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

November 1, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Nov-01 (PDF)

L045 - Thu 1 Nov 2018 / Jeu 1er nov 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 1 November 2018 Jeudi 1 er novembre 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Remembrance Day

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Flu immunization

Health care

Ethical standards

Economic outlook

Select Committee on Financial Transparency

Remembrance Day

Cannabis regulation

Climate change

Automobile insurance

Youth services

Immigration and refugee policy

Labour dispute

Taxation

Automobile insurance

Carbon monoxide / Monoxyde de carbone

Workplace safety

Skilled trades

Visitors

Adam Shaw

Member for Toronto–Danforth

Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week

Visitor

Canadian soldiers

All Saints’ Day

Notice of dissatisfaction

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Sudbury Workers Education and Advocacy Centre

Down syndrome

Brampton university

Polish Independence Day

Employment standards

Social assistance

Diwali

Local business

Attack in Pittsburgh

Oxi Day

Reports by Committees

Select Committee on Financial Transparency

Introduction of Bills

Juries Statute Law Amendment Act (Juror Eligibility), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les jurys (habilité des juré

s) Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Crime Prevention Week / Semaine de la prévention du crime

Petitions

Employment standards

Animal protection

Social assistance

Employment standards

Public safety

Employment standards

Public safety

Employment standards

Private Members’ Public Business

Ending Automobile Insurance Discrimination in the Greater Toronto Area Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 mettant fin à la discrimination en matière d’assurance-automobile dans le Grand Toronto

Brunt and Kendall Act (Ensuring Safe Firefighter and Trainee Rescue Training), 2018 / Loi Brunt et Kendall de 2018 (formation sécuritaire des pompiers et des élèves pompiers en sauvetage)

Child Care and Early Years Amendment Act (Not-for-Profit Corporations), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance (organisations sans but lucratif)

Ending Automobile Insurance Discrimination in the Greater Toronto Area Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 mettant fin à la discrimination en matière d’assurance-automobile dans le Grand Toronto

Brunt and Kendall Act (Ensuring Safe Firefighter and Trainee Rescue Training), 2018 / Loi Brunt et Kendall de 2018 (formation sécuritaire des pompiers et des élèves pompiers en sauvetage)

Child Care and Early Years Amendment Act (Not-for-Profit Corporations), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance (organisations sans but lucratif)

Ending Automobile Insurance Discrimination in the Greater Toronto Area Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 mettant fin à la discrimination en matière d’assurance-automobile dans le Grand Toronto

Child Care and Early Years Amendment Act (Not-for-Profit Corporations), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance (organisations sans but lucratif)

Report, Integrity Commissioner

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We will begin this morning with a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

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

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, 2009 and make complementary amendments to other Acts, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on second reading may not be deferred pursuant to standing orders 9(

c) or 28(h); and

That at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 15, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 47:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 12 p.m. on Tuesday, November 13, 2018; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee or their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 2 p.m. on Tuesday, November 13, 2018; and

—That each member of the subcommittee or their designate provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk, by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2018; and

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

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, November 15, 2018; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 4 p.m. on Friday, November 16, 2018; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall be authorized to meet on Monday, November 19, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Monday, November 19, 2018, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to Standing Order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, November 20, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill with 50 minutes allotted to the government; 40 minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition; 15 minutes to the independent Liberal members, and 15 minutes allotted to the independent Green member; and

That at the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the third reading vote shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government motion number 15. I return to the minister for any comments to open the debate.

None moved.

Further debate?

Interjection: Good job.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s never a good job when you move a time allocation motion, I’ll just say to the minister across the way who made that comment to her minister. Time allocation, I think, is probably one of the worst things we’ve done, when it comes to making this place not function for members, because what it means is that all of us as individual members are essentially muted and not given the opportunity to use that power to put some pressure on our own caucuses about stuff—but, anyway, that’s for another debate.

I want to speak a bit to the actual subject of the time allocation motion that we’re dealing with here now, and that is around Bill 47. There are a few things that I want to put on the record that I know that the government is not going to agree with, because they see things a certain way. Obviously, I see things a different way.

I’m going to start with the College of Trades and the trade ratio part of the bill. I think what the government is doing here is, essentially, inserting itself into a debate that, quite frankly, it should not be mixed up in. The idea of the College of Trades—let’s remember how the College of Trades came around.

I’m not a big fan of the College of Trades. I let my licence go as a result of the College of Trades, because I used to be able to renew my licence as an electrician for a pretty minimal fee. The College of Trades came in and the price of relicensing at the college went through the roof. There are some aspects about the College of Trades that I don’t like, so I want to put that on the record.

However, when it came to the ratios, it was the body that brought together the contractors, the industrial sector, the unions and the lay people within our society in order to discuss what the proper ratio is when it comes to trades, because that is a forever-changing thing. In some sectors, for example, for small electrical contractors, it’s essentially a 1-to-1 ratio. You have one journeyman to one apprentice, and that kind of works and that makes sense. There are other sectors where you don’t want to do that.

For example, if you’re working at Pickering and you’re a steamfitter, the ratio is three journeypeople to one apprentice. That’s probably a good thing. Do you want unqualified people working on a nuclear reactor? Because, I can tell you, I was an apprentice, and when I started apprenticing, I didn’t know very much about my trade. So do you want people who are untrained and unqualified to work on a nuclear reactor? I think the answer is no. So there are some reasons why in some cases we have 3-to-1, where it makes some sense, and there are some reasons where we have 1-to-1 that make some sense.

But when the government is the one who is trying to pick the winners and losers, as my friends on the Conservative side like to say—I think that government shouldn’t be picking the winner and loser in this case.

Part of the idea of the College of Trades was that the College of Trades itself and its board would look at the ratios that were appropriate at the time for the various trades and the various workplaces, and then they, as a group, would decide what is best. Now, if I have the unionized and non-unionized contractors at the table, I have the journeypeople at the table, I have the unions at the table and I have the public at the table, who better to come up with the answer as to what the ratios should be than a group of experts who happen to be working in that industry to inform us on what the ratios should be?

Is everybody around the table happy with the decision? Absolutely not, because obviously, if I’m coming in as a contractor, I want one thing; if I’m coming in as a journeyman or journeywoman, I’m coming up and wanting something else. So there will always be somebody who is unhappy with the decision, but it is an informed discussion that brings us to a decision that we can all live with.

What the government is saying now, by getting rid of the College of Trades in the way that you are, is: “We’re going to pick. I, Doug Ford, know what’s good for Ontario, and I’m going to decide what the heck the ratios should be.” I think that’s wrong, Mr. Speaker. I think the Premier of the province—or any individual member, for that fact—is not the one who should decide what the ratios are. I don’t think I should decide what the ratio should be for an electrician, as a former journeyman electrician.

I think the proper place for that to happen is at the College of Trades board, where they’re informed about what the ups and downs are of the various ratios. In some trades, for example, in electrical—

Mr. Roman Baber: How is that going?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What?

Mr. Roman Baber: How is that going?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That goes pretty well, the part about the ratios. Listen, I don’t disagree with you that there are problems at the College of Trades. I’m not a big fan of the College of Trades. This is not the point that I’m making. The point that I’m making is: The people who decide what the ratios are are the people around that board who are made up of all of the various people in the trade.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Why not let the people who are involved in the trade—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Excuse me. The member for York Centre will come to order, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think the member from York Centre protests too much. But my point is: Who better to make that decision?

I hear, over and over and over again, Conservatives in opposition and Conservatives in government say always the same thing: “Government shouldn’t be trying to pick the winners and losers; we should let the market decide that.” They’re the market. They’re the contractors. They’re the consumers. They’re the people who work in the industry. They’re the ones who are deciding what the ratios should be under the current model. I may not like the result, but at least that’s a sane way of coming to what the ratios are.

We tend to generalize because we’re politicians. The great thing about politicians: We know a little bit about everything. But we’re not experts in everything, right? The longer you hear, the more you know a few things about everything, but we’re not experts on absolutely everything.

My point is that we now have politicians who know a little bit about trades saying, “Oh, well, I know what’s best when it comes to a ratio in the trades.” I think that’s wrong. Governments shouldn’t be picking the losers and the winners; I think that we should allow the marketplace to do that. In that case, that marketplace happens to be the College of Trades board.

Are there problems in the College of Trades? I’m with you. As a New Democrat, I’ve never liked the College of Trades in the way it was set up; I think there are some things that, quite frankly, were missed in how this thing was set up. But one good aspect is how we get to the apprenticeship ratio.

The second point I would make in regard to the apprenticeship ratios: I’ve heard members in this House talk about, “Oh, yes, but electricians, this is their ratio.” There are differences within the trades as to ratios. If you’re a small electrical contractor company, the application is 1 to 1. If you’re ICI, the ratio is either 2 to 1 or 3 to 1—I’m not quite sure, and I should know; I worked in the ICI years ago. But if you work in mining, there is no ratio. I come out of the mining sector, where I apprenticed as an electrician. There was no ratio.

You hired as many apprentices as you wanted, and you didn’t even have to have any journeymen, let alone one, because there were no ratios; it didn’t apply in the Mining Act. There are other industries in Ontario where it’s exactly the same thing. I made this point yesterday.

When I was hired in the 1970s at the Pamour group of mines, in this case the McIntyre mine in Timmins, I was one of seven people who were hired within about, I would say, a couple of months’ period. I was one of the first ones hired, and they hired seven apprentices. When they hire the apprentice, you get paid code 3 or class 3, as we used to call it—third class. Once you go to school for the first time, you get second class, and then when you finish your trades training at school, you get your first class. You become a specialist once you actually become a journeyman with the required amount of experience.

So what the company would do is, they would hire a group of apprentices. They would have us work to the point of getting to maybe a second-class electrician—in other words, you’d gone to basic training at trade school—and then there would be a layoff.

I worked in the gold sector, right? In the gold industry, the price is up; the price is down; the price is up; the price is down. The company utilized that—rightfully so—to adjust their workforce based on what the price of gold was. The effect was that one of the first places they would go was the trades, because all of these now second-class electricians were starting to cost more money, so they were able to put us out the door on layoff because our original layoff language when I started at that mine was one year. They would work a year, and then they would hire a whole new group of unqualified apprentices.

So we would start all over again. Why? Because there are jobs in the electrical business that I worked in, at least in mining, that took some skill but you didn’t have to be a journeyman. For example, servicing underground locomotives—those are electric motors that work with batteries, that run on tracks that haul ore and men—or fixing a trolley line underground. There are certain things that you can do with a certain amount of supervision and do it effectively and do it safely.

But most what of what we did in our trade, quite frankly, like servicing man-hoists, where people get on a hoist and they go down 5,000 feet at the end of a steel cable—you need to have a journeyman who is licensed, he or she, to make sure that thing is certified and working in proper order. I was working on a hoist as a journeyman at the Hollinger, and it turned out that the company that designed the hoist put two safety limits, not in series, but they put them in parallel.

Just to get a very long story—there was an incident where they had a skip man-hoist set up in that particular shaft so the top was the skip and underneath was the man-cage. What they did is, they pulled the skip into the sheave wheel up at the top of the headframe with the men inside the cage at the bottom who hit a sort of a bulkhead that we put there when we used to pull ore from the top loading pocket. The guys could have been killed, but the thing never tripped on safety.

I was the electrician on call. You wouldn’t want an apprentice going in to do this. I went in and I took a look at the hoist. I had never worked on that particular hoist before. As I am looking at the drawings, the safeties on the underwinds and the overwinds on the safety limit on the Lilly were both in parallel. Well, that means to say that if one of them opens, the path goes through the parallel circuit, and so it never tripped out. Imagine: If you had an apprentice who wasn’t certified do that, that would never have been caught. Maybe it would have happened again and maybe the next time it would have killed somebody. You have to have qualified people doing things.

The first point I just want to make is, you think you’re creating a solution here by mucking around with the ratios? You’re actually, I think, going to make things not better. You’re going to make them worse.

The second effect of this is, and this is why I think the government is doing it: Let’s say you’re a unionized contractor and you’re bidding on work and you’re following the ratio, because now it’s in your collective agreement, right? And you have a non-unionized contractor who is bidding on the same work but doesn’t have the same requirement because they don’t have a collective agreement and they’re following the new ratio system that the Ford government wants to put in place.

They’re going to be able to undercut the contract somewhat because their labour costs will be somewhat less because they’re going to have more apprentice-to-journeyman ratios. What you’re essentially doing is, you’re making it unfair for a whole group of contractors, especially in the ICI industry, who don’t want this. There is a whole bunch of contractors—and I know you’ve talked to them—who don’t want you to muck around with the ratios because it’s going to give an unfair advantage to the other side.

So here you are, again, the party of business, open for business. You’re putting signs down on the highways at the borders, “Open for Business,” and here you are giving a certain group of our contractors who don’t want the ratios mucked around with—you’re going in and you’re mucking around the marketplace deciding what is good and what is bad, picking winners and losers, and you’re helping another class of contractors who are not, in this case, unionized. You can’t be the party of business and open for business when you’re doing those kinds of things.

I look at what you’ve done on the select committee, where you’ve decided to release all kinds of private, personal information of companies—information at the IESO and at OPG. You’ve taken private, confidential financial information and made it available for the public at a point where anybody can see what was inside those documents. It was kind of funny because my good friend the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane was on the committee. He said, “I can’t believe it.” It’s got to be the New Democrats who are telling you you’re doing something wrong. Even the NDP understands that you do not take personal, private information and make it public.

When we were on the committee that dealt with the government on the gas plants stuff, we had the same issue, where there was a huge document dump that was requested by New Democrats and Conservatives. When the information was about to be dumped, we were given the warning bell: “Hey, there’s some stuff in here that might be—like chequebook numbers, cell numbers, social insurance numbers, all kinds of stuff like that.” We said, “All right. You give us all that stuff redacted, but we want the un-redacted not released but given to us, so we can look to see if there is anything that’s off.”

Mr. John Vanthof: That makes sense.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Right? This government, because now they don’t have New Democrats helping them make decisions, I guess, decides, “No, no. It’s okay. We’ll take all that business information.” You know that company that came over, spilled their guts and put all their financials down in order to bid on a project? They’ve given their bank account numbers. They’ve given their net worth. They’ve given what their liabilities are. They’ve given all their financial data, phone numbers, addresses and all kinds of stuff. They give it to the IESO and OPG, and you guys say, “Yeah, yeah, yeah. Put it out there to anybody who wants to see it.”

Mr. John Vanthof: That’s exactly what they did.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It took the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, a New Democrat, to tell you guys, “Hey, whoa. What are you doing? You don’t do that.” It took, what, a couple of days for them to finally figure it out?

Mr. John Vanthof: Twenty-four hours.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Twenty-four hours. They finally figured out that, holy jeez, this is a problem. The problem is that that information was out there for over two days. I’m sure somebody got a hold of that information by now.

Mr. John Vanthof: Anybody who was interested.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: When governments say, like yours, “We’re open for business,” and “We’re the government of the people; we’re going to do all these things,” the reality is that you guys are the worst. You’re worse than the Liberals, for God’s sake, on this stuff. You absolutely are. You don’t take personal, private information and make it public. That’s not “open for business.” You don’t pick winners and losers when it comes to apprentice ratios either. That’s the apprenticeship part.

Again, I just want to be clear: I too have problems with the College of Trades; don’t get me wrong. But the basic idea of having the college decide what the ratio should be makes an infinite amount of sense rather than we, the politicians, making that decision.

The second thing I want to speak to is your changes to the Employment Standards Act. On this, I just have to say, you have got to shake your heads. Back in the day when people of my age went out to work—I’m 61 years old. When we started work in the early 1970s, it was a pretty highly unionized environment, the industrial workplaces of Ontario.

If you went to Falconbridge, Inco, Pamour, Stelco or you went to any of those companies, they were unionized. Those collective agreements were put in place and provided things like bereavement leave, when can you have three weeks’ holidays, when are you allowed to have a sick day, what the rules are—all of those rules were spelled out in our collective agreements. That was the majority of workplaces back in the day.

I would argue through the 1960s, 1970s and even the early 1980s, to a degree, the workplaces of Ontario by and large were protected by collective agreements. Even places like Dofasco that weren’t unionized made sure to follow the same standards that the unionized people had because they didn’t want the union in. So there was a natural competition; there was a natural market within the workforce where employers who wanted to hold on to their employees and not have them unionize would offer what the unionized employees had.

For example, where I was, in Timmins, all of the mines in Timmins were all unionized under the steelworkers except for, at the time, Kidd Creek. So what did Kidd Creek do to keep the union out? They gave better benefits and they gave better wages. They decided as a corporation, “In order to keep the union out, we’re going to sweeten the pot a little bit.” If we had two days floaters, they had three days floaters. If the rate was this, they paid a little bit more on the rate.

There was a natural competition within the workplace, because there were employers that didn’t want the union, and the way they kept the union out is to pay people a little bit more and to treat them better when it comes to basic benefits around things like holidays.

The economy of today is no longer the economy of the 1970s. The majority of people that work in our society are non-unionized. My daughter works in your riding, sir—I’m looking at the member from Whitby. She’s a professional. She’s a nurse practitioner. She’s not unionized. So here’s a person making over $100,000 a year who is non-unionized.

There are all kinds of people in our society who work for employers that are not unionized who are the middle class. We’re not talking about the $14- or $15-an-hour worker; we’re talking about people that are $60,000 to $120,000 a year. There is a whole class of people who are non-union. People that worked on your farm, sir, were not unionized, right?

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: And you didn’t pay them minimum wage, I would venture. You probably paid them more than minimum wage.

If you look around our society today, most of our workplaces are, unfortunately, more part-time work and smaller in size because now the economy we have today—the creation of the plant that hired—how many people in the heyday of Inco? Sixteen thousand? Eighteen thousand?

M me France Gélinas: Twenty-two thousand.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Twenty-two thousand. When I was working at the Pamour, there were 22,000 people working at Inco. Today, they’re what—3,000?

M me France Gélinas: Yep.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Right.

The mine that I worked for, the Noranda group—we were probably around 3,000 in that group of three mines. There’s zero now. It’s a completely different workplace.

Guess who works in mining and guess who works in all of these things now? A lot of them are contractors. A lot of the mines subcontract the work of the actual mining and maintenance to contractors who are non-union. A lot of people who work in the health field are non-union because there has been more privatization in health care under the Liberals when they were in office for 15 years than there was under Mike Harris, for God’s sake. My point is, the workplace of today doesn’t have the protections of the collective agreement that it used to have in the past, so you have to modernize the Employment Standards Act. That’s what this exercise was partly about.

I think the Liberal government did a terrible job. I don’t think they dealt with half of what should have been done inside the changes of the Employment Standards Act. That’s why we, as New Democrats, actually proposed some amendments to that legislation, because we thought, if you look around the world, everybody else in the industrial world except for North America—you’ve got Donald Trump and Mr. Ford, who kind of think the same way. The rest of the industrial world says, “You know what? You need to have your labour standards reflect the day.”

The idea of the changes in the Employment Standards Act were, “Let’s give workers and young professionals in our workplace some basic protections that used to be covered by collective agreements.” For example, bereavement leave—that you don’t need to bring in a death certificate to prove that you buried your father or your mother. Let’s make sure that people have the ability to have a sick day and not have to come to work when they’re sick, number one, and get everybody else sick, or have to lose a day’s pay because they’re ill, because in most unionized workplaces, you have that basic benefit.

When it comes to benefits around holidays, so that you have employers—and I know because I talk to a lot of these people around Ontario who have medium-sized firms and who are paying their people 18, 19 or 20 bucks an hour but give hardly anything when it comes to holidays. So there were some minimum standards put in for holidays. I think time off is what a lot the new workforce wants, more so than money sometimes.

We have two daughters. One is a psychometric therapist and the other one is a nurse practitioner. If you went to them and said, “I’ll give you an extra $1,500 a year or I’ll give you a week’s holiday,” I’ll tell you what they would vote for if they had a collective agreement. Both of them are professionals with no union where they work. They would take the time off.

What the Employment Standards Act changes were about was modernizing the Employment Standards Act from the standards of the 1960s and 1970s, when we were highly unionized, to a time today where we’re not as unionized, so that workers and young professionals could at least get basic coverage when it came to benefits. That’s what that was all about. And you guys are saying we’re open for business? Oh, we’re open for business because those at the top should make more money by denying those who work and do the work for them to get money—that they get less. I think that’s pretty sad—very, very sad, quite frankly.

You’ve got on that side a government who is trying to drive us to the lowest standards, like we want to become the Alabama of Canada, while the rest of the world—in Europe and other places—has gone completely the other way. If you look at the economies that outperform us, who are they? They’re the Denmarks. They’re the Swedens. They’re the Finlands. They’re the Germanys. Guess what they do? They have employment standards that would make your head blow up as Conservatives. Their minimum wage in Denmark is $22 an hour, in our dollars.

Their standards when it comes to holidays and time off are far superior to anything that was even contemplated by the Liberals in that failed piece of employment standards legislation that they had. And guess what? Their economies are doing well, because business over there understands—with government—that if workers are motivated, are treated fairly and are happy, guess what? They’re more productive. They come to work with a bounce in their step and they say, “I’m prepared to give extra to my workplace because I don’t have to worry, when I’m sick, that I’m going to have to lose time because I’m sick.

I don’t have to worry, if I’m escaping domestic abuse, that I’m going to have to worry about losing time as a result of that stuff not being in the provisions of the Employment Standards Act back then.” So you guys say you’re open for business. No, you’re not. You’re trying to bring business back to the good old days.

Let’s just cut to the chase. Serfdom worked well for some. If you look at the Soviet Union prior to the czars being thrown out, and if you look at England prior to about the 1400s, serfdom worked really well. The guys at the top had everything. The rest of us—99% of us—had nothing, and we were beholden to our landowners. Well, that’s where you want to bring us. Why don’t you just say it? You’re trying to return us to a modern type of serfdom. That’s all you’re trying to do here.

You’re saying the guys at the top should have more and those of us who keep all those people at the top—the people who work and make the money in the economy—should have less. Government of the people? Come on. That’s not of the people; that’s a government of the 1%.

Do I argue, as a New Democrat, that those at the top shouldn’t have the ability to make money? I want them to make all kinds of money. The more people can dream their dreams and live their dreams and make money and be successful in business, the better it is for all of us, because they hire people, they do create wealth. We understand that. But there have to be some rules of civility in our society.

There have to be some rules that say, on the one hand, yes, that company should have the ability to grow and prosper and make good profits—good for everybody, good for us because we get taxes, good for the workers because they get jobs, and maybe good when it comes to the product because they invent something that we would like, like an iPhone, or whatever it might be. But at the other end, those people who create the wealth—the real wealth creators—are the people who make the product, who sell the product, who service the product, who do all of the things that are needed for that company to work.

From the bookkeeper to the person taking out the garbage, all of them have a role to play in making that money. If we don’t treat those people well, the economy doesn’t work well.

What you guys are really trying to do here is turn the clock back. And, yes, there are some working-class people out there who support you. I understand that. Jeez, as a New Democrat, if I don’t understand that, I’m in trouble. But I’ll tell you why. It’s because a lot of people out there are very mad. They’re frustrated at their lot in life. They say, “I work hard. I didn’t get the same chance as she did down there or he did down there. My dad wasn’t rich. I didn’t have a great education. Our family struggled. There were all kinds of problems in the household, and I had to listen to arguments every day.

I didn’t get the chance to go to school, as other people did in order to be able to get the chances that they have now.” So they end up in a job that makes a salary that allows them to survive. In some cases they like that job, and in some cases they don’t. That’s who you’re playing to as your base—those people who don’t—because they’re mad. They’re mad that they see other people getting ahead and they’re falling behind. They’re mad at the traffic on the road when they have to drive the one hour or two hours through traffic to get to where they have to go.

They’re mad when they look at their cheque and they don’t have enough to make ends meet at the end of the day. You guys play on that.

It’s a good thing that the Premier of Ontario makes bumper stickers, because that’s what you are—you’re a bumper sticker kind of government: “Government of the People”; “Cut the Minimum Wage”; “Get Rid of Employment Standards”; “Good for Business.”

What’s the one that Lisa MacLeod uses all the time? “The Best—

Hon. Rod Phillips: “The Best Social Program is a Job.”

Mr. Gilles Bisson: “The Best Social Program is a Job.”

Everybody in our society can work—is that what you guys are suggesting? You have constituency offices, like I do, and you see those people walking in every day. Some of them are victims of their upbringing. They’ve had a lot of trauma to deal with, and they’re not doing too well these days. Some of them have mental health issues. Some of them have physical issues. Some of them have health issues and are not able to work. My sister was schizophrenic. She lived on ODSP and the Canada Pension Plan her entire life. You’re saying she could have gone out and gotten a job? Poor Louise had visions and voices at the same time. She didn’t do too well in the workplace.

When you hear Conservatives playing that ratchet of fear and playing the bumper sticker stuff to those in our society who are not as fortunate as you and I—because all of us here were the lucky ones. We’re the ones who probably did well because we had something good going on in our lives. Some people overcame very tough odds; I understand that. But the people who got to this place are the people who were able to make it through. But there are a lot of people who can’t.

When we play that type of game and we say that employment standards are not important because they’re going to get a better job by making an economy where everybody can work because employment standards kill jobs—no, it doesn’t. Do you think any employer who is trying to run a company in Ontario is able to hold onto employees at 11 bucks an hour? I went in and met with a whole bunch of medium-sized and smaller businesses in my riding in the previous constituency week; not one of them was worried about the minimum wage, because they’re all paying more than the minimum wage. Do you know why?

Because if you want people, you have got to pay. It’s like anything else: If you want a good steak, you pay a little bit more money. If you want fresher vegetables, you pay a little bit more money. If you want a loyal workforce with training, you pay a little bit more money. They understand.

The jobs we’re talking about at the minimum wage are those jobs that, quite frankly, are the harder jobs to fill. When you talk to those people that are paying the minimum wage, they’re having a hard time holding onto people.

Last summer sometime, I was talking to somebody—I walked into Walmart, and the guy said, “Hey, the McDonald’s in Walmart is closed.” I said, “Really? I didn’t know they closed.” Then he says, “Yeah, I went there to grab an Egg McMuffin this morning, and no staff showed up.” Well, all right; if you’re living in Timmins, where you can get a job at $17 an hour or you can get a job at McDonald’s at $14 an hour, where do you think people are going to go? It’s harder to staff up at the lower wages.

All you’re doing is making that disparity even worse. You’re not helping those guys at the bottom. At the end of the day, they’re going to have a harder time trying to attract good employees at a lower wage than they will at a higher wage. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is that those people who make more money, who went from $11-and-something an hour to $14 an hour, don’t spend the money in the Cayman Islands—not like the people in the 1%, who make money, have investments and put their money in the Cayman Islands because they don’t want to pay their taxes. All of these people pay their taxes and they their spend their money in their local community, so the money recirculates and they do rather well.

I just wanted a chance to put some of the ideas on the record. At this point, I know that our deputy House leader wants to speak to this. But I’ll just say to the government: You’re going to have some hearings on this thing; I think you should have more hearings and I think you should hear what workers and others have to say and what small businesses have to say who are on the flip side of you when it comes to this, because I can tell you, they’re out there.

As I travelled my riding three weeks ago during constituency week and met with small business, there were a lot of people out there who were not—the minimum wage was not the issue to them. You guys think you’re scoring one here; I think you’re completely wrong and you’re going in the opposite direction.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I know that other people want to speak to this motion.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to rise today as we’re debating time allocation on Bill 47. As we know, Bill 47 is our government’s repair of what the previous Liberal government brought in—their Bill 148. We’re keeping some of the changes that they brought in for the employment standards with Bill 148 to help some of the more vulnerable people in our communities. But the fact is that we are committed: We ran on a promise to open Ontario for business and we ran on a promise to bring balance between the workers and the business owners who create the jobs.

Working people, we know, need the confidence of having a good job and a safe workplace, and businesses need the stability of reasonable and predictable regulations. Those two ideas are at the root of our approach.

We heard from the NDP just now—it’s sort of a simple line that I hear over and over sometimes, not just here in the Legislature but out in the communities from NDP supporters—that if you pay workers more, they’re going to have more buying power and they’re going to buy from the businesses, and somehow that’s going to build the economy up. We know that that’s not the answer.

It’s as though we’re saying that we should write a cheque for $1 million to everybody in the province of Ontario—borrow money from a bank somewhere and give everybody $1 million—and they’re all going to go shopping, and that’s going to somehow boost our economy and we’re just going to be doing so well. But what about when we’re going to have to pay that money back?

We know that there’s a word that the NDP don’t like to hear; it’s called “profits” and profit margins. A lot businesses are operating on very minuscule profit margins. If the government comes in and demands suddenly, as they did already with a 21% hike in the minimum wage—the Liberals had 15 years to slowly raise the minimum wage so that businesses could plan and adjust; instead, they waited till just before an election to hike it 21%. A lot of businesses weren’t prepared, and so we’re sort of pausing on raising it further.

We’re going to tie it in with the cost of living so that businesses are able to plan. Workers, as well, should be able to plan on their salaries going up as the cost of living goes up, because that is fair. We all know that.

We also know that the Liberals made decisions that raised the cost of electricity. They say their intentions were good. They wanted to create a green energy program and a green energy economy in Ontario, and that somehow by saying, “Our intentions were good,” that’s good enough. Well, it’s not good enough. There is an expression we all know about: good intentions and a place called hell.

We don’t want to just go on good intentions. We want to go on sound business advice, and we’ve been consulting with representatives of small, medium and large businesses across Ontario. I’m going to read to you what some of them had to say:

Julie Kwiecinski—I’m sorry if I’m saying your name wrong—from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business: “87% of CFIB’s members have under 20 employees, which means many don’t have the luxury of having an HR department nor any financial wiggle room of their larger business counterparts to handle and absorb a massive spike in the minimum wage and other additional labour costs that were part of Bill 148.”

Sean Reid from the Progressive Contractors Association: “Bill 148 may have been well intentioned”—there are those words again—“but in the end it was poorly designed and too hastily implemented. It was a job killer and not a job creator, and combined with the Ontario College of Trades, there was a decline in apprenticeship registrations instead of creating more of them. The Making Ontario Open for Business Act is a game-changer, and some businesses are already indicating that they will be hiring new staff and expanding their workforce.” Those are wonderful words to hear.

Patrick McManus from the Ontario Skilled Trades Alliance: “I’m very encouraged by the proposed changes with a particular interest in the Ontario College of Trades, which created a mountain of red tape and added an administrative burden to employers. The Making Ontario Open for Business Act will bring us into modern times and reduce barriers to enter in the skilled trades. This act will allow businesses to start to train and prepare the next generation of employees for the upcoming 85,000 tradespeople that I believe are to retire over the next decade.” We’re all worried about that, Mr. Speaker.

We’re hearing from a lot of businesses—I’m sure the NDP are as well—that they’re worried about tradespeople retiring.

I think I was supposed to say that I’m sharing my time with the member from King–Vaughan. Is it okay if I say that now, Mr. Speaker? I’m just looking at the clock.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Just for your information, there is no sharing of time during this debate. If we get around to the rotation, then they’ll come up.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me know that.

We are as concerned as everybody else in Ontario that we have the right workers for the right jobs of the future. We need more skilled trades, so we’re ensuring that there will be apprenticeship spots opening up and that people will be able to get into the trades. We want to ensure that our students are learning the skills that they need to learn for the jobs of the future, which we think are going to be in the high-tech sector—a lot of the jobs—and we cannot have people preparing and learning coding if they don’t have the basic math skills in elementary schools. So we’re preparing for that, Mr. Speaker.

We need to get predictable electricity rates. We need to get infrastructure. We need to get transit. We’ve got a lot of work to do in the province of Ontario, and I know that our government is looking forward to working with the opposition party and getting all those things done. We’re not just looking at riding-specific. We have to look at the entire province and make sure that we’re prepared and we’re able to transport goods, transport workers and get everything that we need to do to get Ontario businesses growing and get investment into Ontario.

We hear stories about people going to the States, to Michigan, and they’re met at the airport by an official, by a representative who takes them around and who is already showing them where they could build a factory or where they can rent space—just encouraging them to bring their business to the States and encouraging them to get out of Ontario or to not invest in Ontario. It’s the same thing with other provinces.

We all have been to the airport and we’ve gone through airport security, and we wonder to ourselves why in some airports the airport security just helps and moves you along and makes sure you don’t lose your belongings and makes it a pleasant experience, and actually seems anxious that you should make your flight and be comfortable and have a good experience,

whereas you go to other airports, unfortunately, and it’s the absolute opposite.

I think that we want to model ourselves after the airport security that is helpful, that is professional, that is engaging and that wants your business—that good customer service, using your thoughts and seeing if somebody has a disability, somebody needs a little extra help, somebody has a small child or somebody has heavy luggage, instead of that confrontational experience where it’s like they’re trying to make you feel like a child who needs to go sit in the corner and be punished.

I wanted to talk a little bit more about that whole business idea of growing businesses in Ontario. I think I’ve said before that I was an optometrist for almost 30 years and always managing optometry clinics on my own. I had to learn the hard way sometimes that equipment breaks. I think sometimes patients show up because it’s funded by the government and they assume that the government somehow pays for all this equipment.

The machine that we put in front of people’s eyes is called a phoropter and it has lots of little lenses in it. I’m sure nobody here is going to be surprised to hear it costs in the tens of thousands of dollars for each of the separate pieces of equipment. Equipment breaks, as happens. There are wonderful companies out there in Ontario—Innova is one of the companies—and they will actually lend you a piece of equipment while they take yours to be repaired.

Sometimes you have to buy new equipment. All of a sudden you have a month where you have to buy a piece of equipment for $20,000; that is going to be problematic. Yes, maybe you have a line of credit for part of it, maybe you put part on your personal credit card, but at the end of the day you have to pay your rent, you have to pay your staff, and you have to pay all the government expenses—the taxes that come off and the CPP and the unemployment insurance—everything that comes off for your staff. Now it’s my husband’s clinic on his own, but we have health benefits for some of the employees where they pay half and we pay half. We pay that every month.

If you have a month where you have to buy an expensive piece of equipment, which happens, the last thing to get paid is the proprietor. You’re the last person to get paid. And until you’re in that position, until you’ve run a business, until you’ve had to pay your staff and know that you’re not getting paid, I don’t think you really get it. All I can tell you is, I didn’t get it.

I did not get it until I was running my own business and I had those months where I had to make those tough decisions and juggle things around and realize, “Oops, I guess I am not going to plan a vacation this month because there is no way that I’m going to manage it. I have to make sure that I have enough money in the bank to cover all of my business expenses.”

It’s a hard thing to learn until you have to do it yourself. I think that that’s why it’s so great—when we were kids a lot of us got allowance, if our parents were helpful that way. I always liked that I had my own spending money. From the age of 10 or 11, if I babysat my younger sister or the neighbour’s kid and they would pay me a little bit, I always liked saving up my money and having a goal and knowing how much money I had to save up to get to that goal.

I want to leave some time on the clock for others as well, but I just want to say that politicians think that they understand every business, and they don’t. We don’t. We can’t possibly. I might know a little bit about the optometry business or working in a medical centre, but I certainly don’t understand how all the other businesses work. The best thing we can do sometimes, Mr. Speaker, is just get out of the way and let businesses expand the way they need to.

If we’re just making regulations blindly—we think we know what we’re doing—we’d better ensure that that regulation is absolutely imperative for the safety of the workers and the public. Because if it’s just a piece of regulation because we think it’s necessary and it’s hampering business growth and job growth in Ontario, we’re really doing a disservice to all of our constituents.

I have a few more words from people out there who know how to run their businesses. I want to mention, from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, Joe Vaccaro: “The legislation will move to better apprenticeship ratios, which will be better for jobs and members who are ready to hire new people. The changes are about keeping Ontario open for business, being competitive, and my members are extremely excited about the changes.”

Then we have Rocco Rossi. We all know Rocco Rossi. He ran for mayor of Toronto quite a few years ago. But he’s also very well known for all the work he does for awareness of men’s cancers. He comes to Queen’s Park a lot to advocate on that. He’s also the CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. I’m going to quote Rocco: “Bill 148 was too much too fast, and what’s needed is what’s reasonable to employers and fair to employees. There is a skills crisis and there is a future of well-paying jobs and it’s critical to foster even more growth.

By moving on better apprenticeship ratios and eliminating the Ontario College of Trades—marks the beginning of a strategy that would allow businesses to match people looking for work with the jobs that desperately need them.”

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason I’m reading out all of the quotes isn’t just to get them on the record and to share with everybody else here but to explain why all of these business representatives, the people who hold the future of Ontario in their hands—it’s not us here in the Legislature who do; they have the power to create those jobs. We just want to give them the ability to do it, but they actually have the power and the know-how to do it. They need to see Bill 47 passed quickly.

That’s why we’re having this time allocation, because right now we’re debating time allocation of Bill 47 to make the changes so that business can grow, so that jobs can grow, so that we have the great long-term, full-time, well-paid, with-benefits jobs of the future that we all know Ontario can provide. We know that Ontario was once the engine of Canada. We know we can get there again. We are confident. I don’t think we’re overly confident; I think we have just the right amount of confidence and understanding of the hard work.

The Legislature was recalled in the summer months, which is a little bit historic because normally we don’t sit here in the summer. But Premier Doug Ford felt that anxious to get to work, to get Ontario on track, because he felt that every day that we’re not building Ontario up, we’re not just coasting; we’re going down. That’s a very common business expression, which is that you’re either growing or you’re shrinking. There’s no coasting in business. I think that there’s no coasting, maybe, in politics and a lot of other things as well; we all know that.

You could have been elected—the member from Timmins, the House leader for the NDP, was just speaking. He has been here for almost three decades, I believe. I’m sure that he can tell us that there’s no coasting in politics, that he goes to all of the events that he can manage to go to when he’s back in his riding. He takes care of his constituents. He doesn’t coast, thinking, “Well, I’ve been there for 28 years. I can coast.”

I’m going to continue with some of the words of support because it does give me confidence and I think it gives everybody in the Legislature confidence that we’re doing the right thing by moving time allocation on Bill 47 and getting the power where it has to be so that we can get those jobs created in Ontario.

Mark Josephs from Kisko Products: “The Minister of Labour is doing the right thing, and the new legislation no longer makes business owners and other businesses feel like they are enemies of the province. With a tight labour market, businesses need to be competitive so that the market dictates what needs to be paid. Bill 148 had a huge impact on my bottom line, which impacts my ability to invest. If Bill 148 hadn’t changed, I would have had to make tough decisions and plan to move my business elsewhere”—a scary thought, Mr. Speaker.

Then we have Norm Beal from Food and Beverage Ontario: “I have had several phone calls from other provinces and some US states trying to attract away investment in Ontario business, and that’s created a great deal of trouble for the industry. Bill 148 was the last straw in many food processing plants that had been looking to other alternatives purely for competitive reasons. Due to the changes to Bill 148, we’re going to start seeing a lot more capital investments.”

Tony Elenis from the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association was here at Queen’s Park last week, and so were many of the names that I’m reading. He’s very, very passionate and very, very happy. He has a big smile on his face because he feels confident in Premier Doug Ford’s team and what we’re doing for the province of Ontario.

I quote from Tony: “I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Ford PC government for taking the time to listen to the hospitality industry’s concerns. Bill 148 has been harmful to our vulnerable sector. It’s not about the minimum wage increase, it’s about the unprecedented speed of the increase.”

Noah Aychental, chair of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association: “The Making Ontario Open for Business Act will bring great stability to the industry by alleviating the increased operational pressures. In the last decade, small independent businesses have struggled to succeed with about five stores a week closing down.”

I’m going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker: He has documented proof that about five convenience stores a week have been closing down in Ontario. And a lot of times we know that those are in small communities and they’re like the hub of the community. That’s kind of the hangout where you go for a walk in the evening in the summer and you go to the convenience store. It used to be one of my favourite things to do with my little sister, to take a walk and go to the convenience store and get a Popsicle. I’m just continuing the quote: “Many employees are new and young workers working part-time.”

Jonathan Blackham, from the Ontario Trucking Association: “I’m encouraged by the legislation and believe the changes send a positive growth signal to the Ontario economy. While the vast majority of the trucking industry’s workforce is made up of drivers who are paid above minimum wage, trucking is a demand-driven business and when customers suffer so does the industry. The proposed changes seem to strike a better balance bringing with it the benefit of spurring workforce investment and economic activity.”

I want to jump, because I have a couple more pages of great quotes and we hear the NDP sometimes say, “Name one business.” Well, I am giving you people who—I named associations of thousands of businesses.

Yesterday, the Minister of Labour and I met with the Ontario Long Term Care Association. I just want to read first from Candace Chartier, the chief executive officer: “We are pleased and endorse the government’s changes with regards to Bill 148. We believe these changes are both fair and balanced. Our sector is highly unionized and the union agreements in many cases provide a greater right of benefits than Bill 148. For the long-term-care sector, this will eliminate many ambiguities that were in Bill 148 and will help to improve and enhance resident care.”

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that long-term-care planning and expansion of the long-term-care sector is one of the pillars of the Doug Ford government. We want to see expansion of long-term-care facilities in Ontario. We believe the experts who tell us that by building more long-term-care beds we will be able to free up hospital beds and therefore get rid of a lot of the hallway medicine that so many families are experiencing in Ontario.

So we need to ensure that businesses have confidence in Ontario, that they have confidence in the government, that we know what we’re doing. We work on expert advice. We work on principles. We understand that businesses need to plan, that we’re predictable and that we’re confident and that we can sell our province. Because, Mr. Speaker, yes, we’re doing the right thing—I believe we are doing the right thing—but it’s also that we have to convince the rest of the world. And that’s why confidence is so important.

So I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’m glad that we’re moving time allocation. I’m glad that we’re going to get businesses the help they need and get those great jobs for Ontario.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s a pleasure to rise every day in this House to speak on behalf of the good people of London–Fanshawe and, in particular, today, Speaker. It feels like every bill that we have an opportunity to debate is being time-allocated. That isn’t giving the good people of London–Fanshawe an opportunity to have their voice heard. I think it was on Tuesday that we spoke to the bill. There was an hour lead by each party. There was opportunity for members to speak for 20 minutes. I was looking forward to having that time to speak about this bill.

I’m really limited right now in how much time I’m going to have to thoughtfully go over the parts of this new legislation under the Premier, this Conservative government and what they’re doing to the workforce, what they’re doing to the labour force, what they’re doing, really, to businesses.

There are a lot of great employers in my riding who believe in the current labour legislation, that it was actually helpful to their business. It wasn’t crippling them, as some of the members think that this was actually happening. I have a couple of examples of that, because last Friday, it was really my honour to be in my riding and have the pleasure of attending not just one, but two expansions of businesses in my riding that were already established, and they were going to expand. They were going to hire more people. They were doing great things in my riding.

One of them was Sciencetech. They’ve been in the riding for 40 years. That is a great reputation. The jobs they provide are highly specialized professional jobs. Here they are, expanding after 40 years. They had a grand opening and they invited everyone to come and look at the good work that they’re doing. They do a lot of work outside of Canada, actually, primarily. I was very proud. Here’s a company doing work outside of Canada, and they are so highly specialized in what they do. There’s such a demand for the work that they do that they’re expanding. I wanted to say congratulations to Sciencetech.

The other one was Starlim. They’re a fairly new company in my riding, probably within the last 10 years. They’re expanding. Again, they have a highly specialized workforce as well as people on the manufacturing side that come in, so they have all different levels. The laws that are in today that are helping workers and businesses were not crippling them. They were saying that these things, by the nature of the expansion—Ontario already is an environment to create opportunity for businesses to flourish.

Some of the rhetoric that the government is talking about isn’t really what’s happening on the ground everywhere. Maybe they have a couple of examples, but this bill that they’re presenting right now, Bill 47, really is taking us backwards in Ontario.

I want to talk about one particular area that I think was really important to all workers who are in high-profession jobs who don’t have unionized environments, workers who are on contracts who are doing really high-level wage jobs, workers who are at lower-paying wages—this particular example, the personal emergency leave, was going to help all workers. It was going to help all workers. By doing that, they have rolled things back.

What originally the current legislation has is 10 personal emergency leaves. What happened is, workers were entitled to those 10 unpaid personal emergency leave days. The first two days, when they were taken, were actually paid. So 10 days total: The first two days were paid and then the rest, the eight days under the personal emergency leave, weren’t.

What this government has done, what the Conservative government has done—and the Premier, really, with his leadership, has decided that that is not a good thing for workers; it is not a good thing for businesses. Businesses need to support their workers, because workers support businesses. What they’ve done is, they’ve changed all this. They’ve decided that, “You know what? We’re going to take it from 10 days and we’re going to reduce it to eight. And all workers are not going to be paid for two sick days.”

That is a highly problematic policy. I know this because I get constituents telling us this is a highly problematic policy. When someone is working a higher-paying job or a lower-paying job, two days’ wages is a lot to them. Things are expensive in Ontario. Things are expensive in life. Daycare is expensive. Your mortgage, your hydro—things cost money to survive. The basic cost of living takes a lot. Everybody knows that. So when you decide that when someone is sick for two days, they’re not getting their paycheque, that doesn’t work out and that doesn’t make sense.

Then, on top of that, with the rules that they’ve changed, this government has decided in their infinite wisdom that you now need a doctor’s note. This government is all about listening to experts; doctors, who are experts, have said that it is not a good idea to have sick people come to their office to get a doctor’s note. When you’re home sick, the last thing that you are thinking about is dragging yourself out of bed and going to a doctor to get a sick note.

My first thought is, “If I’m still contagious, I’m going to pass on my whole virus to other people.” My second thought is, “I’m going to be catching other things that other people are bringing to the doctor’s.” And you know what? You can’t always get in when you call. When you call the doctor, you can’t always get in that moment to get an appointment to get a sick note. Doctors are very busy people, very busy professionals. Again, that legislation is misguided. They’re not listening to the experts, and they’re not listening to the needs of workers.

I was sick a couple of weeks ago, and I stayed home one day. I had my chicken soup, I had my ginger ale and I rested all day. Guess what? The next day, I felt better, and I came into work. Heck, if I had to run to the doctor to get a sick note, that defeats the purpose of getting better for those days that we need in order to come back to work.

The other piece that’s really concerning to me is that when someone dies, you’re going to need a death certificate, and then there are two days of bereavement. Who is going to say they need bereavement days when they don’t have a funeral or a death to attend? That, to me, is beyond understanding, why that has to be in writing in the legislation. That really erodes the trust between a worker and an employer.

So it truly is hard to understand that those things are the focus and the priority of this government when it comes to workers. They have a right to change whatever they want under legislation, but to do those things is really quite heartless, I’m going to say. They’re quite heartless.

The other piece of that, Speaker, in that vein of having to constantly debate during time allocation, is that we want to make sure that there are things in place so that there is some fairness around this legislation and this government. With that in mind, I move an NDP amendment. I move that the motion be amended as follows:

In paragraph 4, insert the words “Monday, November 19, 2018, Wednesday, November 21, and Thursday, November 22, 2018,” after the words “November 15, 2018”;

In paragraph 6, delete the words “November 15” and replace with the words “November 22”;

In paragraph 7, delete the words “Friday, November 16” and replace with the words “November 26”;

In paragraph 8, delete everything after the word “Monday” and replace with “November 19, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Monday, December 3, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and”;

In paragraph 9, delete the words “November 19” and replace with the words “December 3”;

In paragraph 10, delete the words “November 20” and replace with the words “December 4”;

In paragraph 13, delete the words “two hours” and replace with the words “three hours and 45 minutes”; delete the words “50 minutes” and replace with the words “one hour and 30 minutes”; delete the words “40 minutes” and replace with the words “one hour and 30 minutes”; and delete the words “15 minutes” and replace with the words “30 minutes.”

I give my motion to the page to deliver to the table.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Ms. Armstrong from London–Fanshawe has moved that the motion be amended as follows—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Dispense? I heard a no.

In paragraph 4, insert the words “Monday, November 19, 2018, Wednesday, November 21, and Thursday, November 22, 2018,” after the words “November 15, 2018”;

In paragraph 6, delete the words “November 15” and replace with the words “November 22”;

In paragraph 7, delete the words “Friday, November 16” and replace with the words “November 26”;

In paragraph 8, delete everything after the word “Monday” and replace with “November 19, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Monday, December 3, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and”;

In paragraph 9, delete the words “November 19” and replace with the words “December 3”;

In paragraph 10, delete the words “November 20” and replace with the words “December 4”;

In paragraph 13, delete the words “two hours” and replace with the words “three hours and 45 minutes”; delete the words “50 minutes” and replace with the words “one hour and 30 minutes”; delete the words “40 minutes” and replace with the words “one hour and 30 minutes”; and delete the words “15 minutes” and replace with the words “30 minutes.”

Is it the pleasure of the House that the—no?

Further debate? I return to the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, I’m glad I’m actually able to speak a little bit more on that, because some of the other things that the government has changed are also really a problematic thing.

They have changed the Employment Standards Act so that there is less oversight over the labour board. Back in the day when the labour board created regulation under the Employment Standards Act, the cabinet ministers would actually take the time to review that. That’s no longer there. I think that’s an important part of the process, that this government understands what changes the Employment Standards Act to the labour board would be—what happened—in order for them to look at and see if this is something there is some fairness around.

I would hope the Employment Standards Act is going to create those things that are going to benefit workers and benefit employers, but we need to have that oversight. Taking away that oversight, I think, is a problem.

The other thing they’re going to be doing is changing the amount of fines with regard to employers. Then that does create precarious situations. There are many people who are workers in precarious employment. When you deter an organization with lesser fines, that means sometimes they may weigh the risk and take a chance on something because the consequences aren’t as grave. Reducing the fines may not help that situation. It may not help promote employers to continue those good practices. They may fall behind a little bit. They may think to weigh the risk to the consequences. That is also a problematic thing, Speaker.

When we look at the legislation and when you talk about people on contract and they work part-time and the temporary agencies, that is precarious employment and some of that legislation is not helping those workers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you very much.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to introduce the family of Albert Douglas, who is a legislative page from Windsor West. Here with us today are Alan Douglas, Johnathan Brunt and Ruth Douglas. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to introduce John Gignac and Mary-Ellen Sheppard from the Hawkins-Gignac Foundation, here for Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week in Ontario. Thank you for everything you do to bring awareness to this important issue. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I want to welcome to Queen’s Park Edwina Mayama, who is an intern with me in Ottawa with the Assemblée de la Francophonie de l’Ontario, and Michael Johnston, who’s a lawyer in Ottawa. They are visiting Queen’s Park because of my private member’s bill. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the assembly this morning some great friends of mine hailing from Chatham, Ontario, here to experience question period and to observe their grandson, Albert Douglas. They are Tom and Brenda Brunt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Harris: I have a couple of people I would like to welcome today. My legislative assistant, Jon Lesarge, and also my oldest son, Jaxon, are here with us today.

Ms. Doly Begum: It is an honour to introduce some amazing guests I have here today who are here for the press conference for my bill this morning for quality child care.

I have Alana Powell, interim coordinator from the Association of Early Childhood Educators Ontario. I also have Michelle Jones, an early childhood educator; Sonia Tavares, ECE, as well as the AECEO communications coordinator; and other ECE students. I have Esra Leia, ECE student. I have Melissa Wong and her daughter, Athena, a parent and a good friend of mine. I have Laura Casselman, another parent, as well as her son, Emmanuel.

I have a good friend and former councillor, Janet Davis, an amazing advocate for child care and the co-founder of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. Thank you so much for coming here.

Hon. Jim Wilson: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. Steve Martin, who is the proud father of Rose Martin-Chase, the legislative page from Simcoe–Grey. Welcome.

Ms. Sara Singh: I would like to give a very warm welcome to a very special guest, Emmanuel Casselman.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to welcome grade 5 students from Cresthaven Public School from my riding of Don Valley North. They are visiting Queen’s Park on a field trip today. Welcome, and I hope they enjoy their time here.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I’m just delighted to welcome today Dietitians of Canada to the Legislature. They had a breakfast for us this morning. I encourage you all to learn about what dietitians bring, which is evidence-based nutrition and food advice to all Ontarians. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Doug Downey: I have two guests here with me today, Michelle and Wayne Kobylnik, who won a lunch and a tour of the Legislature at a local church auction. I’m looking forward to meet them and get to know them better.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1998, I graduated from one of the best colleges in Toronto, Humber College. I’m so proud to have two Humber journalism school students here today, Ria Paul and Hadeel Al-Sayyed. Welcome to the Legislature. Go, Humber, go!

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to wish a very, very happy birthday today to our director of issues management and legislative affairs in the Premier’s office. Andrew Kimber is 33 years old today.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Good morning, Speaker. I’d like to welcome my good friend Paula Poniatowska, who is visiting us today. She has recently completed her studies of law in the UK and we look forward to having her as a medical lawyer in Canada. Welcome.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I believe Netivot Hatorah Jewish Day School from Thornhill is here today. I want to say bruchim habaim, if that is you. Bruchim habaim, if it’s another school. Welcome.

Hon. Todd Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the government House leader, who has a point of order.

Hon. Todd Smith: On a point of order: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice that Remembrance Day tributes take place before question period today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent of the House to put forward a motion without notice to allow for Remembrance Day tributes to take place before question period today. Agreed? Agreed.

Remembrance Day

Hon. Todd Smith: I would move that Remembrance Day tributes take place on Thursday, November 1, with 90 seconds allotted to the independent Green member; followed by 90 seconds allotted to the independent Liberal members; followed by three minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition; followed by three minutes allotted to the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved that Remembrance Day tributes take place on Thursday, November 1, with 90 seconds allotted to the independent Green member; followed by 90 seconds allotted to the independent Liberal members; followed by three minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition; followed by three minutes allotted to the government. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: On November 11, we honour those who have served our nation and selflessly put themselves in harm’s way to defend our democracy.

I can’t tell you how humbling it is to be able to stand in this House and honour our veterans. We owe it to them to never forget—to never forget your heroism, your courage and your sacrifice. We are forever indebted to veterans, particularly those who did not return, and we owe it to their families who grieve forever to support them. For those veterans who do return home, we have the responsibility to provide you with the care and support you deserve. It’s the least we can do.

My grandfather, among others in my family, served. He never wanted to talk about it, but shortly before his death I interviewed him because I wanted to capture it on tape. His story of loss, of fear, of courage, of sacrifice is a story that hundreds and thousands of veterans who served in both World Wars, in Korea and Afghanistan, and on peacekeeping missions and many other missions, share. And so we cannot forget their stories or their sacrifices, and we owe it to them to stand up for a peaceful world, a democracy, and the world that our veterans fought and served to defend for us.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s an honour and a privilege to stand up and say a few words on behalf of my caucus and on behalf of the people in my riding about the sacrifices that people have made and continue to make for our freedom, our democracy and our way of life. We owe them a debt.

I want to say thank you to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade for bringing forward Remembrance Week, a bill that he passed in the last Legislature. It starts next Monday, and I want to thank him for including other members of the Legislature on that bill.

War touches everyone, everyone’s family somewhere. In my family, my wife’s uncle died at Dieppe in 1942. It was not a pretty death. That was a fairly difficult battle. They never knew how he died until many years later.

My mother-in-law just passed away last year. She was 97. She was closest to her brother, Robert Ansley Cavanagh. She kept his picture on her dresser for 75 years. She never forgot.

We need to remember as well, too, all the families: their sacrifices, their hurt and their pain.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for St. Catharines.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition as the critic for veterans, legions and military affairs, on this day of the 11th month of this year, to remind all of my fellow members that today is the first day of 11 days of remembrance.

All of us owe so very much to those who fought and to those who gave their lives so that we might be free to live a life of peace. Their eternal sacrifice has made it possible for us to be here without fear of reprisal, for it is their service to us that has preserved our freedom to be in this very House today.

This month we pay tribute not only to those men and women who served during the First and Second World Wars, but also to the 158 men and women who gave their lives for us in Afghanistan—the most recent only seven short years ago—and to the 800 servicemen and -women who returned in 2011 from the conflict in Libya. We pay tribute to those who served Canada in the South African War and the Korean War, and to all of our Canadian military, land, air or sea, who left homes and their families to serve as peacekeepers. We pay tribute to soldiers, sailors and airmen who guarded and continue to guard our freedoms through the NATO and the UN missions against terrorism and piracy.

Time and time again, Canadians have signed up to defend our country, to take a stand against tyranny and to help restore peace in times of conflict. More than 117,000 Canadians have given their lives.

As the sun sets, the dawning of the sun, on November 11, Canadians across our great country will be hearing and participating in the ringing of the bells, but this time with a different message: “We will remember them.”

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: On behalf of the government of Ontario, I’m honoured to join my colleagues to recognize the start of Remembrance Week next Monday. At that time, we will pay our respect to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, past and present.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, our veterans are true Canadian heroes. In World War I, World War II, Korea and Afghanistan, whenever the world’s most evil ideologies rose up and needed to be confronted, Canadians were there. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces fought bravely and sacrificed so much to protect our freedom, our security and our values, including those bravest of heroes who never returned home at all.

Our government recognizes that Canadian heroes span every conflict and every generation, including the brave men and women who served our country in Afghanistan. That’s why our government is proud to be moving forward with plans to build a monument to their service here on the grounds of the Ontario Legislature and why we are committed to providing all military families with a hotline support right here at home.

Two years ago, members of the Legislative Assembly came together in the spirit of unity and unanimously passed legislation introduced by Minister Wilson to designate the week leading up to Remembrance Day as Remembrance Week. I hope everyone, every person in Ontario, answers this call and takes their time to pause and find their own moment of silence in the days leading up to November 11. I hope every person in Ontario wears the red poppy with pride. Nothing should unify Canadians like wearing a poppy. When you choose to wear your poppy, you’re standing up for Canadian values: freedom, justice and human rights.

It’s such a small but important patriotic gesture, and a way to say thank you to those who have sacrificed and continue to sacrifice so much to defend our security and way of life.

Most of us will never know the horrors of war or understand the sacrifices our Canadian Armed Forces have made and continue to make—everything they do to protect this country. These men and women are true heroes and many of them walk among us today. So I encourage everyone in Ontario to join your local community on November 11 to show your respect and your gratitude, to show our heroes that we stand with them and that we honour them, and to find your moment, wherever and whenever you can, to say thank you.

We shall not forget.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I want to thank all the members for their participation in the tributes.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: With all due respect, we lost people in Bosnia. We lost more than 130 Canadian soldiers fighting with the American forces in Vietnam. We have a huge monument in Windsor with the names of all those lost in those conflicts, and I would not want to forget them today either.

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

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before we commence with question period, I wish to inform the House that it is now time to say a word of thanks to our legislative pages. Our pages are smart, trustworthy and hard-working. They’re indispensable to the effective functioning of this chamber. They cheerfully and efficiently deliver notes, run errands, transport important documents throughout the precinct and make sure our water glasses are always full. We are indeed fortunate to have them here.

Our pages depart having made many new friends, with a greater understanding of parliamentary democracy and memories that will last a lifetime. Each of them will go home and carry on, continue their studies, and will no doubt contribute to their communities, their province and their country in important ways.

We expect great things from all of them. Maybe some of them will someday take their seats in this House as members or will work here as staff. We wish them all well.

Please join me in showing our appreciation to our pages.

Applause.

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

Oral Questions

Flu immunization

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this week, the Premier was on Facebook urging Ontarians to get their flu shots. The Ministry of Health says it’s safer and easier than ever. If that’s the case, why are we hearing from constituent after constituent about the challenges of accessing a flu shot for seniors in our province?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question, but in actual fact, we do have an adequate supply of flu vaccines here in Ontario. They were ordered in advance. We paid $54 million for the flu shots. That is more than adequate to get over 30% of the population to achieve the vaccine, which is what it has been in the past. We hope it’s going to be more this year, because it is so important. Flu is a much more deadly disease for many people than one may think.

In actual fact, you can go to your physician’s office, you can go to a public health unit, you can go to a pharmacy to get your flu shot. We have not been advised in the ministry that there have been any significant concerns with accessing the vaccine—there may be from one location to another. But there are many locations where one can go to receive the vaccine, and I would encourage people to continue looking, calling around to make sure that that actual location has the vaccine in quantities that are necessary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Sara Singh: The Ministry of Health says seniors are particularly at risk of serious complications due to the flu. But seniors tell us that they’re struggling to find high-dose vaccines that are recommended specifically for seniors. We couldn’t find them either. Of the 20 clinics that we called around the province, 12 said they haven’t been able to obtain any vaccines or they were already out. We’re really concerned about that. A few of them did have vaccines but warned us that they would be running out of that supply very soon.

Minister, are we ready for flu season or not?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are absolutely ready for flu season. That is why we have made the vaccine available. That is why we have boosted locations in hospitals across the province to make sure that we can handle the extra volumes.

In terms of the actual high-dose flu vaccine for seniors 65 years and older, it’s not for every person, but many seniors should get that one. It’s not available in pharmacies. It’s only available at doctors’ offices. There may be a little bit of confusion about that. If they are looking, they should probably call their doctor’s office to make sure that they can get the high-dose flu vaccine there.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Thank you very much. Perhaps we can make that information more readily accessible and available to seniors so that there is no confusion on where they should be accessing their shot.

A flu shot is the best defence when it comes to reducing the risk of getting and spreading the flu. The minister has been quite rightly urging people to get their flu shots, but when they go to get them, as we were mentioning, some seniors are actually being turned away. If there’s a shortage, why has the minister not informed the public?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I stress to say, there is no shortage. We have an adequate volume of flu vaccines for anyone who wishes to obtain one in Ontario.

If there are seniors who are having difficulty accessing the high-dose flu vaccine, they are welcome to call my office, and we will connect them with a physician who is able to provide them with it, because it should not be that anyone who wants the vaccine can’t get it.

We want everyone in Ontario to get the flu vaccine. It’s simple to do and it’s free, and everyone should avail themselves of it.

Health care

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. A shortage of flu vaccine highlights just how important our health system is to people who rely on it. Since the election, the Minister of Health has told hospitals to tighten their belts and is promising more so-called efficiencies. Does the minister think cuts and privatization will improve our health care system?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I think the flu vaccine should be something that is basic for everybody in Ontario. I cannot understand why there’s a big controversy on the other side about that. It is simple to obtain. It’s free. It is your best defence against the flu. You can get it anywhere. You can get it at your doctor’s office, at a public health unit or at a pharmacy. We need to encourage more people to get the flu vaccine, and we have more than an adequate supply for this season.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: For people who want reliable public health services when they need them, the signs are not encouraging, Speaker. The government has assembled the same experts who helped close 28 hospitals and fired 6,000 nurses. Local hospitals from the West Lincoln Memorial in Grimsby to the Ross Memorial in Lindsay are already being targeted for merger. The minister has called for efficiencies. Are these the kind that she has in mind?

Hon. Christine Elliott: It’s a bit of a stretch from the flu vaccine to go to hospitals, but okay, I’ll give it a try.

What we are trying to do is to make sure that people receive excellent-quality health care throughout this province. We are working with hospitals across the province to find out what they need in order to stay up to date with their capital projects. We are looking for internal efficiencies, of course, in the way that we do things, not in terms of lowering the health care available to people.

What we want to do is increase the level of health care services that are available in Ontario. We know we have a rapidly aging population. We have medications that are coming on stream that are extremely expensive. There are more and more pressures being placed on our system, but we are coping with them internally because we want to make sure that people in Ontario continue to have excellent quality health care now and into the future.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: People want a health system that’s there when they need it, whether they need a flu shot or a hospital bed. While hospitals across Ontario continue to operate above capacity, patients wait for care in hallways and seniors can’t even seem to get the flu shot the government is promoting where and when they need it. It’s clear that our system can’t afford another round of reckless Conservative cuts.

Will the Premier reject that agenda?

Hon. Christine Elliott: One of the reasons why we have so many strains in our health care system right now is because we’ve been left with a $15-billion deficit by the Liberal government, which you supported, and so we have a lot of work to do to make sure we keep our health care system in excellent hands. And that is what we are going to do.

We are going to make sure that our public is protected against the flu and other health issues that they’re going to be faced with. That is what we are doing. That is what we concentrate on each and every day.

We are working with our health care partners to make sure that not only will we have a health care system now, but we will actually have a health care system for the future. It’s not sustainable the way we are going now. We are going to make it sustainable.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I’m going to remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

Start the clock.

Ethical standards

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is to the Premier regarding the government’s policy on the ethics and integrity of their ministers—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order on the government side.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: There was a disturbing media report yesterday, Mr. Speaker, revealing that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and his law firm have been embroiled in multiple legal proceedings that include serious allegations of misconduct and fraud over a period of almost two decades.

Was the Premier aware of this history when he appointed this minister and put him in charge of overseeing Ontario’s police services?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: That’s nothing but a smear campaign. That’s all it is, an absolute smear campaign.

The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is the most credible minister down here. He has integrity, he has transparency and he’s an absolute champion. I’ll stand beside him any day, 365 days a year.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Yarde: The people of Ontario have a right to know. The minister in charge of overseeing Ontario’s police services must be above reproach. But two days ago now, we learned of multiple allegations made against the minister over several years, including a finding by the Ontario Securities Commission that the minister had known for at least three years that his business associates were illegally selling shares in Saxton Securities, a company at the centre of a massive stock fraud. This minister has already come under serious scrutiny when, as minister responsible for the OPP, he campaigned for a candidate at the centre of an OPP investigation.

Does the Premier still have confidence in this minister?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I have 1,000% confidence in a credible man who has sacrificed his time down here to serve his community, to give back to his community. He has integrity. He has honesty. To put up a smear campaign like that—you should be ashamed of yourself. You should be ashamed. I could go around to every one of your members—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Once again, I’ll remind—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order. The House will come to order.

Once again, I’ll remind all members to make your comments through the chair.

Start the clock. The member for Mississauga Centre.

Economic outlook

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Just over four months ago, our government for the people was sworn in. Back in June, people from all walks of life packed the front lawn of Queen’s Park to meet the Premier and hear him speak. After an exciting campaign, the people of Ontario were eager to hear about our plan for the people.

Since that day, we have begun putting more money into taxpayers’ pockets. We have sent the message that Ontario is open for business and we have taken action to restore accountability and trust in our province’s finances. Could the minister please inform the House of our government’s next upcoming milestone?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Mississauga Centre. It has been a long and exciting road since the day we were all sworn in. Our government has taken swift and decisive action to reverse 15 long years of damaging Liberal policies in our province. Although there is much, much more work to be done, the people of Ontario can rest easy that their government is finally working for them.

We are excited to continue our work for the people with our government’s first fiscal update, the fall economic statement. We intend to table the fall economic statement on Thursday, November 15, when we will share more of our plan to help families and make Ontario open for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Thank you to the minister for his response. I am very excited to hear that our government’s fall economic statement is coming on November 15. If our accomplishments to date are any indication, I know that this fiscal update will send a clear message right across Ontario.

People now have a government that respects their tax dollars and takes the fiscal challenges ahead seriously. We’ve learned over the past few months just how damaging and devastating 15 years of Liberal government have been for our province.

It is a relief to hear that help is here, and not a moment too soon. Could the minister please inform the House about what we can expect from the fall economic statement?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The fall economic statement will turn the page on 15 long years of tax-and-spend Liberal policies. The days of attempting to balance budgets through one-time revenue are over. Hidden deficits are a thing of the past. As our first fiscal update, it will lay the groundwork for the continued relief we are bringing to families and businesses across Ontario.

Every decision that we make is for the people, and the fall economic statement will be no different. We understand the responsibility the people have given us, and we intend to get our province back on track. We are prepared to clean up the mess the Liberals left behind. On November 15, Ontario will know that help is on the way.

Select Committee on Financial Transparency

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is to the Premier. My question is about the Premier’s Select Committee on Financial Transparency. There are no witnesses appearing this week, yet when the New Democrats proposed hearing from Hydro One’s nine-million-dollar man, former CEO Mayo Schmidt, the Conservative MPPs blocked it. If the point of the committee is to let the sunshine of transparency in, why are government members trying to close the curtains?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We began with an inquiry, a commission that showed us that there is a $15-billion deficit. We followed that up with the line-by-line review, which has revealed a tremendous amount about the state of the Liberal finances. We know that all this has led to the select committee.

This select committee’s job is to get to the bottom: What happened, how did this happen, and how can we ever stop this tragedy from happening again? Not only did the Liberals tell us we had a balanced budget in 2017 when it is now proven by the committee that it was a $3.7-billion deficit, they left the people of Ontario with a $15-billion hole to dig out of.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: So to hear the minister tell it—back to the Premier—the Select Committee on Financial Transparency is a serious exercise in fiscal accountability, but that’s not what it looked like this week. After insisting that commercially sensitive documents obtained from the IESO be made publicly available on Monday, government members on the committee decided to make them secret again on Tuesday. Then they blocked witnesses who could shed some light on the issues that we’re supposed to be investigating.

New Democrats want to hear from witnesses who could shed light on what’s happening at Hydro One and what has happened. Why are Conservatives blocking an appearance from Mayo Schmidt?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: What we are witnessing is without precedent in recent Canadian history. It is more than just the numbers, Speaker; it is about the abuse of the public trust by the Liberals, backed up by the NDP. Their accountability did not end on election day; accountability in Ontario began on election day. We now have a far better understanding of the breadth and depth, the waste, the management at the highest levels of the previous Liberal government.

The NDP can continue to deal in chaos; we will deal in confidence. The NDP will deal in resistance; we will deliver results.

Remembrance Day

Mr. Doug Downey: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

As my father was in the navy, and I’m a member of Legion 147 and an honorary member of the Grey and Simcoe Foresters, I’m proud to see the poppy being worn by so many in the House. It’s a clear sign that Remembrance Day is fast approaching.

Remembrance Day, formerly known as Armistice Day, was born out of the armistice signed at the end of the First World War. This Remembrance Day is especially important, as it marks 100 years from the signing of that armistice and the end of the First World War.

With that being said, can the minister explain why it’s so important for Ontarians to take a pause on Remembrance Day and remember the sacrifices of the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member from Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte for that very thoughtful and, of course, very important question this morning.

As the proud member for Bay of Quinte, which is home to Canada’s largest air force base, CFB Trenton, I’m very pleased to have military members living in my community who I call friends.

From the world wars through to modern-day conflicts, including the war in Afghanistan—and keep in mind that, as our brave men and women of the Canadian Forces were being returned home after paying the ultimate price in Afghanistan, they were repatriated at CFB Trenton—the courageous people within the Canadian Armed Forces have kept us safe and far removed from war in our daily lives. Whether it be in the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Air Force or the Royal Canadian Navy, these incredible troops have kept our country strong and free.

That’s why, as Ontarians, on November 11 we take time to pay a moment of silence at cenotaphs and assembly halls across Ontario. It’s a small gesture that goes a long way and brings us together, as Canadians and Ontarians, to show our shared gratitude for their service.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Doug Downey: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you to the minister for that response. It’s my hope that Ontarians across the province will attend a Remembrance Day ceremony this year, whether it’s here at Queen’s Park or at home in their ridings.

This government understands the importance of not only remembering, but also commemorating the bravery and courage of our Canadian Armed Forces. That is why, during the campaign, our Premier and our party promised to build a war memorial to the veterans of the war in Afghanistan, who fought to promote and protect our democracy.

Can the minister please tell this House what our government will be doing to inform Ontarians of Remembrance Day and how they can honour the sacrifices of our military in their own ridings?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member for the question.

Our government is launching a comprehensive campaign—we have actually already done that—to inform people about Remembrance Day and ensure that as many Ontarians as possible get out to honour our veterans.

As the member alluded to before, our government will be paying tribute to all veterans of the war in Afghanistan by building a memorial in their honour on the grounds here at Queen’s Park.

Beginning on November 5, next week, Remembrance Week, will be an opportunity for Ontarians to unite and pay tribute to members of the Canadian Armed Forces for their courage and sacrifice in serving Canada at home and abroad.

During this time, Ontarians can participate by organizing a Remembrance Day or Remembrance Week event and sharing their gratitude and respect online by using the hashtag #RemembranceDay. Residents can also visit the interactive map at ontario.ca/remembranceday to easily find a Remembrance Day ceremony that is near them in their community.

I encourage all members of the House and everybody watching to find your own way to honour our veterans a week from Sunday, November 11.

Cannabis regulation

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Attorney General. This summer, the government called emergency sessions to ram through unilateral cuts to Toronto city council. Yet this government chose not to spend any time preparing for the legalization of cannabis, something we had all known was coming for years. Now, media report after report shows that the government has botched the rollout of cannabis legalization, with over 1,000 complaints to the Ombudsman about the Ontario Cannabis Store in just two weeks.

Why was this government so wholly unprepared to handle the rollout of legal cannabis?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you for the question. It is our understanding that the Ontario Cannabis Store is indeed working with the Ombudsman on this matter. Customers have a right to great customer service, and we expect the Ontario Cannabis Store to deliver.

But I will say that Ontario received more orders for cannabis online—100,000 orders on the first day. That is more than every single other province combined.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Holy smokes.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: It is a lot of holy smokes.

We continue to work very closely with all stakeholders. These are uncharted waters. We’ve been in prohibition for 100 years. We’ve rolled out a multi-million-dollar business in a multi-billion-dollar sector.

We know that the Ontario Cannabis Store will continue to provide good service to our customers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Sara Singh: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Other provinces are not having the backlog in delivery that our province is. The media are reporting that Ontario Cannabis Store customers are so frustrated by the current system that they are actually going back to the illicit market and black market in order to access legal cannabis. Every time the Ontario Cannabis Store botches or delays an order, they are encouraging that customer to return to the black market.

Minister, what is this government doing to curtail the black market of cannabis and why are we not prepared to offer a legal alternative?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Certainly, we are prepared to offer a legal alternative. The Ontario Cannabis Store, ocs.ca, is open for business and making deliveries on a daily basis, despite the postal disruptions.

When it comes to these illegal dispensaries, let us be absolutely and crystal clear with this: If you are operating an illegal dispensary today, you will never, ever, ever have the opportunity now to own a legal bricks and mortar store. We’re crystal clear on that.

You asked about the tools. We have given municipalities the tools to act—it is up to a $250,000 fine, not only on the illegal dispensary for continuing to offer cannabis illegally, but it is also up to a $250,000 fine for the landlord. This is one way that we are moving to curb this. If the building is owned by a corporation, it is up to a $1-million fine. So the tools are being made to municipalities to thwart this. The whole goal is to curb the illegal market.

Climate change

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier. I hope you had a fun Halloween.

Yesterday was a really scary day for Ontarians, and not because of all the little ghosts and goblins who came to the door, but because Ontario became the largest jurisdiction in North America without a plan for climate change—we’re likely the largest place in the world.

Climate change presents a danger right now to our way of life. I know the Premier is busy with his federal leadership campaign, but it’s sheer madness that we have no plan for climate change here in Ontario.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us if he has a plan for climate change, and if he does, what it is?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, our government was elected to get rid of the inefficient cap-and-trade—a tax grab that this province and this country have never seen. It’s about making businesses more competitive, about taking the burden off the backs of each individual in Ontario. It’s about making Ontario thrive once again. As the Financial Accountability Officer said, confirming that we’re going to save the taxpayers $1.3 billion—that’s $264 a household so they might be able to go out and do the things they may not be able to do under the cap-and-trade, the carbon tax. It’s the absolute worst tax ever.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. John Fraser: I have your answer for you, Mr. Premier: You do have a plan for climate change. As a matter of fact, your Minister of the Environment signed on to it about this time last year. I think the Attorney General did, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Actually, the whole front row signed on to the People’s Guarantee that had a plan for climate change.

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, you did—probably most of your caucus. You did; you did; there’s one that didn’t. There we go. We do have the anomaly.

So the question is this: What’s changed in the last 12 months? What’s the big change? The C.D. Howe Institute tells us we need a plan. Two of this year’s Nobel Prize winners told us we need a plan. The Premier’s own budget adviser has been telling people we need a plan. So how is it that the Premier can find the time to find jobs for his friends but can’t find time to have a plan for climate change?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: I’ll tell the leader of the independent Liberals what happened and what changed. What changed was an election.

We’ve been clear. We will bring forward a plan this month that does not punish Ontario taxpayers, that does not punish Ontario families. What we won’t have is the sort of out-of-control spending that was a part of the cap-and-trade program—money going to Warren Buffett to help him build an electric truck factory, hundreds of millions of dollars on window programs that were out of control.

Our program won’t punish Ontario families. It rewards Ontario families. It rewards Ontario for the work it has already done on climate change. It will help reduce greenhouse gases, will plan for the future, but we won’t punish Ontario families.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Michael Parsa: I’m trying to ensure my colleagues are ready for this.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. The nearly 10 million drivers across Ontario have sent us a strong message: They want an auto insurance system that meets their needs and works for them. We have heard a lot of ideas over the past weeks about the need to improve our auto insurance system. Some of these ideas, however, have been better than others.

I’m concerned that the member from Brampton East has brought forward a plan that would exacerbate existing insurance within the system. As the private member’s bill introduced by the member from Brampton East will be debated this afternoon, could the minister please inform the House about the shortcomings of the proposed legislation?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for the question. The NDP member from Brampton East has introduced a bill that would cause auto insurance rates to increase across the GTA.

The member proposes that the GTA be considered a single geographic area when insurance companies set their rates. However, his failed attempt to address rate discrimination would only serve to spread the issue to more communities. In fact, his plan would cause rates to rise in NDP ridings such as Toronto–Danforth, Beaches–East York, Toronto–St. Paul’s, Parkdale–High Park and University–Rosedale.

I wonder if these members will be supporting their colleague’s bill and voting for higher auto insurance rates for their own constituents.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Thank you to the minister for his response. It’s unfortunate that the member from Brampton East is promoting a policy that would only serve to increase insurance costs across the GTA. After the failed stretch goals of the Liberals and the NDP, drivers across Ontario demand better, and they deserve better. Thankfully, we have another option available to us.

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Parsa: As we all know—get ready, Paul—my caucus colleague the member from Milton has introduced a private member’s bill, the Ending Discrimination in Automobile Insurance Act, 2018, that, if passed, will actually make a positive difference.

Could the minister please remind the House about the thoughtful proposals that the member from Milton brought forward to the Legislature?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I’ll begin by once again thanking the member from Milton for his leadership on this file. Unfortunately, the NDP member from Brampton East rushed to introduce his bill after the PC member from Milton introduced his thoughtful proposal. The member from Brampton East, again, was a few days late and many, many dollars short.

However, the member from Milton got this right. He took the time to consult, to listen and to develop a plan that, if passed, will deliver real fairness to the system. His bill proposes fundamental changes to the auto insurance system. We truly look forward to further discussing his bill when it comes to debate. Together we will ensure fairness in rate setting, end discriminatory practices, and work toward a system that puts drivers first.

Youth services

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is to the Minister of Education.

Speaker, I know you’ve heard of the organization Big Brothers Big Sisters. The government helps fund them to provide a mentoring program in schools. It’s cost-efficient and it provides essential prevention and intervention for children already demonstrating negative behaviours toward their teachers and their peers. Some of these kids are already engaging in risky behaviour, such as drug or alcohol abuse, or they face mental health challenges.

Can the minister tell us why she is considering ending the funding to such a valuable mentoring program?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand and address this. First and foremost, Big Brothers Big Sisters are supported by amazing corporations and communities throughout this province. I tip my hat to those communities and those corporations, like Wescast. There’s a bowl-a-thon that’s going to be coming up shortly. I applaud everyone who reaches out and supports Big Brothers Big Sisters from one end of this province to another.

But I need to be crystal clear on this, Speaker: When it comes to transfer payments. we are absolutely taking our time and making sure that, after a $15-billion deficit, we get it right in education. We’re working through a line-by-line audit to make sure that the programs that we support align with our education priorities.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Cutting this mentoring program will cause a great deal of damage and could well end up costing society much more in the long run. Let alone breaking the mentoring bonds, sometimes these are the only reliable, consistent influences in a troubled life. Thousands of troubled young people need this service, including more than 500 in my area alone.

Will the minister do the right thing and protect this valuable service offered through Big Brothers Big Sisters?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m going to do the right thing by clarifying and making sure every member in the opposition party knows that we are reviewing all of our transfer payment programs. We have hit pause so we can do a line-by-line audit and do the responsible thing.

Interjections.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s actually embarrassing for this opposition party to be fearmongering like they are. They are saying things that are absolutely wrong.

Our number one priority, as I said before, is making sure that our transfer payments align with our priority in ensuring a safe, supportive, meaningful learning environment for our students across this province.

Again, we are working very diligently to make sure, as we conduct our line-by-line audit, that we have programs that align with our education priorities.

Immigration and refugee policy

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is to the honourable minister responsible for citizenship and immigration. It’s moving day in Ontario again: Anywhere between 450 to 600 illegal border crossers are looking for accommodations now that the federal government’s October 31 deadline to cover their hotel bills has come and gone. Since crossing illegally into Canada, they went from sleeping in temporary holding facilities to college dorms to hotel rooms and now, potentially, to Ontario’s homeless shelters. The illegal-border-crosser crisis is out of control.

Could the minister update the House on what the federal government is doing or isn’t doing to address this crisis?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: An outstanding question by the member opposite from our own caucus, who’s been a strong advocate for immigration and refugees in the province of Ontario, so thank you very much for that.

Today, the federal Minister of Immigration, who has some responsibility for immigration—but they have played musical ministers there—gave a speech at the Canadian Club, but he failed to address the illegal-border-crossing issue that has strained our budget here in the province of Ontario, up to the tune of $200 million. The lack of respect for Ontarians by the federal government is unacceptable, and I will continue to challenge the Trudeau Liberals.

It’s important to note that all Premiers of all political parties, right across this country, stand shoulder to shoulder with Ontario and our Premier, Premier Ford, to call on the federal Liberals for leadership on this file. This is an issue, not even just as suggested by the government’s own internal polling, but also by their own Liberal cabinet and their own Liberal government, where John McKay says the only fair thing for everybody is to process—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Roman Baber: Back to the minister: Canadians are losing confidence in the federal government’s ability to manage the crisis of irregular border crossers. We expect—no, we demand—better from the