have played a major role in supporting national unity and discussions with the federal government. This includes the strong leadership of Premier Robarts spearheading the Confederation of Tomorrow conference, Bill Davis and the 1982 constitutional discussions, David Peterson and Bob Rae with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, and Mike Harris, following the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Premier, can you speak to the Legislature on what priorities this new council on provincial-federal relations will have regarding Ontario-specific interests?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank our member. As we announced, there are key areas where we believe that we can work together. We’ve been in dialogue with the Prime Minister’s office, and we’ve come up with common ground. There are so many areas that we can support the people of Ontario in and also support the people of Canada.

One of the areas is the subway expansion plan. It’s an amazing plan. I want to thank the federal government for their contribution so far, but we’re going to need more support there from the federal government to make sure that they hit the threshold of 40% through the Canada infrastructure program. We need shovels in the ground. Let’s put politics aside. Let’s start getting things done for the people of Ontario.

Again, as I said earlier, another area that we have to focus on is health care. No province can go alone on health care. We have a great minister who’s going to end hallway health care.

Environmental protection

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question today is for the Premier. The people of Hamilton learned last night the disturbing news that 24 billion litres of untreated sewage have been seeping undetected over the past four and a half years into Chedoke Creek and Cootes Paradise.

Can the Premier please tell the House when exactly the ministry was aware that raw sewage was leaking into the water of Hamilton?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Greg Rickford: My thoughts go out to my colleague Jeff Yurek today.

It is the ministry’s role to ensure that the city of Hamilton is taking all necessary steps to clean up the sewage spill to the natural environment, fix the combined sewage outflow tank equipment and prevent future discharges.

The city reported the discharge to the ministry’s Spills Action Centre on July 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, the city was ordered to, among other things, quantify the amount of sewage and what was in the sewage discharged to the creek; evaluate the impacts to the creek; assess the need for remediation and/or mitigation to provide the most effective method, including timelines; submit that spill report with the cleanup efforts to date; and identify all combined sewer overflow locations, Mr. Speaker. And that work continues.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Back to the Premier: Since the Premier hasn’t answered, and what we hear now is that the ministry has known for over a year and a half that 10,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools of sewage have been seeping into Hamilton’s fresh water supply, it’s beyond disturbing that the ministry knew this for over a year—they knew that this was happening—but refused to make this public. And they also refused to step in and help the city with this emergency cleanup.

Why did the ministry not immediately notify Hamilton residents that a spill had taken place and immediately assist with the emergency cleanup?

Hon. Greg Rickford: To continue, while the city submitted information, the ministry has required by the order—we issued a second order November 14, 2019, requiring clarification and confirmation of impacts, recommendations for remediation, mitigation and monitoring. The matter has been forwarded to the ministry’s investigation and enforcement branch.

It would be inappropriate to make any additional comments except that the ministry will continue to work with the Hamilton public health unit, the city of Hamilton, the Hamilton Conservation Authority and other agencies in order to ensure that the appropriate corrective actions are being taken to mitigate the impacts of this sewage discharge.

Prescription drugs

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, my constituents Jamie Larocque and Sasha Haughian have two young sons, aged 7 and 9, who have cystic fibrosis, which, as you know, leads to the destruction of the lungs and early death. Orkambi can help prevent that destruction, yet the Ministry of Health has attached stringent prescribing criteria to this medication. The ministry claims Ontario is providing coverage for Orkambi for pediatric cystic fibrosis patients on an exceptional, case-by-case basis, yet not a single patient in Ontario has qualified for access.

My constituents are having to watch their sons struggle with this disease. One son is on a drug trial while the other son is not.

Speaker, will the minister adjust the prescribing criteria for these lifesaving drugs to allow doctors, and not bureaucrats, to allow access to these drugs?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much to the member for your question. I know this is a very serious issue for many families across Ontario, including some of your guests who are here today, whom I would also like to welcome to Queen’s Park. I look forward to meeting with several passionate advocates for cystic fibrosis next week.

This is an issue that we have been studying. Orkambi, I know, is only available under limited circumstances at present. But it is the requirement that any new products that are being introduced in Ontario have to go through the same trials. They have to go through the same process. It wouldn’t be appropriate for any Minister of Health anywhere to jump in and make decisions. I’m not a physician; I need to leave it up to physicians to make that determination as well.

But I can tell you that this is a matter of priority in the government. I am working with the assistant deputy minister, who is dealing with approval of medications, and we hope to have a solution produced very soon, because again, I know this is a very important issue for many Ontarians.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the minister: I thank the minister for that answer. As you know, Minister, when we were in opposition, some five years ago, we went through this very same process for the drug Kalydeco for Madi Vanstone, and Madi is here today. I think what we’ve learned since then is that the fundamental root of this problem, the approval of cystic fibrosis drugs across the board—there are many other drugs—we never really got to the root of the problem, which is that we need a special drugs program in this province. I know the minister is well aware of that.

Vertex is the company that makes most of these cystic fibrosis drugs. I know that you’ve met with the company and that you’re meeting with them again. But it is hard for my constituents and for cystic fibrosis sufferers across Ontario to try and understand that 18 other countries in the western industrialized world cover these drugs under their drug plans, and Canada is one of the only westernized countries that does not. So I would encourage the minister to keep this as a priority and to work as quickly as possible to help put Canada on the map, make Ontario a leader and provide these life-saving drugs to cystic fibrosis patients.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I certainly recall the situation a number of years ago with the use of Kalydeco. It’s wonderful to see Madi here today looking so well. We want all young people to have the opportunity to live a happy, healthy childhood, youth and adulthood, so it is important that government concentrate resources and make sure that we bring forward medications that are going to allow them to live those happy lives.

With respect to Orkambi, we have been in conversations with Vertex. We are working with, as I said, the assistant deputy minister. My office is also involved, because I know that this has been a long procedure, especially considering that other jurisdictions have already approved Orkambi. We hope to come to a satisfactory resolution very soon to make Orkambi more immediately available.

I know there are other medications that are being considered: Symdeko and Trikafta. The former is with Health Canada right now; the other one has not come before Health Canada yet. It has to go through that process first, but we will deal with it very quickly as soon as it comes to the provincial level.

Thank you again for the question, and thank you to your guest for being here today.

Health care

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is also for the Minister of Health. Our government is working tirelessly to address the concerns that Ontarians have about our public health care system. The previous Liberal government neglected Ontario’s health care system, leaving it on life support. I’m sure we can all agree that it’s time to bring more accountability and transparency back to the system.

As part of the fall economic statement, the Minister of Health brought forward proposed changes that would promote accountability in our OHIP program, one of the largest expenditures of government. These proposed measures will help to prevent incorrect billing for our publicly funded health care service.

Our government is committed to ensuring that Ontarians get the best value for their tax dollars. Will the minister please tell the House why these changes are being implemented?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for your question. Our government is introducing changes that, if passed, will make OHIP more accountable and transparent. OHIP is a $16-billion program, representing more than 25% of all health care spending. That’s approximately 10% of the entire government spending.

These changes were brought forward directly with respect to recommendations that have been made for several years by the Auditor General. For several years, the Auditor General found long-standing weaknesses in the laws, policies and processes that oversee physician billings. Recognizing that incorrect billing is often done inadvertently, rather than by directly doing so, we’re also committed to improving education to help providers understand how to bill and how to correct billings.

Similar to the process to review Canadian taxes, it is important that the government meet its responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being accounted for and then, should there be a need, to be able to recoup those funds that are not met. We are taking our responsibility as financial stewards for Ontario taxpayers very seriously.

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

Mr. Michael Parsa: Thank you to the minister for taking steps to address this long-standing issue. These changes are fair and reasonable, and will ensure Ontario taxpayers have the confidence they need and deserve in their public health care system. Our proposed changes would strengthen OHIP accountability measures and will ensure a sustainable, healthy insurance plan today and into the future. The principles of accounting, transparency and value for money are what these changes are built on. I know that it’s important to my constituents that our government remain transparent and that we ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

Would the minister please tell the House about the steps we’ve taken that have led to these changes?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government remains committed to working with our stakeholders, including the Ontario Medical Association, to build the policies and process that underpin this legislation.

In fact, these changes follow many months of consultations with the Ontario Medical Association. We have ensured that their input be included in many of our changes, such as limiting the recovery period to two years, the new audit process occurring on an ongoing basis, only and establishing a target to complete audits within 12 months. Speaker, the list does go on.

Our government values doctors’ immeasurable contribution to the health and well-being of Ontarians. However, I am sure we will all agree that no doctor should be able to bill OHIP inappropriately. Ontario taxpayers deserve increased accountability, including a fair audit process, so that public money is spent in the most comprehensive and cost-effective manner. That is what we will—

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

Premier’s business

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. The Members’ Integrity Act states that all cabinet ministers must put their business assets in an arm’s-length trust. This morning’s Globe and Mail reports that US corporate filings made in July by Deco Labels, the company the Premier owned and operated for many years, indicated that Doug Ford was still the president of the company. Since Deco Labels should be in an arm’s-length trust, how is it that the Premier is still being listed as the president on legal documents?

Hon. Doug Ford: The company is in a blind trust. It went through the Integrity Commissioner and he approved it. I have nothing to do with the company and day-to-day operations.

I appreciate the question.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: The provisions in the act are designed to ensure that there is not an appearance of a conflict of interest. It’s important for any cabinet minister to be completely at arm’s length from business interests.

According to filings with the Canadian government, Deco’s five directors are family relations of the Premier. Each director lists the Premier’s family home as their business address. In fact, the Premier’s personal home is listed as the mailing address for Deco.

In comments to CBC News this summer, Premier’s Office staff claimed to have knowledge about Deco’s current client list.

And now we see that in the US, the company still seems to think the Premier is running the company.

The Premier just stated that he has nothing to do with the day-to-day activities of Deco Labels, but can the Premier say in the Legislature today that he is absolutely at arm’s length and has no dealings with the company at any level?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, again, the company is in a blind trust. I’m too busy turning this province around from the mess that they left.

Sports funding

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is to the minister of tourism, culture and sport. Speaker, our government is supporting the 2021 Canada Games in the Niagara region by committing to a cost-shared investment of $29 million for the construction of new and upgraded sports facilities for the 18 sports teams from every province and territory that will be coming to Niagara.

The games will feature an estimated 5,000 participants and 4,000 volunteers, in addition to the tens of thousands of visitors from across the province and across the country, from home and abroad, who will be cheering on their favourite athletes.

With this in mind, could the minister please explain to the members of the Legislature how this provincial funding will help drive economic activity not only in Niagara, but across the province?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to say thank you to the member from Niagara West, for his strong advocacy for sport across the province, as well as the two New Democratic members from Niagara Falls and St. Catharines, who joined us on a lovely afternoon in Niagara as we announced our government’s support for this important initiative.

We spend $25 million investing in sport across the province of Ontario, and it yields a $12.6-billion economic imprint. In this particular case, the government of Ontario is representing $10.3 million in investment for capital and operating costs and an additional $29 million investing in infrastructure and facilities.

In Red Deer, this year, there’s a $132-million economic imprint. But in Niagara, in 2021—this number will astound you—we will create over $400 million in economic activity, contributing to 2,100 jobs across the province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great return on investment, and it’s a great return on sports.

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

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you, Minister, for your response. It’s clear these games will have a significant economic impact in the Niagara region and across Ontario. In fact, the 2021 games, as was mentioned, will spur an estimated $400 million in economic activity, with an anticipated 2,100 jobs to be created.

The games, however, are more than an investment in our local economy. They also provide opportunities for local athletes to compete on a national stage. Of course, this could not happen without the dedication and knowledge of our athletes’ coaches.

Could the minister please highlight the way our government is supporting our coaches and the development of our teams across Ontario?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: That’s an excellent question, because not only do we top the charts with Shawn Mendes through this ministry, supporting our artists, but we also top podiums around the world.

Speaker, did you know, for example, that through our provincial sport organizations that this ministry funds, we supported Bianca Andreescu? Through our Canadian Sport Institute we’ve invested $8.2 million, and they are training Andre De Grasse as well as Penny Oleksiak. We are topping the podiums worldwide, and I have no reason to doubt that in Niagara 2021, our athletes are going to be the top performers.

But they will also be the safest because, for the first time in Canadian history, every single athlete in Canada will have to adhere to Canada’s first and only concussion legislation, Rowan’s Law, and that will be happening in Niagara 2021.

This province isn’t only open for business or open for jobs; we’re also open for athletes.

Cancer treatment

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: My question is to the Minister of Health. This year, my constituent Sonia De Laurentiis was diagnosed with a form of metastatic lung cancer that had travelled to her brain, liver and vertebrae. She is with us in the members’ gallery today with her sons Davide and Roberto.

Sonia receives treatment at one of the best cancer hospitals in the world, the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Her oncologist recommended a specific medication that was her absolute best chance to fight her cancer, but this medication costs her family $10,000 a month because it is a take-home cancer drug. This is an immense burden on her family.

Minister, will you commit today to help this family and cover the cost of Sonia’s take-home cancer drugs?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. I’m very sorry for your constituent’s situation, and I thank her for being here today.

This is a situation that we are reviewing—medications. We are reviewing the items that can be on our Ontario Drug Benefit Plan that can be available to people. We do have the Trillium program that is available for people who find it difficult to pay for their medications. But I would certainly be happy to meet with your constituent to understand more particulars and see what we may be able to do to assist her.

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

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Thank you, Minister, for agreeing to meet with her, but she’s tried everything.

If Sonia and her family lived in any province west of Ontario, she wouldn’t need to ask for help because take-home cancer drugs are publicly funded there. In fact, most cancer treatments are now available as take-home medication to meet the needs of patients, improve their quality of life and reduce hospital trips.

Just last year, this government voted against an NDP motion to cover take-home cancer drugs. That was wrong. It’s time for Ontario to catch up to the rest of our country.

Will the Minister of Health do the right thing and finally cover take-home cancer drugs under OHIP, so people like Sonia get the help they deserve?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the members to take their seats.

Minister of Health to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I understand there is an issue with respect to take-home cancer drugs, and I know this is not of comfort to your constituent today, but that’s one of the reasons why we are doing our transformation of our health care system: to bring it into the 21st century. I mean that in respect of everything that we’re doing in health—our policies, our processes, our technology, everything.

I can’t make a promise on the spot with respect to this particular issue, but I can tell you that we are reforming our system so it will be more responsive to the needs of Ontarians in the future.

Again, I reiterate my willingness to meet with Sonia and her family to discuss how we might specifically be of some assistance to her as she’s dealing with her health problems today.

Real estate industry

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: My question is for the very lovely Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Our government heard loud and clear from consumers and real estate professionals alike to review aged legislation to reflect the modern marketplace. That is why we’ve introduced the Trust in Real Estate Services Act.

Yesterday, the minister highlighted five key messages in the act, one of the messages being enhancing consumer choice and confidence.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please explain how the Trust in Real Estate Services Act would enable regulatory changes, giving consumers more choice in the real estate sector?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I very much appreciate the question from the member from Cambridge. She’s doing a great job for her riding, and clearly she’s demonstrating that she is as committed to getting consumer protection right in Ontario as we all are in our caucus, because we’re introducing a more modern regulatory system that will reflect today’s real estate sector. It has changed so much in the last 20 years.

Our government is giving consumers more choice in the purchase and sale process by permitting real estate professionals and brokerages to disclose details of competing offers at the seller’s direction. Currently, in multiple offer situations, brokerages are required to disclose the number of competing offers to every person who has made an offer. But the regulation does not allow the brokerages to disclose the substance of the competing offers. If the bill passes, potential sellers could choose whether to participate in this more open process by providing—

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

The supplementary question.

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Thank you to the minister for her kind words and for her answer, and also for working so hard with consumers and real estate professionals across our province to enhance consumer confidence and reduce burden in the real estate industry. Our government is committed to continue consulting with consumers and stakeholders to develop proposed regulations that will help consumers make more informed decisions.

Minister, you have also spoken in this House about some of the key elements of the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, for example, ensuring efficient and effective regulation of the real estate industry.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government will ensure efficient regulation in the real estate industry through the Trust in Real Estate Services Act?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Absolutely. Our government intends to improve the regulation of the real estate sector by updating the powers available to the Real Estate Council of Ontario and its registrar. It’s known as RECO, and we’re allowing RECO’s registrar to consider a broader range of factors when considering eligibility for registration. We are giving RECO the authority to levy administrative penalties. We are providing RECO’s discipline committee the authority to revoke or suspend a real estate professional’s registration.

Consumers have been asking for this. We’ve listened, and we’re acting. Speaker, these are just some of the changes of our proposed legislation, and these updates will not only enhance consumer protection, but improve the information consumers receive about what real estate professionals and brokerages must do for them.

Tenant protection

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is to the Premier. In 2018, your government eliminated rent control for new units. Yesterday, I heard from a group of tenants at 22 John Street in York South–Weston who all live in units that are no longer protected by rent control. As their leases have come up, some of these tenants are facing rent increases as high as 25%. Speaker, that’s $375 a month in increase, almost $4,500 a year. I don’t know about you, but most people I know simply cannot afford a rent increase that high.

How can this Premier justify such steep rent increases, and all in the name of rolling out the red carpet for his developer friends?

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

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the honourable member for that question. Our government believes that every Ontarian needs a safe place to call home. That’s why we’re committed to listening to both sides of the equation, to try to make the system fairer for both tenants and landlords. We want to encourage a continued dialogue.

That’s why, as part of our Housing Supply Action Plan, we consulted with both tenants and landlords, and we are reviewing what we heard as we move forward with the system. I know that I’ve kept my colleague the Attorney General informed as we’ve moved through the consultations, because I know that he and I have a shared responsibility when it comes to the Residential Tenancies Act and the Landlord and Tenant Board.

We’re going to continue to analyze what we’ve heard and we’re going to move forward with some legislative and regulatory changes. I encourage the member to have her constituents continue to have the dialogue—

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

Supplementary? The member for York South–Weston.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: My question again is to the Premier. This government’s decision to slash rent control for new units means that residents in my riding of York South–Weston are seeing rent increases as high as 25%. This is shameful, Mr. Speaker. People cannot afford these kinds of increases.

In an email reply to one of the tenants, the Premier’s office said that exempting new units from rent control will “encourage both big developers and small landlords to create more affordable apartments.” Hundreds of dollars’ worth of rental increases a month is the opposite of affordable.

Will the Premier rise in this House today and commit to reversing the cuts to rent control?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, to correct the member’s record, our government was elected on a promise to not just increase housing supply; we kept our promise to preserve rent control for existing tenants. However, to stimulate construction of new rental housing, our government announced an exemption from rent control on new units.

Actually, our research has shown the complete opposite. Since our announcement last November, we have been seeing some very promising signs of increased development. Our examples include that over the first 10 months of 2019, there have been 3,838 rental starts in the Toronto area. That is the most for any period in any year since 1992. Developers have nearly 53,000 new units of rental housing planned for the Toronto area in the third quarter of 2019.

Our research has also shown that the rent control exemption for new units has seen significant impacts in the province of Manitoba. So our research shows the complete opposite, Speaker.

Health care

Ms. Jane McKenna: My question is for the Minister of Health. Over the past year, I’ve met with patients, administrators and health care workers, and every one of them recognized that our health care system needs significant change—that it needs to become more patient-centred.

Burlington’s Joseph Brant Hospital has served our community since 1961. The Minister of Health earlier this year visited Joseph Brant Hospital to learn more about how their integrated care model has improved patient outcomes in Burlington, especially for seniors.

Yesterday’s announcement on the free dental program for low-income seniors will make a huge difference for people in my riding, like Ann and Judith, who have been asking for this kind of support for years. Can the minister tell this House about our strategy and how this new seniors’ dental program fits into ending hallway health care?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member from Burlington for her question. Our government is taking action to end hallway health care through a comprehensive four-pillar strategy, and it’s already making a difference.

A main part of our strategy is prevention and health promotion. A lack of preventive dental care can lead to serious health problems down the road. This can require hospitalization or intensive treatment in order to fix. Unfortunately, not every Ontarian has enjoyed access to preventive dental care.

Speaker, this is just one part of our comprehensive plan to end hallway health care, and I look forward to discussing more about the other pillars of the plan in my supplementary answer.

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

Ms. Jane McKenna: Thank you to the Ministry of Health, which was involved in making yesterday’s announcement possible.

Health promotion initiatives like the free seniors’ dental program are a great way to improve the quality of life for our seniors. We know that there is a relationship between oral health and overall wellness. The Academy of General Dentistry found that over 90% of all systemic diseases produce oral signs and symptoms. That’s why this free dental health program for low-income seniors will improve overall health while helping to reduce pressures on hospital emergency rooms.

Our four-pillar plan to end hallway health care is just getting started, and it will lead to better outcomes for all Ontarians. Can the minister tell this House more about the work our government is doing to end hallway health care?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Preventive care and health promotion is the first pillar in our plan to end hallway health care.

As a second piece, we are placing a focus on ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate care possible, which is why we’ve introduced new models of care for 911 patients. We will help keep patients out of hospital when a more appropriate health care provider can be found.

Next, through Ontario Health and the upcoming implementation of Ontario health teams, we will better integrate care to improve patient flows. We are working to help Ontarians who no longer need to be in hospital to return to their homes with the extra supports that they need.

Finally, Speaker, we are investing $27 billion over the next 10 years in hospital infrastructure projects to increase our capacity, including new and upgraded hospitals and community care facilities. This is the most comprehensive, connected plan in the history of our province, and we are going to continue towards working at our goal of ending hallway health care.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Jeff Burch: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. For months, the tens of thousands of Niagara drivers who rely on the Thorold tunnel daily have experienced inconveniences, delays and frustration. With the recent news that the MTO is closing two-way traffic through the tunnel, many of our constituents and local elected officials have come forward to express deep concerns. The Ministry of Transportation has failed to address the difficulties that this will pose for access to major hospitals, stroke clinics, and ambulance transportation, potentially putting residents at risk.

One-way traffic through the Thorold tunnel for the foreseeable future is not a solution. It creates a myriad of other issues and will result in major disruptions.

Is the minister prepared to listen to local elected officials and take the necessary steps to maintain the current traffic configuration in order to ensure that our community is safe, accessible and moving efficiently?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question. I received a letter earlier this week from the member opposite as well as from other members of the opposition’s caucus from Niagara on this issue. I’ve also had a chance to have a conversation within our caucus with our member from Niagara West, who had spoken about his recommendation that the ministry consult with municipal stakeholders as we continue to find a solution for drivers in Niagara.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize and appreciate the difficulties that the closures at the Thorold tunnel are causing for motorists in the area. Keeping drivers informed of potential closures is very important, and ministry officials do communicate regularly about construction work through traffic bulletins, transportation authorities, our 511 service, and media channels. But we are always striving to do better, and we will continue to find ways to improve our communication channels with municipalities and with drivers.

Since learning of this issue last week, Mr. Speaker, I’ve directed senior officials in my office and the ministry to develop new solutions and to report back to me.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary? The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is also to the Minister of Transportation. Over 24,000 vehicles pass through the Thorold tunnel each day. Most of them are either residents of Niagara Falls or travelling to work in Niagara Falls. We have local business owners telling us that this is a disaster for their businesses.