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

February 28, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Feb-28 (PDF)

L072 - Thu 28 Feb 2019 / Jeu 28 fév 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 28 February 2019 Jeudi 28 février 2019

Notice of reasoned amendment

Orders of the Day

Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la refonte complète des services de police de l’Ontario

Introduction of Visitors

Bruce Kyereh-Addo

Oral Questions

Health care

Health care

Autism treatment

Health care

Fundraising

Consumer protection

Autism treatment

Police services

Health care

Tuition

Waste diversion

Child care

Municipal government

Addiction services

Seniors

Visitors

Private members’ public business

Deferred Votes

Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la refonte complète des services de police de l’Ontario

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Tenant protection

Professional engineers

Autism treatment

Animal protection

Erica Fryer and Kylie Masse

Zebra Technologies

Autism treatment

Fayne Bullen

Walk for homelessness

Visitor

Introduction of Bills

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Crime prevention

Petitions

Child care workers

Fish and wildlife management

Autism treatment

Animal protection

Child care workers

Ontario economy

Long-term care

Fish and wildlife management

Toronto Transit Commission

Public safety

Autism treatment

Child care workers

Child care workers

Private Members’ Public Business

Youth employment

Registered Professional Planners Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les urbanistes certifiés

Golden Girls Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les Golden Girls

Youth employment

Registered Professional Planners Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les urbanistes certifiés

Golden Girls Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les Golden Girls

Youth employment

Visitors

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(c), the member for Timmins has filed with the Clerk a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 74,

An Act concerning the provision of health care, continuing Ontario Health and making consequential and related amendments and repeals. The order for second reading of Bill 74 may therefore not be called today.

Orders of the Day

Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la refonte complète des services de police de l’Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 27, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act with respect to community safety and policing / Projet de loi 68, Loi portant sur la sécurité communautaire et les services policiers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this bill, we had heard a presentation from the member for Niagara Centre. He’s in the House now. We’re going to now go to questions and comments relating to his remarks.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Joel Harden: Good morning, everybody. Good morning, colleagues. It’s an honour to rise to talk about the women and men who work to protect us every day. I’m glad my colleagues in government have brought the matter forward for us, but I have concerns, like my colleague from Niagara Centre has voiced. I have concerns in particular that the matter that has been raised to me when I’ve met with Matt Skof and other local officials in our police association in Ottawa—that the issue of privatization of police services is not addressed by this bill.

So we have to remember that when women and men take risks every single day, when they decide to make a vocational choice to work to serve and protect people, the integrity of that profession has to be foremost in our minds as legislators. And, to me, when we start parceling off the work of police to other security agencies that fulfill those critical public safety functions, that should be ringing alarm bells for us, Speaker. That is not acceptable in the province of Ontario. We’ve come to a moment now where we are so reliant on the folks who protect us that we can’t sacrifice the health and safety of their profession.

I also want to say, Speaker, that the recent bus crash that happened in my city of Ottawa and the immediate response of the local police played a critical role—along with firefighters, paramedics, other crisis workers—in making sure not only that the terrible, terrible incident and the people who suffered that incident were dealt with immediately, but also that our city had a sense that our first-responder network was going to activate immediately and quickly. If we move down the road of privatization of police services, what I worry is that we’re not going to be ready in moments like that.

My city, through the tornadoes that hit us in September 2018 and the recent Westboro bus crash, has seen how important it is to have resilient and strong police services. I invite my friends in government to include this in their legislation.

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

Mr. Billy Pang: It is my honour to add reflections to the COPS Act.

A couple of years ago, in the middle of the night and in the middle of nowhere, I was stopped by a police vehicle. I was pulled over, and the officer came up to me and asked for my identity and all the information. The officer was very polite and he asked me if I drank anything, where I come from, where did I go and where I was going. I was just back from a prayer meeting from the church and I was going back home. After a few minutes, the officer handed me back all my identity and let me go. My feeling the other night was that I felt safe because police officers are around me.

I think, as a citizen in a community, yes of course I don’t like to be pulled over, but after that, my feeling was I was well covered by the police officers.

There was another incident when I was driving. The passenger told me, “Hey, you have to be careful. There’s a police car following us.” I said, “There is nothing to worry about, because I’m following all the regulations.”

I have a strong feeling that “to serve and protect” is not just a slogan but it is a very good statement declared by the police that we are being protected. In this scenario, I believe that we need to give all our tools from this government to support the police that are securing the community. Especially in my riding, lately, there are a lot of robberies and break-ins, so I think we need more tools to let the police do their job.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments? I recognize the member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I wasn’t sure if one of the colleagues across the way was standing up for their questions and comments.

Speaker, I would like to compliment the member from Niagara on his debate on Bill 68, because he pointed something out that I had seen earlier and thought was a concern. He talked about it in some detail, about the change in this bill, where it’s going to change how we have the independent police commission, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. What it’s doing is actually scrapping that and setting up a different structure for complaints with regard to police misconduct.

I did a little bit of research on that because I wanted to understand when it was in place and the purpose of it. It was previously known as the Ontario Police Commission. What happened was, it got changed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. It’s an independent, quasi-judicial agency that provides civilian oversight of police services. In 1990, it was known as the Ontario Police Commission, and in 2007 it was changed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

What it does is it ensures adequate and effective policing services provided in a way that’s fair and accountable, and it handles complaints involving police conduct, but it doesn’t look into serious cases like death or injury. Those cases, of course, at the time are investigated by the SIU.

I’m concerned about that piece because I think having community involvement with police, when it comes to concerns, is a good model. I know that in London, our police service is always trying to engage the community. We have a diversity officer that actually goes into schools to talk about policing. So I hope the government may reconsider that.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure to stand here this morning and to just add my comments to the bill being debated.

The Liberal government should have called the bill that they introduced in the last Parliament the “anti-police act.” But we are calling it today the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act.

I hear a lot from the official opposition about privatization. They fearmonger on privatization on every single bill that we seem to be bringing forward. That’s absolutely not true; absolutely not true. Again, I look at this—they like to put carding and street checks, calling it one or the other, and saying that it’s wrong. We’ve come out and said that carding is wrong. But street checks are not wrong, and carding and street checks are not the same.

The NDP want to basically handcuff our police services people. We want to instill trust back into the minds and lives of our police officers. We respect them. As a matter of fact, when I think about trust, I think, number one, of training. Training is the first thing that would be imparted with regard to not only our police services—those who want to keep our communities safe—but also instilling that trust back into our communities.

The R in “trust” stands for respect. We need to respect and have that respect for our police officers for the wonderful, incredible job that they are doing.

The U stands for “understanding,” and we need to develop that understanding. We need to understand the issues, the challenges that our police officers are faced with, and that’s why we’ve introduced this particular bill.

The “S” in trust stands for support. We need to be able to stand together. I’ll use an NDP term: We need to stand in solidarity with our police officers.

Lastly, the last T in “trust” is be thorough.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Niagara Centre for his remarks.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you for the thoughtful comments, to the member from Ottawa Centre, around contracting out, and to the member from Markham–Unionville about respect for the police, which I think we all have.

Just to address the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington: He probably wasn’t here yesterday, but what I talked about at the beginning of my speech was my own history in law enforcement and my years with security, with representing security officers across the province, and with the auxiliary police force of the Niagara Regional Police, and my distaste for listening to members from across the way telling people in the NDP that we are police-haters, when I’ve devoted dozens of hours of my own time to community policing and volunteer policing and representing security officers.

To hear that kind of insult thrown across the way is similar to the debates we’ve had on the military, and people who have relatives in the military, and then we hear accusations that we’re anti-military.

I hope that that kind of language and that kind of partisanship can be changed, moving forward in the House, because there are people on this side of the House who have relatives in the police force, and people like me who have law enforcement experience, and it really is quite insulting when we hear that kind of thing.

As well, the concerns about contracting out: They’re not made up. Yesterday, if the member had listened to my speech, I referenced sections 14 and 16 of this bill, which leave the way open for contracting out. If the member wants to look it up, it talks about special areas of policing.

With my experience in contract agreement language, I can tell you that it leaves the way open for contracting out. I hope that the member will consider that in the future.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington on a point of order.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In this Legislature, I know it is not customary to refer to a member when he or she may not be present in the Legislature. The previous member on the other side did make reference to the fact that a certain individual from Chatham-Kent–Leamington wasn’t here yesterday. Well, there are reasons for that, but again, it’s not parliamentary to make reference to when a member is not here.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member from Timmins will come to order.

A reminder to all members that it is not appropriate to reference members who are not in the House.

Further debate? I recognize the member for Peterborough–Kawartha.

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I recognize you as well.

We’re talking about Bill 68 today, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act. I will freely admit that I have a lot of police officer friends. My wife is an employee of the Peterborough Police Service. She’s not an officer; she’s a civilian who works for them. So I’ve known a large number of police officers for a long time.

The last bill that we saw, the one that was introduced by the Liberals, didn’t truly respect police officers. It’s been said a number of times that it was really an anti-policing bill, and I heard that a lot from a number of my friends, a number of the officers.

I’d like to point out the motto for the Peterborough police. It’s two words, and I think it encompasses all police services, really. Their motto is “Professional” and “Friendly,” and you need to have both of those as a police service. You must act in a professional manner. You have to do things in a way that really shows the respect for the job that you have. You’re doing things because you are trying to protect the community.

But the second key, and as large a pillar to it, is the word “friendly.” Police officers need to be seen as contributing members in our community. They need to be seen as someone who you can come up to and ask for advice, can ask for help. What we saw over the last bill that the Liberals introduced was that that friendly aspect was being taken away from them. There was an adversarial approach to it. We don’t want to have that. We recognize that our police officers are very important. They are there to serve the community. They are there to protect the community.

I’ve been involved in a lot of community things in my riding. One of them, in particular: We brought Hockey Day in Canada to Peterborough back in 2013. The police service did some things for us without our asking for them to do it, and it added to the event. It added to the community feel to it. I want to talk a little bit about it. A number of officers pulled up in their cruisers, popped open their trunks, grabbed their skates, hockey sticks and gloves, and came down onto the ice surface in uniform and played shinny with a number of the players. It was both professional and friendly.

It provided an opportunity for thousands of kids that were there to see those police officers as regular people, as someone they could play with, as someone that they could approach. I think this bill recognizes things like that. We recognize that our police officers are there doing a job, and they need to be respected. They need to be respected because they’re giving respect back to the community.

On the police oversight, officers have said to me a number of times that they are not concerned about oversight. They believe fully in oversight. They want to make sure that all police officers are doing the job most effectively, that they are doing the job they’re hired to do. They welcome oversight. But what they don’t welcome is interference. They want to make sure that the police officers have the ability to go out and do their job, protect the community, serve the community. That’s what they are there for.

But they don’t want to be in a position where they’re being interfered with and they can’t protect, they can’t serve, they can’t do the things in our communities to make sure that we’re safe.

I’m very lucky, I’m blessed, because of the community that I live in. We don’t have a high crime rate. There are very, very few violent crimes that occur in my area. I’m blessed that way. What I think happened with the last bill that the Liberals introduced was, they took a high-crime area and decided that that needed to be the standard that was applied everywhere. They tightened things down so much it was so difficult for police officers to do the right thing, to do what they needed to do.

They made it very, very difficult for those officers, the good officers who wanted to serve the community to do their job properly. We’re making some changes to that. We’re going to have the key oversight that’s needed to make sure that every officer is doing the job properly.

I’ve talked a lot about officers in particular. For the most part, they do great jobs, but in every profession, regardless of what it is—whether it’s policing, whether it’s a doctor, whether it’s being a politician, whether it’s being a janitor—there are exceptional people in those positions, and there are some people who aren’t exceptional, and we need to find the balance.

We believe that we have found that balance, that we’re putting in that type of oversight to make sure all of the good officers can do their jobs most effectively, and the officers who perhaps shouldn’t be there, who perhaps aren’t doing the job that they should be, will be dealt with. Officers need gratitude and respect. They don’t need to be scorned. They don’t need to have that one bad apple reflected on all of them.

One of the other changes that we made that I applaud is that the chief of police now has the ability—or will have the ability, once this passes—to suspend an officer without pay if the officer has done something egregious. We’ve had numerous examples come up over the last few days as we’ve been debating this, about officers who didn’t follow the motto, who weren’t professional, who weren’t friendly, who weren’t there to serve the people. The previous bills, previous legislation—a number of them—tied the hands of the police services, and they weren’t able to effectively do something about that.

We’re giving the police chiefs the power now that, under certain circumstances, they can suspend an officer without pay. We know there’s a due process that has to go through, to make sure that everyone is following the process properly. But it’s really inappropriate to be paying someone hundreds of thousands of dollars because the process drags on for years and years and years when the officer himself has committed something that was a criminal act.

We need to make sure that the chiefs of police have the ability, then, under certain circumstances, to look after their community, to ensure that they are acting in a professional manner. I’m happy to say that that’s something that is in this bill: Under certain circumstances, a police officer can be suspended without pay. As I said, we had a number of examples that have come up over the last couple of days on this.

I’d like to also touch on the mandatory blood testing and the changes that are being made to that. This should provide some comfort to victims, officers and so on, on the mandatory blood testing. Again, I’ve had the opportunity—a number of opportunities, because a lot of the police officers in the Peterborough police force are friends of mine. They don’t get treated with respect. There are issues that come up because of that. They’ll be out at a crime scene or be out investigating something, and they’ll be attacked. They’ll be bitten. They’ll be spit on. They’ll be cut.

They’ll be dealing with someone who has been cut. They’ll be exposed to different bodily fluids. This will give as much peace of mind as we can give to the officers or the civilians who are involved because of that mandatory blood testing. We want to make sure that everyone is safe. No one should be going to their job and wondering whether or not they’re going to be able to go home.

The changes to the SIU—I applaud that. I’m going to talk about one particular incident in Peterborough. An officer was responding to a call. The call came in: The individual was armed. They had attacked someone. The police officer got to them. This individual lunged at the officer and stabbed him in the leg. The officer pulled out his service revolver and shot the suspect. It was more than two years that that case went on. The officer was stabbed—severely stabbed. He was off work for months because of it. Yet he had to endure an almost two-year process: Did he act appropriately when someone stabbed him?

Could he have done something else other than to react and protect his life? Those were the questions that were being asked. No officer should have to go through that. The changes that we’re implementing will make it better, more effective, for those officers so that they don’t have to worry about that, so that they can do their jobs knowing that the government is protecting them, that the government has their back.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m pleased to be here again this morning to speak to Bill 68.

I was listening very closely to what the member opposite had to say. I grew up in a very small town in Newfoundland and even in the great big city, the metropolis of St. John’s. It was a little smaller than most cities here. So I found it very interesting to hear the member opposite talk about how there’s a different approach to policing perhaps necessary in smaller communities versus what he called, I think, “high-crime areas” or “high-crime cities.” I have to say, I think I know where he’s coming from on that.

But I would just say this: At the end of the day, isn’t what we are trying to achieve that everyone in all of our communities, our youth, and particularly our most vulnerable people, feel safe and feel cared for—and, yes, even in what the member opposite might consider high-crime areas?

To that end, I have to say that one of the things I find most disappointing about this legislation is that nowhere in there—nowhere in there—is there a mention that carding will be banned or that identification related to the carding will be shredded. I have to say, when we speak about how you feel vulnerable and when you feel cared for and valued—I’ve spoken to many, many youth in my community and across the GTA who will tell you that they come to school sometimes after having been pulled aside, feeling like they’re not valued, feeling like there’s something wrong with them, feeling like they don’t matter or that somehow they are criminal even if they are not responsible for anything.

I just ask the members opposite to consider that and to consider that the issues that we all share—and, again, I say this speaking as somebody who grew up in a very small place—are not all that different.

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I rise today to speak about such an integral part of our community. I had the opportunity to join our great Peel police for a ride-along last month. It gave me the ability to see first-hand what our officers on the front line face each and every day. Just think about it: a traffic stop. When approaching the vehicle, you are completely unaware of who the person is. Are they armed? Are they aggressive or violent? And then think about a domestic dispute: Parties are often angry, violent, and can be injured.

I observed how calmly and effectively the officers handled the situations and what they faced. I also asked what we, as a government, could do to ensure that they have the tools to do their job most effectively. They asked that we let them do their job, that we respect their profession.

I’d like to talk a little bit about the person I did a ride-along with, a supervisor. He was a homicide officer prior to becoming the supervisor. Sometimes they would see children who had witnessed their parents’ murder—how traumatizing. When he had children, he could no longer do that job because of what he had faced, and then he went back to being a supervisor. It was very difficult for him, and I could see that from some of the things he was telling me that he had faced. I think we need to respect and understand what our front-line officers have to face all the time.

I do urge all parties here in this House to support Bill 68, our comprehensive police services act, because it’s bringing respect back to our front-line police officers and at the same time making sure that the SIU has a position to make sure that the bad apples are taken out.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What’s interesting in this debate is that the government is saying two things. The first thing that they’re saying is, “Oh, work with us. We want you to work closely with us so that we can do all the right things for the police.” Nobody on this side has a problem doing what’s right for the police. But they have a funny way of trying to draw people to support them by calling us names, saying that we in the New Democratic Party don’t like police, that we in the—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: See, there they go again, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To my point, without naming the member from Waterloo over there—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He’s making the point that, somehow or other, New Democrats don’t support the military and we don’t support the police. All they can do is send insults. What I’ve learned as a human being, let alone as a politician—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —is that if your only defence is to lob insults at the other side, it means to say that you don’t have much to offer. That’s really what this comes down to.

It’s not me who’s feeling rather frustrated by this, but I think the public gets frustrated by this because they look and they say, “Listen, I may agree or disagree with the NDP or the Conservatives on any one matter, but to all of a sudden say that a whole group of people are opposed to the police and are opposed to the military is way off base and it is not the way of being able to attract the support that you want.”

I served in the military. How many people can say that? I served in the military. I was in the Royal 22nd Regiment.

Mr. Mike Harris: I applaud you for that.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, this is the point, Madam Speaker. There are people here who have made a living in the armed forces, serving either as reservists or full-time members. You have people who have been involved with the police, who have family in the police and understand the issues. But when it comes to legislation having to deal with the police, we need to make sure that we give the police the tools that they need, but hurling insults is not the way that you’re going to get the support that you’re looking for.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): A reminder to all members that during debate rotations, they do have the opportunity for questions and comments in an orderly rotating fashion. Anyone who would like to be on record is welcome to do so at that time. Thank you.

Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Parsa: It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 68, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act. I don’t think that anyone in this House would disagree that we rely on the police to keep us safe. They continuously make sacrifices and work very hard to keep our communities safe. Oftentimes, the work that the police do goes without recognition. At times, the work that they do can be thankless. For our government, it’s a job for us to ensure that the men and women on the police front lines have the support they need to continue making this province a safe place to live. Ontarians expect nothing less, and in this bill, we’re going to do just that.

With this bill, we’re letting our men and women in law enforcement know that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them. The police deserve our gratitude and respect, not our suspicion and scorn. The previous government’s legislation did not even acknowledge the principles of fairness and due process for our police officers. The previous legislation was quite simply disrespectful and unfair to our police officers who risk their lives to keep us safe.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Stop the clock. I apologize for interrupting the member. The side conversations are distracting.

The member has the floor. I’ll return to the member to continue his remarks.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through service clubs in our town, I’ve been very involved with some of the programs with our at-risk youth. I have to tell you that there’s much need for this, because sometimes some of the youth that we deal with have had some setbacks in their lives, and you can just hear it in the tone of the way that they speak. We’ve worked very hard to bring them closer to our law enforcement, closer to police officers, and they have done such a great job.

I’m so thankful to all the men and women in our area with York Regional Police who come to our programs that we put together for them to connect with these youth and let them know that they’re here to serve them and they’re here to help them. I thank the minister for putting this bill forward.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Merci, madame la Présidente. I rise today to share my concern with regard to Bill 68—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I apologize to the member. It’s not actually his turn to speak. I should have returned to the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for his remarks.

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’d like to thank the member from Davenport for her comments. You did bring up an interesting point. There is something, though, that I would like to say, and that is with respect to street checks. That’s not something that happens very frequently in our area, and I would like to make sure that they still have that tool to be able to do that to talk to people. They do it in a very respectful way. It’s not something that happens in a rural area very often.

The member from Mississauga–Streetsville: Thank you very much for your comments on that, as well.

And to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill: I appreciated everything you had to say.

In the end, this bill’s purpose is to show respect for the police. It is to put forward something that is going to be respectful to all of the police officers, to the police service, to those people who deal with the police. It is disappointing to see, when I’m talking about something in a very professional and friendly way, that it’s taken completely off-topic to make another type of a statement. That is unfortunate when we’re talking about being respectful, being friendly and trying to work together.

I thought that I had given the speech in a way that was not attacking anyone, that was talking about being respectful, and it’s disappointing to see that someone has decided to make another type of statement.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? I am thrilled to appropriately recognize the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Merci, madame la Présidente, encore une fois.

I rise today to share my concern with regard to Bill 68, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, or COPS for short.

Je veux commencer en disant une chose sur laquelle nous sommes tous d’accord : nous voulons que tous, nos familles et nos enfants, vivent en sécurité et que nos agents de la police aient les moyens et le respect qu’ils méritent.

Les libéraux ont eu 15 ans—oui, 15 ans—pour proposer une réforme aux services de police en Ontario. Le projet de loi 175 a vu la lumière juste avant leur départ l’an passé. Et puis, au lieu d’attaquer les points essentiels concernant la sécurité des gens, les libéraux ont essayé d’ouvrir la porte des services de police aux entités privées. Le projet de loi 68 des conservateurs fait de même.

What about this bill? Is there anything new under the sun? Experts in the media have been very clear on the character of this bill. This is not a major change from Bill 175. The first thing you notice when reading Bill 68 is that it’s mostly a copycat of its predecessor.

But when the Conservatives introduced Bill 68, the rhetoric could not be more spectacular: The bill came to fix the disaster that the Liberal bill had created roughly a year ago. Bill 175, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services said, was “the most anti-police legislation in Canadian history.” Those are pretty big shoes to fill, I think.

But the Conservative bill doesn’t live up to its expectations, to say the least. Again, what was labelled “the most anti-police legislation in Canadian history” is actually the backbone of this new piece of legislation. Again, Bill 68 continues along the path created by its predecessor and, to add insult to injury, it makes some regressive changes that will make things worse for Ontarians.

There are multiple areas of this bill that require qualification, but for the sake of brevity, I want to speak to you about two aspects that have gone completely unnoticed: funding and recruitment for northern and First Nations police services, and street checks.

Time and again, we have heard from the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service—NAPS, for short—that they face incredible challenges when it comes to receiving the bare minimum funding from the province. These are people who oftentimes work in complete isolation, are poorly equipped and deal with the vastness of the northern territories in generally dire conditions.

NAPS polices 35 First Nations in a territory that goes from Manitoba to Quebec and from Hudson Bay to northern Sudbury. This is about two thirds of the territory of this province—the size of France. They do so with a mere 160 officers.

Mr. Speaker, NAPS’ budget has averaged from $25 million to $27 million for the past eight years, with constant pushback from this province concerning further funding for equipment such as telecommunications and the hiring of new officers. According to media reports a few years back, the OPP indicated that taking over NAPS’ territory could cost at least $80 million.

In June, NAPS was promised $30 million in funding for, among other things, partnering up officers, the purchase of radio equipment, housing and hiring new officers. But again, they had to go through months of negotiation with this government in order to get part of the funding they truly deserve. They were literally on the verge of shutting down activities because of this government’s inaction.

Le rôle et les conditions de travail pèsent également sur le statut de la force ainsi que sur le nombre d’officiers sur le terrain. Selon des rapports de 2016, 21 % des agents du NAPS étaient en congé de stress ou d’invalidité. Ça, c’est plus de deux sur 10. Et des agents en congé, 24 % étaient atteints d’un syndrome de stress post-traumatique. Je ne suis pas le seul à dire que les agents du NAPS ont un travail des plus difficiles avec des conditions de travail affreuses.

Officers are also seriously undertrained despite the fact that they face dire situations, with some of the highest homicides and sexual violence rates in the province. If you don’t have enough officers, if you overburden those who are on the field, if you offer no help for development, what happens is quite simple: People leave their jobs. Officers just leave for greener pastures. And what does this bill do for them? For one, nothing is mentioned with regard to training and issues such as de-escalation.

Recent studies have shown that we have erratic and uneven de-escalation training across the province, with the quality, amount and type of instruction depending on the time and resources that many police services lack.

Ce projet de loi ne reconnaît pas l’importance d’entraîner nos agents pour mieux gérer les situations où des problèmes d’addiction ou de santé mentale sont en jeu. En fait, trop souvent nos agents doivent traiter des problèmes médicaux au lieu de mettre l’accent sur la sécurité de nos communautés.

À Thunder Bay, où la force a récemment fait l’objet d’une enquête sur des allégations de racisme systémique, on fait appel au gouvernement à investir davantage dans l’entraînement des nouveaux agents. En fait, des échecs répétés pour remédier à la méfiance entre les communautés autochtones et la police ont été surlignés comme une urgence.

What is this government doing to fund our agents? What is this government doing to help NAPS recruit officers and to keep them in the job, to keep our communities safe? Nothing, rien.

What about one of the most controversial and arguably illegal enforcement activities: carding, or street checks? The recent Tulloch report indicates that there is absolutely no value in performing random checks and that there is no evidence to back their undertaking. They play absolutely no role in preventing, intervening and suppressing crime. Justice Tulloch says that this practice has disproportionately affected racialized communities, especially Black and Indigenous people. Carding has been shown, time and again, to affect people’s lives and careers.

Street checks are, in other words, a poor tool for enforcement that simply encourage the profiling and the marginalization of members of our communities.

This bill says nothing in light of carding. What do we read here about modernizing police services, about enhancing our police service involvement in our communities, about bringing law enforcement at par within the 21st century? Absolute radio silence.

If you truly think that our police officers deserve our respect for protecting our families, you would do otherwise. If you truly think that your intention is to improve public safety by police officers fairly, you would do otherwise. If you wish to enhance the safety and well-being of all Ontarians, you would do otherwise.

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

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for his comments and his thoughts today.

I want to just very briefly reaffirm to this House that our party is one that supports, categorically, victims’ rights in this Parliament and in this province. We believe that the interests of victims must trump those of recidivist violent criminals in this province. We believe that the rights of law-abiding, tax-paying Canadians must always come first within our criminal justice system. For our government, this legislation, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, will do just that.

If I may add a new aspect to the debate today, it was just days ago that the Attorney General of this province and the Minister of Community Safety announced an additional one million new dollars to support a one-time funding for sexual assault victims in the province of Ontario. It is these types of commitments that are manifestly demonstrated through dollars, through resources, through support. They’re going to make a difference for perhaps some of the most vulnerable people within our communities right across the province, in urban and rural settings.

Madam Speaker, I also want to note our categorical support for those who serve in uniform—men and women who valiantly put on a uniform in the defence of our safety and the defence of our security. There’s an interesting quote, which I will conclude with, by the president of the Ontario police services association, Mr. Chapman, no doubt a colleague and friend to all members, including those opposite.

He said that the “Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will serve to restore fairness and respect for professional policing, make oversight more effective, and improve governance, training, and transparency.” We will heed the perspective and the advice of this gentleman, of someone who served in uniform, and continue to make every effort possible to give our police the tools and the resources to do the important work and keep our families safe.

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: This legislation is critical in strengthening community safety by ensuring that police officers have this province’s support. Police can only do their job by knowing that we, as a province, are confident in their ability and provide them with all of the resources and legislation necessary to perform their services to the best of their ability.

The Liberal government implemented a piece of legislation that diminished the everyday reality of police officers, what their roles entailed and what their needs for our government are, completely letting down Ontario. How do we expect our men and women in uniform to continually provide us with the utmost attention and care when fundamental legislation is against keeping Ontario communities safe?

On the surface, Bill 68 tweaks previous policies to ensure that police officers are treated with fairness and respect. Training, as Bill 68 points out, is a major catalyst of change. Changes in the effectiveness of policing can only come about through better and more comprehensive training for our officers. These changes hold more power when the way police are governed is taken into consideration and improved upon.

I seriously value that the proposed legislation mentions issues of transparency as well. Being transparent about where improvements need to be, and openly discussing where past governments have dropped the ball, is completely necessary in figuring out which areas of policing need the most attention. This, I feel, is important in the legislation in heightening the public’s trust in the police.

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

Alors, on sait que la police, ils ont des défis dans toutes les communautés—même rurales, même où on a des fermes, même dans les grandes villes—et on veut aider, avec ces nouvelles règles, nos polices à aider nos citoyens pour garder leurs communautés fortes. On sait que la sécurité de nos communautés, c’est « paramount » pour tout le monde ici dans la législature. On veut aider nos municipalités, aussi, à faire des planifications pour garder les communautés fortes pour nos citoyens, mais aussi pour les aider à faire des communautés où on peut aider les membres avec des problèmes de santé mentale.

C’est très difficile pour nos polices de penser—s’ils ont une interaction avec quelqu’un, qu’est-ce qui se passe dans leur crâne? Alors, on veut les aider.

On veut entendre. On a discuté avec les communautés, les municipalités, la police et tout le monde. J’espère que nos résidents dans tous nos comtés peuvent nous parler aussi.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: I want to compliment my friend from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for his very thoughtful commentary on the bill. I just want to pick up on a couple of things that he said.

First of all, it is interesting to hear the government talk about this bill as being some groundbreaking piece of legislation when, as my friend points out, it’s basically Bill 175 with a few tweaks. There’s no question about that. It’s taking the bill, cutting and pasting a few things and adding a few tweaks, and that’s really what it is. So let’s not pretend that Bill 175 was some horrible anti-police piece of legislation and then this is the gift to the Ontario police. It’s not the case at all.

Also, there are some things that haven’t been done in this bill that are really a lost opportunity, and addressing carding is the first thing that comes to mind. This is an issue that has been brought up numerous times in this House. The racialized communities in Toronto and all across the province have brought this issue forward, and we’ve tried, as the opposition, to bring it to the government’s attention. It’s really a burning issue out there in the community, and here we have a bill on policing, a great opportunity for this government to address a very legitimate concern from the public, and crickets. Nothing at all. It’s really incredible.

The other thing that was picked up on is addressing racism in certain parts of Ontario. The Ontario Civilian Police Commission had some success in doing that. They had some success in Thunder Bay with addressing institutional racism there. Completely getting rid of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission—I’m not sure how advisable that is. We’ll see what they replace it with.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for his two-minute response.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I want to thank my colleagues from King–Vaughan, St. Catharines, Thornhill and Niagara Centre for their comments.

I would just ask—when I hear people talking about my riding, Mushkegowuk–James Bay, I have many comments from people in my riding saying they should get the name of my riding right. It’s Mushkegowuk–James Bay. It’s offending them. So please, if you need a hand—it took me a while to learn it right, but, please, I’ll ask you to say it right.

To come back to what we have discussed, the NAPS police seem to be the black sheep of policing. They need funding like any other police in Ontario. When I said in my comments that they represent two thirds of the territories in Ontario—you have to travel it to realize how much, with 160 officers. It’s the size of France, with 160 officers. They need to police, they have issues no different than other police services, and they have to serve that with 160.

Keep that in mind when NAPS comes to you for funding to get the training they need to deal with post-traumatic stress and to deal with other issues that any other officers deal with. They need the help also and, not giving them the funding necessary to be able to deliver the service, I think we’re doing a disservice to the communities in my riding and the northern communities that they service. So we’ve got to keep that in mind. They deserve the same funding and service that they can deliver like the rest of the OPP or any other police officers in Ontario.

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

Mr. Mike Harris: I’m honoured to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to debate the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, introduced by the Honourable Sylvia Jones, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Our government has made it clear since day one that we are committed to making Ontario a safer place to live, holding criminals accountable for their actions and standing up for victims. With the introduction of Bill 68, we have held true to these commitments. The Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act proposes the creation of a stronger police oversight structure, the provision of fair disciplinary processes for police officers and the strengthening of transparency and training requirements for police forces, which will in turn improve public confidence.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, the current rules are not fair for our brave men and women in blue. The previous government did not treat officers fairly. They passed some of the most anti-police legislation in the history of our province. To give you a sense of the hand we are dealt, the heroes who respond to some of the most tragic incidents and save the lives of many innocent people can often spend up to six months under the eye of the Special Investigations Unit—and six months, if you can believe it, Madam Speaker, is considered a quick SIU investigation when compared to others.

To provide another example, under the current policy, any officer who is unable to prevent someone from committing suicide is automatically subject to an SIU investigation.

After a thorough review, we have identified the main pitfalls of the current system and quickly responded to the bill we are debating here today. Under our new policy, police officers attempting to save a life will no longer be subject to SIU investigations. I am happy to inform the House that with Bill 68, Ontario police officers and the families that depend on them will finally be able to count on a fair and transparent oversight process which will put public safety first.

Public trust is essential for police to do their jobs effectively. Public trust hangs on effective measures of police oversight. The system of oversight left to us by the previous government is, to say at the very least, broken. But I am happy to say, Madam Speaker, that Bill 68 will fix this, firstly by reducing duplication through the creation of a one-window public complaints system. As was stated by MPP Rasheed during second reading, “Justice Tulloch recommended that the OIPRD be renamed to facilitate better understanding by the public of its functions.

As suggested, the OIPRD would be renamed the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.” The new, independent Law Enforcement Complaints Agency will handle public complaints, Madam Speaker.

Secondly, it will focus the mandate of the Special Investigations Unit. As Minister Jones explained, “By repealing and replacing the Police Services Act, 2018, the Ontario Special Investigations Unit Act, 2018, and the Policing Oversight Act, 2018, and repealing the Ontario Policing Discipline Tribunal Act, 2018, we have set a new course to develop better and stronger policing legislation and oversight that works for police officers and the people of Ontario.”

Bill 68 will make the process more transparent. As MPP McKenna eloquently put it during second reading, “Under the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, the Special Investigations Unit, the SIU, would be established as a fully independent provincial agency in a new, separate act administered by the Attorney General. This is important for a very simple, plain-language reason: If you are being investigated, it should be reasonably easy for you to go to the legislation, have a look at the new law and understand what you can expect to happen.”

Currently, SIU investigations take far too long to complete. The Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will streamline the SIU investigation process, which otherwise would have persisted under Bill 175 and forced many police officers to continue to labour under months- or years-long investigations, even in cases where they had no contact with an individual. To refer back to comments made by MPP McKenna once more, “Our legislation will require the SIU to complete investigations within 120 days or provide an explanation for delays to that timeline.”

By treating police fairly, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will ensure the police, the government and the people of Ontario remain partners in creating a more secure province. Ontarians want fairness and transparency for police officers, and for the general public.

In December, I joined the Waterloo Regional Police north division for a ride-along to understand the incredible and dangerous work that our front-line officers face every day. What struck me was the prevalence of calls responding to individuals with serious mental health issues. In these instances, just like responding to overdose calls as well, Madam Speaker, police need to know that they can act decisively and not be subjected to burdensome and prolonged investigations by the SIU.

Under previous legislation from the Liberal government, police officers were automatically subjected to an investigation when attempting to save a life with naloxone, or put under SIU investigation if they couldn’t stop an individual from committing suicide. Two Waterloo regional officers were recently placed under the SIU microscope after attempting to revive a 41-year-old Cambridge woman who overdosed when they were unsuccessful, unfortunately, in saving her life.

The current system is beyond ridiculous, Madam Speaker. It is not that we are against oversight. We are actually for enhanced oversight, but it has to make sense. In these changes, our government has the full support of Waterloo Regional Police Chief Larkin. He argues bluntly regarding our police legislation and its protections for life-saving actions: “Why shouldn’t it protect the police officers? Our front-line members should have the same protection as everyday citizens. It’s not about shirking responsibilities, I want to be clear. But we should have some common sense.”

Madam Speaker, we need a system of oversight that trusts our front-line officers, who best know the situation on the ground and the means to protect our communities. What the current rules dictate for the training of our officers and the governance of our police system does not serve the interests of Ontarians. The current system is failing our province. Bill 68 will improve training and governance.

As an early response to Justice Tulloch’s report on street checks, for example, Bill 68 mandates that new police officers and special constables receive training in the areas of human rights, systemic racism, diversity and Indigenous culture and rights. These new training requirements will also be made mandatory for members of police service boards.

Our vision for police reform and community safety is not narrow-minded or overly simplistic. The Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act recognizes that the pressures on police officers are becoming more diverse and intense. I have done my best to understand the pressures first-hand and to support our brave men and women on the front-line who put their lives on the line to protect our communities every day. In the fall, I met with Waterloo Regional Police Chief Larkin to get up to speed on the nature and extent of the crime in urban and rural areas that affects Kitchener–Conestoga.

This includes increasing gang activity, spiking violent crime, and police officers who are dealing with repeat offenders.

I am pleased that our government is taking concrete action on these underlying issues such as record investments of $3.8 million in mental health and addiction funding while supporting concrete initiatives to support low-income individuals. This includes eliminating the provincial income tax for minimum-wage earners, creating more apprentices in the trades, and ensuring that students receive free tuition grants.

However, we should never forget that despite these initiatives, individuals will continue to join gangs, commit violent crimes and prey on the most vulnerable in society. Too many people and too many neighbourhoods are living in fear of gang and gun violence. Too many people and police officers are paralyzed by our court systems that have left far too many arrested criminals back on the streets the next day.

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

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Harris has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

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

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Orders of the day? I recognize the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. No further business.

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

The House recessed from 1008 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have a special guest from my riding this morning. Anneke Smit is a professor of law at the University of Windsor and the mother of today’s page captain Pieter Waters. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to welcome my constituents from Lakehead University Student Union and Canadian Federation of Students–Ontario: Brandon Amyot and Sami Pritchard. Thank you for being here today.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’d like to introduce, in the gallery, John MacIntyre, Cathy Pettigrew, her daughter, Anne Pettigrew, and Patrick Tohill with JDRF, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Welcome.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today Dr. Panagiotis Skandalakis, George Dimitrakopoulos and Yiannis Stamatakos. Dr. Skandalakis is a member of Parliament from the Greek New Democracy Party, and he is a shadow minister for Hellenes Abroad. Welcome to Ontario, and I hope you enjoy your day here at Queen’s Park.

Applause.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: It’s also my pleasure to welcome a constituent of mine to the Legislature today: Bill Sargeant. Welcome, Bill.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’d like to welcome a few guests from University–Rosedale: Marcel Carriere, Michael Santos, Megan Teves, Hafiz Rahaman, Jennifer Hamlyn and Jamal Ahamad. They are all registered early childhood educators at Orde Day Care, which is in the University–Rosedale riding. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I have two introductions this morning.

Today, February 28, is International Rare Disease Day, and I would like to welcome to the Legislature patients who are affected by rare diseases, and caregivers and advocates, from the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, or CORD. More than a million Ontarians suffer from a rare disorder, and two thirds of them are children. I’d like to recognize Dr. Durhane Wong-Rieger, president and CEO of CORD, and Dr. Ronald Cohn, incoming president and CEO of SickKids hospital. Welcome.

I’d also like to welcome, from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Patrick Tohill, John MacIntyre, Cathy Pettigrew, Dan Pettigrew and Anne Pettigrew. Welcome to the Legislature.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Shay Boshis, who is the mom of six-year-old Wesley, to the House today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Shay.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce Sarah Keys, who is here to support her son, Thomas Keys-Brasier, as page here today in this Legislature. Of course, they’re from the great riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms.

Doly Begum: I would like to welcome some wonderful guests to the gallery today: Fatima Alif, from Ontario Campaign 2000, who lives in Milton; Pankaja Udavant, a George Brown College early childhood education student from Scarborough North; Karen Farrell, a registered early childhood educator from Ajax; Cadence Emery, a registered childhood educator, a mother and a member of the Halton Advocates for Quality Child Care, from the riding of Oakville; Michelle Jones, a registered early childhood educator from Wellington county; Christie Leja and Annabel Fernandes, who are registered early childhood educators at the Lakeshore Community Child Care Centre in Etobicoke–Lakeshore; Chel Byrne, an early childhood education student from Don Valley North; Melissa Booker, who lives in York Centre; Peter Ochs, from Ontario Campaign 2000; and Kim Mantulak, a registered early childhood educator from my wonderful riding of Scarborough Southwest.

Welcome, everyone, to Queen’s Park.

I also have Carolyn Ferns, from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, as well as any other parents and ECEs that I’ve missed. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lindsey Park: It’s my great honour this morning to introduce the real Golden Girls of Port Perry, who inspired my private member’s bill. From my riding we have Martha Casson, Louise Bardswich and Sandy McCully, as well as their home builder, John Lucyk, and Louise’s grandson, Griffin. Thank you for joining us.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Jenn Wallage, a registered early childhood educator, mother and president of her ETFO local, here to Queen’s Park today. Welcome, Jenn.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to welcome Erin Williams, from Parkdale–High Park. She is a registered early childhood educator at Ferncliff Daycare. Welcome.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It saddens me to make this announcement that, after eight years of service, I’m going to have to retire this suit. I just can’t take it anymore. Today is the last day of service for this suit so please, if you want a selfie, enjoy it, but it’s going to be retired today.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s my pleasure to welcome John Malcolmson to the gallery today. John is up with the rare medical disorders group but he’s perhaps best known as the mastermind behind the take a kid to camp Tim Hortons golf foundation tournaments. Welcome, John, to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I want to welcome the parents of our page, Keya Thakkar: Pinky Thakkar and Parin Thakkar. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the introductions of our guests this morning.

I’m pleased to recognize the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on a point of order.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to make a brief statement in memory of my dear friend Bruce Addo.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is seeking unanimous consent of the House to make a brief statement. Agreed? Agreed.

Again, I recognize the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Bruce Kyereh-Addo

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues here for allowing me to make this statement. It is a statement, you can imagine, though, that I had hoped I would never have to give.

I rise today to pay tribute to a beloved son, a cherished brother, a respected mentor, loyal confidant and faithful friend, who was loved by his family and by many, many across the country, Bruce Kyereh-Addo. His mother, Christine, and siblings Jessie, Joy and Sam Jr. join us in the gallery today.

Bruce served our government as my director of operations. He passed away of natural causes this past Christmas Eve.

Born and raised in Scarborough, Bruce had his first taste for politics in Ottawa when he ran to be the student council president of Carleton, and it emboldened a life that we all got to share where he was engaged, as so many of us are, in the potential of politics to make a difference in people’s lives. He would go to work for various political campaigns and on various political opportunities across our country in many, many provinces, and that brought him to Ontario and to my campaign and to my office this time last year.

Bruce was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of person. When you met him, you had this unmistakable feeling that you were the only person that mattered to him. That infectious enthusiasm was something that, of course, made him very effective in politics but also made him such a dear friend.

He was a leader and exemplary role model to the Ghanaian community as well as a young person who was doing great things and helping others in that community do great things. To know Bruce was to know his love, to know his compassion, and particularly compassion for those in need. His own experience had taught him that with support, there were many, many things that people could do, and without that support, there were also things that could happen that were not so positive.

In his 33 years, he reminded us that we must always be ready to help others, whoever they are and wherever we find them, and he lived that life. It was one of the reasons that he was so valued by his dear friends.

Again, as I said, when you talked to Bruce, you had that sense that you had his undivided attention, and that’s because you did. He was a big man physically but also had a huge heart and a very active mind. When he was engaged with you and when he was looking in your eyes, you knew you were the person who mattered in that moment. You could really feel his presence.

While we laid him to rest a month ago and the sorrow does subside with time and the pain does subside with time, his memory does not subside. All of us here who had the opportunity to know him can sense and feel his presence here today and every day.

To my colleagues from all parties who have lent their support, I thank you. I also thank you on behalf of Bruce’s colleagues and on behalf of Bruce’s family, who, as I mentioned, have joined us in the gallery here today.

Christine, you raised Bruce to be smart, loving, intelligent, caring and compassionate. Thank you for that. That gave us all something to share. He was nothing short of exceptional. Thank you for sharing your son, your brother, a community leader and a mentor. May he rest in peace and his memory remain with us. Thank you.

Applause.

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

Oral Questions

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before I begin, I just want to extend on behalf of New Democrats in the Legislature our sincerest condolences on the loss of Bruce to the minister and to his family and friends and community. Minister, you made us all more aware of the deep loss of this young man.

Speaker, my first question goes to the Acting Premier. Ontario families remember the disastrous health transformation of the Mike Harris era, when hospital beds were closed, hospitals were shuttered and thousands of nurses were fired. Not long ago, the Premier pretended that under his Conservative government not a single job would be lost. However, just yesterday, the Grand River Hospital in Kitchener announced that 40 nurses would be losing their jobs this week due to budget shortfalls.

Is the Acting Premier willing to echo the Premier’s claim that front-line health jobs won’t be lost on their watch?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. We are certainly aware of the situation with the Grand River Hospital. Our members have kept us fully aware and the ministry, of course, is aware of the concern there.

We are working with the Grand River Hospital to help them deal with the financial losses that they have experienced. We want to make sure that patients have the front-line care that they need in their community, and that certainly includes the Grand River Hospital.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: News flash for the minister: You don’t get front-line care without nurses there to provide the front-line care.

The people of Kitchener are already seeing the impact of the Premier’s health plans: 40 nursing jobs gone, four fewer beds in that hospital, which means of course more people will be in hallways.

The Ford government this week announced that they would be merging 20 agencies that employ 10,500 health professionals, but she has refused to say how many jobs will be lost. Will the Acting Premier tell us how many more nurses will be losing jobs as the government imposes their new health scheme on Ontarians?

Hon. Christine Elliott: As I indicated previously, the ministry is working with the people of Grand River Hospital to help them deal with their financial situation, so nothing is certain as yet with what will happen.

But what I would say, with respect to the transformation that you refer to, is the reason why it is being done is because we need to re-centre our health care system on patients, families and caregivers. That is not happening now. We are seeing huge disruptions. We want to put more people into front-line care. That’s what the people of Ontario expect and deserve.

To suggest that the way things are now is okay is not right. People across Ontario see the cracks: 30,000 people waiting for a long-term-care bed, 1,000 people every day receiving care in hospital hallways and storage rooms, and thousands of people waiting for mental health and addictions care. This needs to change.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I have to say that patients, families and caregivers remember the Conservative legacy in our province, where 6,000 nurses lost their jobs and 28 hospitals were shuttered. I dare say, Speaker, that that wasn’t right either, was it?

This week, when the Acting Premier was asked how many health care professionals would be losing their jobs, she said it was something that she just couldn’t answer. How did the Ford government move so quickly from “not a single job lost” to “who knows how many?”

Hon. Christine Elliott: As the leader of the official opposition will know, the way the system is being restructured is so that care will be provided on the front lines by local care providers. It’s premature to say at this point what their plan is going to be. We are opening up the doors to allow them, to allow the providers, to work together—the local providers within our public health care system.

But let me just say, I’d like to quote from some of the care providers. I am encouraged by their responses. Anthony Dale, president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association: “Ontario’s hospitals are encouraged by the prospect of working more closely with partners in their communities to find local solutions to better meet patient needs.” Sue VanderBent, CEO, Home Care Ontario: “We need all parts of the health system working together to help patients stay at home and to get them back home from acute care as quickly as possible. The current system, unfortunately, is fragmented, siloed and makes that co-operation difficult”—broad support from health care providers.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. The legacy of the Harris Conservative era isn’t just firing nurses and comparing them to hula hoops. That government also opened the door for private, for-profit health companies, inviting private home care providers to bid on home care contracts and approving Ontario’s first private hospitals.

Does the Acting Premier think that this legacy is worth repeating?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the leader of the official opposition: Any suggestion with respect to privatization being the goal of this exercise is ludicrous. What we are doing is strengthening our public health care system, and it’s going to be up to the providers who already provide care. It may be a hospital, a home care provider and a mental health agency, for example, that may choose to come together to apply to become the local Ontario health team.

If they are accepted under the strict criteria that we are putting together, they will then have fiscal responsibility to deliver care with all of the health care providers in their area. They will also be required to deliver the quality of care that will be expected and will be required to continue to exercise their responsibilities with patients at the centre of it all. It’s all—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I dare say that privatization is absolutely going to be a bonus for all those folks who paid $1,250 to go to a dinner last night for the Conservatives.

Families in Ontario have lived through this before, unfortunately, and they heard the same excuses then that we are hearing today from both Liberal and Conservative governments. Meanwhile, they’re living with the legacy of a broken home care system and paying the price for expensive P3 hospitals.

What health services does the Acting Premier plan to privatize this time? Because we know it’s coming.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, through you, Mr. Speaker: What I would say is being done by the leader of the official opposition is fearmongering, without any basis whatsoever. For the fifteenth time, if I need to tell you, we are strengthening our public health care system—that’s what it’s about—to centre it onto patients and to make sure—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize. The opposition will come to order. I have to be able to hear the Deputy Premier’s response.

Deputy Premier, please conclude your response.

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are taking steps to ensure that the patients of Ontario receive the coordinated care that they expect and deserve, which they are not receiving under the current system. That is what this transformation is all about within our public health care system.

Just to read one more quote—and this is from Dr. Doris Grinspun, the CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario: “Today’s announcement marks the beginning of”—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families across Ontario are looking for a public health system—a public health system—that gets them the care they need without leaving them stranded in a hallway for hours. But what they’re seeing is nurses who are still losing their jobs, hospital beds that are closing—at this moment, hospital beds that are closing—a health minister who can’t or won’t say how many more jobs are going to be lost, and the Conservatives of the Mike Harris era being handed six-figure paycheques as health advisers to this government.

Does the Acting Premier think people will be fooled again?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government members must come to order. That wasn’t appropriate at all.

Deputy Premier, please respond.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’m sorry; I did just want to read this one quote from Dr. Doris Grinspun, CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario—because it has to do with nurses and I think it’s important—who said, “Today’s announcement marks the beginning of important changes that are needed in the health system” and the continued role registered nurses must play in both coordinating care with patients in their communities and in helping Ontarians navigate its complexities.

Dr. Grinspun and the RNAO support the changes we are bringing forward. The OMA, the Ontario Medical Association, supports these changes. Home Care Ontario supports these changes. The Ontario Hospital Association—on and on it goes. I don’t understand why all of these providers are so excited about the changes coming to our public health care system while the official opposition just seemingly doesn’t get it.

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Education. Parents of children with autism were devastated by the Premier’s decision to pull the support they need for treatment for their children and infuriated by the government’s threats, intimidation and manipulation. They were deeply hurt watching backbench Progressive Conservatives applaud and cheer as they cry and worry for their children’s future.

Now school boards are also sounding the alarm about the government’s scheme. As the chair of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association puts it, “We need to know how many students are coming to us, what their needs are going to be and how that’s going to be funded.”

When will the Minister of Education give them some answers?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, I’m pleased to be able to stand in this House and talk about the actions that we have already taken.

I’ve spoken about Bill 48, and now I’m going to remind everybody about the pilot program that I agreed to extend. I asked people to keep this pilot going, because we need to take a look at what’s working and what’s not. We’re working with 19 boards across Ontario with this pilot, and we’re exploring ways to improve and make sure students with autism have the services and the support that they need.

Do you know what? This pilot actually is offering targeted EA training. Honestly, this pilot in particular is providing dedicated space for autism services through an external ABA provider on-site in schools. Also, we’re looking at funding for school boards to hire board-certified behaviour analysts. Speaker, we’re doing our part.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, a small fraction of school boards in this province having pilot projects brings no comfort to the thousands of parents who don’t know what’s going to happen to their children who have autism who need treatment and supports.

Those parents are very, very worried. The government’s new scheme puts huge financial burdens on those parents, and many children will be entering the public school system without the supports that they have already been able to rely on. This isn’t the parents’ fault and it’s not the schools’ fault; this is the Ford government’s scheme and it’s the Ford government’s fault.

The Ford government needs to immediately start giving schools answers and resources to help them deal with the challenges that this terrible scheme is causing, or better yet stop cheering for this disastrous scheme and replace it with one that works for families and children in Ontario. Which will it be, Speaker?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I have to suggest to the leader of the opposition party: Seriously, she needs to stop fearmongering, because the fact of the matter is, with regard to boards, we have given $3 billion. Again, I’m going to repeat this: We have given school boards $3 billion to make sure that they have the opportunity to prepare and offer the services that are required by children with autism.

We look forward to seeing, as well, the results from our pilot project. We’re going to be receiving the results from our evaluator that’s looking at the pilot projects, and that is going to inform how we approach supports for our students, our parents and the system outcomes, because that’s so, so important.

Again, $3 billion across this province is going to school boards. We’re taking action now, and we’re going to be taking further action—

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

Health care

Mrs. Nina Tangri: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. After 15 years of reckless Liberal mismanagement, Ontario has been left with a health care system that needs immediate help. That is why I couldn’t be more pleased that the Minister of Health introduced our government’s plan to do just that: fix and strengthen our health care system with The People’s Health Care Act.

Fixing the health care system the former Liberal government left us with was a core campaign promise, which our government is proudly delivering on. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain why our proposed changes are so desperately needed for our health care system?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for her question. There is no question that our health care system is struggling on many fronts. Over the last five years, Ontario has spent 30% more than the Canadian average in administrative expenses on its health care system. I don’t know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I haven’t noticed a 30% improvement in our health care, nor have the over 1,000 patients each and every day receiving health care in hospital hallways and storage rooms.

After increasing across-the-board spending over and over again, year after year, average wait times to get into a long-term-care home have ballooned 300% since 2003, from 36 days to now 146 days. We know that in Ontario, health care represents 42 cents of every dollar collected from taxpayers, yet we rank poorly on critical factors such as wait times, quality of care and system integration compared to our—

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I thank the minister for her response. There is no doubt that our health care system needs immediate attention. I have heard many stories from my constituents about their troubles dealing with the system. I’m sure the minister has heard many stories from patients over her many years as health critic, Patient Ombudsman and now Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, it’s important to remember that at the end of the day, everything we do here is for the people of Ontario. There is a human element to everything we do—it’s patient care, unlike the opposition’s patient scare—especially with health care, as we heard this morning from CORD and Dr. Cohn of SickKids hospital.

Could the minister please elaborate why these changes are so important?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you again to the member. You’re absolutely right: Patient care and patient priorities and safety are absolutely central to everything that we do.

I would like to share one patient story with you, if I might. There was a gentleman I met not too long ago who, unfortunately, while he was in good health, suffered a catastrophic injury and ended up in a quadriplegic condition. His family worked incredibly hard with his community hospital to try to find a rehabilitation place for him to go to, but he still remained on a ventilator. While he wanted to go somewhere else, the only place he could stay to be on the mechanical ventilator was in the intensive care unit of a hospital, and he stayed there for 13 months. Can you imagine that? I personally can’t.

That was only because there was no other place in Ontario for him to go. That is not patient-centred care. That’s totally system-driven care, and that’s what—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. The member for Essex.

Fundraising

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Acting Premier. Speaker, media reports in the Toronto Star today indicate that some unusual edicts have been coming out of the Premier’s office. Desperate to sell tickets, the Premier’s office allegedly ordered lobbyists to sell tickets to clients under threat of losing access to this government. Late yesterday, the order banning journalists from the evening’s festivities also came out of the Premier’s office.

Can the Acting Premier tell us who in the Premier’s office is issuing these disturbing edicts?

Interjections.

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

I’m going to give the member the opportunity to rephrase his question so that it focuses on government policy.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, I had a similar question yesterday. The question is about accountability and transparency in government. Yesterday the government wasn’t able to answer the question. It’s obvious that they’re not willing to answer the question today. I will rephrase it.

There is a disturbing pattern coming out of this Premier’s office: issuing ordinances, threatening lobbyists, threatening journalists, banning journalists from events that the government is putting on. Who is making these orders? Is it the Premier’s staff driving the bus, or is it the Premier himself?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the Deputy Premier to respond.

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: I just want to say that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario hosted the dinner last night. It happens to be the most successful political fundraiser in Canadian history. In spite of the fact that there was a winter storm last night, there were over 3,100 people who attended the event last night, making their own personal donations from their own personal bank accounts. Gone are the Liberal fundraising days when they raised tens of thousands of corporate and union donations and then made government policy based on those corporate and union donations.

It was an excellent night last night. It was open to everyone who wanted to buy a ticket, and then it was open to everyone via livestream last night. You could hear the positive message. People are excited—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m sure that the families of kids with autism and those who were protesting outside of the event last night are overjoyed to hear about the PC Party’s $4-million one-night windfall when they’re struggling and when they’re in crisis. I’m glad to hear you’re so tone-deaf.

If this were the first time we’d heard stories from the Premier’s office, it might not be concerning. But media reports have stories about Dean French, the Premier’s chief of staff, insisting that police time arrests to make the afternoon news, and stories about Dean French, the Premier’s chief of staff, blowing a half a million dollars to get Alykhan Velshi fired from OPG after one day’s work. Yesterday, we learned that Dean French, the Premier’s chief of staff, is being questioned by the Integrity Commissioner for his role in the appointment of the next OPP commissioner, Ron Taverner.

This sounds like Gerald Butts 2.0 to me; I don’t know about anybody else. Now we’re learning that the Premier’s chief of staff is threatening lobbyists and declaring the fundraisers a media-free zone. I—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member for another bizarre question. We’ve been getting them on a regular basis here in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I can only tell you that what the people of Ontario want, and what the people of Essex actually want, is a government that’s acting in their best interests, and that is exactly what we’ve been doing. We’ve been making Ontario open for business. We’ve been making Essex open for business.

I think the people in Essex are probably a bit embarrassed by the performances over the last couple of weeks by their member. I think they’re probably looking long and hard at what this government has been able to do.

When it comes to fundraising, our party is doing exceptionally well. I can understand why he’s turning red in the face or green with envy. It’s because they’re not raising anything. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? People aren’t buying what they’re selling. They’re buying what we’re selling: such big news for the people of Ontario.

Consumer protection

Mrs. Robin Martin: My question is to the great Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Earlier this month, the minister announced the government’s plan to reform Tarion. For many of my constituents in Eglinton–Lawrence, buying a home is one of the most important decisions they will make in their lives. They want to know how our government is improving consumer protection for them and all new homebuyers across Ontario so that their investment and their family are protected.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask, would the minister share the specific steps that this government is taking to fix Tarion and the new home warranty program?

Hon. Bill Walker: I want to thank the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, Robin Martin, for her excellent question and for responding to her constituents on this important issue.

As the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, I am committed to strengthening consumer protections to put the people of Ontario first. I am pleased to speak about the decisive and specific action our government is taking to change Tarion’s structure and better protect homebuyers.

Last week, I announced we are creating a new, separate regulator from Tarion to improve oversight of builders and vendors. We’re exploring the feasibility of a multi-provider insurance model for new home warranties. We’re looking at proposed legislative amendments to require Tarion to make executive and board compensation publicly available, and moving to a more balanced, skills-based board composition with fewer builder-vendor sector representatives. And we are introducing new initiatives to better inform and protect purchasers of cancelled condominium projects.

Mr. Speaker, we are reforming Tarion in order to put the people of Ontario first.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I thank the minister for the great actions he is taking to restore confidence to countless Ontario families. It is refreshing to see a government standing up for homeowners. Tarion has been in place for 40 years and, yet, to quote the Honourable Justice Douglas Cunningham, “much tinkering had taken place over the years” while Tarion remained “unresponsive, difficult to deal with and not transparent.”

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain how our government has responded to the recommendations in Justice Cunningham’s 2016 independent report and how we are changing Tarion’s structure to better protect Ontario’s consumers?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you very much again to the hard-working member and my colleague from Eglinton–Lawrence. Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government did very little with Honourable Justice Douglas Cunningham’s report. Sadly, they left homeowners vulnerable. We are cleaning up yet another mess left by the Liberals that they left without taking any action. We’re moving forward with key recommendations to make sure we are protecting Ontarians.

I’m going to repeat: We’re creating a new, separate regulator from Tarion to improve oversight of builders and vendors. We’re exploring the feasibility of a multi-provider insurance model for new home warranties. We’re looking at proposed legislative amendments to require Tarion to make executive and board compensation publicly available, and moving to a more balanced, skills-based board. We’re going to introduce new initiatives to better inform and protect purchasers of cancelled condominium projects.

I am pleased to share with the members of this House that Justice Cunningham is “delighted to see that the Ontario government is about to implement many of the recommendations contained in my report.”

These are just the first steps on the road to reforming Tarion. We will continue to move forward in restoring trust—

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

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Acting Premier. Last night, CityNews Edmonton reported that autism agencies in Alberta are getting calls from Ontario parents. Families feel they have no choice but to move to Alberta, because their system actually provides needs-based autism services. Their system gives kids a chance.

Jolene, the mom featured in this story, moved to Alberta last year to get therapy for her son due to the Liberals’ failed plan. Now, with this government’s disastrous autism plan, she feels that she can’t come home.

With news reports of layoffs at Ontario therapy providers, it looks like families will have even less access to services. Does the Acting Premier believe that parents should be forced to move provinces just to access needs-based services for their children?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, our plan, as you know, is rooted in the belief that every child with autism in the province of Ontario deserves support from their Ontario government. Presently, today, three out of four children in Ontario are denied support from their Ontario government. That’s 23,000 children who we’re going to make sure get off of the waiting list in the next 18 months. We’re going to do it by doubling our investment into diagnostic hubs and providing a direct fund to moms and dads across this province so that they can get the services their children so desperately need. We will continue to support all children.

But I have a question for the honourable member. On December 1, 2015, she asked the previous Liberal administration, “Will the Premier commit today to immediately ending the chronic wait-list...?” This government is doing that. I don’t know why she can’t take yes for an answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, I don’t know why the minister doesn’t understand that the program needs to be needs-based, as in Alberta.

Families keep reaching out to my office to share their stories because they have no hope of getting help from their Conservative MPPs. Shay, who is here with us today, lives in the riding of Burlington. Her son, Wesley, is six. He is non-verbal and has violent outbursts when he’s overwhelmed. He needs constant one-on-one support. Since starting therapy, Wesley has learned to communicate and regulate his emotions. He needs needs-based therapy, and it’s working.

Shay will received $4,600 a year under the new plan, but Wesley’s current cost of therapy is $92,000 a year. The new autism program will fail her family.

What does the minister suggest that Shay should do with her $4,600, given that that’s one—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: My commitment, and the commitment of this government, is to clear the wait-list in 18 months. Some 23,000 children right now are languishing on the wait-list.

I remember when the member in the opposition would stand in this Legislature and call consistently for the end of the wait-list, like she did on November 3, 2015, again on November 4, 2015, and again on December 1, 2015. She used to have a record of wanting to get those children off the wait-list and into service. That’s what this plan will do.

I’ll reiterate: Three out of four children in the province of Ontario are currently denied support by their Ontario government. I believe that that is wrong. It’s unconscionable. That’s why we are committed to ending the wait-list in 18 months by doubling the investment into diagnostic hubs and ensuring there is a direct fund of upwards of $140,000 per child across the province of Ontario. We’re proud of this plan; this plan will be implemented on April 1.

Police services

Mr. Michael Gravelle: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Speaker, the Thunder Bay Police Service is moving forward to implement recommendations that resulted from reports of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director and the office of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which came down late last year, reports that focused on systemic racism within the force and the impact that has had on relations with Indigenous people in the community.

The commitment to move to implement these many recommendations is crucial, and a strong commitment from the police services too is crucial, to developing a positive relationship with the Indigenous community, but it is not without substantial financial implications.

Speaker, in that all levels of government have made a commitment towards reconciliation, may I ask the minister whether the province will financially support the Thunder Bay Police Service as they move to implement these vital recommendations?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, to the member from Thunder Bay. It’s great to see you in the House today.

This is an important issue. I have spoken to the mayor of Thunder Bay. We’ve spoken about this issue as well. I appreciate your interest. I absolutely understand your interest.

These are issues that the Thunder Bay Police Services Board and the Thunder Bay police have committed to embark on and to make changes. These are issues that are critically important to make sure that we have a police service that is serving our community to the best of their abilities and making sure that the community is ably served by their police.

So while I appreciate your interest in this issue, I think it is very incumbent on the Thunder Bay Police Services Board and the police to do the work that is necessary to make sure that their standards are appropriate across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much, Minister, for that response, although I do think it’s important for the province to play a significant role in making sure that these recommendations can be implemented. I would like to think that you will consider that.

Another challenge facing the Thunder Bay Police Service is increased gang activity and violent crimes. Between September and December of last year, there were 268 arrests for gun- and drug-related crimes, with 97 of those individuals charged coming from southern Ontario. Speaker, Thunder Bay may be far from Toronto geographically but that does not makes us immune to gang activity coming from there.

Your ministry has provided significant funding to the Toronto Police Service to deal with this ever-increasing problem. Today, I would like to know if the minister will support the Thunder Bay Police Service by providing funding to create a permanent task force that will combat the effects of the infiltration of guns, gangs and drugs into the city of Thunder Bay.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, to the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North, thank you for your interest. Our government has taken a very proactive and serious issue with guns and gangs across Ontario. You’re absolutely right; we have made a first commitment to the city of Toronto of $25 million in late summer. But that is only the start.

We have to ensure and we have to empower all of our police services to be able to work together to make sure that guns and gangs, wherever they are happening in the province of Ontario—and the member is absolutely right; there is a lot of transfer of gangs and guns that cross borders. We have to give police services the tools to be able to work together to shut down some of those very, very serious illegal activities.

I am happy to continue to work with the member opposite to make sure that we can empower the police. I hope part of that is supporting Bill 68, because there are parts of that legislation that will assist us as a government to make sure that guns and gangs are shut down in our streets.

Health care

Mr. Billy Pang: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Our government is committed to delivering on our campaign promise to end hallway health care. It is about time we build a health care system centred around the patient. This is why I am so excited that our government has introduced The People’s Health Care Act so that patients and families will have access to faster, better and more connected services.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please update the members of this Legislature on how this plan will improve access to services and the patient experience?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much to the member from Markham–Unionville for your question. The People’s Health Care Act, if passed, will improve access to services and the patient experience. If passed, it would allow health care providers to work together as one coordinated team focused on patients and specific local needs. Patients would experience easy transitions from one health care provider to another, and it would integrate multiple provincial agencies and specialized provincial programs into a single agency to provide a central point of accountability and oversight for the health care system.

Finally, our plan would improve access to secure digital tools, including online health records and virtual care options for patients—finally, a 21st-century approach to health care. I’m confident that The People’s Health Care Act, if passed, will allow us to create a modernized public health care system for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Billy Pang: I thank the minister for her response. I’m proud to support a plan that brings forward desperately needed and overdue improvements to public health care in this province.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister highlight the feedback she has received from health care experts and health care providers in this province?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you again to the member. I am really encouraged that The People’s Health Care Act has been so well received by health care experts, health care organizations and health care providers. I would like to share a few of their responses.

Sue VanderBent, the CEO at Home Care Ontario, said, “This announcement is great news for patients and their families. People want to stay in their homes as they age and these proposed changes will make that a reality for more patients.”

Anthony Dale, president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association, agrees that “given the continued capacity pressures facing hospitals as a result of a growing and aging population, this legislation encourages increased collaboration among health care providers.”

Finally, Michael Decter, former deputy minister, believes, “The new direction for health policy and delivery is sound and long overdue.”

Mr. Speaker, I know that together we will finally build a coordinated health care system—

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

Next question.

Tuition

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Ontario students are saddled with the highest student debt levels in the country. The student debt levels force students to delay buying houses and starting families. Yet this government is making their situation worse by converting student grants to loans and by changing the period they’re considered dependent on their parents from four to six years. Also, their debts will start accumulating interest the moment they graduate.

Why does this minister believe that students in Ontario should have even worse levels of student debt?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Students and their families make great sacrifices to pursue post-secondary education, and for them, every dollar counts. Ontario’s government for the people is lowering tuition fees and giving students the power to choose services that they support on their campuses.

Lowering tuition fees keeps money in the pockets of students. We will restore financial sustainability to OSAP to ensure that the program is sustainable for the students now and for years to come.

We are bringing predictability and transparency to the fees students pay by setting up a province-wide student choice initiative to ensure that students can opt out of non-essential fees while ensuring that critical services are retained.

Reducing tuition and increasing the affordability of college and university will help Ontario students get the education and training needed for good-paying jobs in our modern economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Glover: I’ve been on a tour of colleges and universities across this province and I’ve been incredibly impressed with the number of services that are provided by student unions. These services include operating food banks, campus newspapers, radio stations, first aid response teams and student clubs. Student unions also provide safe spaces for students with disabilities, for female students, for racialized, Indigenous and LGBTQ2 students.

When the minister declared that these student unions were non-essential, was she aware of the services that they provide to all students across the province? We just learned this week, Mr. Speaker, that OSAP is not going to provide grants or loans to students to cover these services. Was the minister aware of the impact that these changes would have on the students?

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

Speaker, I would like to read a quote from the member from Spadina–Fort York. In a letter that he sent to me on December 20, 2018, the member asks me to “freeze tuition at all post-secondary institutions in Ontario,” that this will “help families and students plan for their futures and have a more affordable and predictable post-secondary experience.”

The member keeps flip-flopping on this issue. On December 20, he was for tuition relief and now he is against it. For years, the NDP have campaigned on a tuition freeze, and only now that they are not the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I will say to the government members that that sort of behaviour is not conducive to having a civil House.

Start the clock again. Next question.

Waste diversion

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Our government has been clear that we’re committed to taking meaningful action to keep our province beautiful, strong and vibrant.

Ontario families understand that we have a personal responsibility to leave behind a province better than the one we inherited, not only environmentally but financially as well. To do so, we will reduce litter and waste in our communities across Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister share with us why Ontario needs a new approach to reducing litter and waste in our communities?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Milton. I know he takes his constituents’ concerns very seriously. Thank you for that question.

Mr. Speaker, our province generates nearly a tonne of waste per Ontarian every year. Our recycling rate has been stuck at 30% for the last 15 years. That means that 70% of the waste that we produce goes into landfills, and it doesn’t take an expert to know that that’s not a sustainable solution.

That’s why I’m pleased to advise the House that next Wednesday, on March 5, when I’m speaking to the Ontario Waste Management Association, we’ll be releasing our consultation paper on waste and litter. This is an important part of our made-in-Ontario environment plan. It’s a part that clearly commits us to focusing on litter and waste, and breaking the cycle of the increasing use of landfills over the last number of years.

It will be posted on the Environmental Registry for a 45-day consultation period. I would invite all the members of the House to encourage their constituents to give us their feedback on this important initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank the minister for his answer. On this side of the House, it is clear that our made-in-Ontario environment plan is driven by a desire to protect and preserve Ontario’s natural beauty. I’m proud to be part of a government that is ready to take action on something that’s been ignored for far too long.

Many of my constituents in Milton are concerned. Years of inaction on this issue have meant that Ontario’s waste diversion rate for residential, commercial and industrial waste has been stalled at below 30% over the past 15 years. We know we can do better.

Can the minister please explain to the House how our made-in-Ontario environment plan will reduce litter and waste in Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I again thank the member for the question and I look forward to speaking to his constituents in Milton about solutions. I recently had the opportunity to host, with our members from Brampton, a round table where community members came together with municipal leaders to talk about the sorts of things that we need to do, based on the made-in-Ontario plan.

Our waste discussion paper will build on and explore emerging technologies and how we can better recover and recycle. We’ll look at ways to improve waste diversion. We’ll look at how to make safe food donations. We’re looking at ways of making producers more responsible for their waste and how we can use thermal technology, chemical technologies and other technologies that are used around the world to improve our waste diversion level.

Mr. Speaker, this is part of our made-in-Ontario plan to preserve Ontario’s environment. I look forward to the input of all the members of the House, particularly the constituents in Milton, about how we’re going to proceed.

Child care

Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Minister of Education. Ontarians already pay the highest child care costs in the entire nation. Families in my riding pay as much as $20,000 a year for child care.

The provincial Wage Enhancement Grant provides $2 an hour in wage support to many early childhood educators and child care workers across Ontario, but funding for this important program has yet to be confirmed beyond the end of March. Parents and workers are deeply concerned about what will happen next month when this funding dries up.

Does the minister believe that our ECEs and our child care workers deserve to be valued and paid a decent wage for the important work that they do caring for our children?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Absolutely. I feel very strongly when it comes to ECEs and their assistants. They do amazing work in terms of child care development and we need to celebrate them. In doing that, we need to recognize the fact that we need to make sure that when it comes to child care in Ontario, we have as much choice, and as much flexibility as well, to allow us to let parents know that we hear them loud and clear.

Parents have been asking for choice. Parents have been asking for flexibility. That’s why Bill 56 is so, so important, because you know what? We’re enabling families who work shifts, who work different hours of the day, to actually bring into their house child care providers. That’s a great, progressive move on our response.

There is so much more I will talk about in the supplemental.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Doly Begum: Speaker, this is a pay equity issue in a sector that employs mainly women. It should be a mark of shame for this government—and for the Liberal government which failed in the past. We trust our ECEs to do an important job—take care of our children—and we should value their work. If provincial support is scrapped, parents will have to take on that additional cost. They will have to pay even more. That means more expensive child care for families, more precarious work and more challenges retaining qualified staff who help our little ones thrive.

I ask the minister again, because I didn’t get an answer before: Will the minister commit today to this small step; stand up for parents, for children, for workers; and commit to maintaining the Wage Enhancement Grant?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased to talk about child care and what the PC government is doing right here in Ontario. We’ve already taken steps to ensure—and we’re putting more money in parents’ pockets by giving them choice. But over and above that, last year we approved $225 million in new child care funding for operating costs as well as subsidies. That means that almost $200 million went towards wage enhancements for our child care workers.

Speaker, we’re taking very great steps forward. We feel that child care in Ontario is so, so important, and this PC government is getting it right. Again, we’re listening to parents. We’re making sure there’s flexibility, we’re making sure there’s choice, and we’re respecting our ECEs and their assistants every step of the way. Again, we introduced $225 million last year.

Municipal government

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ontario’s system of regional government has been in place for almost 50 years. In that time, there has been a lot of change and growth. I know that in Halton region, municipalities like Oakville have expanded, and what might have worked 50 years ago, in terms of delivering the best service for my constituents, does not necessarily work today.

That’s why I was pleased when the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced the launch of the regional government review in January and the appointment of two special advisers to lead that review.

Can the minister please update the House on why he feels this review is so important?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Oakville for his hard work and his advocacy and, really, his commitment to his constituents. Speaker, I was honoured to announce the appointment of two special advisers for our regional government review, Michael Fenn and Ken Seiling. Both gentlemen have a great deal of experience in the municipal sector. They’ve been busy, Speaker, meeting with municipalities and heads of council since they were appointed about a month and a half ago.

Like the member said, Speaker, the current system has been in place for almost 50 years. Each region and its municipalities are unique. That’s why the advisers are meeting with the different regions and the different councils to find out what has been working and what might need improvement. By listening and seeking advice, we can make better use of taxpayers’ dollars and make it easier for their residents to access those very important municipal services.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m so glad to hear that our government is doing the work it is to put Ontarians first by reviewing local governments so that they can continue to provide the vital services that the residents need. I know many Oakville constituents are excited to participate in the review and provide their ideas as well.

But, Speaker, some of my constituents have raised concerns that the review is simply about amalgamating all the municipalities within the regions under review. Can the minister please explain what the next steps are and the purpose of this review?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, thank you for the question. The goal of the review is to help ensure that regional governments are working harder, smarter and more efficiently. Our government promised to make the municipal level of government more accountable and to respect taxpayers’ dollars, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

But let me be clear. This review isn’t about amalgamation; it’s about making sure we improve service, we improve governance and we improve decision-making at the municipal level.

I want to make it also clear that we’ve decided on nothing. The advisers are currently meeting with municipalities. They’re meeting with those heads of councils. I look forward to getting their recommendations in the very near future.

Further, we want to have broader consultations with the public to participate. Speaker, through you to the member, I’m going to have more to say on that in the coming weeks.

Addiction services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The Quintin Warner House in London provides residential addiction treatment services for men and places them in supportive housing once they have successfully completed the addiction treatment program. Funding from the province has been dwindling for the program for quite some time. They have increasingly had to rely on donations, but they have gotten to a point where this is not sustainable.

Last spring, Mission Services of London requested additional funding to support programs like Quintin Warner House, but were denied. Why did the government deny funding for Londoners seeking addiction treatment?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. As she will know, we have made a commitment to invest $3.8 billion into mental health and addiction services over the next 10 years—$1.9 billion in the province to match $1.9 billion from the federal government.

We are undergoing our consultations right now with communities across the province, with health care providers. We are also going to be speaking with people with lived experience. So we certainly welcome the opportunity to hear from this organization to understand where they fit in in terms of the services that are provided in the London area, to determine whether that is where we need to go in the future, because we do know that the people of Ontario are desperately underserved by mental health and addiction services.

That is something that we want to deal with as part of our transformation exercise, to make sure that we can follow the great example set by Cancer Care Ontario with their model for leadership in service across the province. I think that could be very easily translated into a system for mental health and addictions as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, back to the minister: We are in the midst of an opioid crisis, with people dying across this province every day. This is the time to step up supports for programs like Quintin Warner House and not let them fail. As a result of being denied funding, Mission Services of London is going to have to scale back their addiction treatment services and lay off front-line staff.

Will the minister do the right thing and provide the requested $700,000 to Mission Services of London so Quintin Warner House can continue to successfully treat Londoners battling addictions?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We certainly do know that there is an urgent need for more addiction services in Ontario. We have made some strides with consumption and treatment services sites, but there is no question we need to have more detox beds and more mental health and addiction services combined together.

What I can commit to is that I will definitely take your matter under advisement and discuss with my ministry to understand what has happened and why the funding was not approved through the LHIN, and see what we can do. I’m happy to look at it.

Seniors

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There is a housing crisis. It’s very difficult for many to find housing that is affordable, and it’s even more difficult for many seniors. In my riding of Durham, a group of my constituents explained to me the hurdles they faced in trying to implement an innovative idea for housing in their community. That’s why I was proud to introduce the Golden Girls Act to this House.

Can the minister please explain why embracing innovative housing solutions in Ontario is so important?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Durham for that excellent question. I want to thank her for her advocacy.

The member is right. We are at a crisis position. That’s why we began consultations for our Housing Supply Action Plan. I’m pleased to announce that we received over 2,000 submissions in our consultations. We are reviewing it and taking action on the housing crisis.

But I do want to thank the member for engaging with her constituents. I want to thank her for embracing innovative solutions. Speaker, I want to thank her for being a friend.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Lindsey Park: Thank you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for keeping this issue of housing a top priority.

My PMB will be debated this afternoon and, if passed, will provide further clarity in the Plan