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

March 29, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Mar-29 (PDF)

L008 - Thu 29 Mar 2018 / Jeu 29 mar 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 29 March 2018 Jeudi 29 mars 2018

Orders of the Day

Correctional Services Transformation Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transformation des services correctionnels

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Ontario budget

Dental care

Dental care

Ontario economy

Assistance to farmers

Ontario budget

Government fiscal policies

Diagnostic services

Health care funding

Greenhouse gas emissions

Steel industry

Public transit

Government fiscal policies

Employment standards

Seniors

Notice of reasoned amendment

Visitors

Legislative pages

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Palliative care

Public safety

Mental health services

Public safety

Volunteer firefighters

Government fees

Elmira Maple Syrup Festival

Sitharsana Srithas

Hospital funding

Introduction of Bills

Peter Kormos Memorial Act (Trillium Gift of Life Network Amendment), 2018 / Loi de 2018 commémorant Peter Kormos (modification de la

Loi sur le Réseau Trillium pour le don de vie)

Compassionate Care Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur les soins de compassion

Labour Relations Amendment Act (Replacement Workers), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail (travailleurs suppléants)

Removing Barriers in Audiology and Speech- Language Pathology Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 visant à supprimer les obstacles en audiologie et en orthophonie

Petitions

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Mental health and addiction services

Correctional services

Accident benefits

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Government advertising

Long-term care

Consumer protection

Hydro rates

Long-term care

Private Members’ Public Business

Taxation

Rural Ontario

Fee Waivers (Photo Card and Birth Certificate) Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la dispense de droits (cartes-photo et certificats de naissance)

Taxation

Rural Ontario

Fee Waivers (Photo Card and Birth Certificate) Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la dispense de droits (cartes-photo et certificats de naissance)

Taxation

Visitor

Orders of the Day

Pay Transparency Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transparence salariale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Correctional Services Transformation Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transformation des services correctionnels

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 27, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 6,

An Act to enact the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Act, 2018 and the Correctional Services and Reintegration Act, 2018, to make related amendments to other Acts, to repeal

an Act and to revoke a regulation / Projet de loi 6, Loi édictant la Loi de 2018 sur le ministère de la Sécurité communautaire et des Services correctionnels et la Loi de 2018 sur les services correctionnels et la réinsertion sociale, apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois et abrogeant une loi et un règlement.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I am pleased to rise in the House today to address what I believe to be a very serious problem. The Liberal government has a history of producing incomplete, skeletal and poorly-thought-out legislation. This bill is no exception to that rule. The Correctional Services Transformation Act, 2018, is supposed to be a thorough overhaul of a broken correctional system, but it has the same deficiencies as most other Liberal legislation. I will get into why I believe that. The bill will not resolve what has come to be called #CrisisInCorrections. Now they have a new hashtag out there: #FixIt.

Before I get into the meat of the bill, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you a little bit about that crisis. Last year, a report by the independent adviser on corrections reform, the IACR, described shocking abuses and disorder in Ontario’s detention centres. Detention centres are overcrowded and cellblock violence is a huge problem; in fact, it’s at an all-time high.

After violent incidents, inmates are often held in solitary confinement without access to rehab programs, and lockdowns are often the only recourse due to short staffing. This has the potential to invite serious abuses. But even when solitary confinement, or segregation, isn’t used as punishment, it still poses a huge problem.

Under the Liberals’ watch, prisoners like Adam Capay have been held in solitary confinement awaiting trial. Capay was held for four years in conditions so degrading that previous inmates of the same cell had died, but the Liberals just didn’t seem to care. They ignored repeated coroners’ inquests warning of unsafe conditions. Fifty reports went to the minister’s office and they were all ignored—50 reports. It would be convenient to say that the corrections minister was simply asleep at the switch, but in fact, the minister at the time had made a personal visit to Adam Capay’s cell. Sadly, not even that prompted him to act, and the Liberal government continued to ignore the problem.

It only became a problem for the Premier and her government when Adam Capay’s case finally reached the newspapers—so much for the myth of the social justice government and the social justice Premier; that’s how the Premier said she wanted to be remembered. I don’t think it’s working.

Also released last year, a surveillance video from the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre in London shows how bad violence in detention centres can be. In that video, an inmate can be seen beating his cellmate to death. A staffing shortage prevented the kind of intervention that might have stopped that altercation. This is part of a systemic problem.

Sadly, assaults on correctional officers and other staff have more than doubled over the past seven years. That’s a very alarming increase. My contacts within the world of corrections mention it whenever we speak, and that’s often.

Much of the violence in Ontario’s detention centres is derived from smuggled weapons and drugs. Full-body scanners would do a lot to keep those things out of detention centres, but not all Ontario jails have scanners. A year ago, the Attorney General promised to install full-body scanners in all Ontario prisons, but we’re still waiting. What’s the holdup? Why does it take so long? Why does the government treat the corrections file like an afterthought?

But Speaker, it gets worse. Ontario’s probation and parole system is a joke. Yes, that’s exactly what criminals have called it. Our probation and parole officers are not to blame. In many cases, they are actively discouraged from checking up on criminals by making house visits because of insufficient resources. Many are told that they’re not even allowed to work outside of business hours. Guidelines published by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services explicitly state that the community visits are a valuable method of verifying information and enhancing supervision, yet they’re not happening. Offenders are often left to self-report but, obviously, very few do.

A 2014 report from the Ontario Auditor General drew attention to this problem and a shocking Global News documentary on corrections published last year came to the same conclusions. In that documentary, the corrections minister was unable to answer any questions seriously, and she was unable to explain why violent criminals were not being properly monitored. I found this to be outrageous, but it’s clearly part of a pattern from this low-information government.

Here’s what the stakeholders are saying about it. Under the Liberal regime over the past 15 years, probation and parole policymakers have put enormous emphasis on probation and parole offender risk assessments, such as domestic violence, sex offences, enhanced offender-needs risk assessments and so forth.

Strangely, this has basically transformed the role of probation and parole officer from that of a public safety peace officer to that of a psychotherapist or mental health clinician. Nothing brought this to light better than Carolyn Jarvis’s Global News National investigative report entitled Probation and Parole: Who’s Watching? As I said, the current minister was interviewed in that documentary. For the minister, unfortunately, it didn’t go well. I wonder whether anyone in that government saw it.

Anyway, Liberal probation and parole policies prohibit officers from conducting compliance checks and monitoring their offenders’ adherence to probation and conditional sentence orders in the community.

My friend Scott McIntyre is vice-president of OPSEU and the probation and parole MERC representative. As he puts it, “The Liberals have removed the ‘community’ from community corrections.” Scott has a way with words, so I’m going to quote him again. Here’s what he had to say: “Excessive workloads and a lack of appropriate safety and security measures for probation and parole officers has handcuffed us to our desks.” Handcuffed to our desks: That is a very shocking image, but I’m afraid it’s what I would expect from a tired, out-of-touch, low-information government that does not respect its stakeholders.

The ministry says that the police are responsible for performing P&P compliance checks. However, Global’s Investigative Report clearly confirmed that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police do not agree that it is their responsibility to do that. Honestly, who is monitoring and who is performing compliance checks on the nearly 45,000 criminals who reside in our communities? Who is watching?

When we realize that 60% of those criminals are medium- to very high-risk, the crisis in corrections seems even more severe. This is an outrage. As the investigative report showed, offenders describe probation and parole supervision as a joke. And it’s getting worse.

Since Howard Sapers released his report in the fall of 2017, we’ve seen an astonishing increase of more than 40% of criminals being released on parole. If this statistic were more widely known, people would be furious. It would appear that the Ontario Liberals have foolishly released criminals from custody into a probation and parole system that has a critical workload crisis and which does not perform offender monitoring in the form of compliance checks. I said earlier that over 45,000 people are on probation or parole, and 60% of that number are medium- to high-risk offenders.

The Liberals have utterly failed at ensuring the safety of Ontarians by way of having sufficient staffing numbers of PPOs and a system that actively monitors offenders in our communities.

One of the most basic duties of a government is to maintain an orderly and safe society, but if criminals on parole or probation are not being properly supervised, then the government has failed to perform a key part of that duty. Front-line stakeholders such as corrections officers represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union are justifiably outraged.

I want to just take a moment. I received an email just yesterday. I mentioned Scott McIntyre. Scott is the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services probation and parole MERC rep. He was extremely disappointed in the budget for community safety and correctional services. Basically, there was nothing in there. They were saying that what they really need are 300 more probation and parole officers to effectively do the job and to monitor those probation and parole offenders, medium- to high-risk, who are out in our communities. Do you want them to self-report?

Well, that’s like asking a child to go into a candy store and saying, “Don’t you dare touch the candy. I’ll be back in a minute.” A child is going to offend. They’re going to disregard what you have to say.

So, again—extremely discouraged by the lack of respect that this government has for the community safety and correctional services aspect of probation and parole, as well as the corrections officers. I get worked up over that, Mr. Speaker.

Not long ago, that union began a letter-writing campaign to bring awareness to the crisis in corrections. Let me tell you what was said. I’m quoting now from an OPSEU media release: “For decades, the Ontario government has neglected our correctional facilities. As a result, there is a constant threat to the safety of inmates and staff.

“Further, our probation officers have such high workloads that they are unable to safely and effectively monitor offenders released into our communities.” Let me say that again: They are “unable to safely and effectively monitor offenders released into our communities.

“These are just two issues that have created a crisis in corrections. The crisis poses a clear danger to staff safety, inmate safety, and public safety—and it must be addressed without further delay.”

Emails went to MPPs, with copies to the Premier, the correctional services minister, the Attorney General and the crisis-in-corrections team. It was a great example of civic engagement, but the response was appalling.

Let me quote Chris Jackel, who is chairman of the bargaining committee team for the correctional bargaining unit. I am referencing another OPSEU media release here. “It’s very discouraging when government MPPs try to deny that our correctional system is in crisis. It shows just how completely out of touch the government is with the reality in corrections.” It’s exactly what he said.

Furthermore, OPSEU condemned the canned, low-information response from this Liberal government. Mr. Jackel called the prepared message “highly politicized.” He said it was “the kind of non-response politicians use at question period to avoid answering difficult questions. When you use them to respond to the genuine concerns of workers on the ground, they’re just a slap in the face.”

“Just a slap in the face,” Mr. Speaker. Those are strong words indeed, but I’m afraid I have to agree.

By way of example, Jackel came down hard on the government’s assertion that “Ontario’s streets are safer than ever.” Jackel described the claim as “preposterous.” He pointed out that a Global News investigation revealed that there are no compliance checks for as many as 50,000 offenders in the community, including sex offenders—no compliance checks, which includes sex offenders? Furthermore, Ontario has the country’s highest rates of recidivism.

That brings us back to the origin of this bill that we’re now debating. The Liberal government, which is about to shuffle off this mortal coil, wants us to believe that they’ve had a deathbed conversion—or maybe a pre-election conversion would be more accurate.

I suppose that the Liberals just didn’t want to go down in history as dumb on crime. They wanted one last shot at addressing the stakeholders’ anger and maybe at correcting their own mistakes. So, less than 72 days before the next election, they finally introduce a bill which purports to resolve the crisis that I just described. Well, I really do want to emphasize that word “purports,” because this bill is really the triumph of hope over experience.

I note that OPSEU was pleased about one major aspect of the bill, however, which is that the government seems to finally have decided that there really is a crisis in corrections. Otherwise, the bill leaves much to be desired.

When it comes to criticizing the bill, the problem is not where to begin but where to stop. So let’s start.

Let me draw your attention to one of the strangest aspects of this bill. Would you believe me if I told you that the government is giving itself 10 years to bring this bill into effect? Ten years; unbelievable. You can see it for yourself in subsection 147(2) of the bill.

What kind of government needs 10 years to pass and implement a law? Did the Chrétien-Martin government pass legislation only to have it finally implemented under Stephen Harper a decade later? Did the McGuinty government spend its early years passing and implementing legislation for the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves government? Is Prime Minister Gerald Butts—I mean, Justin Trudeau—busy passing Stephen Harper’s bills? No, that would be laughable.

So there are two things a reasonable person might conclude about this strange timeline. One is that the Liberals think that they deserve to be in power forever. They think they will be in power forever, or at least 10 years from now, so the ridiculous 10-year timetable will suit that fantasy just fine.

Another, more likely, possibility is that the Liberals don’t know how to solve the crisis in corrections and don’t expect to be able to do so ever. Mr. Speaker, my instincts tell me that the second one is true, not the first. And this absurdly long timeline is a good enough reason on its own to reject the bill altogether.

There are, of course, other good reasons. Let us remind ourselves again of the context of the crisis in corrections. The bill comes in response to a series of damning reports and investigations by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Ombudsman, the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre Task Force and the independent adviser on corrections. Sadly, some of their findings highlight problems that were already old but haven’t been addressed yet.

My friend Monte Vieselmeyer, who is chairman of the ministry employee relations committee for correctional services at OPSEU, had this to say in a press release last year: “The ministry has failed to give front-line staff the tools they need to properly manage segregation. I refer to these tools as the three Ts: training, technology, and time.” He goes on to say, “Of course, none of these things comes without a price tag. They require substantial funding and staffing investments by the ministry. If they’re serious about easing the crisis around segregation, they have to address the larger crisis in corrections.”

OPSEU President Warren “Smokey” Thomas had strong comments also. In response to the Ombudsman’s report on segregation, he had the following to say: “None of this is new—it’s all about a properly funded corrections system and properly funded public services. There’s just no getting around it, and nothing is going to change until this government finally takes responsibility for easing the crises that its austerity agenda has created.”

Speaker, we’re talking about a serious breakdown in an important part of our justice system and a failure to enforce law and order. We’re talking about problems which extend to every part of the corrections system. Minor tinkering is not going to help; I call that putting a band-aid on an open wound.

Let me repeat so that I’m not misunderstood: Detention centres are crowded. Cellblock violence is a huge problem. After violent incidents, inmates are often held in solitary confinement without access to rehabilitation programs.

Newly released surveillance video from the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre in London shows just how bad the violence can be. In that video—and I have mentioned this before—an inmate can be seen beating his cellmate to death. A staffing shortage prevented the kind of intervention that might have stopped the altercation.

Assaults on correctional officers and other staff have more than doubled over the past seven years. Too many inmates are now held in solitary confinement, often in appalling conditions, and sometimes for years. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has taken the government to court over such terrible abuses.

Why am I reminding you of all this, Mr. Speaker? Well, let me tell you. People often say that Canada’s founding motto is “peace, order and good government.” That’s from the British North America Act. Apart from that, the maintenance of order is an important conservative principle.

But what is order? Let me answer that question by quoting American historian and political theorist Russell Kirk: “‘Order’ is the principle and the process by which the peace and harmony of society are maintained. It is the arrangement of rights and duties in a state to ensure that people will have just leaders, loyal citizens, and public tranquility. It implies the obedience of a nation to the laws of God, and the obedience of individuals to just authority. Without order, justice can rarely be enforced, and freedom cannot be maintained.”

Again, that was a quote taken from American historian and political theorist Russell Kirk.

In our political tradition, we do not separate order from justice and freedom. Again, Kirk explains:

“‘Justice’ is the principle and the process by which each man is accorded the things that are his own—the things that belong to his nature. This concept the old Greeks and Romans expressed in the phrase ‘to each his own.’ It is the principle and the process that protects a man’s life, his property, his proven rights, his station in life, his dignity. It also is the principle and the process that metes out punishment to the evildoer, which enforces penalties against violence and fraud. The allegorical figure of Justice always holds a sword. Justice is the cornerstone of the world—divine justice and human justice. It is the first necessity of any decent society.

“‘Freedom’ is the principle and the process by which a man is made master of his own life. It implies the right of all members of adult society to make their own choices in most matters. A slave is a person whose actions, in all important respects, are directed by others; a free man is a person who has the right—and the responsibility—of deciding how he is to live with himself and his neighbours.”

So I say again, the most basic duty of government is to maintain orderly society. That is the foundation of justice and freedom. But if detention centres are inhumane and dangerous criminals are not being properly supervised, a government has failed to maintain an orderly society.

The current Liberal government and its supporters should ask themselves how they allowed this to happen. They should start by asking themselves why they allowed appalling violence in detention centres to get out of control. How did they allow detention centres to become so badly crowded? Why are they over capacity? Why has it not occurred to the minister that crowded jails could, at least in theory, be combatted by reducing excessive wait times for corrections investigations and providing the resources necessary for staff in detention centres?

Why is it not obvious that proper supervision and enforcement of probation and parole officers is absolutely essential? Why does no one seem to realize that it’s high time the government did something by enforcing its own guidelines?

This pre-election conversion just won’t cut it. It’s fooling no one.

Those recent reports that I mentioned paint a very grim picture indeed. Minor tinkering isn’t going to fix the crisis in corrections. The government must take serious and thorough action immediately, not 10 years from now.

If you recall, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that their plan is a 10-year plan. Well, I want to revert back to when the Attorney General, the former Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, stated that all detention centres and jails would have full-body scanners. Many do, but we’re still waiting for the rest. As a result of that, violence, weapons and drugs still occur within our jails and our detention centres.

The bill before us is totally inadequate.

What does the bill propose? Let’s get right into that now. First, the bill attempts to redefine what segregation means. Let me read from the bill. This is from Bill 6:

“Inmates held in conditions that constitute segregation or restrictive confinement retain all rights and privileges of inmates in general population housing except those that can only be enjoyed in association with other inmates.

“Certain inmates cannot be held in conditions that constitute segregation, including inmates who are pregnant, chronically self-harming or suicidal or who have significant mental illnesses or developmental disabilities. Inmates shall not be held in conditions that constitute segregation for more than 15 consecutive days or for more than 60 aggregate days in a 365-day period. The aggregate day maximum can be exceeded if authorized by a decision of the independent review panel. These limits do not apply in prescribed correctional institutions.

“Superintendents may hold inmates in non-disciplinary segregation in certain exceptional cases if all other options to manage the inmate have been exhausted. The superintendent shall maintain a record of the options that were exhausted before the inmate was held in those conditions. The superintendent shall also conduct a preliminary review of the case within 24 hours after they are placed in those conditions. Inmates being held in conditions that constitute segregation for non-disciplinary reasons must be offered the opportunity at regular intervals to associate with others.

“Provisions for regular visits by health care professionals to inmates held in conditions that constitute segregation are provided. In particular, a member of the mental health care service team must review the inmate’s mental health at least once every five days.

“A referral must be made to the independent regional chair to have a hearing before an independent review panel when an inmate has been held in conditions that constitute segregation for non-disciplinary reasons for either five or 10 consecutive days. A referral must also be made for any inmate held in conditions that constitute segregation when they reach 30 and 55 aggregate days of being held in those conditions.

“Upon receiving a referral, the chair shall convene an independent review panel to review the inmate’s case and determine whether it is reasonable to continue holding the inmate in conditions that constitute segregation. The panel can also authorize a superintendent to continue to hold an inmate past the limit of 60 aggregate days in a 365-day period.”

Mr. Speaker, let’s just pause for a moment and simply break it down. The bill aims to redefine segregation as “any type of custody where an inmate is highly restricted in movement and association with others for 22 hours or more.”

Certain inmates, such as those who are pregnant, mentally or physically ill, or even suicidal will be exempt from segregation. Segregation will be restricted to no more than 15 consecutive days, and no more than 60 aggregate days in the year. I’ve mentioned that before. Subject to review by whom? Ah, the independent review panel, which will be created by this bill and future regulations.

Here’s the essence of the problem: My contacts within the world of corrections tell me, “This is a bad move.” I looked at them and I said, “Really? Tell me why.” The threat of segregation as a deterrent or its use as a punishment will be significantly reduced if the penalty for misbehaving will be predictably restricted to no more than 15 consecutive days and no more than 60 aggregate days in a year in segregation. Obviously, the legislation foresees the possibility of extending or prolonging segregation, but the precise details of this are vague, because they are left up to future regulations.

My friend Monte Vieselmeyer is chairman of the correctional division at OPSEU. Monte acknowledged that the bill addresses a number of corrections-related issues, including segregation. But after examining the bill, he said that correctional officers were still awaiting alternatives to segregation. This is what he had to say in a recent news release: “If the government wants to address segregation, they need to provide alternatives for the various reasons it’s currently used. One inmate to one cell would solve the problem. In light of Canadian case law, we need answers.”

What the bill describes sounds not only inadequate, but also just pretty bad. I’m referring to the plan to create the independent review panel. Leaving aside the fact that most of what it will do and how it will staffed and so forth are left up to some future, undemocratic regulatory process, this panel sounds like little more than a whole lot of paper-pushing and bureaucracy.

The independent review panel will review and decide cases of segregation after five and 10 consecutive days, and after 30 and 55 aggregate days of segregation over the course of a year. Here’s the description of it from the

preamble of Bill 6:

“A referral must be made to the independent regional chair to have a hearing before an independent review panel when an inmate has been held in conditions that constitute segregation for non-disciplinary reasons for either five or 10 consecutive days. A referral must also be made for any inmate held in conditions that constitute segregation when they reach 30 and 55 aggregate days of being held in those conditions.

“Upon receiving a referral, the chair shall convene an independent review panel to review the inmate’s case and determine whether it is reasonable to continue holding the inmate in conditions that constitute segregation. The panel can also authorize a superintendent to continue to hold an inmate past the limit of 60 aggregate days in a 365-day period.”

I hope my colleagues across the aisle are paying attention here. I don’t even know if they’ve read their own legislation, but I digress.

The bill foresees an excessively bureaucratic process of report-writing, consultation and deliberation on inmates in segregation. The independent review panel would review and make decisions on cases of segregation at intervals of five, 10, 30 and 55 days of segregation over the course of a year—potentially 16 or more reports over the course of a year for simply one inmate. It should be immediately obvious why this is ridiculous.

The independent review panel is obviously meant to address the abuse connected with the segregation of Adam Capay, who spent 1,560 days in solitary confinement awaiting trial in conditions so appalling that previous inmates had died there. What’s the problem, you ask? Well, senior bureaucrats at the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services had been alerted more than 50 times about Capay’s segregation, and the minister at the time had even visited Capay’s cell and had seen for himself the horrendous conditions there. I mentioned this earlier, but it’s worth repeating.

I cannot overestimate the importance of what happened to Adam Capay. To the government’s credit, they are attempting to rectify that.

If 50 reports and a personal visit from the minister didn’t motivate the government to do something about Adam Capay and the horrendous conditions in which he had been confined, how will more bureaucracy and even more reports help? I digress, but they talk about being a green government, and yet they’re killing trees with all the paperwork.

In this connection, I’m reminded of this quotation from John Maynard Keynes: “Government machinery has been described as a marvelous labour-saving device which enables 10 men to do the work of one.”

There is also the famous Mr. Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest presidents of the United States of America. I might get some pushback from the other side, but I understand that. Here’s what President Ronald Reagan said: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” He certainly did have a way with words, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the Liberals are inclined to think that more bureaucracy is a solution to every problem, but I beg to differ on that. At best, all that the independent review panel will do is chew up and drain valuable resources. At worst, it may create a culture of excessive report writing in order to justify the existence of the independent review panel itself.

The fundamental problem is not the number or frequency of reports; it’s the fact that in the case of Adam Capay, all the reports were ignored. So they develop an independent review panel that is going to create all these reports for one individual, and then what are they going to do with them? Is it going to be the same as Adam Capay: over 50 reports and they were ignored? More paper-pushing isn’t going to solve that problem. Only a better, more attentive, more competent minister and staff will do that.

The present minister’s attempts to dodge the questions about a dysfunctional parole system and the rest of the crisis in corrections is an appalling abnegation of her ministerial responsibility. “Ministerial responsibility” means that a minister is ultimately responsible for all actions of a ministry, whether he or she knows about it or not. It’s called “staying on top of the files” and knowing what’s going on—trusting in and communicating with those over whom you are in authority and ensuring that what is supposed to get done gets done in a timely fashion.

Ministerial responsibility is not a statute or a codified part of our Constitution. It’s a part of our unwritten traditions. But this does not make it any less important. If waste, corruption or any other misbehaviour is found to have occurred within a ministry, the minister is ultimately responsible, even without knowledge of misdeeds or oversights by subordinates. The minister approved the hiring and continued employment of those people within the ministry.

If improper conduct occurred in a ministry, an honourable minister would feel compelled to resign. Obviously, that hasn’t happened in this case, which is another indication that this government just doesn’t take its work particularly seriously.

I’ve had this particular community safety and correctional services critic portfolio—and now my primary emphasis is on detention centres—I’ve had that responsibility for the last three and a half-plus years. I take my role very seriously. I’ve communicated: I’ve held blue ribbon panels; I’ve talked to COs; I’ve talked to probation and parole officers; I’ve talked to bailiffs; I’ve talked to nurses; I’ve talked to other staff involved in corrections.

They all say the same thing as well: It is the responsibility of the minister to ensure that what is said is followed up on, adhered to and delivered in a timely manner, and if there’s any misdirection, then perhaps that minister should step aside. In fact, the minister’s attitude and behaviour have seriously eroded ministerial responsibility and decreased the public’s trust in government.

Mr. Speaker, really, I’m sorry to say that this half-baked piece of non-legislation isn’t going to get the Liberal government out of the mess that they created and worsened. Again: It’s not going to get the Liberals out of the mess that they created and even made worse.

Problems with the rest of the bill are basically similar to what I’ve just described. Let me repeat: Forcing bureaucrats to write more and more reports isn’t going to do anything as long as ministers and their staff continue to ignore them. More reports and ignoring them isn’t going to make the problems go away.

I’ve always been a firm believer in this: We come up with good ideas, but they’re only good ideas if they’re not acted upon. We need to ensure that we take good ideas and move them into action immediately. But hang on to your pens, because there’s a whole lot more report writing a-comin’.

Lockdowns are a typical way of dealing with out-of-control cell block violence, especially in overcrowded detention centres. This government seems determined to put a stop to that practice and to introduce new and more onerous bureaucracy. According to the bill, if lockdowns last for five consecutive days, the superintendent must write a report, send it to the deputy minister and the inspector general. Superintendents must make and submit a new report for every subsequent day of the lockdown. Just to be clear, lockdowns occur because staff are outnumbered and unable to control cell block violence in overcrowded conditions. That is the root of the problem.

I’ll stand here and I will defend the correctional officers’ and the inmates’ safety, but this bill doesn’t talk about anything with regard to the safety of correctional officers. It’s all about the inmates. I agree with that aspect of it, but where is the safety for correctional officers as well? They go into work every single day and they put their life on the line. Their motto is, “Everyone goes home safe.” But to have the things that happen to them, when you talk about the abuse that occurs to those correctional officers, you talk about minor stabbings, being spat at, being assaulted—hit—having urine and feces thrown in their faces; that is an assault on human dignity. That has to stop.

What happens to the inmates when that happens? A minor slap on the wrist. Nothing seems to happen to the inmates; yet, based on perhaps the health of an inmate—and I’m not talking mental health here—all of a sudden our COs who have been assaulted in those ways have to go through specific testing to ensure that they haven’t contracted anything.

I digress, but with reason.

An inspector general will be established by an order in council. That person will have a broad mandate to review, report on and direct all treatment of inmates and conditions in prisons. Again, the big problem here is that legislation leaves all further details about the position to be defined in regulations. I get a little nervous about that.

We debate a bill, a low-information bill with all these wonderful phrases and all these wonderful ideas, but how specifically they’re going to do that and/or when they’re going to do it, “We’ll leave that up to regulations.” At which point, then, many of us don’t even see the regulations. We’re going to have no say, no input, no influence and no control over regulatory process. That’s what’s going to happen.

Get this: The inspector general is going to have a lot of work to do taking care of criminals and making sure they’re comfortable. Why, you ask? The bill will require every inmate to have access to every kind of health care service. Inmates in segregation must receive daily visits from at least one member of a health care service team. This is better health care coverage and treatment than most Ontario families will ever get. It doesn’t seem fair, does it? And a lot of people would be justifiably upset if they knew about it.

Mr. Speaker, it gets worse. It’s as though this government thinks that every problem can be solved by more bureaucracy and report writing. I’ve talked about that already several times. Let me just say that if bureaucracy immunized us from problems, nothing would have ever gone wrong in Ontario.

Back to the bill: The bill provides for disciplinary hearings officers to be created by order in council. Their job will be to conduct hearings and to sanction serious misconduct by inmates. All further details are left to future regulation. Here’s the relevant passage:

“An allegation of serious misconduct shall be referred to a disciplinary hearings officer. The officer conducts a hearing and may impose more significant disciplinary measures if he or she determines that the inmate has committed serious misconduct, including imposing conditions that constitute segregation for no more than 15 ... days. The inmate may seek to have a decision of the officer reviewed by another disciplinary hearings officer.”

The silliest thing with this is that “serious misconduct” is nowhere defined in the bill. Once again, future regulations will determine what that means. Wow. “Serious misconduct” is nowhere defined in the bill. It’s going to be left up to future regulations.

I can think of two problems with that right away. First, as I keep saying, the regulatory process is entirely undemocratic and this arbitrary government will be able to force whatever they want on the corrections community. Second, it’s fundamentally irrational to leave undefined “serious misconduct” in a bill whose purpose is, at least in part, to make correctional officers safer when dealing with violent inmates and assault. This is obviously a major failure of the bill.

Front-line workers tell me that they feel that they are in danger. Correctional officers are outnumbered, and they have little recourse when they’re attacked. Something needs to be done to keep front-line workers safe. This is why they are so alarmed that the bill seems to severely restrict the use of strip searches, instead stipulating conditions under which strip searches “may” occur, which is how the bill reads now. The bill should specify when they “shall” occur—that’s in

section 100 of Bill 6—otherwise, the act appears to limit the use of strip searches significantly.

I want go to back to this just for a moment, when we talk about how they feel that they’re in danger. I’ve talked to many correctional officers. If they feel threatened, if an inmate moves towards them and they put their hand up to stop them—just to stop them—what happens? It’s all on video, and because they feel that they are lacking management support, they could be remanded for having used excess force.

All they’re doing is putting their hand out and stopping an inmate from coming towards them. That’s excess force that constitutes an investigation? Some of these investigations: I’ve talked to correctional officers who have been relieved of their duties—many still being paid, but relieved of their duties—for in excess of a year.

Let me quote again from my friend Monte Vieselmeyer, OPSEU chairman of correctional division. I’m referencing a recent OPSEU media release, so we can have an idea of what our stakeholders are saying at this point: ‘“We’ve done everything possible to make the government recognize the crisis in corrections and take immediate steps to alleviate it. The government finally agreed the system was in crisis and required a complete overhaul.

‘“However, we remain extremely concerned that the safety of front-line staff has not been clearly addressed in the bill,’ he continued. ‘The government has promised that no transformation can succeed without continuous feedback from staff. So we know they’ll hear again and again about the vital need for significantly improved safety and security.’”

Mr. Vieselmeyer tells me that dangerously low staffing levels greatly increase the safety risk to front-line workers. “‘The government claims it’s hired 1,100 new correctional officers. But they’re fixed-term officers who fill in when regular officers are away. In reality, only 24 new correctional officers positions have been created.’”

Why increase the danger by restricting officers’ ability to strip-search inmates and eliminate things like drugs and weapons? Just recently, down at EMDC, Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, we’ve heard of more deaths down there, some related to drug overdose. Drugs are getting in. What can we do to stop it? Again, I repeat: Why increase the danger by restricting officers’ ability to strip-search inmates and eliminate things like drugs and weapons?

Unsurprisingly, stakeholders within the CO and PPO community demand a zero-tolerance policy for violence, along with serious deterrents from and punishments for assault. In fact, all my contacts tell me that they want the minister to do much more to protect the safety of front-line workers.

Let me draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an important feature of the bill. There is a

section of the bill called “duties of minister,”

section 3. Front-line workers are adamant that this

section include a duty to ensure a safe workplace for staff. Stakeholders report that investigations into misconduct take far too long, sometimes as long as 15 months. Investigations should be limited so that a CO can have his or her name cleared or be disciplined for more expediency. That’s in

section 188 and following.

But let me focus on something else, Mr. Speaker. Some major provisions of this bill seem unrealistic or impossible without the appropriate level of staffing. Let’s take some examples.

Exercise and work programs for rehabilitation or reintegration are, in principle, sound. That’s

section 78(1). No one has an objection to that in principle, but institutions do not now have enough staff to make such programs possible everywhere. As I’ve already said, minor tinkering isn’t going to help the problem.

Stakeholders would prefer prisoners’ mail to be screened and read as a matter of routine, but the act suggests that this practice would occur only under certain circumstances. That’s in

section 104(2). The same principle should also apply to telephone conversations and their duration—also

section 104(10). In the same vein, the powers of inspection,

section 119(1), are unnecessarily broad, and they appear to remove the few protections that workers currently have.

If I were feeling especially cynical, I would say that this government has decided that the needs and wants of incarcerated criminals are more important than the rights of correctional officers and that the order and safety of our detention centres are secondary to making criminals feel comfortable. Obviously, this legislation must be compliant with the written portion of our Constitution and our common-law traditions. But it must be said that corrections officers and all prison staff have rights as well.

So let me sum up. Ontario’s crisis in corrections has reached an inflexion point. There are staff shortages and overcrowding. Damaged facilities and understaffed nursing stations are commonplace in Ontario. My colleagues in the opposition and third party have been pointing this out for years and, now, about a month from a writ period, with an election looming, the Liberals want us to believe they’re experiencing a deathbed conversion.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I don’t buy it, And something tells me that the Premier lacks the sincerity of Oscar Wilde or Constantine the Great, who converted on their deathbeds.

This piece of legislation and the obscured 10-year timeline for implementation just isn’t going to cut it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: It was rather interesting listening to my colleague, and I found myself agreeing with big parts of what he had to say. I will always remember—I was in health care before coming here—that a few months after being elected, I took my first-ever visit of the Sudbury Jail. I’d never been there before. I have gone and visited many times since.

Coming out of the health care system, as I walked through the range, I would say, Speaker, that I recognized at least 80% of the people in jail. Why did I recognize them? Because they were all people I knew had a diagnosis of severe mental illness. How could we fail them so badly? The nursing station was a joke. Some of the tools they were working with, I had seen better and newer in my trip to the Republic of Congo, which had been given old equipment from Canada and had newer equipment there than we had in the Sudbury Jail. And the number of people working was completely inadequate.

There is also a very high rate of indigenous people in the Sudbury Jail. Like many indigenous people, many of them have diabetes. They will not get their sugar tested sometimes until four days after they are there, although we know they are people who are insulin-dependent and have active diabetes, because the resources are not there.

I brought this up to the government 10 years ago, and now, 70 days before an election, they want us to believe that they care about what’s going on in there—never mind what it means to be a correctional officer in the Sudbury Jail, where their lunchroom looks like a shed with a light at the top. Nothing works. It is old. It is mouldy. Now they want us to believe that they want to help. I don’t buy it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. Harinder Malhi: Mr. Speaker, there has been an overuse of segregation, especially for vulnerable inmates who have a significant mental illness or developmental disability, or who are pregnant.

Aligning with international standards to define segregation, we’ll be prohibiting segregation of our most vulnerable inmates.

To ensure that inmates get the health care services they need, we are proposing that inmates in segregation be visited daily by the superintendent and a member of the new health care services teams.

We are working hard to make sure that we support our inmates.

Improving the living conditions in our institutions is critical to our transformation, as it strikes at the heart of safety, human rights and the dignity of all inmates within our system. These minimum standards would include reasonable access to natural light, fresh air, adequate bedding and a clean environment.

The proposed legislation would give the opportunity for at least two in-person visits with a family member or friend.

The proposed changes include defining searches of inmates in legislation. The legislation outlines the circumstances for when each type of search can take place, and would ensure that all searches, including strip searches, follow a prescribed process.

This transformation will not be complete until we provide the necessary and appropriate supports to indigenous people and racialized populations, who are over-represented in our correctional facilities. To achieve this, we are proposing a number of changes to build cultural competency and increase supports.

We are committed to reforming our systems. We are committed to making sure that people have the dignity and freedom and rights that they deserve for safety and health care, and we’re working hard to do that here in our correctional system right now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I wish to thank the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex for his excellent advocacy, not only on behalf of his constituents but also for those critic portfolios that he fulfills. This particular area, I think it’s fair to say, having heard the speech this morning, is an area that he’s very, very passionate about—in not only helping inmates and helping offenders and helping those who are feeling the pressures of 15 years of Liberal government, but also correctional officers and those who put their safety and well-being on the line in these institutions to help provide safe streets and help provide safer communities for all of our ridings.

He really brought up a lot of important points and ones that I heard a couple of weeks ago when I had meetings with various correctional officers at my constituency office in Niagara West–Glanbrook, but also recently here at Queen’s Park. They brought up, again, this crisis in corrections. This is indeed a crisis in corrections, where we’re hearing about officers who are being routinely abused in these situations, who are not being given the adequate tools, who are being drastically understaffed and underfunded.

When we look at things such as overcrowding, which was mentioned as well, it’s really atrocious.

Back in Niagara, we have the Niagara Detention Centre, where we had a dorm that was built for 12 offenders in 1973, I believe it was. Later on, they put bunk beds onto that so that they could fit 24 into this facility. The floor size had not changed. Then, they put that up to 36. And today they have over 40 people in an institution that was built for 12 people. Keeping over 40 offenders in this type of area is definitely putting pressures on the system.

The Liberal government has had 15 years to get it right. They haven’t done anything until the last minute. Ontarians deserve change.

I’m proud to support my colleague’s debate this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I think we all have examples about how our corrections facilities have been understaffed for the past number of years. The Monteith correctional centre that’s in my area—it’s in John Vanthof’s riding, but a lot of the people who go there, unfortunately, and some who work there live in my riding. I’ve got to say that, meeting with Ken Steinbrunner and others who work at that institution, it’s a real problem. There’s not enough staff on a shift in order to properly staff the jail, so as a result, inmates get less yard time. They’re not going to be able to meet the requirements of this new legislation because there isn’t staff.

What the jail people have been saying is that we need to increase the number of staff in order to be able to make sure that the mandate set out in legislation can be followed as far as keeping the jails secure and ensuring that jails are safe. It’s probably, I’m told, around 20%. There needs to be about a 20% increase in staff just on the corrections side, not to talk about the probation side, because the probation side is 300 people short when it comes to being able to do what needs to be done so that people on probation are seen by probation officers.

I’m told by some in the system there are people who get probation for two years and never see a probation officer because there aren’t enough probation officers to go along. Why? Because the Liberals have done to corrections what they have done in health care and others. They have underfunded the system; they have allowed it to fail.

Now I hear the Tories being the champions of OPSEU. They’re lock-step brothers and sisters: “We’re together with you; we bought the Kool-Aid.” These guys are about privatization. They are not going to fix the system. I don’t believe it for one second because I lived under Mike Harris as a member in this place, and I remember when he tried to privatize corrections the last time. Do you think that the Tories, under the current leadership, are going to go and do what needs to be done within the context of a public system? Absolutely not. They will privatize it or they will underfund it and allow it to fail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes our questions and comments. I return to the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I want to thank the member from Nickel Belt, the Minister of the Status of Women, Niagara West–Glanbrook and the member from Timmins–James Bay.

I want to address very quickly this item of privatization. Nowhere, anywhere has this party, this go-around, talked anything about privatization. That is purely a myth. When I take a look back at when the NDP were in power back in 1990 to 1995, the debt, the 126-year debt, was only about $30 billion, but when they left five years later they had tripled the debt to over $90 billion. So I don’t think they have a lot of room to talk.

I will also suggest this, Mr. Speaker: I’ve been the critic for this particular portfolio for three and a half years, and I take it very, very seriously. I’ve had countless, countless hours spent, including visitations to various detention centres, phone calls and different meetings with them. There is a very serious crisis in corrections. I mentioned earlier this morning—we talked about this hashtag, #FixIt. That’s what needs to be done right now. Bill 6 is a long way from trying to fix the problems in our corrections and our probation and parole.

Having spoken with Scott McIntyre, he said, “Rick, we don’t need 100 more probation and parole officers throughout the province; we need 300 more, because when you take a look at the fact that there are over 45,000 individuals who are out on probation and parole and being forced to self-report, many don’t even do that, and 60% of that 45,000 is somewhere in the neighbourhood between medium- and high-risk offenders.”

That’s not keeping our communities safe at all. They have taken the word “community” out of this legislation. I believe that what this government has managed to do is handcuff our COs and our PPOs so they can’t get their job done.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of having to address this issue with my one-hour leadoff this morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): This House is in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to introduce Natalie Richardson, the managing director of Save Your Skin and a constituent from Meaford in the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, and Ferg Devins, who is with Bladder Cancer Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: If you’ll bear with me this morning, our page captain is Tamsyn King, and she has brought half of the population of Windsor–Tecumseh with her today: her mother, Marla Jackson; her father, Kevin King; her stepfather, John Parent; her sister Alysha King, who is a page in training; her grandmother Gloria Jackson, who we know as Gigi; her grandparents Margret and Frank King, who are Nana and Papa; and their family friend Sue DeLisle. Thank you and welcome to Queen’s Park this morning.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today I would like to welcome Jaymee Maaghop from the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network. I would also like to welcome Ferg Devins from Bladder Cancer Canada, as well as Natalie Richardson, Louise Binder and Cass Richardson, who are here with the Save Your Skin Foundation. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to welcome Josh Underwood, an impressive young man from my riding. He is very interested in government, and I’m glad that he’s taken the opportunity to be here today and learn more about the Legislature first-hand. I want to say welcome to Queen’s Park, Josh.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): He’s 14, and he wants to be an MPP next year?

Further introductions.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have two good friends here today. They’re actually from the riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore. They are Deana and Chelsea Siemon. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to acknowledge that on Monday, April 2, it is World Autism Awareness Day, and I want to acknowledge my friend Sarah Severn, my personal bagpiper, who brought it to my attention. I know she’s watching today. Welcome, Sarah. Thank you for all your support.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m pleased today to have guests in the gallery of my star staffer Rebecca Hubble. Her mother, Roberta Hubble, is here today, and Rebecca’s brother James is here today, wearing his University of Ottawa jersey. It’s great to have you.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Michele Hirak Fletcher. She is the mother of our page Aidan Fletcher, who is here today. And Susan Westwater, the teacher of Aidan, and his classmates from grade 8 from Tecumseh Public School, will be in the gallery later this morning.

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure, with page captain Sophie Andrew-Joiner, who is from Parry Sound–Muskoka, to introduce her family, who are here today. Her mother, Cynthia Andrew; her brother Nicholas Andrew-Joiner; and her grandmother Susan Andrew are all here in the public gallery this morning. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I would be remiss if I didn’t introduce my cousins who are making their way here today from Newfoundland: Janice and Charles Moores. I’ll welcome them to Queen’s Park as well.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: It’s nice to introduce one friend of mine and three new friends of mine: Wayne Baker from the riding of Perth–Wellington; his daughter Rachel Baker, who was a page here at one time; and Andy Galambos. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I would be remiss not to also recognize Ferg Devins. We worked together when I worked for the Beer Store. Have a Molson-joyable day.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: On behalf of my colleague the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, it’s my pleasure to welcome Denise Roy, the father of page Mikayla.

Hon. Daiene Vernile: I’m delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park today, from the great riding of Kitchener Centre, Rebecca Wagner, who also serves as my EA in my constituency office. Welcome, Rebecca.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): With us in the Speaker’s gallery today are guests of mine, who will be joining us shortly.

The two who are here are the former mayor of Toronto and public servant deluxe with many hats and roles—Barbara Hall is here with us; welcome, Barbara, and thank you for being here—and Stanley Ho. Thank you, Stanley, for joining us.

Joining them shortly will be the former member from Toronto Centre–Rosedale during the 37th and 38th Parliaments, and MPP for Toronto Centre in the 39th Parliament, former MPP George Smitherman.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday’s election document is proof this government will say anything, do anything and promise anything to cling to power. The government promised to balance the budget. Instead, their desire to cling to power will doom Ontario to six more years of deficits just to announce election promises that no one trusts they will ever keep, $2 billion in new taxes on families and businesses, and skyrocketing debt that will further dilute the services that families need.

Does this government really believe that votes are for sale in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: This government believes that the priorities of Ontarians are first and foremost in any work that we do. In the last number of budgets that I’ve had the privilege of delivering—this is the sixth now—we’ve built in progressive measures while still growing the economy. This budget is about promoting more care when it comes to health care, mental health and addiction, child care and seniors’ care.

On the other side, we’re implementing measures to stimulate growth to support businesses, to continue to be the leanest government anywhere in Canada and to grow our economy stronger.

The members opposite have voted against those very progressive measures. We have balanced the budget, we have a surplus of $600 million, and we’re going to continue fighting for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Acting Premier: Ontario families and businesses will be paying billions more in taxes as a result of this throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks election document. Some 1.8 million people will be paying more in taxes. This is a personal income tax increase that will take $275 million out of families’ pockets. The government is adding to the employer health tax, hurting 20,000 businesses. They will each pay $2,400 more a year; that’s $45 million in taxes.

Speaker, if the government is raising taxes by $2 billion just weeks before an election, just imagine what they will do if they get re-elected.

Hon. Charles Sousa: In the 2016 budget, we made it clear that we’re going to eliminate the surtax, a hidden tax on tax, to benefit Ontarians. Over 700,000 more will be paying less.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about people’s money in people’s pockets. In this budget, we are providing $17,000 per child who requires child care and over $1,000 more for seniors who require support. We will continue to provide help where needed, especially for those who need developmental services.

The member opposite is talking about mirroring the federal government’s tax provisions for the highest payers. Obviously, he thinks it’s okay for the biggest governments, the biggest banks in our community, not to pay their fair share. We’re—

Interjections.

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

I’ve heard a few comments from the opposition side that I would normally jump up and say are not to be said and are to be withdrawn. I will, from now on. People know better than that.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Acting Premier: One of the key admissions, on page 224, is that there are “efficiencies” to be found in the Ontario government: $1.425 billion in efficiencies, to be precise. Over four years, that first year alone of efficiencies equals $6 billion. When you add the second, third and fourth year, that’s $14.4 billion of annualized efficiencies that the Liberals are promising. But when the PCs say “efficiencies,” they scream “cuts,” but it’s in their own budget.

Speaker, if this undisciplined, spendthrift government can show $14.4 billion in efficiencies, can you imagine what Doug Ford and the PCs are going to find?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, there’s the crux of the matter. We have made it clear that we are the leanest government anywhere in Canada. We find transformations where possible. We find savings of almost $2 billion every year, and we exceed our targets year over year. That’s how we slayed the deficit and that’s how we’ve come to balance. We are going to come back to balance because we’ve put a lot of prudence and reserves into our system.

They’re not just sawing into fat. If they’re taking our numbers and they’re saying that they’re going to be able to provide even more cuts—because that’s what they’re talking about, cuts to services and programs—they’re going to saw into bone. They’re going to put people in harm’s way. They’re going to put our economy in harm’s way.

We are going to continue to support those who need it, and we’re going to grow the economy.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): After row 1, we’re in warnings.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re in warnings.

New question.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Acting Premier, who just admitted to $14.4 billion in cuts.

Of real concern to Ontario businesses and families should be this government’s dismal economic outlook. The budget projects $1 billion less in corporate revenues every year due to “increased economic uncertainty” caused by US corporate tax cuts. So the US cuts taxes to make them more competitive, and our government raises taxes. Their answer is to run us deep into deficits, hike taxes and make life more unaffordable for families.

Why is this government doing the absolute opposite of what is needed to create jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Well, let’s talk about making life more affordable for Ontarians. This budget is all about putting more money in people’s pockets. We’re providing free preschool—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’re providing free preschool child care. That’s $17,000 per child for a young family.

We’re providing OHIP+, universal pharmacare for every child and young adult 25 and under and every senior 65 and over.

We’re now providing an Ontario drug and benefit plan that will provide $700 per family that otherwise would not have had it.

We’re lowering the commuting costs with the transit system here in the southern corridor. But in the Far North, we’re providing more supports to help them as well, with free tuition for every student who qualifies, now that we’ve increased it.

Mr. Speaker, they’re going to vote against the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Acting Premier: As CTV reported, “This budget had nothing for small businesses, those owners were looking for some kind of relief....” In the 2019 budget, they got nothing.

As the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Ontario rightly said, “True to form, the Wynne Liberals did not support Ontario businesses in the budget ... not acceptable, not right, not going to be tolerated.”

This government has teamed up with Prime Minister Trudeau to attack small businesses. This isn’t acceptable. Why have the Liberals turned their backs on the engine of Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The province of Ontario is the engine of Canada. We provide well over 40% of Canada’s economy. We have the lowest unemployment rate in two decades. We’ve provided over 811,000 net new jobs, and in this budget we’re supporting 140,000 jobs every year through our record levels of infrastructure spending to support businesses and to ensure that we are competitive. That’s why we’re providing for more apprenticeship programs, skills and training. That’s why we’re accelerating our Jobs and Prosperity Fund, to attract that foreign direct investment. We are still tops in North America when it comes to that, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the member opposite talks about small business. Of course we’re supporting small business. Even the employer health tax is supporting them. And we’ve reduced their taxes by 22%. The member opposite recognizes—or should recognize—that the private sector matters to—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Acting Premier: Ontario families aren’t the only ones concerned. This government’s own expert witness at the pre-budget hearings, Craig Alexander of the Conference Board of Canada, weighed in yesterday. He said, “There really isn’t a rationale for running deficits” right now.

Douglas Porter, the chief economist at BMO, said, “Ideally you would like to see government finances in relatively strong shape”—

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: In 15 years of Bill Davis, not one balanced budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. The Minister of Infrastructure is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: “Ideally you would like to see government finances in relatively strong shape when we hit that heavy weather.”

Only the PCs will bring back manufacturing jobs and restore fiscal responsibility in Ontario.

Why is this government writing cheques that are going to bounce?

Interjections.

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Donald Trump.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Barrie is warned.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: All right. Mr. Speaker, here’s a history lesson on the PCs: In the last 40 years, there have only been eight balanced budgets. The PCs only delivered three. We did the rest.

When it came time to support our manufacturing sector that was in trouble during the greatest recession in history, they said it was corporate welfare. They did not support our auto industry.

When it came to Stelco, we supported our steel industry.

When it comes to servicing the debt, of which almost three quarters is for infrastructure and capital investment, they are voting against supporting construction of roads and bridges and transit that matter to our competitiveness. Our interest to service the debt is lower today than it was when they were in power by almost half.

Dental care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Can the Acting Premier tell us what it costs to get a regular cleaning done at the dentist?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s a fair question, and I understand where the member is coming from. We recognize that dental plans are important, especially for those who don’t have them. It is why we’ve introduced the Ontario Drug and Dental Program for those who don’t have those benefits. We are going to continue to support our young people through these programs.

We’ve provided now free pharmacare for a much larger formulary than the member opposite was suggesting, and we’re doing that for seniors as well.

When it comes to those who don’t have those benefit plans, we’re starting off by providing them at least $700 per family. We know more can be done, and we’re going to continue to support that program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I can let him know that it’s at least $100 for a regular cleaning. Can the Acting Premier tell us how much it costs to have a cavity filled?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, do you know what it costs for a young family with toddlers and they need to have them put in daycare and they can’t afford it?: $17,000 is what this province is going to be able to provide for those families. We’re going to continue supporting those families that are most in need.

I recognize that we can always do more and we are going to continue to build upon the very things we put forward. We’re going to continue providing more health care, more pharmacare, more seniors’ care, more mental health and addictions care and more supports for families, putting more money in their pockets.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A cavity would be about $200, so that’s about $300 total for a regular cleaning and to have one cavity filled—a pretty standard visit to the dentist.

Can the Acting Premier tell us how the Liberal plan to reimburse $50 per child per year for dental work in Ontario would cover this one average visit to the dentist?

Hon. Charles Sousa: That family that has a young child who needs cavities filled will now have more money in their pocket, because they’re saving $17,000 on child care, Mr. Speaker. We’re supporting the families of this province. They should be supporting this budget as well.

Dental care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier: Can the Acting Premier tell us how much it costs to have a tooth pulled?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member, again, is asking about the requirements to enhance our dental plan. I get it: We’re providing lots of supports for the families of this province, including dental plans. We will continue to support them.

If you want to pull my teeth, by all means. I recognize that the province needs to support the people of this province, and we are doing just that in this budget and in our plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I can enlighten the Acting Premier: For a simple extraction, it’s about $140; for something more complicated, it can be as much as $250.

Does the Acting Premier know how much it costs to have four impacted wisdom teeth removed or to have a root canal on a back tooth done?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Does the member opposite know what it costs to provide drug plans for those that are chronically in need of that plan, which you are not providing in your plan? That is money that will go to the people of our province. As I say again, seniors are going to get $1,000 more because of the programs we’re putting in, and young families are going to get substantively more in order to support their children.

I understand: We need and want to support the people of this province. We are putting forward a plan that is sustainable and is costed, Mr. Speaker, in order to enable them to get the services and programs they need.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s about $1,000 to have wisdom teeth taken out, and that is without any complications at all. A root canal on a back tooth can cost as much as $900.

Can the Acting Premier tell us how the Liberal plan to reimburse just $300 for an average Ontario adult per year would cover the cost of a $900 root canal?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the member, again, is talking about the cost to families of a range of issues. It’s not just dental plans that cost families more money; there is a degree of burden that we’re trying to support, and they’re shouldering that burden. But families, as well as businesses, do encumber costs. We on this side of the House want to make certain that we take a balanced approach to offset some of those costs in order for them to be better off. The net benefit from this plan is more money in their pockets to support them by way of our savings.

The member opposite can pinpoint one particular instance, and if they have low income and if they’re unable to support themselves, if there are emergency requirements, we do have universal health care. We’re sustaining it and we’re building upon it. The member opposite knows that. There are other issues that are in this budget that they should be supporting for the benefit of the people of this province.

Ontario economy

Mr. Ross Romano: My question is for the Acting Premier. On page 191 of the budget, the Liberal projections are astounding. They are flat-out admitting that their policies are going to kill job creation. In fact, under the Liberals, job creation would be cut in half within the next three years. Northern Ontario needs more jobs, not less. My question is: How can this Liberal government write off job creation for the sake of trying to win an election?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for his question. I’m a little bit confused as to why he could take the content from yesterday’s budget and come to any conclusion other than the fact that our government and our Premier continue to be extremely positive and supportive of programs and funding that will, on a strategic basis, help support more job creation in this province.

I know I’ve said this many times in the Legislature, Speaker, but since the depths of the recessionary low a decade ago, our province has created more than 800,000 jobs. Our unemployment rate today stands lower than it has at any other point for the last 17 years. We’ve been below the national average for 33 or 34 consecutive months. In part, that’s because of the strategic investments that our government has made through programs like the Jobs and Prosperity Fund.

In yesterday’s budget, which I would be happy to elaborate on in the follow-up answer, there was significantly more funding provided over the next three years to continue to help us strategically invest in the people who are helping build up this province. I’ll elaborate in a quick moment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Ross Romano: Back to the Acting Premier: Again, the Liberals come clean with another astounding fact: They’re admitting that we will be less competitive than the United States. They cite recent tax reforms in the US as just one of the examples why. I represent a border city, and our economies are intrinsically linked, Mr. Speaker. We can’t afford Liberal policies that will drive jobs across the border instead of keeping them in Ontario.

My question is, why will this Premier accept the fact that US tax reforms will make us less competitive? Why will she not help make Ontario prosperous and open for business?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I really don’t understand how a province could be considered any more open for business than Ontario given the incredible economic story we have to tell here in this province.

Specifically in the budget that was tabled yesterday, over the next three years, there will be $935 million, if the budget is passed, in new investments to specifically support something that we’re calling the Good Jobs and Growth Plan. For example, in order to help build Ontario’s talent advantage, we’ll be investing $411 million over three years specifically to work closely with employers, colleges and universities to help people find a job, retain that job or get a better job.

We’re going to be renewing the Jobs and Prosperity Fund with an increase of $900 million over the next 10 years, for a grand total of $3.2 billion since 2014-15. There are a series of other funds that will be embedded within that extended or expanded Jobs and Prosperity Fund.

All of this, Speaker, is part of how we’ve set the table over the last number of years for that economic success story that Ontario has become. We’ll continue to make the right investments.

I would call on the member from Sault Ste. Marie and the Ontario Conservative Party to stand with us and support our business community so they can continue to create jobs in this province.

Assistance to farmers

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Acting Premier. I’m currently the agriculture critic for the NDP and I’m proud to represent a rural riding, but I will always be a farmer. I listened very closely to the finance minister’s speech, and not once did I hear the word “agriculture” or “farmer” or “farm,” so I read the document. Through the text of the document, those words were missing.

Why does it seem that the Liberal government is forgetting the cornerstone of our agri-food industry?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m going to allow the supplementary to go to the Minister of Agriculture, but let me very clearly state this: Even in the speech yesterday I talked at length about the tremendous diversification of our economy and the importance for us to continue to advance in those investments.

One of the biggest ones of all is agri-food processing. We have a beverage and food fund that’s all about agriculture and our rural communities. We introduced it in the budget. It’s meant to ensure that we continue to grow that. It’s one of the biggest contributors to our GDP; I recognize that.

Furthermore, we just recently announced support for rural communities through engagement in our horse racing industry to secure that market as well.

When you look at all the products that are produced by this province—the best quality around the world—they include as well agriculture and fishing, which are major exports. We recognize that importance, and that’s why we’re working alongside other markets to ensure that we can continue to support the industry.

Mr. Speaker, we’re very proud of our agricultural sector and the people of Ontario in our rural communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Acting Premier: For years, farmers have been asking for an increase to the RMP program, which has been capped by the government. It was missing from the budget. For years, they’ve been waiting for an expansion of the product insurance program. Funds for that were missing from the budget.

The only really significant mention directly to the farm sector was that you were going to lobby your federal cousins for assistance for the damage that was going to be caused to the agri-food sector by the TPP. You’re asking for the feds to support agriculture in the budget document. Where is your support for the agricultural sector?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It goes without saying, the profound respect that I have for the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane. But let me share a few things. He talks about the Risk Management Program in the province of Ontario. We’ve ensured that there will be $100 million each and every year for that program. At the advice of the stakeholders, we’re doing a review of the RMP program in the province of Ontario to make sure that every one of those dollars goes where it’s needed within the non-supply-managed sector of Ontario’s ag economy.

It was Ontario that took the initiative on a national basis to reform the national business risk management program for farmers here in Ontario to make sure that they meet Ontario farmer needs in the non-supply-managed sector.

There has never been anything that I’ve had the opportunity to defend more than Ontario’s supply-managed sector, whether it’s talks in Mexico City, whether it was talks in Montreal or whether it’s the talks that are upcoming in Washington, because we want to make sure that that stays intact.

With regard to our Jobs and Prosperity Fund, we’ll continue to invest in the agri-food sector in Ontario, which is a driver of the largest sector in Ontario’s economy today: $37.5 billion and 800,000 jobs predicated on 15,000 family farms in the province of Ontario.

Ontario budget

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question this morning is to the Minister of Finance, and I want to start off by congratulating him on tabling his sixth budget.

The budget that was released yesterday has a focus on care and opportunity for the people of Ontario, and it includes significant new investments in health care, child care, home care and mental health. The budget also focuses on initiatives that make life more affordable and provide more financial security during this time of rapid economic change.

On this side of the House, we’ve taken significant measures to invest in more care and build opportunity for the people of Ontario. From my budget breakfast this morning with stakeholders from Davenport, I can tell you they are pretty excited with what we have announced in the budget.

We have made prescriptions free for everyone under 25 and over 65; we’ve made tuition free for over 225,000 students; and now we’ve made child care free for children aged two and a half until they are eligible for kindergarten. We know these investments will benefit all people in Ontario.

Can the minister please provide more details on the fiscal plan that supports these investments?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member from Davenport. As you know and she mentioned, this is the sixth budget which I’ve had the privilege of delivering for the people of Ontario. Each year we plan for the long-term success of this province.

A balanced budget is by no means an end in itself; it’s a means to an end, and the end is a stronger Ontario. That’s why we’re using our fiscal strength to invest more in our people and our businesses here in our province. We’re investing more, but with fiscal prudence in mind. We do have a path to balance. We have a prudent and sustainable plan to track back to balance, and at the same time, we ensure that we have a sufficient amount of prudence and reserves and contingencies for any shocks to the system.

And we’ll do it again. We’ll provide for a balanced approach, but not at the expense of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Back to the Minister of Finance: I’m pleased that the minister has chosen to invest in the care that Ontarians depend on, including the 225,000 students who are benefiting from free tuition, while creating more opportunities for the hard-working people of this province to share in our economic prosperity. I know that this government has a history of balancing investments with fiscal prudence, which is why I’m pleased to see that there is a path to balance. I know Ontario’s fiscal position remains strong without cutting and slashing the services that Ontarians depend on.

In fact, many of the investments made in the budget will grow our economy by investing in the people of this province.

Can the minister please remind this House what we are doing to create more opportunity in this province while balancing fiscal prudence?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member for Davenport has it right, Mr. Speaker. The government has always taken a fiscally responsible approach. We’ve invested wisely, bringing this province out of recession, and we’ve done this by investing and continuing to invest in Ontarians. It’s why we’re making sure that the peak deficit remains low, at 0.8% of GDP.

We’re making more strategic investments, like child care, that provide more choice for Ontarians; more drug and dental programs to keep families healthier; as well as the healthy home program for seniors so they can be more independent longer; and investing nearly $1 billion over the next three years for our Good Jobs and Growth Plan.

Through this, we will build our talent advantage, increase our business competitiveness, drive our trade, and invest in our infrastructure to the tune of $230 billion over 14 years, a record level of investment that will build a legacy of opportunity for generations to come.

Government fiscal policies

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Finance as well. We are 69 days out from an Ontario election. Right now, the Liberals are touring the province on the taxpayer dime, throwing money at everything that they ignored over the past 15 years. This government continues to show that they will say and do anything in order to cling to power.

Just last year, the Wynne Liberals were committed to, and promised, years of balanced budgets. But yesterday, they announced a $6.7-billion deficit, not for this year, but for this year, next year, the year after that, the year after that, the year after that, and likely to infinity if they continue to be in government.

My question: Why is this government so committed to clinging to power that they have thrown out any fiscal responsibility in their books? How does that minister look at his friends on Bay Street?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we have just come out of the largest recession in our history. We’ve taken the appropriate steps to not make across-the-board cuts, as advocated by the opposition. We continue to move—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We slayed the deficit, we balanced the budget, and we have a surplus of $600 million.

Now we have a choice before us, Mr. Speaker. As the economy is growing slower than anticipated, do we cut those very services and programs? Or do we invest more in hospitals, in roads and bridges, in schools and in child care? Do they want to cut the services that Ontarians depend upon and rely upon? Do they want to cut those programs that stimulate economic growth for the province?

I say no. We’re going to invest, we’re going to grow, and we’re going to support the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I can fix his response for him, Speaker. What we really have in front of us is a $6.7-billion deficit. He has projected $14.4 billion in efficiencies, or, as he likes to call them, “cuts.” We have a $325-billion debt, and our debt interest payments are out of control. The Ontario credit card is maxed out thanks to that minister and that government.

The Liberals had 15 years to fix all of these problems, but only now, 69 days before an election, do they even want to pretend to fix them.

On this side of the aisle, we are ready to fight for hard-working Ontarians and put money back into the pockets of everyday people rather than take $2 billion of taxes out.

So I ask the honourable member one more time: Why doesn’t this government help hard-working Ontario taxpayers? And why do they continue to ring up deficit after deficit after deficit after deficit after deficit?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It might be sooner than you think.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Okay, I’ll just get out of here now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good idea. Have a coffee—no, no; decaf.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite wants to remind us of the deficits that the Progressive Conservative have had in this province. For over 40 years, there have only been eight balanced budgets; only three were from the Conservatives.

The member is now criticizing that we’re the leanest government anywhere in Canada because of the transformations we’ve made to be more productive. The member wants people to feel that it’s wrong that we are the largest growth economy, almost in the world. The member opposite doesn’t like the fact that we have the lowest unemployment in two decades; we’re almost at full capacity. The member opposite totally ignores that the GDP of our province is one of the largest in the world, and our debt-to-GDP is manageable.

Furthermore, she talks about the cost of that debt. I agree, and it’s why we have taken the steps necessary to lower that overall cost. When they were in power, 15.5 cents of every dollar went to pay interest; today, it’s only 8 cents.

Diagnostic services

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre des Finances.

The people of northeastern Ontario have been waiting almost a decade for a PET scanner. Our community raised millions of dollars. We’ve done our part.

Back in December 2015, this government promised to get a PET scanner up and running in Sudbury, but today we are still waiting. Yesterday’s budget was one more disappointment in a long legacy of disappointments from this Liberal government.

Why does the minister’s final budget completely ignore the need for a PET scanner to service the people of northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Health.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, I know this is an issue that has been of some concern to the member opposite.

Before I go into the details of the PET scanner for Sudbury, I just want to say that I am so proud to be part of a government that is making a deliberate choice to invest and to continue to invest in care for the people of Ontario by investing more in health care, hospitals, home care, mental health, long-term care and, indeed, dental care.

As it relates to the Sudbury PET scanner—and I know our member from Sudbury has been very involved with this as a great advocate with the former Minister of Health—we have been investing some $4.6 million in capital spending to build additional space at Health Sciences North for the new PET/CT scanner. This is in addition to the $1.6 million that was announced in December 2015 to cover the operating costs for the scanner at Health Sciences North, which is still on track.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Since 2009, tens of thousands of people—municipal leaders, First Nations leaders and church leaders—have been calling on this Liberal government to help us get a PET scanner in Sudbury.

The Sam Bruno family, a grieving family, has done the impossible: They have raised over $4 million to purchase the scanner. Health Sciences North has done everything that you’ve asked them to do, but we are still waiting. Northerners had to drive for up to seven or eight hours on poorly maintained, icy roads all of last winter to get the care they needed in southern Ontario.

Why does this final budget do nothing to change that and do nothing to get a PET scanner up and running in Sudbury?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise to talk about the PET scanner that we are getting in Sudbury. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that PET scanner is coming. That is thanks to this government. We worked with the community. We made sure that we listened to the concerns. The community of Sudbury asked for a permanent PET scanner, and that’s what our community is getting, not the mobile PET scanner that she advocated for. We’re making sure that we’ve got a permanent PET scanner. It’s going to be on track and it’s going to open up before the end of 2018.

I’m very proud of this government and our investments in health care and that the community of Sudbury is getting that PET scanner.

Health care funding

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Yesterday, our government introduced a budget which includes significant investments in health care. In fact, the 2018 budget increases health care spending by 5% to reduce wait times, provide access to care and enhance the patient experience. Most importantly, this budget includes funding for priority health care services that will have a real impact on Ontario families.

This budget invests in our hospitals, in mental health, in our long-term-care homes, in home care and in our world-class health care professionals.

We know that the people of Ontario want to age in their communities in the comfort of their homes. I myself have told my children that I intend to be home until Steckley funeral home comes to get me.

Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please inform this House of the investments our government is making in home and community care?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member from Barrie for giving me the opportunity to discuss our government’s plan to provide more care at home and in the community.

As our population ages, our government has made it a priority to improve home and community care so that patients can receive care in settings that are as comfortable and convenient for them as possible. That’s why we’re investing $230 million in home and community care. That means that there will be 2.8 million more hours of personal support, the equivalent of 1,400 full-time positions; 284,000 more nursing visits; and 58,000 more therapy visits. We’re also providing $175 million to create 20 new hospices within three years. I want to thank my parliamentary assistants for that initiative.

These investments will keep people out of hospital and help more people get the care they need, at or close to home and in the community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister, for that response, and thank you to the minister and the Premier for all their hard work and dedication, ensuring access to high-quality care across the health sector.

We all know how valuable our skilled, compassionate health care workers are. Our 2018 budget would provide an additional $822 million for hospitals, to ensure that they have the resources to continue doing an incredible job of caring for our loved ones. It also provides $300 million over three years to increase staffing in long-term care homes. That means every long-term care home in the province will benefit from an additional registered nurse on staff.

We also heard yesterday that our government is investing in one of the largest groups in our health workforce: personal support workers. Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please share with this House what our budget is proposing to support PSWs?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you again to the member for that question. I know the third party is particularly interested in this topic, as they asked a question on this topic yesterday.

We do know how critical PSWs are to the health and well-being of Ontarians. As the population ages and more medically complex clients require care, the role of PSWs in our health care system will continue to be critical. That is why, over the next three years, we will invest $23 million to add 5,500 PSWs to the workforce in underserviced communities, a $38-million training and education fund for new and existing PSWs that will ensure that they have the tools they require to support our loved ones, and a $65-million investment over three years in retirement security for PSWs.

It’s so vital that we recognize and support PSWs as trusted and valued members of the health care team, and we’re committed to supporting them to provide quality care to our most vulnerable Ontarians, wherever they may live.

Greenhouse gas emissions

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Tucked away on the last page of the budget papers document tabled in this House yesterday—in fact, the last paragraph in the budget papers—was an indication that the government intends to amend “the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act with respect to the reimbursement of expenditures incurred by the crown for the purposes of funding initiatives that are reasonably likely to reduce or support the reduction of greenhouse gas.”

“Reasonably likely”? Give us a break. Will the minister finally admit that this is proof positive that their carbon tax policy is nothing more than a Liberal slush fund?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. When it comes to the Green Investment Fund, we take our responsibility very seriously. As we know, climate change is of course one of the most serious problems that our province and the world is facing right now. That’s why we implemented our cap-and-trade system. We’ve implemented the cap on pollution for businesses and we’ve allowed investments of $1.9 billion this year in programs that help Ontario residents and businesses make affordable green choices.

Through the Ontario Green Investment Fund, we’re able to help businesses and consumers to save money and reduce their carbon footprint with things like electric vehicle infrastructure and retrofits for homes, social housing, schools, hospitals and colleges.

What I believe the member opposite is talking about is a minor accounting detail that was recommended to us by public officials.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Arnott: The minister seems to be unaware of what is in the budget papers document. It’s on page 307 of the budget papers document. I would suggest he look at it

“Reasonably likely” is subjective. It will mean different things to different people. For a Liberal government on its last legs, it is a loophole so large that they will want and they will try to drive a diesel-powered truck through it. Again, this confirms what we’ve been saying all along: The Liberal government’s carbon tax program is a Liberal slush fund. We know that they will say anything to stay in power. But today, will the minister finally acknowledge the truth to this House: that their carbon tax policy is more about revenue generation than reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Chris Ballard: To the Minister of Finance, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: So, Mr. Speaker, let me reassure everyone in this House. This market approach to cap-and-trade has sourced over $2 billion for the province of Ontario to invest, by law that we put in this House, into green energy to reduce emissions. The members opposite in this House are choosing not to do that. They’re choosing, actually, to do away with our leadership in this green business—

Interjections.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The Auditor General has recommended this very approach that we’ve implied in that document. So we are abiding by the accounting principles, but more importantly, we’re dedicating every dollar to green investments to reduce our emissions, and that side of the House should be supporting that too.

Steel industry

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and for the hundreds of workers who work at Hamilton Specialty Bar in my community, their families and hundreds of pensioners in my community, times are indeed desperate. Of course, you’d never know it, reading the Liberal budget. Not once does it refer to the steel industry. Hamilton Specialty Bar faces liquidation if something isn’t done to extend the negotiating window with a buyer who wants to keep making steel.

Hamilton city council passed a resolution last night to ask the Premier to take an active role, to step up to keep the mill viable until the sale goes through. Will she, Speaker?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the leader of the NDP for her question. I understand there are concerns that have been expressed regarding this very serious issue. I would say that on this side of the House we are disappointed, of course, to hear the news that is coming out of Hamilton Specialty Bar. We have, as a government, been monitoring the situation with respect to Hamilton Specialty Bar throughout the process of receivership. We will continue to work with them as they go through this process and ensure that they have all of the resources necessary. I would be happy to elaborate a little bit more in my follow-up answer to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, it’s action that’s needed, not just monitoring. It’s not just well-paying steel jobs that are in danger here. It’s the pensions for hundreds more who gave their working lives to Hamilton Specialty Bar. But we’ve been here before, unfortunately. Still, there is no commitment from any level of Liberal government that pensioners go to the front of the line in the case of creditor liquidation.

If steel and the thousands of auto sector jobs that depend on a viable made-in-Ontario steel industry were important to this Premier and her government, why weren’t they in the budget?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the leader of the NDP for the follow-up question. I would say, as I said at the outset, that we will continue to monitor the situation and make sure that all the necessary steps are taken as the process unfolds, Speaker. But I would say that the broader context of the question deals with the steel industry and its health here in the province, and over the last number of weeks, as that particular industry, which employs, indirectly and directly, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 53,000 people across the province, including in Hamilton and the Soo and elsewhere—it obviously supports the thriving auto sector that we have here in this province.

This government and our Premier, as we face threats, for example, from south of the border—with the threat of having tariffs being applied by the American administration on steel—this government was the government, Speaker, that was fighting hard on this, that was relentlessly engaging with the Americans, that worked closely with our federal partners so that Canada was able to receive a qualified exemption. As a result of those steps and many others, we were able to celebrate the fact that for the time being, we have that qualified exemption.

In the meantime, this Premier, our finance minister and our government will stand up for our workers and our businesses, including in our domestic steel industry, and we’ll continue to monitor the situation with Hamilton Specialty Bar. I appreciate the question from the leader of the NDP.

Public transit

Mr. Han Dong: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday our Minister of Finance introduced Ontario’s 2018 budget. Speaker, this budget includes an unprecedented $79-billion commitment to transit over the next 14 years. This money will go to delivering critical transit projects right across the province. This budget clearly lays out our plan for care and opportunity.

When I speak to my constituents about what opportunity means to them, affordability is always top of mind. For many commuters in the city of Toronto, taking transit is a necessity, but it also comes with a cost. Members of my community are concerned about overcrowding on Toronto’s transit system. They want to see real relief, and a huge part of that is providing affordable alternatives to Toronto’s local transit network.

Would the minister please provide the members of this House with more information on how budget 2018 will help make transit in the city of Toronto more affordable?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I want to thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for his unwavering commitment to delivering real results for his community.

Our government knows that we need to keep making transit a more convenient option for commuters, and a critical part of that is making it more affordable.

That is why I’m so pleased that budget 2018 includes our government’s commitment to reducing GO and UP Express fares for travel within the city of Toronto to just $3 on a Presto card. This will take effect in early 2019 and put GO and UP Express fares in line with adult TTC fares, which will help make GO and UP Express a real choice for commuters travelling within the city of Toronto. Not only will this make our transit network more affordable; we know it will also help address capacity challenges on the TTC network.

So whether it’s building new transit or leaving more money in the pockets of commuters, our government is absolutely committed to improving your commute. Whether you live in Etobicoke, Scarborough, Liberty Village or the downtown core, this will make a real difference to transit commuters.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for the answer. I’m pleased to hear of our government’s commitment to making our transit network more affordable. I know that fare integration is a top priority for our team at the Ministry of Transportation.

The existing approach to fares in our region is complex, and finding a solution requires a significant amount of planning and co-operation. Our government has taken a number of measures to reduce barriers and make commuting across this region simpler and more affordable.

Most recently, prior to budget 2018, we introduced a $1.50 discount for transit riders transferring between GO Transit or the UP Express and the TTC. Metrolinx has found that GO Transit and UP Express transfers to TTC grew by 23% in both January and February 2018. Compared to the 2017 total, it’s a significant increase. This discount is helping to save commuters, on average, $720 per year.

Speaker, can the minister please provide more information to the members of this House on how budget 2018 will help make it easier to move between the different transit systems in our region?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the member from Trinity–Spadina for his question.

In addition to $3 flat fares for GO and UP Express trips within the city of Toronto, our government is also reducing the cost of taking GO for transit riders at a number of stations across the GTHA. We are also creating a $3 flat fare for GO trips that are less than 10 kilometres. These changes will also come into effect in early 2019 and will make taking transit a much better option for commuters deciding between taking their car to work or hopping on GO.

We’ve also heard that a major challenge for commuters is having to pay two full fares when using both the TTC and their local transit service in the 905. That’s why, as committed in budget 2018, we’ll work with the TTC and a number of local transit agencies to introduce real discounts to transit users who transfer between the municipal transit networks and—

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

New question.

Government fiscal policies

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Acting Premier. Premier Wynne once said, “I think everyone here knows that eliminating the deficit is the most important thing we can do to move to economic growth.” Mr. Speaker, if that’s the case, why is the Premier running six straight years of deficits?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we have balanced the budget. We’ve slain the deficit; we have a surplus of $600 million.

Going forward, everyone in this House has a choice to make. Do we not continue to build and invest in the things that matter to the people of Ontario, given that our growth in our economy is more tempered than we had anticipated? Do we not continue to build in prudence and reserves and contingencies to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a position where we are not able to fend for those most in need?

We have chosen to make those investments at less than 0.8% of our GDP so that we can continue to support them and grow our economy. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re putting more money in people’s pockets. We’re helping our young families succeed. We’re ensuring our seniors have better care. And we’re going to continue to support child care, up to $17,000 per child, so that they too can get a better start in life.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Acting Premier: The people inside and outside the House will have a choice of whether to trust a government that continues to break promises year after year.

Premier Wynne said, “I actually believe that fiscal prudence and a strong economy are connected. I think that they are absolutely connected, and that’s why we have remained committed to our elimination of the deficit....”

“Fiscal prudence”? “Strong economy”? Not what comes to mind when people think about this Liberal government. In fact, they’re going to drive our debt up to $400 billion. Mr. Speaker, what happened to “fiscal prudence and a strong economy”?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we have built in fiscal prudence and we have a strong economy. The fact of the matter is, we outpace Canada and the G7 and the majority of the United States, and that’s only because of the investments that we made to stimulate that growth, unlike the member opposite, who’d have us slash those investments, not make the investments in infrastructure like roads and bridges, schools and hospitals, or high-speed rail or broadband that we’re now introducing in this budget to make our rural communities stronger. They’re going to vote against those very measures.

We will continue to support our families—more supports for mental health and addiction, more supports for hospitals and more supports for seniors’ care. All of these things matter and enable people to have a greater opportunity to share in the prosperity that this province now enjoys.

Employment standards

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: To the Acting Premier: Recently, this Liberal government decided that auto workers should have fewer emergency leave days and scheduling protections than every other worker in Ontario. Yesterday we learned there is no auto strategy in budget 2018. There are workers in Windsor, Oshawa, Cambridge, Woodstock, Brampton, Peterborough, St. Catharines and across the province who are left wondering why this Liberal government chose to neglect them yet again.

Auto workers deserve a comprehensive plan for the sector that will protect jobs and growth in our communities. They deserve a government that supports and respects them. Speaker, should we assume that the Liberals are simply adopting the old Conservative mentality to just let the auto sector die?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you very much for that question. I don’t think there’s any government in the history of the province of Ontario that has done more to ensure that we have a stable, secure auto sector in this province. The job creation ratio that goes along with that sector is one that is appreciated, Speaker, by all members on this side of the House. The investments we’ve made in that are proof positive, Speaker. We work along with Unifor. We work along with the parts plants.

I don’t think there’s any better evidence than that yesterday, when the budget was presented, one of the people who was most outspoken in praise of this budget was Jerry Dias, the president of the auto workers’ union. If you want a clear indication, he was telling us this is a very socially progressive budget. Nobody understands auto like Unifor, Speaker.

I think we’ve done a tremendous job ensuring that Ontario has a stable economy. Auto is a huge part of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The minister can talk about respecting the auto sector, but I have received hundreds of emails, phone calls and petitions from auto workers across Ontario. They have told me that they have contacted the Premier, they’ve contacted the Minister of Labour, even Conservative members in their ridings, about the Liberal government’s discriminatory regulation. They have been ignored—no response. Only New Democrats have been standing in solidarity with these workers.

On April 22, thousands of these auto workers are coming to Queen’s Park. They are rallying to show this Liberal government just how fed up they are with being pushed aside. I’ll be there and other New Democrats will be there. Speaker, will the Premier, the Minister of Labour or anyone in this Liberal government be here on April 22 to meet the auto workers and explain why they chose to discriminate against them?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to take a moment to echo what the Minister of Labour said in response to the first question about not only the ongoing and incredible support that our government has provided to Ontario’s auto sector, but also what that success has meant for our economy.

For example, since 2004, our government has invested $1.42 billion in auto, leveraging $16.4 billion and creating or retaining more than 82,000 jobs.

We’ve also helped to attract investment since fall 2016, including investments at the Chrysler and Ford facilities in Windsor, in Woodstock and in St. Catharines, and at Honda’s facility in Alliston—not to mention the rest of the supply chain, which we know employs tens of thousands of other skilled Ontarians.

In 2017, for example, we know over 100,000 direct jobs in the auto manufacturing sector—vehicle assembly and parts. This is why we specifically made these investments.

I look forward to continuing to work closely with all—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I remind the member: When I stand, you sit—and also that we’re still in warnings.

New question.

Seniors

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of Seniors Affairs. As I’m sure you know, seniors make up the fastest-growing segment of Ontario’s population. Today, there are more than two million seniors in our province, and that number is expected to double in the next 25 years. Seniors have spent a lifetime contributing to their communities and to the economy. They continue to do tremendous work, as is the case with seniors in my riding of Kingston and the Islands.

We need a government that is willing to make impactful investments in care so our seniors have the supports they need to live healthy, active, independent, safe and socially connected lives.

This government knows that seniors are wanting to remain in their homes for as long as they can, like my colleague from Barrie.

Last November, your ministry announced $155 million in investments to support Aging with Confidence: Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Seniors Affairs explain to this House how the budget of 2018 continues to invest in care for Ontario seniors?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to begin by thanking the member from Kingston and the Islands for this very important question and for giving me the opportunity to discuss how our government is choosing to continue to invest in care for our seniors.

In November of last year, we announced Aging with Confidence, a $155-million plan for seniors. At that point, I made it very clear that that was just the beginning and that there was more to come. We’ve kept our promise, and I’m so proud that, yesterday, in our 2018 budget, we took another step in ensuring that seniors can continue to live in their own homes for as long as they can, as the member from Barrie so passionately talked about. The new Seniors’ Healthy Home Program will provide up to $750 annually to seniors aged 75 years or older for every eligible household—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Nice try. I go by the clock.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the member for Nipissing has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to implement budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes. The order for second reading of Bill 31 may therefore not be called today.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I recognize the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills on a point of order.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce guests of the Trillium Party of Ontario. We have two candidates: Lucy Guerrero, representing Humber River–Black Creek, and George Garvida, representing Scarborough–Guildwood.

We have supporters of theirs: Hilda Sembrano, Marco Garcia Ramirez, Rich Persad, Olumuyiwa Ajibolade, Gilda Trinidad, Silva Beatriz, Maria Paznino, Roberid Arias, Susanna Giron, Editha Antolin, Rosaria Sanchez and Norma Lanuza. Welcome

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Sault Ste. Marie on a point of order.

Mr. Ross Romano: I am very