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

March 21, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Mar-21 (PDF)

L080 - Thu 21 Mar 2019 / Jeu 21 mar 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 21 March 2019 Jeudi 21 mars 2019

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Government accountability

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Public transit

Government accountability

Government accountability

Municipalities

Government accountability

Technology in schools

Education funding

Curriculum

Women’s services

Government fiscal policies

Visitors

World Down Syndrome Day

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

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

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Racial discrimination

Nowruz

Black youth in care

George Leslie Mackay

Highway safety

Racial discrimination

Road improvement

Down syndrome

Cultural celebrations

Special Olympics World Summer Games

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour réparer le gâchis dans le secteur de l’électricité

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Private Members’ Public Business

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 relative à la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones

Ending Discrimination in Automobile Insurance Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 mettant fin à la discrimination en matière d’assurance-automobile

Algoma University Amendment Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur l’Université Algoma

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 relative à la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones

Ending Discrimination in Automobile Insurance Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 mettant fin à la discrimination en matière d’assurance-automobile

Algoma University Amendment Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur l’Université Algoma

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 relative à la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones

Ending Discrimination in Automobile Insurance Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 mettant fin à la discrimination en matière d’assurance-automobile

Orders of the Day

Supply Act, 2019 / Loi de crédits de 2019

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 20, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act concerning the provision of health care, continuing Ontario Health and making consequential and related amendments and repeals / Projet de loi 74, Loi concernant la prestation de soins de santé, la prorogation de Santé Ontario, l’ajout de modifications corrélatives et connexes et des abrogations.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: It is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak on Bill 74, The People’s Health Care Act. This act is very close, near and dear to my heart, because my wife has been a family doctor in Markham for the last 20 years. This is my everyday dining table talk: how we can improve the health care act and what challenges our residents are faced with, not only in Markham but in Ontario. This is a day-to-day conversation. It’s really a pleasure to stand here today and speak about the health care act.

I would like to thank the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the Deputy Premier for the vision and the leadership she has demonstrated in the development and presentation of the proposed legislation. It is both visionary and transformative for everyone in the province.

The government has a long-term plan to strengthen and to fix the public health care system by focusing directly on the needs of Ontario’s patients and families. Speaker, the operative word here is “directly,” giving the residents a system that is connected, that puts their needs first. Is it the right thing to do? Yes, we all need and deserve peace of mind when it comes to our health care system. It is time for patients to see an end to a system of specialized care, for example, that requires the patience and determination of salmon swimming upstream.

That is why we are building a public health care system centred around the patient and redirecting the money to the front-line services where it belongs, improving the patient experience and also providing a better-connected care model.

The People’s Health Care Act improves both access to care and the patient experience, and it does so in several ways. A key element of this legislation is the organization of health care providers to work as one efficient and coordinated team. That team will focus on patients and specific local needs. A patient would experience an easier transition from one health care provider to another. Also, many people in my riding of Markham–Thornhill and across the province will see the new system with one patient story and one patient record on one health care plan.

Mr. Speaker, who among us has not sat with a family member in need of serious medical treatment, and discussed and debated internally, or openly with loved ones, about how best to access the health care system? Well, help has come, Speaker. Help has at last arrived.

This legislation, if passed, will provide patients, families and caregivers the assistance they require in navigating the health care system 24/7: a system where family doctors, hospitals, and home and community care providers work in unison as a team; a system where, within these teams, providers can communicate directly with each other, creating a seamless care experience for the patients and their families; a system where patients are supported when transitioning from one health care service to another; a system that truly puts the patient at the centre of care, where and when it is needed.

Multiple provincial agencies will be integrated. Specialized provincial programs will be melded into a single agency, providing a central point of accountability and oversight for the system.

How does this make it better for the patient? By offering clinical guidance and support for providers, patients receive better in-depth care as a result.

For years, people have been discussing the concept of secure digital tools, including, most importantly, an online health care record and a virtual care option for patients, bringing our system into the 21st century.

We owe a better health care plan to Ontarians. The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and her team have examined the system and concluded that we can do better and we must do better. As the minister so eloquently stated, if we expect real improvements, where patients will experience positive change first-hand, we need much better coordination of service. It must be better organized around the needs of the people and around the desired outcomes.

Speaker, I have spent much of my working life engaged in health care issues. I have continued constantly because of my wife, constantly with front-line providers within the system as a former councillor of the city of Markham. I was a senior communications—worked with communications people. This experience by no means makes me a health care expert, but I understand the health care system very well. It has provided me with better tools to appreciate both the systemic problems with health care and the need to find more effective solutions.

Change is never easy. Some build their lives around a process, no matter how haphazard or ill-conceived that process might be. They develop a mechanism to hope and adapt until a pattern develops that becomes somehow acceptable through habits. Little or no time is ever spent examining what would make it dramatically better for the provider or better for the patient. We human beings are creatures of routine. Even the most spontaneous among us stick to a lot of routine and habits in life. For many of us, it is challenging to try different approaches to the problems in our life.

Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

Our visionary Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and her parliamentary assistants have not fallen into that trap. They knew that we needed and deserved different results, and they challenged themselves to look at an aging system in a dynamic new light. They’re not afraid of change; they have embraced it. Nor do they fear the challenges caused by that change.

The new patient-centric approach afforded with Bill 74 is paired with an historic investment in long-term care for seniors and better mental health and addictions services for families.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, that my mother is 92. She was diagnosed with dementia. I understand how mental illness has impacted seniors. There’s a tsunami wave of seniors coming into the cities and the province, and this bill is very important—how we can take care of seniors. Also, my mother-in-law is 84 and is living with me. I understand their challenges day to day. It’s in front of my eyes. When I wake up in the morning and when I go to bed, I can see some of the challenges that are faced by our seniors.

Our government is investing a huge chunk of money—$3.8 billion over 10 years—to establish a connected and comprehensive system for mental health and addiction treatment, and is adding 15,000 new long-term-care beds over five years and 30,000 new beds over 10 years.

Our government for the people is committed and focused. We promised that we would end hallway medicine, and we are fully committed to making good on the promise. We all know of the challenges faced by Ontarians; the financial hardship is clear. This province has a monthly interest payment on its debt of over $1 million.

Our government is taking a comprehensive, pragmatic approach to address our public health care system with the support provided through Bill 74, one that would ensure it will remain sustainable for all Ontarians when and where they need it. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this important proposed legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jamie West: Good morning, everybody. I want to thank my colleague from Markham–Thornhill for his comments. One of the things that stood out to me is that he said, “How does this make it better for the patient?” That’s the number one comment. I’m sure all my colleagues would agree. Knocking on doors—the riding of Sudbury was no different than yours. The number one comment that I heard in Sudbury from people at the door was, “We need to fix hallway medicine”—absolutely number one. Number two is long-term care. Long-term care is broken. It’s underfunded. There are not enough beds—number one and number two.

The people in Sudbury were honest with me. People would tell me that they’re voting for me or they’re not voting for me, or they’re card-carrying holders of whatever, and then they would say, “When you’re elected, we need to fix hallway medicine.”

I have two quotes here that I wrote down. One was: “I am a Conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility, but you have to pay for what is important. Our hospitals need to be fully funded.” I heard versions of that again and again from people who told me they were Conservative, that they supported this government, that you have to pay for what you need and what’s important.

The other thing I heard that stood out for me and stuck in my mind eight months later was that the workers in long-term-care facilities “are me. They are family when I am not with my family,” and you need to pay them appropriately.

The problem we have here is that, of all the doors I knocked on—and we all knocked on many, many doors—not one single person said that what health care needs is a super-agency, that what health care needs is to take your voice from the north, from Sudbury, and bring it to downtown Toronto, in the 416.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: They did say they needed coordination.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The minister will come to order.

Mr. Jamie West: Not one person said to me that what we need is more bureaucracy, that we don’t need more front-line workers, we don’t need more money into the hospitals, but what we need is to be centralized and to use our OHIP money to pay for people to make a profit outside of the public sector.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Come to order.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): All members will have the opportunity to stand and have their voices heard during questions and comments, so please use your time accordingly, and let’s not heckle.

Further questions and comments.

M me Natalia Kusendova: Je suis ravie de me lever aujourd’hui et de parler au sujet du projet de loi 74 sur les soins de santé pour la population. Je remercie le député de Markham–Thornhill et aussi la députée de Sudbury pour leurs paroles.

Madame la Présidente, pendant la campagne électorale, notre gouvernement s’est engagé envers la population de l’Ontario à mettre fin aux soins de santé dans les couloirs, et nous sommes fermement déterminés à tenir cette promesse. Les patients et leurs familles se perdent dans notre système de santé et attendent trop longtemps pour recevoir des soins. Cela a un impact négatif sur la santé et le bien-être des patients et de leurs proches, à la fois physiquement et mentalement.

Le système de santé est confronté par des contraintes de capacité et ne dispose pas de la combinaison adéquate de services, des lits ou d’outils numériques pour être prêt pour une population croissante et vieillissante ayant des besoins de soins de plus en plus complexes.

C’est la raison pour laquelle nous construisons un système de santé public centré sur le patient et réaffectons l’argent aux services de première ligne, où il se doit, pour améliorer l’expérience du patient et fournir des soins de meilleure qualité et plus connectés, un système dans lequel les médecins de famille, les hôpitaux et les fournisseurs de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire travaillent à l’unisson et en équipe.

Au fur et à mesure que nous proposons des améliorations nécessaires et attendues dans le domaine des soins de santé de la province, les Ontariens continueront d’avoir accès aux soins de santé publics fiables, couverts par l’assurance-santé, et notre plan améliorera le système de santé afin que les personnes aient accès aux soins plus rapides, mieux coordonnés, là où ils sont nécessaires.

La population de l’Ontario a toujours été et restera la priorité de notre gouvernement. Nous allons créer un système de santé public qui fonctionne pour tout le monde.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: This bill is not about ending hallway medicine. This bill is about making sure that the for-profit health care companies get a piece of the $62-billion pie.

Let me tell you what I see in the future. The first thing I see is that—there is a very high demand right now for people to be able to access their electronic health records. They want to know the results of their tests. They want to know the results of their CAT scans, their MRIs etc. There are “vultures” around here right now—that’s the word I will use—but the real word is for-profit companies that want to charge each and every one of us to have access to our electronic health records. This is something that Ontarians want, and this is something that Ontarians will probably have to pay for.

It doesn’t have to be like this. We already have the Ontario Laboratory Information System—all paid for by the taxpayers—that we should all have access to, but we don’t. Women’s College already has a portal where people are able to book their appointments, to change them, to see their lab work, and this is all done with public money.

But what will happen with this government? I can see it, Speaker: They will invest in technology. What does that mean? They will give money to the for-profits, who will then sell to us access to our medical records, because this is not covered by medicare; therefore you’re able to charge for it, and the opportunities to charge will continue to multiply.

It doesn’t have to be like this. This information, first of all, should be protected. I have a great problem with thinking that the for-profits—most of them are international companies based in the States—will be here in Ontario selling me access to my health records. I have a great problem with this. I guarantee you that this bill allows this to happen, and it will under this government—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to take some points from the member from Markham–Thornhill, because some of the things he said definitely need to be repeated.

We’re developing a long-term plan by focusing directly on the patient. That can’t be emphasized enough. We’re focusing on the patient. The question that’s being asked throughout this entire process is: How does it help the patient experience? How does it help the patient? The system is being designed around the patient.

Another thing that he said sticks with me because I think this is also very important: We’re developing an organization of health care as one system—one patient story, one patient record, one patient plan. It sounds like something that should have been obvious from the very beginning, as we were developing health care over the last 152 years. It should have been one patient story, one patient record, one patient plan, but somewhere along the way, we lost that. We’re trying to get that back so that we have again—from the member from Markham–Thornhill—a system where the patient is supported.

He talked about Albert Einstein and his quote that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I’m going to give a quote from a member from the opposite party. We heard that the Juravinski Hospital is operating at 120% capacity, meaning that people are being treated in hallways and that people are being discharged who are not ready to leave the hospital. We heard it loud and clear: It’s time for change. We’re implementing change for the patients.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Markham–Thornhill for his wrap-up.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga Centre and the member from Peterborough–Kawartha. Thank you for the kind remarks.

Madam Speaker, I could speak for hours and hours about how we can modernize our health care system. It’s very near and dear to my heart because of my family; they’ve been in the medical profession for many, many years. My wife has run a family medical centre for the last 21 years in Markham, and she has seen patients from emergency to family physician and walk-in clinic, and also sees a lot of young people and youth with mental illnesses and children with special needs. This is very close to my heart.

I have to thank the minister for coming with innovative ideas on how we can improve our medical system and health care system for the 21st century, that can fit into the 21st century.

Our government committed to the people of Ontario during the election campaign that we would end hallway health care, and we are fully committed to delivering on that promise.

If I go to a family doctor’s office, any family doctor’s office, in Markham, in my riding, or in Scarborough, if you want to see the good doctor, you have two hours’ waiting time. That’s why we’re trying to end hallway medicine. But it’s not only hallway medicine; it’s also patients waiting at the reception area. That is unacceptable.

That’s why we are building a public health care system centred around the patient and redirecting the money to the front-line services where it belongs, to improve the patient experience and provide better and connected care. The end vision for the public health care system is where patient and family will have access to faster, better and more-connected services.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: It’s always a pleasure to rise and talk on behalf of the residents of Niagara Falls, and in particular on Bill 74, the privatization of the health care act. That’s what this is about: It’s about privatizing our health care. What I found very interesting over the last few weeks was that when the NDP found out that there was a secret meeting in a secret building you’d put together, the minister said—I didn’t say this; the minister said it—that she’d never seen the bill.

So, my question to all the Conservatives over there: How can you be the Minister of Health, with $57 billion, which is what we’re spending on health, and you never saw the bill? How does that happen on your side? That should never, ever happen.

So, now what has happened is, we’re looking at privatizing health care.

My colleague from Peterborough–Kawartha, I think it was, talked about health care. Well, let me tell you about health care in your own riding, my friend. In the Niagara Falls-St. Catharines area, we closed hospitals. When you guys were in government, quite frankly, you closed 26 hospitals and laid off 6,000 nurses. That’s why we ended up with hallway medicine, just for the record.

But in Peterborough–Kawartha, you’ve got a new hospital. You know this—the member knows that. And so does St. Catharines. But what was the difference? The difference was, your hospital was built with publicly funded, publicly delivered—and do you know what the cost was? Some $375 million. It’s approximately 345 beds. Sounds like a pretty good deal. My understanding is, the hospital is pretty good right now.

Well, here’s what happens when you privatize it and you do a P3. St. Catharines has a brand new hospital. Under the Liberals—who, by the way, did a terrible, terrible job on health care when they froze at 0% increases to the budget as their hydro bills went up 300%. But getting back to the privatization, because I want that member to understand, in St. Catharines they built a beautiful hospital, privately built, and it’s being privately run today. Do you know what the cost was of that, member? Maybe you can yell it out. It was $1.1 billion.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Billion.

Mr. Wayne Gates: That’s with a B—some $600 million more than what it cost to build almost the exact same hospital in Peterborough. Now you know why the corporations—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Sorry to interrupt, but I would remind the member to direct his remarks to and through the Speaker and not to engage directly across the floor.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s just kind of the way I work.

So this is why corporations—Madam Speaker, I’ll try and look at you and not look at my colleague from Peterborough–Kawartha. This is why private companies all over Canada want part of the health care. There’s money in it. Do you think they care about hallway medicine? Do you think they care about long-term-care facilities? I’ll tell you what they care about: They care about profit. That’s the problem that we’re having with your bill.

But I still don’t understand how the minister cannot even know anything about the bill when it’s almost the exact same bill as what was presented in this House. I say to my colleagues over there from the Conservatives: I would think, as a minister, you would at least have read the bill before it was done, or participated in those debates and those discussions on what we need in health care. I understand she has to defend it. I get that. But I don’t know how you defend private health care.

Even the Conservatives—I know my colleagues might remember this guy: Tommy Douglas. You might remember him. How many—I’m sorry, Madam Speaker. You can put your hand up. How many remember Tommy Douglas? Just a few years ago, they had a poll across Canada—not just in Ontario but right across the country: Who was the greatest Canadian of all time? I thought it was going to be Don Cherry—

Interjection: How about Wayne Gretzky?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Or Wayne Gretzky. But it wasn’t. It was Tommy Douglas, because he brought publicly funded health care to Canada, and it went right across the country. I’m going to age myself here. It came in in the 1960s under Tommy Douglas.

My mum and dad had five children. There wasn’t publicly funded health care at that time, and because my brother was extremely sick for a number of years, they had to pay out of their own pocket. My parents had to make some choices: Do they make sure that my brother gets the health care he needs and pay out of their wallet, pay out of their card—I can show it to you. Oh, you can’t do that in here. They didn’t have a card at that time, so they had to pay.

So you know what happened to that? For 10 years our family was taking care of my brother to try to get him healthy, and I’m happy to say today—he still has challenges, but he’s still alive and he’s still here today. But we ended up living in poverty. I knew what it was like to go to bed with no supper. I knew what it was like to have no clothes. I knew what it was like to go to school with my jeans—today, they’re in fashion—with patches on them or holes in them. Why was it done like that? It wasn’t because my dad didn’t work. It wasn’t because my mum worked in the fish store on Queenston Road across from the hospital. They couldn’t afford their health care.

What are we doing? Why are we allowing private companies to take over our health care? Do we have issues around health care? Do we have a crisis in health care? I told you why it started. It started when you closed hospitals. It starts when you lay off front-line workers. It starts when the Liberals freeze their budgets at 0% year after year after year. That’s why we had hallway medicine. It wasn’t because we need the private sector to come in and take it from us. Wake up. What are we doing?

We came here for one reason and one reason only: to make sure that we can take care of our family, our kids and their kids and our grandkids. There’s nothing in this country that’s more important than a publicly funded health care system. Do not allow the corporations to take that from us.

I want to close on—I’ve only got a few minutes left, but this is a very important issue in my riding. I apologize that I didn’t get to my speech. I’d like to close on a topic that’s barely touched on in this bill: mental health. I want to talk about mental health in Niagara.

Four months ago in this Legislature, this government supported my motion to bring more mental health funding to Niagara. The front-line groups put together a budget that was reasonable and explained how this could save lives. I want the PCs to hear this: save lives. The funding would have been used to expand services and operate three 24/7 sites. That’s what front-line groups told us they needed. I’m not saying it; the front-line groups are saying it. Where is that funding, Madam Speaker? Why have these groups not heard from this government? We haven’t heard a word from them. I sent three separate letters asking the minister to meet with them, and nothing.

Since that time—and pay attention, brothers and sisters—we’ve had four highly publicized deaths by suicide in my community, and many more don’t make the papers. Families are struggling. Front-line workers are stretched thin. People are suffering. This government stood here in this House and made a commitment to those families. When do they plan to acknowledge that commitment?

Enough is enough. This government agreed to that funding, and the front-line service workers need it now. When can we expect the minister to talk to CAMH and talk to the front-line groups and get that funding flowing?

This bill offers no major overhaul of the mental health crisis situation we have across the province or in Niagara. People need help, and they need this Premier to give a damn. Neither this bill nor the action of this government seems to indicate that they’re willing to do that. So I’m asking the government—and pay attention, please, because people in Niagara are dying. I’m asking this government to do better, to immediately call these service providers in Niagara and get the funding done.

Madam Speaker, I hope that addresses some of the major flaws in this bill, but I want to close and talk to my colleague from Niagara West. Oh, he’s not here.

Interjections.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Oh, I’m sorry. I apologize. I retract that. I didn’t mean that.

The member from Niagara West goes to Brock University. He’s a very smart kid. I’m not saying anything bad about him. But he supported my motion, and do you know what happened three weeks ago? A young girl who was at Sir Winston Churchill and who went to Brock University—an honour student, a great athlete—committed suicide at 19 years old.

We need the funding in Niagara now. Talk to your colleagues, and get the money—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’m proud to speak in support of Bill 74, The People’s Health Care Act, introduced by the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I would like to thank her for her leadership on this important legislation.

Over the past few years, I’ve consulted with front-line staff, patients and families at our hospital in Mississauga–Lakeshore. Over and over, I heard the same concerns: We have too many people waiting on the wait-lists and too many patients treated in hallways. According to the ministry, in Mississauga, only 36% have an MRI within the target time, and only 22% in an ER are admitted within the target time. The average wait time is 22 hours.

After 15 years of Liberal mismanagement, Ontario’s health care system is broken. Billions were wasted on eHealth and Ornge scandals and expanding the bureaucratic LHINs and sub-LHINs: $100 million a year on LHIN bureaucrats, $1 billion a year on home care bureaucrats. That’s nearly 40% of the entire home care budget. This has drained our system of resources for front-line care, for our doctors and nurses.

Speaker, that’s why I’m proud of this bill. It represents a long-term plan for a better-connected public health care system. It will better meet the patients’ and providers’ needs and make it easier to get the services you need.

In Mississauga, Michelle DiEmanuele, president of Trillium Health Partners, says that this bill is “an important milestone for the future of health care. It’s only by working in partnership with government, front-line staff, patients and their families that together we will be able to build a new kind of health care for a healthier community.”

Speaker, I completely urge everybody to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Because I only have two minutes, I just want it to be clear to everybody. You hear the Conservatives say that you will be able to take your OHIP card to cover your health care services, and somehow they think that is public health care. What we are talking about is publicly paid for, publicly delivered, publicly run health care. I don’t want my money to go to the profits of a private corporation who will not properly staff their facility and who will not fairly compensate their employees. When their only concern is their own profit, that is not public health care; that is private health care.

That is what Bill 74 will do. You will put more of our money, Ontarians’ money, into the pockets of private companies whose bottom line is to make as much profit as possible.

We recently had a strike in Windsor at a medical lab that went on for weeks. It was a private company that put those low-wage workers out on the picket line for weeks because they would rather put profits in their own pockets than pay those workers fairly.

With the little time I have left, I want to mention to the government that we have 86 women public health nurses on strike in Windsor that were put out on strike on International Women’s Day because all they are asking for is pay equity. Pay equity: That’s all these women are asking for. What we need is for this government to actually invest in publicly delivered health care and to get these women back to the bargaining table.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Harris: There’s a lot of rhetoric again coming from the other side of the House today, Madam Speaker. All this talk about privatization and workers’ rights and unions and pay equity, but I have yet to hear anybody talk about patients. The patients in this province should be the number one focus—number one.

The NDP got a chance to form government once in 152 years, Madam Speaker—one time for four years. They went from 74 seats to 17 and third-party status. They had four years to try and fix the health care system, and guess whose government had to come in and clean up? My father’s, the Mike Harris government, in 1995 had to come and clean up the mess that Bob Rae made. The NDP bankrupted this province, and the PC government had to come in and clean it up. And I’ll tell you what, Madam Speaker—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I apologize to the member who does indeed have the floor. The House will come to order. I have no concerns about warning or removing members who cannot abide by the rules of the House.

The member may continue with his questions and comments.

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We had to come in and we had to clean up the mess that was left from an NDP government. I have heard absolutely no constructive criticism, no plan, come from the NDP, the opposition across the aisle—nothing. All they have is complaining and bickering and whining. They have come forward with absolutely no plan to help fix the health care system here in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments? A reminder to all members that if they have the opportunity to speak, they may take it by standing and being recognized. Otherwise, enough.

I recognize the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the member for Niagara—did I get it right? I’m terrible at that. He made a very good point, and that is that once we engage the private sector to deliver health services, inherently they have to make money. No businesses are operating as a philanthropical organization out of the goodness of their heart. They are trying to return money to their shareholders.

He used a really good example, and that is the building of a hospital—pretty well the same hospital built in two communities. One was built as a private sector P3 model, and the other one was built as a public sector hospital. There was a $600-million difference in price when it came to construction. Why would we use our taxpayers’ dollars and give that money to the private sector just so they can make a profit? I would rather take that $600 million and give it to our hospitals and other systems across the system in order to make sure that they can provide services to people on the front lines.

To my friend from Kitchener: I was here when the NDP government was there, and I was here when your father was there. I’ve got to tell you, that’s not what happened. In fact, what happened is, you guys closed hospitals. You laid off nurses. You created a crisis in health care. You equated those people—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga will come to order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —with people with hula hoops. There was a fight for the entire time that government was in place, because what they were doing was trying to move their ideology through the health care system, and that’s what this government is trying to do.

So, privatizing home care: I remember we were the government that created home care. The first government in the history of Ontario that created a coordinated approach to home care was done by the NDP. One of the first things the Mike Harris government did when they came to power was they privatized the darn thing. And now we’ve got this hodgepodge system that’s in place because of the actions of, first, the Conservatives under Harris, and all of the changes that happened under the Liberals.

It’s time we get back to the basics. It’s time we vote for an NDP government to protect public health care.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Niagara Falls for his two-minute response.

Mr. Wayne Gates: First of all, I would like to say thank you to all my colleagues who had comments. But I’m not going to sit here and allow anybody to talk about the Mike Harris government when it comes to health care. It was Mike Harris who closed 26 hospitals and laid off 6,000 nurses. But how many people can remember—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga will come to order. Stop the clock. The member for Kitchener–Conestoga will come to order, and has had the opportunity to have his voice heard, and is very close to being asked—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Let me tell you about why people are using our health care system under Mike Harris today. Anybody remember Walkerton, where seven people died because of the cuts in the privatization of our services? Today, those same people in Walkerton are still suffering. They’re still using our health care system. So, when you’re going to stand up and talk about health care—

Mr. Mike Harris: Madam Speaker, point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member on a point of order.

Mr. Mike Harris: I believe the member from Niagara Falls is insinuating that Mike Harris had something to do with the deaths of seven people in Walkerton. I don’t think that’s very parliamentary, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): That is not a point of order, but I will remind all members that the tenor of this place depends on how we conduct ourselves.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you very much. I didn’t get a chance to say it in my two minutes, but seeing we brought it up, you know what privatization does? In St. Catharines, in the Niagara area, they privatized the cleaning of our hospitals—to an American company, by the way. You know what happened? They were told they could only spend five or seven minutes in each room cleaning, and we got C. diff in our hospitals—every single hospital. Do you know what happened, Madam Speaker? Thirty-nine people died from C. diff.

What they found out as they did the investigation—because it didn’t just stay in Canada; it went right into the States; they talked about it. They found out it was because of the privatization of the cleaning services in that hospital. It was only 39 people that they said died from C. diff. A lot of the other ones, they said, died from heart disease and diabetes, but we know it was C. diff.

So, when you’re talking about privatization of health care, don’t do it. Publicly fund it—public health care.

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

Miss Kinga Surma: Thank you to my caucus colleagues and members opposite. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss my thoughts on the innovations and efficiencies being proposed on public health care in The People’s Health Care Act, Bill 74.

Prior to acknowledging the bill before us today by our Deputy Premier, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, my friend and the member from Newmarket–Aurora, and her hard-working staff and the ministry, I think it is important to discuss the broken health care system that we inherited from the previous Liberal government.

Many constituents across the province spoke to my colleagues and I during the election about their dissatisfaction with the health care system. Some issues we encountered included:

—the unreasonably long wait times in emergency rooms;

—the lack of family doctors in our communities;

—the inability of the LHINs to address cases where service delivery and care were not meeting the expected standards;

—a lack of hospital beds, resulting in hallways being flooded with patients receiving hallway health care;

—dangerously long wait times for mental health resources and specialists, especially for those severely impacted by mental health issues, causing life-threatening scenarios.

I am blessed to represent the best riding in the province. I represent family-oriented, hard-working people who are very engaged in their local community. Demographically speaking, my riding has a large population of seniors. My seniors have worked, raised families and contributed to their communities in Etobicoke for many years, if not their entire lives. But as I got to know more and more of my senior residents, the more openly they spoke about their challenges with the health care system.

Their biggest challenge was not only the long wait times and the diminishing quality of care, but often the frustrations with simply finding the right person to contact, to help guide them in the right direction. They felt abandoned, Madam Speaker.

It became evident that the strategies and budgetary priorities of the previous government were not meeting the modern needs of Ontario’s people. Since taking office, I have visited hospitals and I have spoken to many health care professionals who are very honest about the challenges and pressures they felt, trying to provide the best health care with limited resources. They showed me where they had to keep medical supplies in hallways next to patients because there wasn’t any room. So I would often ask them the same question: How did this happen and how did we let this get so bad? Their response: years of “Help” being ignored, and the lack of planning.

Our government committed to the people of Ontario during the election and we campaigned that we would end hallway health care, and we are fully committed to delivering on that promise. Since our government took office in June, we have been proud to share several health care improvements with the people of this great province. These announcements have included the rolling-out of 5,000 hospital beds, with thousands more over the next five years; a $90-million investment in hospital programming and infrastructure; as well as a historic investment of $1.9 billion, to be matched by the federal government, to develop a comprehensive mental health and addictions strategy.

With all of this considered, we know we can do more, and we will. This sentiment is the spirit of this legislation, Bill 74, which we are discussing today. The fact is that Ontario’s health care system is on life support. Patients are forgotten on waiting lists, more than 1,000 patients are receiving care in hallways every day, and the average wait time to access a bed in long-term care is 146 days.

Patients and families are getting lost in the health care system, falling through the cracks and waiting too long for care. This has a negative impact on the health and well-being of patients and their loved ones, both physically and mentally.

The health care system is facing capacity pressures today, and it does not have the right mix of services, beds or digital tools to be ready for a growing and rapidly aging population with more complex care needs. That is why we are building a public health care system centred on patient care and redirecting money to front-line services where it belongs, to improve the patient experience and provide better and connected care.

Our government believes that public funding should be directed to front-line services to continuously improve patient experience, constantly promote better value, ensure better outcomes for every dollar spent and improve the overall physical health, mental health and well-being of Ontarians. This includes ensuring we are committed to a sustainable, digitally enabled, publicly funded health care system that is built to last. Our government is not ignoring the call for help and we are, Madam Speaker, planning for the future.

We envision a public health care system where patients and families will have access to faster, better and more-connected services. We aim to do this by establishing a new model of integrated public health care delivery which will put each patient at the centre of a connected care system all across Ontario—a system where family doctors, hospitals, and home and community care providers work together so that patients and their families are not frustrated and stressed.

We hope to accomplish this by creating a new single provincial agency that will remove duplication while replicating and amplifying best-in-class clinical guidance and approaches to care—a system where patients are supported when transitioning from one health care service to another; a system that truly puts the patient at the centre of care where and when it is needed.

Modernizing the health care system will take time, but we will continue to listen to the people who plan and work on the front lines, including nurses, doctors and other care providers, as we implement our public health care strategy.

As we bring forward desperately needed and overdue improvements to health care in this province, Ontarians will continue to access reliable public health care through OHIP, and our plan will improve the health system so that people have access to faster, better-coordinated public health care where it is needed and when it is needed.

The people of Ontario have been and always will be our government’s priority and focus. This was lost with the previous administration. I was so proud to grow up in a country and a province that were recognized for having the best health care system in the world. Now we know that not to be true. I am proud to serve today so that our government can restore Ontario’s reputation and leadership in public health care.

I would like to thank the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Health, for having enough courage to admit where we have failed the people of this great province and offer improvements. The minister was not afraid to take action and speak up, knowing that sometimes the truth is hard to hear.

It will take many years to restore and modernize our health care system so that we can once again provide the best health care in the world, but if we don’t, like the many patients, we’ll fall through the cracks. It will take an enormous effort to bring about the changes in our health care system that patients themselves have been demanding. We have an opportunity to build on the success of our public health care system, but we’ll have to recognize that a system built in the 1960s is not one that is ready to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

What has become clear to me in the short time that I have had the honour of serving is that while people appreciate the care they receive, they remain frustrated when attempting to access that care. A senior returning to an emergency room because he or she was unable to access timely home care is a failure, not of the health care professionals who provide the care, but of a system that is organized poorly.

Long delays in emergency rooms, uneven care between urban and rural residents, communities without family doctors, long waiting lists for surgery and therapy, and frustration when your health professionals are not able to speak with each other is a failing of our system, not of the people who provide the care.

A 21st-century health care system is one where services can be accessed close to home and where health professionals have access to the latest tools and are part of a team that is focused on patient care.

I am proud that, once upon a time, we built one of the world’s best health care systems. However, we have a responsibility to build on that success, to improve care and build a system that will serve Ontario patients for decades to come.

Madam Speaker, I would like to move that, pursuant to standing order 48, the question be now put.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order, please. The House will come to order.

Ms. Surma has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Orders of the day. I recognize the minister.

Hon. Todd Smith: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0954 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome guests from the riding of London North Centre who participated in the London Youth Advisory Council. We have Alice Balluku from ward 13, Joshua Monk from Western University, and Paris Liu from ward 5. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Bruce Chapman of the Police Association of Ontario.

Mr. Norman Miller: I’m very pleased to welcome Hilary Jacob and her daughter Carly Merrick, who are here to have lunch with me on a visit to Queen’s Park today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Walker: I’m delighted to introduce Jayda Galbraith and Mike Spencer in the members’ gallery. They’re here to join me from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Ross Romano: I am very happy to introduce a guest from my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and my former alma mater, Donna Rogers. She is the academic dean of Algoma University, and she’s here all the way from Sault Ste. Marie to support me in my PMB today. Thank you very much, Ms. Rogers, for being here today.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I would like to introduce my guests Joy Wakefield from Legal Aid Ontario, and Serena Purdy from the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto. Meegwetch.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: I would like to welcome grade 5 students from St. Brendan Catholic School who are visiting the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I am going to ask the members to take their seats if they are in the chamber.

The member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome some of the elected representatives from the London Youth Advisory Council who have joined us today, along with the youth council director: Abdullah Al-Jarad, councillor for ward 8; Ainsley Jeffery, councillor for ward 10; Erika Juhasz, councillor for ward 14; and Elizabeth Muriithi, the youth council director. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I would like to welcome to the gallery today Donna Rogers, the dean of academics at Algoma University, who is here today to support the member from Sault Ste. Marie. Welcome.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has a point of order.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent so that members can wear the multi-coloured bow to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear a multi-coloured bow in recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Agreed? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner released his report detailing the deeply flawed process that led the Premier to appoint a family friend as the head of the OPP. While the Premier spent yesterday pointing to page 1 of that report, it’s not clear that he read the other 99 pages.

Last year, the Premier declared that this was “a transparent choice” that he and his chief of staff, Dean French, had zero influence over, which the Integrity Commissioner makes pretty clear was absolutely not the case.

Does the Acting Premier believe the Premier’s claim that he and his chief of staff, Dean French, had no role in the flawed process?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: From the very beginning of this process, we said that we would welcome and would wait for the Integrity Commissioner’s report, unlike the NDP opposite, who chose to drag good police officers through the mud, who chose to appoint victims.

I want to quote from the commissioner’s report: “It was my opinion that on the evidence, Premier Ford did not breach any of the sections of the act, as alleged. I found that the Premier stayed at arm’s length from the recruitment process and that he believed it to be independent.”

I think the Integrity Commissioner did his job. Now I wish the NDP would do their job and stop dragging OPP officers and our offices through the mud.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members, please take their seats.

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I would like to remind the minister that from the beginning, the Premier said that it doesn’t matter what the Integrity Commissioner was going to report because he was going to have Mr. Taverner at the front of the OPP regardless. Of course, Mr. Taverner decided otherwise, which is what the people of Ontario deserve. They also deserve and expect a higher ethical standard than that it technically wasn’t illegal.

On December 5 of last year, the Premier stated that he “didn’t know the decision until ... it was made” that his family friend had been offered the top policing job in the province. That’s pretty unbelievable, considering details in the commissioner’s report which describe constant streams of text messages flying back and forth between the head of the hiring committee and Dean French, the Premier’s chief of staff.

Does the Acting Premier believe that the Premier and his chief of staff didn’t know that Taverner got the job until the decision was made?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, it’s pretty obvious that from the very beginning of this process, the NDP did not want the Premier to have any interest in the OPP and the leadership within it. It’s a completely false premise. They have chosen to sully individuals’ reputations, including, frankly, my own deputy minister. It was, from the beginning, a politically motivated hatchet job. We categorically refuse to participate in that. As the Integrity Commissioner said, the complaints coming from the NDP and the Liberals based on the media reports were found to be “speculative and unsupported by the evidence received at this inquiry.”

The NDP continue to believe that they can say whatever they want about police officers and send them through the mud. I don’t think it’s right. I think it’s wrong, and we will continue to stand with our—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, what’s very clear is that the NDP official opposition did our job and we did it well. That’s what’s very clear, Speaker.

While the Premier was telling all of the people of Ontario that he didn’t know the decision was made, Dean French, his chief of staff, admitted under oath that both he and the Premier recommended Taverner for the top job before the posting even went out. To quote Dean French, “We both recommended that” Taverner “be considered.” That’s straight from the report, Speaker. How does the Premier get from recommending Taverner for the top job to being totally surprised when he lands the position?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think it’s important to remind members of the House that the independent Integrity Commissioner did his job, the report has been tabled, the report has been made public and the Premier is 100% vindicated.

From the very beginning, you chose to make this process political. You chose to take a 50-year veteran—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the minister to make her comments through the Chair.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker.

It was clear from the beginning that this complaint was frivolous and without merit. The Integrity Commissioner’s report clearly shows that. We will stand with our front-line police officers every day to make sure that they have the tools that they need to protect our citizens and to keep our streets safe. I only wish the NDP would do the same.

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier, but I would suggest that the minister actually read the report.

While the Premier insists that the system works fine, here’s what Ontarians actually read in yesterday’s report: The Premier’s friend was approached about taking the job before it was even posted. The Premier’s chief of staff received regular updates on that friend’s progress from the secretary of cabinet, Steve Orsini, the head of the supposedly independent hiring committee. The independent recruitment agency even helped the Premier’s friend draft his cover letter.

This might be technically legal, Speaker, but I’d hope that the Acting Premier has a much higher standard than that. Isn’t it time for a full public inquiry, to take a real look at this stinking mess?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Deputy Premier. Get it right.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry will come to order.

The question is to the Deputy Premier.

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I understand that the NDP didn’t get the answer they wanted from the independent officer of the assembly. I understand that their narrative of a quality 50-year veteran who would have been an excellent choice as the commissioner—I understand they didn’t get what they wanted. But let’s be real. The Integrity Commissioner has done his investigation. The report has been issued. It has been made public and, as I said at the beginning, is a 100% vindication of Premier Ford and our government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, again, I recommend that every one of those members take the time to read the report, because in his report the Integrity Commissioner states, “A public inquiry may be useful as a post-mortem exercise where there are not the same live issues outstanding.”

Now that the commissioner has done his work under his limited mandate, there are still many, many questions that the people of Ontario deserve answers to. Will this government do the right thing by the people of Ontario and call a full public inquiry into this stinking mess?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Stop the clock. The government side must come to order.

Start the clock. Minister?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: To be clear, you are suggesting that the independent Integrity Commissioner for the province of Ontario didn’t do his job? I don’t believe that. I believe there was a full investigation, as, frankly, was asked for by the NDP. Your own member from Brampton South asked for that investigation; it has happened. The report has happened.

Just because you don’t like what the independent Integrity Commissioner found doesn’t mean you can continue to drag good front-line officers and OPP individuals through the mud. It’s unacceptable. It’s not right. You need to stop.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What’s unacceptable, and what is not right, is that this minister is obviously completely unaware of what is in the Integrity Commissioner’s report. That’s what’s unacceptable.

Again I say that the Integrity Commissioner’s report makes it very clear that the job is not over. That’s not what the opposition is saying; that’s what the Integrity Commissioner is saying as well. He doesn’t touch on the retaliatory firing of Deputy Commissioner Brad Blair, and he says in the report, if you read it, he wouldn’t even attempt to resolve the issue concerning the Premier’s request for an off-the-books, custom-fitted van. But he does make it clear, if you read it—he makes it clear—that this process—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Please stop the clock. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I have to be able to hear the questions that are being asked. I realize that many members are not participating, but the ones who are have to stop or they’re going to be warned, and if they continue, they will be named.

I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. Again, start the clock. Allow her to finish her question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker.

But he does make it clear, if you read the report—he makes it very clear—that this process was deeply, deeply flawed and that an inquiry could find answers. Will the government—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I can hear what’s going on at that end of the chamber. The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry is warned.

Start the clock. The minister can respond.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, I will attempt to lower the rhetoric in this place by again quoting from the Integrity Commissioner’s report: “It was my opinion that on the evidence, Premier Ford did not breach any of the sections of the act, as alleged. I found that the Premier stayed at arm’s length from the recruitment process and that he believed it to be independent.”

We are going to move on with an excellent choice in incoming OPP commissioner Tom Carrique. I am looking forward to working with him to turn the page, so that our OPP officers get the support that they need to protect our province and to keep our citizens safe. If the NDP could join us in supporting front-line officers instead of continuing to malign them, that would be very helpful to ensure that our citizens are protected and our streets remain safe.

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Minutes ago, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services announced changes to the government’s scheme to reduce support for children with autism. Is the government finally ready to admit that their scheme was wrong, that it failed parents and failed children with autism?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: This is a wonderful day for this government. This is a wonderful day for children with autism in the province of Ontario.

Before I answer the member opposite’s question, I want to say thank you to Amy Fee and Doug Ford. Our government for the people is absolutely 100% committed to eliminating the wait-lists over the next 18 months, as I have said consistently in this House for the last month. We are going to make sure that those 23,000 children who were left to languish on a wait-list by the previous Liberal administration get off. We’re going to ensure that we double—

Ms. Catherine Fife: You create the crisis.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Waterloo, come to order.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: —the diagnostic hubs. We’re going to make sure that we have an annual childhood budget from zero to 18 of $130,000. We’re going to make sure that there’s choice in how parents spend that. I am so excited to talk in the supplementary about the enhancements we’re going to make to that plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Parents have been clear that they don’t want tweaks to the government’s plans. They want and deserve a new plan—a plan that actually works for parents and, most importantly, works for children with autism.

Now the government is finally backtracking from their reckless scheme that really put parents through unnecessary stress and worry for the last number of months. Will they listen to parents finally? Don’t try to fix the unfixable; come back with a brand new plan that does what it should have done in the first place, and a new minister that parents can trust and work with.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: That member opposite once wanted to clear the wait-list until we said we were going to do it. She wanted direct funding until we said we were going to do it. She opposed income testing until we decided we were going to get rid of it. She asked for an extension on contracts. That’s what we’re doing. We’re going to make sure that we support those who have the most severity, and we’re going to consult with them over the next few months.

But make no mistake: Our commitment to the people of Ontario, and our motivation, always has been that the 23,000, or three out of four, children who were denied service by their Ontario government are finally going to get it. We are enhancing our plan. We are spending more money than any government in the history of this country to support children with autism, and I would expect—

Interjections.

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

I apologize to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services that I had to stand up. I could not hear her because of the loud ovation by the other members in her caucus.

Start the clock. Next question.

Autism treatment

Ms. Jill Dunlop: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. When our government took office, we were shocked to find that the previous Liberal government had left the province with a broken and bankrupt Ontario Autism Program: 23,000 children with autism were left to languish on wait-lists, and the minister had to go to the Treasury Board twice just to keep the broken Liberal program operating.

Can the minister explain to this House the work our government is doing to correct the course that the Liberals set us on and create a more fair Ontario Autism Program?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the question. It’s very important. Obviously, we announced last month that our motivation would be to clear the wait-list of 23,000 children. We are going to achieve that in the next 18 months by doubling the investments into our diagnostic hubs and providing a childhood budget of $140,000.

What I’m really excited about, Speaker, is—before, we were talking about allowing parents the choice for technological aids, respite and caregiver training. We have now expanded that to occupational therapy, as well as speech and language therapy. I know that is what parents have told us. They have told my PA Amy Fee that they had wanted to see that enhanced choice, and so today I was very proud to stand on behalf of Premier Ford and our government for the people to expand that enhancement to provide more choice for families whose children have autism.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Jill Dunlop: Thank you, Minister, for your tireless work to provide every child with access to service.

Speaker, I and many of my colleagues in this government have met with families across the province. We have heard many heartbreaking stories. A system that leaves three out of four children with little to no support from their government is unacceptable. It is clear to us that the existing system is unfair and must do more to deliver services to children as soon as possible.

Can the minister tell us about the work she is doing to provide service to every eligible child with autism across this province?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: As you know, Speaker, we inherited a broken and broke system. We had to inject an emergency $102 million just to keep the current plan for 25% of the children in place. Therefore, we have also expanded our program to $331 million over the last month.

But what I’m really excited about is that the new enhancements of this program will not just focus on clearing out wait-lists—which is incredibly important to me, which is our motivation—but we’re going to create more choice for parents, for their children. We’re going to extend the contracts by six months for those who are existing in the program. We’re going to consult with parents and clinicians throughout the next several months as we develop a needs test for those children who have the greatest severity. These are great enhancements to a very good, responsible plan that is fair, equitable and, most of all, sustainable.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Acting Premier. This morning, the minister announced changes to her cold, callous autism program, but she still doesn’t have it right. What was missing from her announcement is a needs- and evidence-based program. We still have arbitrary age cut-offs that won’t meet children’s needs. In fact, it will devastate children and families.

When will the minister hold a second press conference to fix this mistake?

Interjections.

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

Minister? Or Deputy Premier, I should say.

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much, Deputy Premier. I thank you for working with me on this file, as well as the Minister of Education, and I’m very excited that this government for the people is going to be taking seriously not only the issues with respect to children with autism, but for all of those with disabilities across this province. That’s one of the things that we’re committed to.

But if I listen to the member opposite’s question, she clearly, when she attended my press conference, chose not to listen, because as I mentioned in the supplemental to the member from Simcoe North, we are actually engaging with the children and the parents of autism, and we are talking about how we can best develop a needs-based system by severity level. I was very clear both in the press conference as well as in this House that that’s what we’re moving to.

If the members opposite in the official opposition want to continue to fearmonger and want to continue to create rhetoric that only harms the debate, then they can go ahead and do that, but what they are doing is wrong and what we are doing is right.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, this minister has caused chaos for weeks, and we still do not have a needs-based program. If one family cannot afford services, it’s one family too many. If one family has to sell their home, it’s one family too many. If one child doesn’t get therapy, it’s one child too many. If one therapist loses their job, it’s one therapist too many.

Why does this minister think that today’s announcement is enough for families?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. There were multiple interjections from the government side, all of which were unacceptable. I couldn’t keep up with them all.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop it.

Start the clock. To the minister, to reply.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Why does the member opposite want to continue on with the status quo of the previous Liberal government’s program, where 23,000 children were denied service by their Ontario government? Why does that member opposite not support direct funding, as she once did?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Waterloo is warned.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Why does that member opposite not support choice for parents, whether it’s occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, technological aid, caregiver training or respite? Why does she not support that? Why doesn’t she support extending the contracts by six months as we—

Miss Monique Taylor: How are they going to pay for all of that with $5,000?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain is warned.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Why does that member opposite refuse to support a consultation process that we’re going to have throughout this province to ensure that we can best support children who are the most severe in terms of a needs assessment? Why doesn’t she support any of that? I can tell you why: Because all they want to do is professionally protest and rile parents up, and that is irresponsible.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock again. There were a number of members of the official opposition yelling across the floor. I couldn’t keep up with it all. There have been some warnings issued. Again, just to be clear, if we have to speak to you again, if you’ve been warned, you will be named and you’ll be gone for the day. If that’s your objective, we’ll facilitate that.

Start the clock. Next question.

Public transit

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Mr. Speaker, families in my riding know how important the Hurontario LRT project is for our future. I’ve also heard some concerns. One of them has to do with the routing. When people take transit, they want to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible.

The last government did not listen to the people. They expected commuters to switch trains before getting back on a route that is supposed to go north-south. That would add an unnecessary delay for commuters. Will the Minister of Transportation and Metrolinx make changes to the route that will get people where they have to go faster?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for that question and for representing his constituents, as do many of my caucus members here, regarding the Hurontario LRT.

As you know, they have been listening to the constituents. Lots of concerns about the route have been raised, and our government, as we proceed with these transit plans—we’re listening as well. We’re always thinking about people taking the trains—the staff. We’re looking at how we can improve the trips for all the riders involved.

My PA, Kinga Surma, and I have been working with Metrolinx to come up with a more streamlined, efficient route plan for the Hurontario LRT. The loop that would have circled around Square One mall and forced a transfer has been eliminated. Instead, the new route will save time with a spur into Square One mall at Rathburn Road. There will be no need to switch trains anymore.

We understand that future needs may evolve and other investors may step forward, which would completely align with our transit-oriented development strategy.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Residents of Mississauga and Brampton are excited about progress on the Hurontario LRT project. I would like to thank the minister for giving such an informative answer. I know that he believes in the Hurontario LRT as much as I do. A new transit line will boost development and create jobs, both during construction and as our economy grows along the route.

People want to know that the Hurontario LRT will be built on-budget. Since the Liberals left Ontario with a $15-billion deficit, Mississauga residents understand that our LRT line must be built in a financially responsible way. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation what he and Metrolinx are doing to ensure that the Hurontario line comes in under budget, so we can make this dream a reality.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks again for that follow-up question. Mr. Speaker, Metrolinx has made some adjustments to the design scope that will help build this project, while also protecting taxpayers’ dollars. The plan is to reduce costs while still providing a fast, reliable and seamless customer experience, both on the new Hurontario LRT line and as it connects to GO Transit and other local systems.

Under the revised scope, the Hurontario LRT will provide 18 kilometres of reliable rapid transit with 19 stops and a dedicated right-of-way. The Hurontario LRT will link the GO stations at Port Credit and Cooksville, the Mississauga Transitway, Square One GO bus terminal, Brampton Gateway terminal, and key Züm and MiWay routes.

Metrolinx has made changes to other non-essential design elements to manage with the project budget. But moving forward, Metrolinx will report back with a detailed assessment of revised project costs and a construction timeline.

Speaker, we’re working with Metrolinx. We’re working with the people of this province. The Ontario government, with the PC caucus, is moving to get people moving forward as we open up this—

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

Government accountability

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is to the Acting Premier. For months, the government insisted that the hiring process that led to Ron Taverner’s appointment was completely independent, yet yesterday, we learned that hours after Ron Taverner’s appointment, the secretary of cabinet, who was chair of the supposedly independent committee, texted the Premier’s chief of staff saying, “Independent of who? I’m the deputy minister to the Premier and Ron reported to Mario when he was at TPS. I would drop the word independent.”

Why did the government keep defining the process as independent when the secretary of cabinet had asked that they stop doing so?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Now that the Integrity Commissioner has filed his report—which you actually initiated, as the member from Brampton North—I think it’s important for members of all political parties to understand that this member from Brampton North has always made this process about politics. This is sour grapes, because when you applied to be a PC candidate, we said we had better people. When you—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): First of all, the member has to make her comments through the Chair. Secondly, I would caution her on her intemperate language.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: My apologies. When the member from Brampton North applied to be a Progressive Conservative candidate, we said, “No, thanks, we have better candidates.” When the member from Brampton North took out a membership for Brampton North—this is about sour grapes from an individual who was politely declined to serve as a PC candidate and instead ran to the NDP to run—

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

There is a convention—I think a standing order—against personal attacks against other members. That was very close to the line. I would ask the members to remember that. It just creates disorder in the House.

We have an opportunity now for a supplementary question.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I hoped that the minister and everybody else on the other side would have read the report, but obviously it doesn’t appear that they have.

My question to the Acting Premier: Steve Orsini wasn’t the only person who believed the process wasn’t independent. On page 68 of the report, the commissioner writes, “Mr. French indicated that he too believes that the panel was not independent....”

Why would the government insist the process was independent when the Premier’s own chief of staff and the secretary of cabinet were certain it was not?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: This is a classic example of someone who won’t take yes for an answer. You applied to the Integrity Commissioner. He did exactly what you wanted, which was to do a review. We’ve done—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll ask the minister to make her comments through the Chair.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: My apologies, Speaker.

The member opposite asked for the Integrity Commissioner’s involvement. He did that.

He continues to sully good people’s reputations—50-year-career front-line officers, deputy ministers who work for the public. I cannot understand why you continue to make this about individuals and drag people through the mud unnecessarily.

You’ve read the report. I’ve read the report—

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

Government accountability

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ma question est pour le ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement.

As parliamentarians, our first commitment should be to the integrity of the democratic process. For me, prior to entering politics, it was very important to insist on better regulation of electoral financing. I was pleased that this House unanimously passed the 2016 election financing changes. The minister was one of the persons who voted in favour of that. Unfortunately, last fall, the government removed the certification, which basically allows for backroom funnelling of money.

Community members have reached out to me now. They’re worried about the $1,600 price tag for the fireside chat with the minister. I just want to ask him: Will the minister tell this House with 100% certainty whether everyone who purchased tickets to this event has paid with his or her own funds and will not be reimbursed by a third party?

Hon. Steve Clark: I’ve said in this House many times that our government for the people respects the rules of this House and the Legislature. I’m not particularly sure what this member is talking about in terms of a particular ticketed event. If she wants to send me the information, I’d be more than happy to peruse it at my convenience.

But I want to be clear: If a member of this House wants to have a particular fundraiser in their own riding or in another location, they need to be able to follow the rules, they need to be able to advertise the event that meets the criteria of the legislation, and they need to act with integrity. I have to tell you, Speaker, that every single time I’ve held an event in the past, I’ve felt quite open to contact the Chief Electoral Officer to ask questions. I think it’s very important that members do their due diligence at all opportunities. I believe I have.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Earlier this week, I tabled a private member’s bill that simply requires people who make a donation to certify that their political contribution comes from their own money and is not reimbursed by someone else. Studies have shown that affirmations of that kind are very conducive to good, ethical behaviour. People want to behave honestly, but they need to be able to state it.

Will you commit today, Minister, to two things: (1) supporting my private member’s bill that includes this certification, and (2), insisting that all people who attend your event certify that they have indeed paid for their political contribution out of their own money and will not be reimbursed?

Hon. Steve Clark: Government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: It’s an interesting question.

I first have to say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is one of the most transparent and accountable members this Legislature has ever seen.

I find the question a bit passing strange, coming from the Liberal member, Mr. Speaker. It was the Liberals who were caught with their hand in the cookie jar in 2016.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the member to withdraw.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’ll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

It was the Liberals who were caught having $10,000-a-plate cash-for-access scandals. They were then awarding contracts to companies that paid $10,000 a plate, that showed up at a dinner with the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Energy—$10,000 a plate. You’ll never guess who was awarded the IPO for the Hydro One sale, or who was given the green energy contracts. It was those companies that paid tens of thousands of dollars—

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

Municipalities

Mr. Doug Downey: My question is for the magnificent Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We know that the previous Liberal government left us with a $15-billion deficit. That’s why we did a line-by-line review of our government expenditures and have clearly stated that we expect our partners to do the same. We also know that some of Ontario’s small and rural municipalities may have limited capacity to transform and become more modern and efficient. Mr. Speaker, that is why I was so honoured to stand in Barrie–Innisfil yesterday with this minister as he announced support for these municipalities.

Can the minister please explain what he’s doing to help those small and rural municipalities become more efficient and successful in the long term?

Hon. Steve Clark: First, I want to take the opportunity to thank the member for Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte for the great question. I also want to thank him for being at yesterday’s announcement.

Speaker, it’s no secret that the previous Liberal government overspent and that they under-delivered. They had no respect for taxpayers or their money.

Our government is putting the people of Ontario at the heart of municipal decision-making. We were elected to restore accountability and reduce the cost of government. Taxpayers expect modern, efficient service delivery that puts them at the centre and shows respect for hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This respect is required at all levels of government. That’s why our government is providing a one-time investment to help small and rural municipalities. This money will help municipalities find smarter ways to deliver services, support their communities and respect taxpayer dollars.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Doug Downey: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I also wanted to note that the MPPs for Simcoe North and for Barrie–Innisfil were there with us yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I’m so proud to be part of a government that values accountability and that is working hard to make life more affordable for the people in my riding of Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte and all across Ontario.

Despite the reckless spending by the previous Liberal government, they neglected small and rural municipalities. They made it increasingly difficult for these municipalities—like Springwater and Oro-Medonte in my area—to modernize. Instead of working for the people of Ontario and being a true partner with the municipalities, they failed to consult and they failed to listen to their needs.

Our government takes a different approach. We want to strengthen municipalities so they can find smarter ways to deliver services to support their communities—our communities—and respect taxpayer dollars.

Can the minister please explain what the payment is meant for and how it will impact municipalities?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank all the members who were at the event yesterday. I appreciate their support and the recognition of the importance of modernizing service delivery in municipalities.

We know the importance of municipalities and the services they provide for people across Ontario. We also believe in empowering municipalities because they know first-hand the needs in their communities. That’s why we’ve made this investment unconditional, with the intention of helping modernize service delivery and reduce future costs through investments in projects.

For example, the county of Simcoe, which is one of the regions in the member’s riding, is receiving $725,000. These funds can go towards things like service delivery reviews, development of shared service agreements and capital investments.

I am proud, Speaker, to help modernization in our municipalities across Ontario and look forward to continued collaboration between our municipal partners and this government. I want to thank the incredible outpouring of support that I’ve received not just from members of this House but also Ontario—

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

Government accountability

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Acting Premier. The people of Ontario expect a higher standard than technically legal. They deserve answers that only a public inquiry can provide. The commissioner’s report includes sworn testimony from Matt Torigian, Deputy Minister of Community Safety, forced out of a job by the Premier’s office.

In his interview, he recalled a conversation with a member of the hiring committee who, when told there was an unqualified candidate who would likely apply, half-chuckled and said, “Well, we all know Ron is going to get an interview....” A member of the hiring committee was literally laughing about how a friend of the Premier had an inside track in this process.

My question is, does this government think this is a process worth defending?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Since we are quoting from the report made by the independent Integrity Commissioner, I will quote from page 99: “In fact there was no long-standing practice. For the 2006 appointment Julian Fantino reported to me in his interview that he received a call from Premier Dalton McGuinty’s chief of staff followed by an interview with the Premier, after which Mr. Fantino agreed to accept the position. In 2010, Odgers was used in the process which selected Chris Lewis. No rank qualifications were used in that process. In 2014 Odgers was not involved and rank requirements were specific.

Only one interview panel was required, presumably because the pool of candidates with the rank qualifications was smaller than the pool generated in 2018 when that requirement was removed.”

We can go on and on, but the bottom line—

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

Ms. Sara Singh: I think it’s very clear to us all that the commissioner makes clear that he does not in fact have all the answers and there were many issues that he just could not explore.

Given the continued questions surrounding this and other aspects of this report, will the Premier do the right thing to bring some much-needed clarity to the situation and call for a full public inquiry?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: What is clear, Speaker, is the that NDP chooses to continue to politicize this process. The NDP continues to drag good police officers, good front-line OPP officers, through the mud, including my own deputy minister. I find it unacceptable. I wish the NDP would start to stand up for the police instead of being the—

Interjection: Anti-police party.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you—anti-police party that they are, because what I was going to say would clearly have been unparliamentary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Again, I’m going to caution the members on their language. We’ve got to get through the next 18 minutes.

Next question?

Technology in schools

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Minister of Education. I know that the students in the riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore are working hard at school, but they often face a number of distractions throughout the day. That’s why last week, when the minister announced her vision for education in Ontario, I was very pleased to hear that she had introduced a plan to ban cellphones from the classroom.

Can the Minister of Education please tell us more about her plan to help our students succeed by banning cellphones?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for that great question, because this is something that has jumped out of the consultation loud and clear.

Speaker, we went across Ontario last fall and we embarked on the largest consultation in Ontario’s education history: 72,000 people participated—parents, teachers, students, employers. Do you know what we heard? There was a resounding request to ban cellphones to some extent—97% of the respondents asked for some form of ban on cellphones—because, guess what, students need to be focused. They need focus time to learn. And teachers deserve, quite frankly, focus time to teach.

So we’re going to be moving forward with a provincial initiative to ban cellphones. But that said, we recognize that there are school boards and there are teachers and principals out there who have initiated some best practices. We’re going to work with them and make sure that when we land with our provincial ban in the fall, we’re going to be embracing best practices and making sure that students have, absolutely, focus time to learn.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you to the minister for that response. As a stepmom of two amazing teenage daughters, I am glad we have a government that recognizes that personal cellphones are the wrong way to bring technology into the classroom, and I am proud that we have a government that wants to put students first.

I know we need to modernize our classrooms to support our students. Can the minister explain how else our government is working to modernize the classroom?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thanks, again, very much for that question, because this is something that is very, very much good news. I want to repeat, Speaker, that 97% of the respondents to our consultation last fall asked for some form of ban on cellphones, and we’re going to do just that because we want to make sure that we have the best learning environment possible—and bring our classrooms into the 21st century.

But in order to do so, we need to be embracing technology for all the good it can bring into the classroom. We don’t want it to be a distraction. Quite frankly, people are fed up with cellphones being distractions. That’s why we’re going to ensure that every school in Ontario has access to reliable, fast and affordable Internet with our new broadband-based strategy. It’s something that our PC government is absolutely committed to.

In order to meet the goal, we are going to be going individually across the province and assessing every school for their unique circumstances. And we’re going to get—

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

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Minister of Education. Opposition to the government’s plan to take thousands of teachers out of schools continues to build across this province. Yet, the minister maintains that her plan is “actually getting good reviews from parents.”

Yesterday, the Ontario Association of Parents in Catholic Education, a parent organization that has been around for 80 years, challenged that notion. They said, “We believe that the changes tabled do not reflect the voice of parents in this province or the betterment of education for our children.” Despite what the minister claims, they don’t believe that firing teachers makes kids more resilient.

Since the minister clearly didn’t listen to parents, who was she listening to when she concocted this plan for a billion dollars in cuts to education?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, we’re absolutely focused on getting it right, once and for all. We’re cleaning up the mess that the Liberal administration left for us, and unfortunately, our students have suffered as a result. We are going to get it right, once and for all.

We have to correct the narrative that is trying to be fostered by a tired opposition party, because the fact of the matter is, we are going to get it right. Let me be clear: There are no class size changes from kindergarten to grade 3. In terms of grades 4 to 8, maybe as many as one more student per class will be added to that classroom.

When it comes to our mature high school students, we want to make sure we align with other jurisdictions across Canada, because employers are asking our graduates to be coming out of high school with proper job skills and proper life skills.

I’d also like to share—people are referencing different quotes. I want to talk about something I learned from David Johnson, a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University. He is also a research fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute. He said, “There is no strong evidence that reducing or increasing class size within the changes in Ontario in the last 15 years could have had any impact”—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, this is not 21st-century learning. This is 19th-century learning, where the rich can pay for face-to-face instruction and it’s the school of hard knocks for everyone else.

Speaker, we don’t need an expensive online consultation to tell us that no parent voted for classes bursting at the seams and less support for their kids. Just listen to parents: OAPCE said bigger class sizes will have a negative impact on students and “will mean a reduction in the number and variety of programs and supports for students and at-risk students in some schools.”

Instead of testing the “resiliency” of our kids by jamming them into, yes, 40-plus student classrooms and cutting $1 billion, why won’t the minister invest to make our schools more resilient?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, our plan to ensure that students have the life skills and the job skills that are being asked for by our employers in this 21st century is absolutely about getting it right and recovering from what the previous government did in terms of their experiments. The previous government simply played politics with class sizes. You all have to agree in this House: We saw no measurable success in the experiments that the failed Liberal government injected into our classrooms.

So what are we going to do? We’re going to get it right. We’re listening to our parents. We’re listening to our employers. We’re going to make sure those job skills and life skills are absolutely evident in our graduates. And because of that, we’re going to be focusing on the basics. We’re getting back into a track whereby science, technology, engineering and math are fundamental in a core pathway to make sure our students are employable.

Curriculum

Mrs. Robin Martin: My question is for the Minister of Education. Last week, I was so pleased to hear the minister outline a great new vision for education in Ontario.

It was very disappointing to see the previous government fail to ensure our students learned basic skills like math. Our children were leaving classrooms unprepared for the real world.

Speaker, can the Minister of Education tell us what our government is doing to ensure that Ontario students will once again have the skills necessary to succeed in the classroom and in life?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for that wonderful, astute question. Do you know what? As Minister of Education, I have to say the previous Liberal government absolutely got an F minus on how they prepared our kids and our students for the world of work and post-secondary education as well. They experimented. They threw money at programs based on ideology, and they had pet projects as well that failed our students.

We want to make sure that our students succeed in class and in life, and they need to be supported and prepared when it comes to the basics. My top priority has always, always been making sure that Ontario is once again a world leader when it comes to our education system. We owe it to our students and our teachers to help them recover from the last decade and a half of mess that the Liberal—

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the minister for that response. It is refreshing to have a government that is putting our students first rather than focusing on tired ideologies. I know that this government is focused on getting it right for students.

Many parents in my riding and in other ridings participated in the government’s curriculum consultation; over 72,000 did. Can the minister explain what we heard from parents during that consultation and how we can continue to support our students?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, thank you very much. I’m so pleased to stand in this House and talk about education for you. Our education program is geared towards the students and the teachers, because we’re investing in so many different ways to get it right once and for all.

As I said, in terms of the foundation of where we need to go, we’re going to be rolling out a comprehensive four-year math strategy that gets back to the basics and puts our students first. We’re going to be investing in teachers so that they have the confidence to get it right as well.

The previous government refused to listen to what students and teachers really needed in the classroom. During our consultation, we heard loud and clear that Ontario families want more job skills and life skills for our students.

Speaker, I can tell you we have listened and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Next September, we’re going to have a revamped math curriculum, and we’re going to focus on financial literacy as well.

Women’s services

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. The Investing in Women’s Futures Program allocates funding for over 20 women’s organizations across the province that provide a range of services to women in Ontario.

This funding runs out on March 31—in 10 days, Speaker—and the ministry has yet to notify these organizations whether they will receive their funding for the coming fiscal year. Will the minister commit to fully funding the Investing in Women’s Futures Program for the next three years?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much for the question. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today about the women’s issues ministry; it’s very important to me.

This last week, as the member opposite may know, I had the opportunity to speak at the United Nations on a number of different issues, including women’s economic empowerment, sex trafficking and violence against women. These are matters that this government takes very seriously. That is why we are continuing to invest in women’s economic empowerment, but also in violence-against-women shelters right across the province.

I’m happy to have a conversation with the member opposite after question period on the particular issue that she’s outlining today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Suze Morrison: Unfortunately, my question wasn’t if the minister attended the UN but whether she was actually planning to fund this important program for women.

The organizations in question provide essential services to some of the most at-risk women in our province. It is shameful that front-line staff have been in the dark for months and are now issuing layoff notices and reduction of hours for their workers. Somehow, the minister can’t be bothered, one way or another, 10 days out from this funding pot running out, to let these organizations know if they will be funded come April 1. Some of these organizations will have to close their doors when they lose this funding.

Will the minister prevent these layoffs and closures by providing sustainable long-term funding that is so desperately needed for these women’s organizations?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: As the member opposite knows, the Minister of Finance on April 11 will be delivering his budget for the people. We are right now encouraging those who want funding from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, with responsibility for women’s issues, immigration, refugee resettlement, poverty reduction and veterans affairs, to submit their applications.

Again, I would reiterate to the member opposite that we inherited a $15-billion deficit. This government, since taking office, has lowered that to $13.3 billion, and we’re working extremely hard in order to get our finances back on track so that we can have sustainable and core-value public services.

I remember, as an opposition member, as the finance critic and as the Treasury Board critic, reminding the previous Liberal administration that for every single dollar that they wasted, it was a dollar taken away from health care, education and our social services. Unfortunately, because of that reckless mismanagement over the past 15 years, difficult choices have to be made in this government.

Government fiscal policies

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Government and Consumer Services announced their plan to centralize government procurement. Their plan will save the hard-working people of Ontario money. These savings are particularly important, given the tough fiscal situation that the previous Liberal government left our province in. Thanks to the former Liberal government, we are burdened by a $15-billion deficit that makes it hard to invest in priorities like health care, education and other vital services.

I know that both ministers understand that government money is taken out of the pockets of hard-working Ontarians and should be spent responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services: How is our government fixing inefficient back-office processes?

Hon. Bill Walker: I want to thank the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills, Mr. Sabawy, for a great question and for being on top of the game in his riding.

First and foremost, we’re changing the way the government purchases things like office supplies and uniforms. This will save taxpayers $1 billion a year, helping us to balance the budget and protect our core services, like health care and education—something the Liberals didn’t do.

Our lean and continuous improvements office will streamline how we deliver services and apply lean methodologies across government. We’re also modernizing voice services across government, saving approximately $8 million a year.

Under the Liberals, there were over 8,600 unused phone lines in government, costing $2.7 million. That’s $30 million that could have gone into health care, long-term care and mental health. It’s simply outrageous.

It took 15 years of Liberal neglect to create a $15-billion deficit. Solving Ontario’s fiscal mess will not take place overnight, but we’re taking this first step and we’re proud—

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

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Our government has set a clear goal: We want to get Ontario’s finances back on track and balance the budget in a responsible way. This is imperative to make life easier for hard-working families across the province. My constituents, and indeed all Ontarians, were tired of the waste and mismanagement under the previous Liberal government. The Liberals failed to unlock the enormous savings potential that exists across government. As a result, Ontarians were not getting the best value for each public dollar spent.

Can the President of the Treasury Board please inform the House how our government is driving efficiencies to better serve the people of Ontario?

Hon. Bill Walker: To the President of the Treasury Board, Speaker.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, through you to our great member: Thank you for that very well-thought-through question. In the interest of time, I will keep my answer relatively short.

We are working hard to bring the language of business to the business of government. Part of our platform last year, alongside a number of other cost-saving measures, was to centralize government purchasing. Well, just the other day, I, along with the minister and our parliamentary assistants, announced that we are going to save $1 billion through a new procurement strategy. This is money that can be invested in priority services like health care and education.

Last year, the people of Ontario chose to procure a government that respects their dollars, and that’s exactly what they got.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Orléans has informed me she has a point of order.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: On a point of order: I would like to welcome in the House this morning Josh Monk, Ainsley Jeffery and Alice Balluku. They are here from the London Youth Advisory Council. I would like to welcome them, and also I hope they have a great visit at Queen’s Park today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s has point of order.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I noticed that the government didn’t make a statement recognizing today’s day of significance, on March 21, and I’m just wondering if I could ask for unanimous consent of the House to make a statement by a very powerful Pakistani activist and scholar in recognition of the day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s is seeking unanimous consent to make a statement on the elimination of racism. Agreed? I heard some noes.

The member for Scarborough–Guildwood has a point of order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Point of order: I would just like to welcome to the House Laura Kirby-McIntosh, a significant advocate for the Ontario Autism Coalition.

World Down Syndrome Day

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I believe the member for Simcoe North has a point of order.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to recognize that today is World Down Syndrome Day. My caucus and I have noticed many members of this House are rocking our socks today. I would like to thank our friend Hazel Seguin, who was here visiting a couple of weeks ago and provided our caucus with our socks today. Thank you to Hazel.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Toronto Centre has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services concerning Investing in Women’s Futures funds. This matter will be debated Tuesday at 6 p.m.

Deferred Votes

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

Deferred vote on the motion that the question now be put for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act concerning the provision of health care, continuing Ontario Health and making consequential and related amendments and repeals / Projet de loi 74, Loi concernant la prestation de soins de santé, la prorogation de Santé Ontario, l’ajout de modifications corrélatives et connexes et des abrogations.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on a motion for closure on the motion for second reading of Bill 74.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1140 to 1145.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Will the members please take their seats.

On March 5, 2019, Ms. Elliott moved second reading of Bill 74,

An Act concerning the provision of health care, continuing Ontario Health and making consequential and related amendments and repeals.

Miss Surma has moved that the question now be put.

All those in favour of Miss Surma’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Elliott, Christine

Fee, Amy

Fullerton, Merrilee

Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm

Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda

Ke, Vincent

Khanjin, Andrea

Kramp, Daryl

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

Miller, Norman

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Parsa, Michael

Pettapiece, Randy

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Roberts, Jeremy

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Scott, Laurie

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be counted by the Clerk.

Nays

Andrew, Jill

Arthur, Ian

Bell, Jessica

Berns-McGown, Rima

Bisson, Gilles

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris

Gretzky, Lisa

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hunter, Mitzie

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Lalonde, Marie-France

Lindo, Laura Mae

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Miller, Paul

Morrison, Suze

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Singh, Gurratan

Singh, Sara

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

West, Jamie

Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 60; the nays are 36.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Ms. Elliot has moved second reading of Bill 74,

An Act concerning the provision of health care, continuing Ontario Health and making consequential and related amendments and repeals. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

Interjections: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Same vote? Same vote.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 60; the nays are 36.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the committee for social policy, please.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The bill is referred to the committee for social policy.

There being no further business this morning, this House stands in recess until 1 o’clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1150 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I’m very proud and honoured today to introduce leaders from the Taiwanese government as well as members of the business community who are with us today—people who stand up every day in the promotion of freedom and liberty. We thank you for being here, and we look forward to meeting with you this afternoon.

Members’ Statements

Racial discrimination

Mr. Joel Harden: Speaker, I rise today as a white politician wanting to speak truth on the international day for the elimination of racism. Some may find that opening statement curious. They might say, “Joel, why mention that you’re white? Everyone here agrees that racism is unacceptable. We should try to be colour-blind and not see skin colour because it shouldn’t matter.” Well, I believe race does matter. I’ve talked to too many people denied employment, housing and basic decency from others because they’re Indigenous, Black or brown members of my community. We can’t hug that out. We can’t fix it if we’re colour-blind. We live in a racist society and we need to be honest about that.

On this day, I want to remember Abdirahman Abdi. Abdirahman was a 37-year-old Somali Canadian man with mental health challenges who was violently killed by a police officer while trying to go to his home in July 2016. Since this tragic incident, our community in Ottawa has come together to support the family and show that we need to root out the racism that remains, sadly, in our police force.

Abdirahman, like all Indigenous, Black and racialized people, faced systemic barriers each and every day in all aspects of daily life. We must address how racism and systemic discrimination affect racialized people, in particular those with disabilities and with mental health challenges.

I stand here, Speaker, having met Abdirahman’s family and committed to them that we must do better, and I invite us all to do better.

Nowruz

Mr. Michael Parsa: Yesterday marked the first day of spring in Ontario and around the world. It was also the welcoming of Nowruz, also known as the Persian New Year.

Nowruz is an ancient and festive celebration that commences at the exact time of the vernal equinox. It has been celebrated for more than 3,000 years, and continues to be the prominent holiday for many countries around the world. This ancient day is not only celebrated in Iran, but in various central Asian countries such as Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and the republic of Azerbaijan; in parts of Pakistan, India and China; and in the Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iraq and Syria.

Diaspora populations from these countries continue to keep the traditions of this beautiful celebration going in the new countries they call home. Over 250 million people around the world celebrate this joyous and festive holiday.

Right here in Ontario, over 100,000 families, friends and communities gathered around their beautifully decorated Haft Sinn tables to ring in the new year. During the 13 days, families, friends and neighbours will continue to celebrate the start of Nowruz by attending various parties and festivals around the province, and by visiting one another to share the happiness, joy and renewed hope of the new year.

Speaker, as a Canadian of Iranian descent, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today to wish all those celebrating this ancient tradition a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

Remarks in Farsi.

Black youth in care

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with a number of Black kids, Black youth, who are in our care system. They had released an amazing report called HairStory: Rooted, talking about the issue of anti-Black racism within our systems of care.

In their report, they provided a number of recommendations for a variety of people, whether it was youth care workers or government officials, and before they let any of us leave, they asked that we use our positions of privilege and power to speak their recommendations into being. There are three recommendations in particular that I really want to share with everybody in this House.

First, staff of all government ministries and community organizations involved in providing care to Black children and youth must receive mandatory training regarding anti-Black racism, anti-oppression and the lasting effects of trauma on the mental health of Black youth.

Second, when creating and developing strategies, policies or practices to support Black youth, government ministries, service organizations and other stakeholders must work directly with Black youth to provide their input into the process and content.

Finally, persons providing training on the complexities of Blackness must be from th