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

March 26, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Mar-26 (PDF)

L082 - Tue 26 Mar 2019 / Mar 26 mar 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 March 2019 Mardi 26 mars 2019

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Health care

Fundraising

Government accountability

Public transit

Curriculum

Energy policies

Autism treatment

Animal protection

Child protection

Long-term care

Fundraising

Property taxation

Addiction services

Taxation

Forest industry

Forest industry

Ontario Craft Cider Association

Deferred Votes

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

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Investing in Women’s Futures program

Municipal funding

Bangladesh Independence Day

Jason Helmond

Kids Country Club

Sexual violence and harassment

Events in Markham–Stouffville

York University

Greek Independence Day

York University

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Select Committee on Financial Transparency

Petitions

Education funding

Education funding

Education funding

Child advocate

Long-term care

Full-day kindergarten

Child care workers

Education funding

School facilities

Animal protection

Child care workers

Employment standards

Orders of the Day

Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario

Adjournment Debate

Women’s services

Curriculum

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Christine Elliott: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 74,

An Act concerning the provision of health care, continuing Ontario Health and making consequential and related amendments and repeals, that the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet on Monday, April 1, 2019, and Tuesday, April 2, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 74:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 12 noon on Thursday, March 28, 2019; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee or their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 2 p.m. on Thursday, March 28, 2019; and

—That each member of the subcommittee or their designate provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk, by 9 a.m. on Friday, March 29, 2019; and

—That each witness will receive up to eight minutes for their presentation followed by 12 minutes for questions divided equally amongst the recognized parties; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 6 p.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 2019; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 noon on Thursday, April 4, 2019; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy shall be authorized to meet on Monday, April 8, 2019, and Tuesday, April 9, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Tuesday, April 9, 2019, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, April 10, 2019. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 20 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Ms. Elliott has moved government motion number 33. I’ll return to the minister to start the debate.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Nothing further; thank you, Speaker.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Right here, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Oh, there you are. The member for Brantford–Brant.

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to see you in the Chair this morning. I’m glad you recognize that I blend and hide here very easily.

As always, it’s an honour to rise in the House to speak to such an important topic as improving our health care system here in Ontario. This bill, The People’s Health Care Act, comes at a time when our province’s health care system is in crisis. Wait times for hospital beds and procedures are far too long. Hospitals are crowded, there are not enough family doctors, and patients are languishing in hospital when they would be better cared for in long-term care. I hear these and many other complaints from constituents time and time again.

The current system is not working for them, it’s not working for their families and it’s not working for the taxpayers of Ontario. That’s why it’s so important that we move as quickly as possible and why I believe that time allocation on this bill is so important.

Our government has made a commitment to restore and reinvigorate our health care system that so often fails the very people whom it’s meant to serve. The People’s Health Care Act, if passed, is a significant step in making sure that health care in Ontario is of the highest quality. It will integrate our system so that it works for patients first, not for administrators or for bureaucrats. It will increase the capacity of our health care system so that no one falls through the cracks, and it will modernize how health care is delivered in Ontario, bringing health care in Ontario into the 21st century. That’s why we need to move quickly; that’s why we need time allocation.

Speaker, our health care system is broken. Our government knows that, and the members opposite know that. It is currently under ever-increasing pressure, and over the past few years we have seen a number of important health care indicators trending downwards. As I said earlier, patients are waiting far too long. They’re waiting too long to see specialists. They’re waiting too long for hospital beds and long-term-care spaces. Currently, the wait time for a long-term-care space is approximately 146 days. That’s nearly half a year, during which time the patient could severely decline at home or decondition in the hospital.

Patients and their families are finding it more and more difficult to navigate through this convoluted and complex system. Not only that, but patients also find themselves having to tell their medical history many times to each different service provider over the course of their journey through the health care system. There is no continuity of care.

To add to all this, there is also a shortage of family doctors across the province. When a patient has to wait too long to see a family doctor, or if a family doctor is unavailable, where is that patient supposed to go? They end up in the emergency room. They go there even if it’s not medically necessary because, at the hospital, they’re guaranteed to see a doctor.

So because of the lack of family doctors, because of these gaps in care, our hospitals are overflowing and under ever-increasing pressure. Sadly, the result of all this is hallway health care, and not only are poor patient outcomes a consequence of this, but the system is also a significant strain on the taxpayers of Ontario. Hospital visits are significantly more expensive than a visit to a family doctor or a clinic would otherwise be.

The current state of the health care system is not only broken for patients and their families, but it is also a burden for the taxpayers of Ontario. Ontarians have been waiting far too long for an improved health care system, and that’s why we need time allocation on this bill.

Each of these examples—and there are many more—are significant barriers to realizing good patient outcomes, but the fact is that the province of Ontario spends 42 cents of every dollar on health care. Despite this significant and disproportionate spending, we have not seen any serious improvement in important health care indicators, in the way care is delivered or in patient health outcomes.

The perception of our health care system is at a low point. The people of Ontario do not have confidence that they or their loved ones will get the care that they need, should and when they need it. This is unacceptable. That is not to say that there is not excellent care delivered in this province; there certainly is, but we must strive to do better. Our government understands this, and that is exactly what we’re doing with The People’s Health Care Act, and that’s why we need time allocation on this legislation.

Fixing our health care system is not an easy task, and there is no single solution. The problems facing us today transcend just one aspect of the system, whether it’s hospitals, long-term care, primary care or any other part. The problems involve the system as a whole, and the solution requires a comprehensive, system-wide reform, from the bottom up. Rather than focusing on individual and isolated areas, The People’s Health Care Act addresses the significant need for reform by focusing on the root causes of the challenges facing the system today. The bill does this by reorienting the system to make the patient the focus, rather than the administration or the bureaucracy.

It is this vision that is at the centre of the creation of the Ontario health teams. These Ontario health teams will be composed of a variety of different service providers, from primary care providers through to hospital and long-term-care providers, among others. These teams would make community level care integration a reality. One team, not many, would oversee a patient’s care journey, from initial hospital admission to outpatient therapy and everything in between. The team would be able to guide patients through transitions and would take much of the guesswork out of the system.

Not only would this allow for a seamless experience, but it would also significantly decrease stress and fatigue in both the patients and their families. By having one team of care providers responsible for care plans, outcomes, service provision and 24/7 navigation, this model would put the patient at the very centre of care. This bill doesn’t just focus on individual areas or isolated blocks in the patient’s health journey, but rather addresses the entire care framework so that each and every patient can have the confidence that they are receiving, and will receive, the best care possible.

This is just another reason to move quickly and why we have to have time allocation on this bill.

Our government also understands that to reform our health care system as required, the agencies themselves must be reformed. Ontario has a huge network of health care agencies and organizations. While these agencies have proliferated across the province, we have not seen a significant rise in coordination among them. Each agency has its own mandate, its own goals, its own target populations and its own focus. Some of them, such as Cancer Care Ontario and Trillium Gift of Life, do an excellent job in fulfilling their mandate and serving their target populations.

But without coordination among these agencies, that excellence in care isn’t widely shared and can’t be leveraged to better the health care system as a whole. As it stands, the health care system is fragmented and inefficient. By integrating each of these disparate agencies under one agency, Ontario Health, we are ensuring that patients receive consistent and excellent care no matter where they are or what condition they have. The integration of what are now fragmented agencies would allow far better coordination than is currently possible and, in doing so, would remove a critical barrier to good patient care.

We will be able to leverage the expertise seen in so many different clinical areas and distribute it across the entire health care system, especially to those such as mental health and addictions.

Ontario Health will not only be able to better serve patients and their families, but it will also be able to better serve the people of Ontario. A single agency, Ontario Health, will be more accountable than many fragmented agencies. We’ll be able to better improve patient outcomes when aggregating data from one agency, rather than many, and taking well-informed action based on that data. And we will be more prepared to face the health care challenges of the future under one, well-organized, integrated body. We need to start this as soon as possible, and that’s why we need time allocation on this bill.

Finally, Speaker, The People’s Health Care Act would modernize our health care system, ushering it into the 21st century. The problems that Ontarians face now and in the future will require a dynamic, innovative and sustainable system. This bill, if passed, will ensure that we have the foundation of a health care system that is just that—dynamic, innovative and sustainable. The people of Ontario are ready and eager to embrace emerging e-health tools such as universal digital health records and virtual care options.

These tools will enable patients, some of whom may live in remote areas, to consult with doctors virtually, freeing up our crowded hospitals and clinics for those who truly need them. They will enable patients and their care providers to have access to their health records electronically, eliminating the need for constant repetition of their medical history. Digital health is the future, and this bill will pave the way for a truly modern health care system.

Speaker, I hear from constituents and service providers over and over that our system is broken and in desperate need of real solutions—solutions that don’t simply put a Band-Aid on the problems, but rather address the root causes themselves. Our government clearly understands that the system as a whole needs to be reworked; that change must be real, transformational and, above all, patient-centred. That’s what we are doing with The People’s Health Care Act. And that’s why I’m looking forward to the loyal opposition’s support as we time-allocate this bill to do what Ontario needs as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It is wonderful to take my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

I’m somewhat frustrated this morning. We have this bill, with motion 33, under time allocation, one of the most—according to this government—comprehensive bills, with many schedules and with a lot of dramatic changes that are happening within our health care sector. And we’re not going to go out and talk to the public about this? We’re not going to go throughout the entire province to hear and get some feedback from them? We are going to rely on the fact that we know best? That is wrong. I am sorry, that is wrong. This is something that is going to be affecting each and every Ontarian here in this province.

The fact that we’re not going to go out and listen to community members, organizations, health care providers, front-line workers and community leaders is just wrong. That is absolutely wrong.

The fact that you’re shutting down the debate on this, where there was previous accommodation that had been made at the committee stage—we had indicated to this government: “Listen, we are going to try to move this along as quickly as possible through the committee stage in order to get to public hearings, so that we can go out and accommodate the public and get out to the communities that we need”—and not only in some of those communities here in Toronto, where a lot of this government is very Toronto-centric. But guess what?

There’s northern Ontario and my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, Kenora–Rainy River, Nipissing. There’s many communities—Timmins. There’s Mushkegowuk and the First Nations communities. My goodness, Speaker, it is just wrong of this government to not put this out to the public in order to have some discussions.

This bill is a huge transformation of what is there, and there are some big questions in regard to what people have and some huge concerns. It opens up the door to privatization. It opens up the door to a for-profit health care system. It does, and it will. It’s the path. There is a trail that is going to be opened up in order to do this, and that’s a huge concern. If it is no, let’s put it out to the public. Let’s get out there so you can hear what the concerns are from those individuals, so you can change, amend, modify, take it back and really consider what the concerns are for the people out there.

I hear it in all my hospitals. I hear it in all my long-term-care homes. I hear it from the front-line workers that are working in the homes. There’s a big concern about this, and it does open up the door. It does create a path where people are going to be subject—where we’re going to have our public dollars going to profit.

And why? Why are individuals from the private sector interested in it? Because there’s a profit to be made. They’re looking at this big egg. Easter is coming up, right, Speaker? They’re looking to cash in on this egg. And guess what? It’s not going to be a Kinder Surprise that’s going to be in there.

So when we say that we have to go out—this is a huge change. None of this was mentioned during the last campaign by this government—none, not a word. Well, there are a lot of things that weren’t mentioned in the context of the last campaign. Mind you, we had a very nice, detailed, laid-out platform which resonated with a lot of Ontarians. The government—I’m still looking for their platform.

But it’s just a huge transformation that is happening, and the fact that we’re not going to reach out and actually sit down and open it up so that the public can come in from all of our organizations—our schools, our seniors, our children. How are they going to be affected? So the fact that we’re shutting down the debate on this is another thing that is concerning, and it’s a path that this government has decided to take.

I have to say, the member from—oh, jeez, give me a second here. Where is my friend? Oh, jeez, yes. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I remember in a previous—he was just sitting over here, and when the previous Liberal government would come in and talk about time allocation, well, we all know he would bring that hand up and, “Oh, my goodness. Government is shutting down debate.” Well, why is it different now that the government is in this position shutting down debate on this, on such a piece of legislation that is so important for Ontarians?

I’m pleading with this government. Really, let’s get out and let’s hear from Ontarians so that we can make this better. Our role as an opposition is to do exactly that. I take my role in opposition very seriously. I always try to provide a different perspective. I try to provide a positive perspective in regard to what needs to be done and how things need to be changed, and for us to say that we are going to deny—and that’s what we’re doing; we’re denying the public the opportunity to be heard, the organizations. It’s wrong.

I can’t say that enough about this particular action that this government has taken in regard to time allocating this specific bill. It is a huge, huge piece of legislation, and we need to get out to the public and hear what they have to say.

Quand tu regardes ce projet de loi, monsieur le Président, c’est vraiment une pièce de législation qui est extrêmement complexe et qui a beaucoup d’échelles, beaucoup d’étapes et beaucoup de gens, de communautés et d’organisations qui vont être touchés par les changements qui sont dans ce projet de loi. Quand on prend en considération qu’on ne prend pas le temps de vraiment regarder ce qu’on est en train de discuter dans ce projet de loi—parce que ça rouvre des portes.

Ça rouvre des portes et des « concernes » pour plusieurs organisations et plusieurs personnes qui sont dans nos hôpitaux, qui sont dans nos services et qui sont dans nos maisons de soins à long terme. Puis, ça rouvre la porte à la privatisation. Ça rouvre la porte à des services pour un profit. Et, pourquoi est-ce que ça arrive? Pourquoi est-ce que ça fonctionne pour le secteur privé? C’est que tu regardes un montant d’argent que nous, le public, mettons envers les services et, à la place d’avoir ce montant d’argent-là du public pour les soins, ça va dans les poches des gens qui sont là pour le profit.

Moi, j’ai un gros problème avec ça, et il y a plusieurs Ontariens qui ont des gros problèmes avec ça.

Puis, c’est frustrant de voir que ce gouvernement ne va pas prendre le temps avec cette pièce de législation ici. De faire une motion pour éliminer le débat, l’éliminer et faire certain que les gens—on a tous le droit, dans cette Chambre, d’avoir un point de vue, des idées et de faire une contribution à ce projet de loi. Moi, je suis très fier de prendre ma position ici, d’être le député d’Algoma–Manitoulin et d’apporter les points de vue que j’ai entendus des hôpitaux et des personnes de service dans mes communautés.

Mais il y a plusieurs autres gens qui sont ici et puis, eux autres, vous êtes en train de leur ôter leur privilège; pas seulement le privilège des députés qui sont ici mais celui des gens qu’ils représentent quand ils prennent leur siège dans cette Chambre.

Ça, c’est un gros problème. On devrait avoir la chance d’apporter les nôtres—nos idées, nos contributions—et puis de prendre au sérieux notre rôle de vous offrir des idées, et pas seulement de vous garrocher des pierres et puis de vous dire « oh, vous êtes méchants, méchants ». On a des contributions à faire.

Même, au temps du comité, où les gens qui nous représentaient au comité avaient fait des offres de passer le montant de temps, le temps limité, au comité pour qu’on puisse le sortir du comité et puis le rendre au public, pour avoir plus d’occasions d’avoir les gens du public offrir leurs idées et donner leurs inquiétudes et offrir leurs changements au projet de loi que le gouvernement apporte en avant.

I’m going to pass it off to some of my other members, because time allocation, Speaker, as you know, is very short. The frustrating

part is, it’s going to be silencing a lot of my caucus members. Not only my caucus members, but there are other members who are in here. Even government members are going to be silenced on this. I’m sure, when you go knocking on doors, not everybody says, “Yes, you’re doing a great job”—

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: You can never silence me, Michael.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Come on, now. I get some that are not happy with me. Come on now; look at yourselves in the mirror. Not everybody is happy with what you’re doing; my goodness. But to deny those individuals the opportunity to voice their opinion—well, okay, all right: Everybody loves me in Algoma–Manitoulin, if you want the truth to be told.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Yes, they do.

Mr. Michael Mantha: There you go. Anyway, I’m just saying, to deny Ontarians—not us, because this is not about us. This is not about this government. This is about a dramatic piece of legislation that’s going to be affecting each and every Ontarian. For us to say, “We know best. We don’t want to hear from you”—I have a big problem with that, Speaker.

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

Mrs. Daisy Wai: When I talk to people in Richmond Hill, I often hear of loved ones spending hours and even sometimes days in a hospital hallway, waiting for a bed to become available. Or I hear about parents struggling to navigate through a fractured mental health system for their children. Every day more than 1,000 people are being treated in unconventional spaces in hospitals. The average wait time to access a bed in a long-term home is 146 days. Patients, families and caregivers who are familiar with our system know far too well that Ontario can do better to improve the public health care experience.

The people of Ontario need a connected and sustainable public health care system that will ensure that they will have the high-quality care they need and deserve in the years ahead. In fact, the need that I saw in health care is why I decided to put myself forward to run as MPP, Mr. Speaker. I saw the growing needs of health care in the community and I saw the need of the aging population and the health care required for the rapidly growing population in Richmond Hill.

So when I was approached to join the board of Mackenzie Health, I accepted it with eagerness, hoping to participate in the board to make health care better and do the changes. I was disappointed to find a growing number of patients being treated in hallways because of the lack of funding. There are beds and doctors available to serve and ease off the wait, but as a board we have to be fiscally responsible to only serve within the budget that we were given. So the growing wait times in the ER became a constant problem, especially during the flu season.

To my frustration, I also found out that there are layers of management from the Ministry of Health which at that time had taken away the money that should have been serving in the front-lines. Other than this, the scandals and money wasted by the then Liberal government had left the hospitals in constant struggles. I finally gave up after six years on the board. I thought I’d join the board of the Central Community Care Access Centre. I hoped to really help the front line with direct care.

In the first few months, I was impressed by the touching stories I heard from the testimonies of patients who had experienced care and support. But, unfortunately, not long after this it got merged with the LHIN. Front-line nurses were replaced by a thick layer of management, taking away the budget that should have been used to treat patients. I was so upset by this that I resigned from the board.

I was then invited to join the board of Markham Stouffville Hospital. I was hoping that the situation would have been changed, but unfortunately, it was the same old problem. I was so disappointed. I finally knew that perhaps the only way that I can make some difference is to put myself forward to run as MPP and try to make the changes from within.

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

The health care system is facing capacity pressures today, and it does not have the right mix of services, beds or digital tools to be ready for a growing and rapidly aging population with more complex care needs. It is because of this frustrating experience, Mr. Speaker, that I decided to run. I am now seeing the change from within.

I thank the Ford government for its belief that everyone in Ontario deserves to have access to the services they need at home, in the community and in hospital. They listened to the people who plan and work on the front-lines of the health care system and developed a long-term transformational health care strategy.

When we first took government, the health care system was totally broken. Thank you to Minister Elliott for your leadership in fixing our health care system and putting patients first. Thank you for introducing Bill 74. It is about time that we put our patients first. Thank you for your determination and focus in reducing hallway patient care and working toward a public health care system where patients and families will have access to faster, better and more connected services.

Having a health care team working around patients will really improve the efficiency and reduce the duplication of service. Thank you for redirecting money to the front-line services—where it belongs—to improve the patient experience and provide better and connected care. This system will support family doctors, hospitals and home and community care providers to work in unison as a team. Within these teams, providers can communicate directly with each other, creating a seamless care experience for the patient and their family.

This is a system where patients are supported when transitioning from one health care service to another—a system that truly puts the patient at the centre of care, where it is needed.

I really thank the minister and this government for introducing this bill so quickly. In fact, this is the need that we required immediately. That is why we needed time allocation for Bill 74. If passed, long-awaited health care will really be introduced properly.

To end this, I’d like to share one of my personal experiences. My mother-in-law has been in and out of hospital. In the past year, when she was in hospital, she was treated in the hallway. Just recently, in January, she was in and out of hospital again. The hospital has to keep her inside, staying in the hospital, because they are still deciding what health care is best for her after this. My husband has to put aside a lot of work, staying in the hospital and going back and forth. She was dismissed, and quickly, she was going back to the hospital again. It was a mess.

It was just recently, when they started to see the need of this, that I could see they were trying already to get PSWs and people working together. This is only the beginning of a little bit of what Bill 74 is going to introduce.

I know that we need a lot of improvement. Right now, I need to have this Bill 74—the time allocation would really get it passed as quickly as possible. We cannot wait. Our loved ones cannot wait. Caregivers cannot wait. Doctors, nurses and all of the front-line people cannot wait. Our community cannot wait. I’m speaking on behalf of the people from Richmond Hill. I’d really like to get the people from the opposite side of the House to pass this bill when we introduce that.

Bill 74 is the answer to our health care.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I’m going to start my debate with a parable that my daddy always says. Every time we rush things, my daddy will say to us, “Hurry brings worry, and worry wears you out.” When you’re hurrying, you end up making a whole bunch of mistakes. I keep thinking about that, because time-allocating a bill that is supposed to provide the biggest health care transformation that we have ever seen has to be something that you take your time with. You have to take your time because there are so many moving pieces.

I agree that the health care system needs to be improved. Everybody agrees with that on all sides of this House, and I would argue that many, many people in all of the ridings we represent would agree. But the fact that the health care system needs to be redesigned does not mean that nobody wants to speak to what that design looks like. Everybody wants to speak to what that design looks like, and the reason they do is because health care requires specific things to make us feel okay. In order for me to get better, to go on to my healing journey, I have to feel like my needs are being heard and felt.

I say this from a lifetime of experience. My dad, who I quoted earlier, has been in and out of hospital for heart problems, diabetes, ulcers, gallstones, horrible asthma. I’ve lived a whole life, from when I was young until the time that I’m still young—just a different kind of young—and have seen different things as my dad has gone through that. I’ve also had, as I’ve said in this House before, a partner who went through the sudden realization that he had cancer. We’d gone in and out of specialty hospitals—Princess Margaret, just up the street. We spent a lot of time there.

Our front-line nurses and the doctors are doing everything possible in a broken system. We all agree with that. But that does not mean that the voices of the individuals who are accessing the system should not be heard. I think that’s the piece that’s missing.

Hurry brings worry, and worry wears you out. It wears you out because now you will have to spend oodles of time, years and years, trying to fix something that you could have just taken your time to pay attention to.

Here are a couple of examples:

One, racialized people—as the anti-racism critic and the chair of the ONDP’s black caucus—accessing health care are not treated the same way as white folks accessing health care. Sometimes it’s a confluence of things. Sometimes it’s because they’re dealing with poverty and race; sometimes it’s religion and race; sometimes it’s ethnic norms and values that they have that come into tension with the way that Ontario is trying to provide their health care.

If we don’t speak to organizations like Sanctuary, for instance, which is a health organization that works with refugees and new immigrants who are settling in the Waterloo region and is located in my riding, we will never know how to ensure healthy settlement for those folks. They deserve care.

I found out that within Waterloo region, because of the swiftness with which this change is taking place—and this is prior to even knowing that this bill would be time-allocated—people have been losing jobs. We’ve seen nursing staff losing jobs because nobody knows what the budget will hold, and so they cannot retain the people. I think everybody would agree that you should be paid for the labour that you provide in this lovely province. Well, in Waterloo region, we no longer have access to a nurse who specializes in diabetes. Diabetes is a massive problem for many, many people, and if you don’t have specialized care, it can get worse very quickly. It can be detrimental very quickly.

So what is this Ontario health team to do if the care isn’t available? What happens for all of the people, then, in this area, in this little region, who don’t have access to the actual specialty care that they need? What does it matter if these Ontario health teams come together if there is nobody there to provide the care?

I think that’s the exact same issue that we’ve seen when we’ve spoken about the autism portfolio, where it’s great to have a diagnosis, but what happens when I actually need to access specialty care and I can’t afford it? What does that do to a parent? What does that do to a child who is looking after an aging parent?

With that, I just want to reiterate, from my daddy to everybody in this lovely House: Hurry brings worry, and worry wears you out. Travel this bill.

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

Mr. Stephen Crawford: It’s an honour to be able to speak today on Bill 74 and its time allocation. I’d like to start out by giving a little bit of history of our medical system here in Canada and Ontario and then bring in why we need Bill 74 and why we need to time-allocate it.

From the discovery of insulin and radiation therapy to the development of infant formula and vaccines, Canadians have always been at the forefront of medical innovation. While much has changed since 1921, the year that Frederick Banting and his colleague, Charles Best, discovered insulin while conducting research at the University of Toronto, it is clear that Ontarians have been and continue to be innovators and develop significant contributions to international medical knowledge. Ontarians are proud of their public health care system.

Bill 74 will create the legislative framework for the government to achieve its objective of creating a new model for a patient-centric, integrated public health care system. I am proud to stand in the Legislature today and speak in support of this bill. This reform is important for the people of Ontario. Noting that we have had ample time for thorough debate on this bill, I am in favour of time allocation so that we can pass this legislation, start modernizing our health care system and begin delivering better for the people of Ontario.

I regularly hear from constituents their concerns with respect to delivery of health care and wait times and their suggestions to improve this. They tell me of wait times to see a doctor, wait times in the emergency room and long overall wait times to enter long-term-care homes. I also know from my own experience, personally, in which my daughter had to wait almost two years to see a specialist. That was about a third of her life at the time. That’s simply unacceptable.

These challenges have compounded over the previous 10 years as a result of spending more and more money on administration and not adequately supporting our front-line workers. In fact, over the last 15 years, the number of health care administrators in Ontario grew by approximately 86% when, in the same time frame, the number of registered nurses grew by only 9%. We know that spending more money on bureaucrats instead of nurses and doctors and front-line workers is not in the public interest.

Right now care is fragmented, particularly at patient transfer points, for example, from hospital bed to home care. Patients, families and caregivers experience frequent gaps in care where they have to repeatedly start back at square one with a new provider, feeling that their concerns are not listened to, and all because of gaps in care, continuity and transfer of knowledge between providers. Community health care providers are not incentivized with the previous structure to work together in teams, which diminishes the strength of what otherwise would be patient-centred, community-based health care.

Simply put, the potential of our health care system to deliver better outcomes for Ontarians is being held back by the current structure. We need a better way to deliver health care in our province, and this bill will do that. This is made more frustrating by the fact that as Ontario is home to some of the world’s best doctors, nurses, researchers and health care teams. Ontario medical professionals excel in creating globally recognized medical techniques and a number of researchers are leaders in the global community.

I regularly hear from health care providers and constituents alike who tell me that they want a health care system that encourages collaboration and partnership—one that is free from a system slowed by bureaucracy constructed from within it. We need to help our front-line workers, not hinder them. That is the message I have repeatedly heard from stakeholders and constituents. In this place, we, too, have had great discussions on the work that this bill will deliver for the people of Ontario and everyone who needs care in our province.

This change is important for the residents of my community, and since we’ve had ample time for thorough debate on this bill, I’m in favour of time allocation so we can pass this legislation and start modernizing our health care system.

Our health care professionals work hard to connect Ontarians to the services they need, though they will need to be better supported. They should be able to easily link us to care we need, whether it’s physiotherapy, rehabilitation services or other needs. And once they make that transfer of care, the provider should receive a seamless transfer of health records and previous medical history so they can focus on the patient’s needs, not on assessing them.

Right now, we are leaving Ontarians behind because we have a health care system that is disconnected. Efforts to improve care are not coordinated toward a common goal, but are dispersed and siloed in the current system. That’s why, throughout this government’s process of developing a vision for our health care system, we have always said to the people of Ontario that our primary objective is and always has been to strengthen our publicly funded health care system. We committed to the people of Ontario during the election campaign that we would end hallway health care, and we are committed to that promise.

More than 1,000 patients are receiving care in hallways every single day, and the average wait time to access a long-term-care bed is 146 days. Patients and families are getting lost in the health care system, falling through the cracks and waiting too long. The health care system is facing pressures today. It does not have the right mix of services, beds or digital tools to be ready for a growing and rapidly aging population with more complex care needs. We have a plan to address the structural deficiencies and improve the effectiveness of our public health care system.

These improvements are crucial for the residents of Ontario. We have already discussed this bill at great length, so I’m in favour of time allocation so we can pass this legislation, start modernizing our health care system and begin delivering better for the people of Ontario, not only in my riding, but throughout Ontario.

The well-being of patients across Ontario is at stake. They are in need of better, smarter care, the type of care that this bill will deliver. Our plan starts right at home in our communities where our priority as a government is to deliver local, community-based care while not being hindered by bureaucracy.

Our vision for patient-centred community care will be achieved through the creation of local Ontario health teams. These teams will be made up of local health care providers: our neighbours and our friends from our communities. They will be organized to allow collaboration, forming a patient-centred partnership of providers—a system where family doctors, hospitals, home and community care providers work in unison as a team.

Within these teams, providers can communicate directly with each other, providing a seamless care experience for the patients and their families—a system where patients are supported when transitioning from one health care service to another; a system that truly puts patients at the centre of care.

Through these Ontario health teams, patients would have an increased say in what they want regarding their health care. With safeguards in place, patients would have an option to securely access digital health records, such as making online appointments, talking to a specialist virtually or having access to their own electronic health care records. The Ontario health teams would rely on leadership that exists in their community, rather than another level of bureaucracy and management.

We envision a community health care delivery model that connects different types of care together. This includes primary care and hospitals, home come, long-term care, mental health and addiction supports. The vision is to build a patient-centred system of care; one that will look holistically at the needs of patients and draw on resources from multiple providers in a seamless resource of care. Not only is this change important for the residents of my community, but every community throughout Ontario.

In noting again that we have had ample time for thorough debate on this bill, I’m in favour of the time allocation so we can pass this legislation swiftly and begin improving the health care system for Ontarians.

Previously, we continued to add, not integrate and coordinate, new agencies and health care programs. This approach to system planning led to the development of many agencies, each working with a separate mandate, siloed from each other and building a significant structural barrier to innovation and better patient care. They each followed a distinct and different strategic plan instead of policies and procedures and embraced at times divergent views on how to deliver the best possible care to patients.

These agencies often also focused on specific patient populations or disease states; however, we need a system that looks more holistically at the whole person, the entire spectrum of patient needs, and better coordinates care, which spans multiple areas of focus. This is not the fault of any one organization or any individual, but the system that was set up. It represents a deficiency in how the health care system was designed by the previous government.

The fact is that our world-class programs are being developed and delivered through various agencies, but overbearing structures have prevented more thorough adoption and coordination for the benefit of the public. We have a genuine opportunity and a real responsibility to review what is working, what is not, and what we can do differently.

I encourage the opposition here to support this bill. We need to bring a consistency of approach to our health care system, one that shares a common vision, a single point of oversight, and a united effort to get from where we are to where we need to be. To achieve that, our government has established a new agency, Ontario Health. This agency and our plan will improve the health system so that we have access to faster, better-coordinated public health care where it is needed and when it is needed.

I know that my constituents are looking forward to seeing their public health care system improve. Modernizing the system will take time, but I know the government will continue to listen to the people who plan and work on the front lines, including nurses, doctors and other providers, as we implement this change. The Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital is home to a wonderful team of health care professionals, and I want to publicly commend them for the tremendous commitment that they have, and the way they conduct themselves on a daily basis to care for our society’s most vulnerable and deliver real results to the residents in my community.

We need to modernize and improve our public health care system. We need to leverage the human resources that we have of thousands of health care providers in this province, thousands of innovators, and take advantage of it so we can work together.

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking a lot about the importance of health care and the excellent changes that this bill will deliver to the people of Ontario. Because of that, I am in favour of the time allocation so we can pass this legislation swiftly.

In conclusion, the principal reforms this bill will accomplish in order to improve health care delivery and patient care in Ontario are:

(1) improve patient access to medical records through secure online systems;

(2) create a more efficient and seamless transfer of care for patients from hospitals to home care, and accessing other services that meet their needs;

(3) create local, integrated health care teams to better coordinate between providers; and

(4) ensure that tax dollars are being deployed effectively to support our doctors, nurses and front-line health care professionals.

I want to thank the Minister of Health, Christine Elliott, for her dedication through this review, and for presenting the bill to our Legislature. I am proud to stand in the Legislature in support of this bill, and its positive impact on the health of all Ontarians, and speak to why we need to pass this bill in a timely manner.

The provincial government was given a mandate to fix our health care system, not put a Band-Aid on it. These changes are important to the people of Ontario. Bill 74 will create the legislative framework for our government to achieve the objective of creating a new model of a patient-centric, integrated health care system, ending hallway health care once and for all.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate? The member for University–Rosedale.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I stand here in front of this House to add some words—I was going to correct myself—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’m sorry; my mistake. It’s the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I would have just integrated the correction in with my comments, but thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m standing this morning proudly as the MPP for Toronto–St. Paul’s, adding my words to our debate on the government bill, The People’s Health Care Act. What I’d like to say is that I have spoken to many of the people in Toronto–St. Paul’s, particularly the people who access our Out of the Cold program, people who are homeless, people from Na-Me-Res, people in transitional housing, people in precarious employment. What they’re saying to us at our community offices is, “We haven’t been consulted.”

While I understand that the government, for their own agenda, seeks to time-allocate this bill, what the people—and I keep stressing the words “the people,” because we are supposed to be working in this building for all Ontarians. But I can guarantee you that the dozens, if not more than 80 people, that we have connected with in our riding, particularly around issues of health, access to health, the social determinants of health—they’re not part of that “people.” They’re not feeling heard.

I would strongly urge the government to rethink this idea of time allocation, put their agenda aside—because, again, it’s our work in this building to do the agenda of Ontario—and reach back to communities. Reach back to Toronto–St. Paul’s and many of the seniors, actually, who are also part of that group of precarious housing, precarious health, and who are seeking answers, who want more front-line workers. Our residents are worried, quite frankly. They’re worried that this notion of a centralized agency, this notion of a lack of transparency and the opaqueness of this bill is going to result in them not being able to have front-line access to good nurses and good doctors.

It’s been said previously: Our nurses, our doctors, our staff are doing the best they can in a broken system. As someone who has experienced hallway medicine myself—I have lived with chronic health issues since being a kid. One could say I was a poster kid for SickKids, all the way up to my last stay a few years back. This bill is not really addressing hallway medicine. This bill is not addressing—really addressing—the bureaucracy that leaves thousands of people in ERs every evening, every morning, every afternoon, and which also cost lives when people fall through the cracks and they demise.

I’m also really concerned about equity, as has been said many times in this building. Health Quality Ontario was the one government agency that really had a focus on equity, that recognized the way the social determinants of health impact Ontarians’ access to health care. We’re talking income, social status, employability, education, literacy, physical environments and access to health services—just some of the social determinants of health. Health equity was about ensuring that all people living in Ontario could access the appropriate, effective and timely services that they needed to feel better.

That’s all we want in Ontario, for everyone to feel good enough so they can be contributing citizens to this great province. When the government removes Health Quality Ontario, that is lost. For me, that’s not good enough for the people of Toronto–St. Paul’s.

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

M. Gilles Bisson: Comptabilité.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Non, pas comptabilité, mais de gérance envers un gouvernement, de faire certain qu’il entend les « concernes » du peuple.

M me France Gélinas: Imputabilité.

M. Guy Bourgouin: En tout cas. On n’a rien qu’à regarder—puis je pense que c’est mon confrère d’Algoma qui l’a dit le mieux. Il a dit : « Qu’est-ce qu’on fait des régions du Nord, des Premières nations? » On n’entend aucune consultation. On ne veut pas faire de consultations. Je peux vous dire que, dans ma région de Mushkegowuk–James Bay, on a beaucoup de problèmes. Vous ne réalisez pas les problèmes qu’on peut avoir dans le Nord comparé au Sud. Je me demande de quoi le gouvernement a peur. Il a peur de quoi, le gouvernement? Ils disent que le projet de loi est un bon projet de loi; on a eu le débat en Chambre.

C’est bien d’avoir le débat en Chambre. Il faut avoir ce débat-là en Chambre. Mais il reste qu’il faut faire plus que ça. C’est pour ça que la consultation publique est si importante. Je peux vous dire, on pense qu’on connaît tout, en étant député, mais on ne connaît pas tout. On devrait prendre notre temps. C’est pour ça que la consultation est si importante—qu’on entende du monde parler—parce que si on ne fait pas de consultation, monsieur le Président, je peux vous dire qu’on érode la démocratie. Puis, comme députés ou comme gouvernement, si on érode la démocratie, je pense qu’on fait une grave erreur.

C’est une grave erreur d’éroder une démocratie et de ne pas être prêt à entendre le monde parler sur un projet de loi parce qu’on a peur de la critique. Il semble que ce gouvernement-là a peur de la critique, d’entendre ce que le peuple pense vraiment de leur projet de loi.

Je vais vous donner un autre exemple, un autre exemple qui est cher, parce qu’on traite avec ça dans ma circonscription. Pour les soins à long terme, s’il y avait de la planification, le gouvernement entendrait de ma circonscription ce qu’on est obligé de vivre au jour le jour—les personnes âgées, ce qu’elles vivent au jour le jour dans ma circonscription. La moyenne pour les personnes qui veulent rentrer dans une maison à long terme dans la province est de 142 jours à 148 jours.

Dans ma circonscription de Mushkegowuk, si je regarde la communauté de Hearst, de Kapuskasing, on parle de trois ans à quatre ans d’attente, monsieur le Président. Puis, on ne veut pas avoir de consultation publique? On ne veut pas entendre parler de ça? C’est une réalité qu’il y a dans le Nord. Ça, c’est un exemple—un exemple. Puis, ce monde-là, ils ont payé des taxes toute leur vie; ils ont droit à la dignité, et on n’est pas capable de l’avoir.

On peut revenir sur le sujet. Il y a trois ou quatre ans, j’ai entendu—c’était dans un débat. Il y a un de mes collègues de l’autre bord de la Chambre qui disait : « Huit mois, c’est trop long. » Huit mois, c’est trop long? Je vais lui échanger ses huit mois pour mes trois ou quatre ans; on va voir comment il va se sentir envers son monde, quand le monde dans notre circonscription attend trois ou quatre ans pour avoir une place dans le long terme.

Monsieur le Président, je demande au gouvernement de reconsidérer et d’aller faire de la consultation publique sur ce projet de loi. Merci, et bonne journée.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: It’s a pleasure to rise today in responding to this bill and the government’s intent to time-allocate this bill.

I just want to begin by borrowing on what many of my friends have already said, Speaker, with a lesson that I learned early in politics. It’s from a friend of mine who sat down with me at the end of a tough day when I was going door-to-door trying to sign up union cards. I didn’t have a very good day. She said, “Joel, politics is not about talking; politics is about listening.

The success of your politics will depend on how good of a listener you are.” It was hard advice, but I took it to heart and I thought a lot about asking people at the door what they felt about the union, what their concerns were about the workplace. As luck would have it, as the lesson panned out, it worked out dramatically better for me in that particular union drive from that day forward.

What I’ve been thinking about with this bill ever since I read through it is that the intent would appear to be good, to get services to the front line. Nobody in this room will disagree with that. But what concerns me is that Ontario Health, as a super-organization, and its health care teams that are being dispatched across the province, as the bill would lead us to believe, are not being informed by those front-line workers. We’re not asking them, what should those health teams do? What should their jurisdiction be? What would efficient, consultative health care look like? We’re not asking the nurses.

We’re not asking the orderlies. We’re not asking the personal support workers. We’re not asking the doctors, by any stretch of imagination.

Speaker, the scope of Ontario Health under this particular bill doesn’t include most doctors in the province of Ontario. It only includes doctors working for community health care centres and other specific niche organizations. The government is prepared to stampede forward with a health care transformation bill that offers no scope for doctors. Think about that. That’s what happens when you don’t listen and when you are in a hurry. You’ll have a massive mess to clean up later, as the member from Kitchener Centre said so very well.

I want to worry for a moment, Speaker—because that’s what happens to me when I see someone in a hurry—about who is steering the ship here. I’ll take the point that I made earlier again. The minister responsible for this file has a lot of experience in this sector, no doubt. There are many people in this government who have direct front-line experience, no doubt. Is that enough knowledge to steer this ship?

My worry is that the same people who have been driving health care transformation policy for decades are the ones involved in steering the ship, people like Michael Decter, who have worked for government after government advising the same thing. As my friend the member from Oakville said very well: more bureaucracy, more money to the top.

In Ottawa, we have a situation where a person managing the Ottawa Hospital network makes a salary of almost $700,000 while a shocking amount of people in our health care system are working for minimum wage or barely over it, if you include personal support workers. I ask you, Speaker, is this the legacy our grandmothers and grandfathers wanted in health care, that we would have these disparities? It can’t be.

The only way forward—I’m going to tell my friends on the record here—is to put the brakes on time-allocating a transformation agenda and open it up. Here’s my advice, free of charge: Take the salary you’re currently spending on Dr. Rueben Devlin, who does not have a great record in health care administration, take that $350,000, fund a town hall movement across this province, and listen to the front-line workers. That’s what you should do. You should be listening to them. You should be asking them, what will help people? What will help patients?

You should also open up serious lines of communication with physicians in this province. That is health care transformation—not in a rush, but with listening in mind.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to thank the members who have participated in debate so far on both sides of the House, but specifically the members on our side of the House, in the official opposition, who are trying to give the government a pretty simple message. That is, if you’re seriously believing that this is the largest health transformation in many years in the province of Ontario, you should have the conviction of what you believe in and put that bill out in committee so that the people of Ontario can comment.

To have a scant day or two of hearings here in Toronto on this particular bill doesn’t do justice to what you’re trying to do. If we’re going to do this type of transformation, where we’re going to overhaul the health care system—I know our whip and health critic is going to speak to it the next time we have a chance to debate this—and you’re going to do the type of privatization that you’re suggesting in this bill and other things, well, then, go out and listen to what the people of Ontario have to say.

I want to send you a little news flash: Guess who pays for all of this? It’s the people of Ontario. It’s their tax dollars that we go get in this Legislature to be able to pay for the organization of health and other services in our community. When you’re out there saying that we’re going to spend almost—it’s, what, $60 billion almost that we spend on health care in this province—and you’re not prepared to go out and do consultations across this province other than a scant day or two here in downtown Toronto, I think that is completely opposite to the message that you’re trying to sell, which is, apparently, that you’re the government of the people.

Well, you’re only for some of the people. You’re for those who are going to benefit by way of privatization. You’re the government for the people who will benefit with this bill, which is basically your friends. I think what we need to do is that we need to listen to the people of Ontario.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to this particular motion that I’d like to put forward—and I’ll grab my glasses. If I can have a page please come up here. I need a page. I’ve got to send you back—there we go. If you could give this to the table, and one to the Speaker.

It reads as follows: I move that the motion be amended by deleting all of the words following the word “meet” in paragraph 1 and replacing them with “anywhere in the province during the constituency weeks in April and May for the purpose of public hearings on Bill 74 and that the subcommittee should meet to organize all deadlines related to committee business for Bill 74.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Mr. Bisson has moved that the motion be amended by deleting all of the words following the word “meet” in paragraph 1 and replacing them with “anywhere in the province during the constituency weeks in April and May for the purpose of public hearings on Bill 74 and that the subcommittee should meet to organize all deadlines related to committee business for Bill 74.”

Mr. Bisson?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The amendment is pretty straightforward. As was said by all of our caucus members who got up, this, according to the government, is the largest transformation in health care we’ve seen in a long time. But—flash—I want to let you know there are other parts of Ontario that need to be heard, not just downtown Toronto. I love the city of Toronto. It’s the best city in the world. I’ve travelled around and I’ll tell you, Toronto is hard to beat when it comes to being a wonderful city to call home. But there are places in Sudbury, in Kenora, in Fort Frances, in Ottawa, in Niagara Falls. There are different places across this province where people need to be heard.

If you’re going to do these kinds of changes in health care, you need to be able to make sure that you hear from the people who first pay for the system, because it’s our tax dollars that pay for this health care system, and the people who run the system, being those who are employed within the system of health care that we have at whatever level—community clinic, hospital, long-term care, lab maybe, wherever it is—and also the patients, because they’re the people who in the end are going to be utilizing the system and they, too, need to be heard.

You’re about to do this large transformation in the dark. You’re essentially saying that we’re going to go down into a dark committee room here at Queen’s Park, we’re going to have a day of hearings where people have I think it’s a total of eight minutes in the motion to be able to make their presentation, and that will be it. That will be all of the presentations. If you can’t come from Moosonee, if you can’t come from Kiiwetinoong, if you can’t come from Sudbury or Ottawa or wherever because you can’t afford it, you’re just out of luck. You don’t have your say.

So when it comes to a democracy working, a government has to have the respect of the people. And for this government to pretend that it’s a government of the people, who is not prepared to respect the public by allowing public hearings on this very important bill, I think is, quite frankly, a disservice to democracy and it’s a disgrace to the people of Ontario.

Shall I continue, Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): If you had another sentence or two, but at this time I could move that we recess until question period, and the next time that this motion is up, you would continue your debate.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Seeing that it is almost 10:15, this House will stand in recess until 10:30, when we resume with question period.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome my assistant Abdurahman Gureye to the chamber today. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Here you are.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: It is my pleasure to introduce my campaign manager, all the way from Alberta: Lanny Westersund. Lanny, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I would like to give a warm welcome this morning to my very good friend Mike LeSage, who’s here with us today—also a resident of Toronto Centre. I’d like to give an even warmer welcome—sorry, Mike—to my husband, Trevor, who’s also here today. It’s his birthday.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have an esteemed former member of the Legislature in the Speaker’s gallery today: the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments and the Speaker of the Legislature in the 39th Parliament, Steve Peters. Welcome back, Steve. It’s great to have you here.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: It’s a pleasure to welcome the Citizens’ Climate Lobby today—many members, some from Ottawa. Cathy Orlando, Alex Neufeld and Natty Urquizo were here this morning.

I also want to welcome the Ontario Retirement Communities Association, which met with the MPP from Orléans earlier today: Cathy Hecimovich, the chief executive officer; Dennis Boschetto, the vice-president of operations, Verve senior living; and Susan Schutta, vice-president, corporate affairs, for Revera. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to introduce Dawn Tymianski, the CEO, and Marnee Wilson, the president, of the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jamie West: Two quick introductions of people who came all the way from Sudbury to be at Queen’s Park today: first, from the Catholic Health Association of Ontario is Jo-Anne Palkovits from Sudbury’s St. Joseph’s Villa; as well as Cathy Orlando from the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, also from Sudbury.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome all the members from the Citizens’ Climate Lobby here at Queen’s Park today, especially Anita Payne and Guy Hanchet.

I’d also like to welcome Matt Jotham, who is the president of the Guelph Police Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: It’s a pleasure to announce that Quinto Annibale, the new vice-chair of the LCBO, is in the gallery today.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: There are two members from Windsor here today, with the Catholic Health Association. I’d like to welcome Bill Marra and Janice Kaffer from Hôtel-Dieu Grace Healthcare.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to welcome some very special guests to the Legislature this morning: Ms. Christine Fiorini, the mother of one of our pages, Katherine Trimboli; as well as Katherine’s grandparents, Mr. Frank Fiorini and Dr. Wendy Meschino.

Katherine is serving as today’s page captain here in the Legislature. To her family, welcome, benvenuti, to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I’d like to welcome Bruce Chapman here, the president of the PAO, as well as Rob Jamieson, the president of the OPPA.

Mr. John Fraser: I always like to say that a lot of religious orders had a big part to play in building up Ontario’s health care. I know that members of the Catholic Health Association are here today. I want to thank them for their presence and welcome them here to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I want to welcome my esteemed visitors from the Special Olympics: Special Olympian Jason Helmond; his mother, Michelle Helmond; and his sister, Kathryn Helmond; as well as the guests from Ducks Unlimited: Kevin Rich, Sean Rootham, Aurora Vargas, Mike Williams and Lynette Mader.

M me France Gélinas: It’s a pleasure to introduce Dawn Tymianski, Shawn Dookie, Leanna Lefebvre, Jennifer Clement and Brooklyn Mattinson, all nurse practitioners, here at Queen’s Park.

I would also like a shout-out to St. Joseph’s Health Centre CEO and president Jo-Anne Palkovits, who is here with the Catholic Health Association of Ontario, as well as Cathy Orlando and Dr. Cox from Sudbury with the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I, too, would like to welcome members from the Catholic Health Association of Ontario. From my riding of Simcoe North, from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, we have president and CEO Carol Lambie and board member Betty Valentine. Thank you for being here, ladies.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Dr. Gillian Kernaghan, the president and CEO of St. Joseph’s in London North Centre. She’s also the chair of the Catholic Health Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I’d like to welcome Lynn Adamson and George Biggar, who are both residents of my riding and who were here earlier this morning with Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to give a nice warm welcome to the Speech and Stuttering Institute. I met with them last week, and they’re here visiting members again. Joining them are Frank Ientile, Dr. Bob Kroll, Margit Pukonen, Wilma Koehler and Emanuel Tusca. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Gary Johnson, from the board of directors of St. Joseph’s Care Group from our riding.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I have one more introduction. I want to introduce Nick Stacey from my office in Barrie–Innisfil, as well as Mike Lake, member of Parliament, who is joining us here today.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for King–Vaughan on a point of order.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Today is Purple Day, the internationally recognized day for epilepsy awareness. With over 95,000 people living in the province of Ontario with epilepsy, I seek unanimous consent for members to wear purple ribbons today to help spread awareness about epilepsy.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for King–Vaughan is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear purple ribbons in recognition of epilepsy day. Agreed? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is for the Premier. In recent weeks, private, for-profit health care providers have been coming forward to declare their interest in being part of the government’s health care scheme. In London, Ontario, a private clinic owned by the Advanced Medical Group says they’re ready and willing to take on surgeries at their private operating room. In Toronto, a private-option clinic calling itself Mom and Baby Depot says they’re “excited to build and be part of an Ontario health team.”

Can the Premier tell us, will for-profit corporations like these ones be allowed to be a part of Ontario health teams, yes or no?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I just have a couple of quick comments. We may disagree in this chamber, we may spar back and forth with each other, but I just want to pass on my condolences to the MPP from Essex. His father passed away. On behalf of the PC caucus and myself, I gave him a call. When it comes to family and politics, we separate family and then we come back in here and we go back and forth. But I just want to give him all my respects and wish him and his family all the blessings.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to thank the Premier very much, of course. The member for Essex lost his father on the weekend, and I appreciate very much the Premier’s remarks, as well as the condolences from the rest of your team as well as the other members. It’s very much appreciated.

Back to the question: The Premier insists that his multi-billion-dollar mega health merger isn’t opening the door to private health care, but families are finding that pretty hard to believe. To give just one example, the London-area private clinic that I mentioned isn’t just pushing for more for-profit care; they also hosted the Premier at an event during last spring’s election campaign. It seems like a pretty cozy relationship.

Again, my question to the Premier is: Will for-profit corporations like these be allowed to be a part of Ontario health teams? Yes or no?

Hon. Doug Ford: The Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the leader of the official opposition for the question, and I extend my condolences to the member from Essex and his family as well.

To the specifics of your question, what we have stated from the very beginning is that we are trying to strengthen our public health care system with the introduction of the plan that’s contained in Bill 74. That is what it’s all about. We want to make sure that people get the connected care that they need and deserve.

We are going to be working with Ontario Health, issuing very strict criteria for any organizations that want to band together to become local Ontario health teams. They’re going to have to, first of all, meet the criteria of being able to manage the funds that will be allocated to them, they have to make sure that they maintain the quality of care that will be expected from them, and they also need to continue to involve patients and families in all aspects of designing the care and delivering the care—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, what I was hoping to hear from the minister is that they can do all of that work in a not-for-profit manner, Speaker. That’s what we’re wanting to hear from this minister and this Premier.

But here’s what families see: A Premier who has promised no layoffs is already firing nurses, front-line health care workers and other health professionals; meetings are being held behind closed doors without any public input or accountability; and private, for-profit health interests seeking to profit from our health care system already seem to have the Premier on speed-dial.

Will the Premier do the right thing by the people of this province and be very, very clear: Will for-profit corporations like this be allowed to be a part of Ontario health teams? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

The question has been referred to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Christine Elliott: First of all, I can assure the leader of the official opposition that the people of Ontario will be receiving the care that they expect and deserve should Bill 74 pass, which I urge you to support, because we are strengthening our public health care system. It will be up to the local organizations to decide how they wish to band together, whether they wish to form a partnership or a joint venture with anyone.

I can tell you that I have been travelling throughout the province and I have been speaking with groups that are already providing integrated care in Barrie and Bracebridge and North Bay and Arnprior and Newmarket–Aurora. Across this province, I can tell you that health care providers are excited about having some of the roadblocks taken away that the Ministry of Health has put up over the years, and that patients and providers are also very excited about it because they know that we are going to connect care for them and make sure that they get care throughout their entire life.

That’s not happening right now. That’s what we are going to do.

Fundraising

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. This is a question about the integrity of our electoral process and comments made by the Premier in this assembly.

Last week, the Premier raised serious allegations and even threatened to call police concerning what he called illegal fundraising by my party. As it happens, New Democrats on this side of the House have serious concerns of our own about a fundraising event organized by the Progressive Conservative Party.

Will the Premier agree that serious concerns like these deserve a thorough investigation?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We’re doing fundraisers all over the province. I was just in Ottawa. Our base is made up of average, common folk going to $25-a-night spaghetti dinners—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who charges $800, and if you go to the fundraising event you get a reward: You get to meet the Leader of the Opposition.

I’ll tell you, we give rewards, too. We give rewards to the people who voted for us and the rest of Ontario by lowering their heating costs, lowering their gas prices, lowering their taxes and creating good-paying jobs. That’s the reward the people of Ontario get.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I think the Premier is going to be pretty shocked when he finds out that they didn’t want to be rewarded with the privatization of their health care system, Speaker.

If the people of Ontario are going to have confidence in our democracy, they need to know that all parties are playing by the rules. The Premier made a serious allegation last week. He repeated it just now in the House. I think it’s important that we clear the air. I’m confident that an investigation will clear up any concerns he has about NDP fundraising. That’s why I’m inviting all parties to join me in asking Elections Ontario to thoroughly investigate all political party fundraising in the province.

I have a letter here that I sent to the Premier’s office already. I’ll ask a page to send it back over to him now. The question is, will the Premier add his name to this request to the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Our donors are grassroots. Our donors make the $5, $10, $15 donations. I am so proud. We sent out a letter a couple of weeks ago—just a simple one-, two-, three-line letter—and guess what? We raised $100,000 on $5 and $10 and $15 donations. That’s grassroots. That’s standing up for the people. That’s who we represent.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier made serious allegations about party fundraising, and we need to clear the air to ensure that his concerns are properly investigated. But the Premier seems reluctant. Perhaps that’s because there are also very serious concerns about his party’s fundraising: allegations that lobbyists will lose access if they don’t sell tickets to the Premier’s dinner; that media are locked out while well-connected donors talk shop with the Premier at $1,250-a-plate dinners.

If the Premier insists that he has nothing to hide, then why won’t he put his name on the dotted line and join us in calling for a full and complete investigation by Elections Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, you can’t help but laugh in the chamber. You listen to the rhetoric—I just can’t believe it.

We’re focused, again, on making sure that we take care of the grassroots people. They don’t need access to Doug Ford. They call me on my cellphone. I get hundreds of calls a day. I return their phone calls. I meet these people at these $25-a-night spaghetti dinners—and you can tell I haven’t missed too many spaghetti dinners. I love them, and that’s how we’re going to continue moving forward.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I must say I’m pretty disappointed that a simple ask for accountability is being denied by this Premier.

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier.

The Premier and the minister have claimed that the process that appointed Ron Taverner OPP commissioner was independent. In fact, to quote the minister, “the hiring committee was independent of government.” However, the Integrity Commissioner’s report released last Wednesday reveals that the secretary of cabinet told the Premier’s chief of staff, Dean French, in no uncertain terms that the process should not be described as “independent” and that the word should be dropped altogether.

Is the Premier prepared to correct his record?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: Unfortunately, the NDP is going to continue on this line of questioning, which actually has already come to a culmination thanks to the findings of the independent Integrity Commissioner of the province of Ontario, who issued his report last week, which completely, I must say, exonerated the Premier of any involvement in what the NDP and Democracy Watch were alleging.

Democracy Watch has instigated eight different investigations into this government, all of which have been frivolous—all of them. It’s like they’re on some kind of political crusade themselves.

What I can tell you is that the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, should be respecting the decision of the independent Integrity Commissioner of Ontario. That’s what we’re doing here. We thank him for his findings and his report.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think the House leader would remember that the Integrity Commissioner also recommended a full public inquiry because there are lots of questions not answered by that report.

Look, if the Premier is confident in Mr. Orsini, as he claims to be in the media, in this House and in his testimony to the Integrity Commissioner, it’s odd that the Premier and his minister repeatedly continue to call the hiring process independent when Orsini was begging him not to do so.

The Premier told the people of Ontario, and he told this House, that the process was completely independent. We have a lot of witnesses here today in the chamber, so I want the Premier to think carefully before he answers this question: Is he standing by those claims, or is he ready to admit that he was wrong and clarify his record?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. It’s shameful, really, that the NDP just won’t accept the findings of the Integrity Commissioner of the province of Ontario.

The member opposite has now asked five consecutive questions this morning that have absolutely nothing to do with government policy, and I can understand why, because the government policy we’re introducing here in Ontario is having a positive impact on the people of Ontario. It’s tough for them to criticize when we’re reducing taxes, getting rid of the cap-and-trade program. It’s tough for them to criticize when Minister Rickford is tackling the electricity mess in Ontario by introducing legislation to take that on.

It’s tough for them, really. It’s tough for them to ask questions about job creation when the Premier’s plan has created 95,000 jobs in Ontario in the last three months. I can understand why the member opposite wants to stay in the gutter because, when it comes to policy, we’re bringing Ontario back.

Public transit

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: My question is for the Premier. I was pleased to see the Premier and the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa last week to make a very important announcement that our government is providing $1.2 billion for phase 2 of Ottawa’s LRT, the largest infrastructure project in Ottawa’s history. This is big news for the people of Ottawa. I know myself, my colleagues from Ottawa and my constituents are very excited about this announcement.

I’m proud to represent the people of Ottawa West–Nepean and by expanding rail service all the way out to Moodie Station and Algonquin College, we’re going to make it easier for my constituents to get around our great city and see all that it has to offer.

Can the Premier tell us more about this exciting announcement that he and the Minister of Transportation made in Ottawa last week?

Hon. Doug Ford: Great question. I want to thank the outstanding member from Ottawa West–Nepean. Jeremy, you’re an absolute champion, a great guy, a great representative. You couldn’t ask for a better person.

The member has mentioned we had a great visit up in Ottawa, met Mayor Watson. Mayor Watson is just an incredible mayor. He’s doing a fantastic job up there.

We’re partnering with the city of Ottawa, putting $1.2 billion into phase 2 of the LRT. We had our whole team there, the Minister of Transportation and other representatives from Ottawa. I can tell you, Speaker, we’re building 44 kilometres of track—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response.

Hon. Doug Ford: Sorry?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Conclude your response.

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker—I still couldn’t hear what you said.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we are providing transportation to the people of Ottawa—again, the largest infrastructure project in Ottawa’s history. I’m so happy that we can move 24,000 people an hour—

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

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Thank you to the Premier for that great response and for your kind words.

Our government and our Premier are both strong supporters of public transit and making life easier for the people of Ontario. I know that this project will transform the way the people of Ottawa and our commuters move around our great city.

The new LRT will reduce gridlock and help people get to work, school or appointments more quickly and conveniently. However, this is not just good news for public transit users, it’s also great news for people who drive, because this will reduce congestion on the roads, thereby freeing up time spent at work so that people can be at home with their family and friends.

Can the Premier tell us more about phase 2 of Ottawa’s LRT?

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you to the member. This project will make it a lot easier for nurses to get to the hospital in Ottawa, or CHEO. It will make it a lot easier for students to get to Algonquin College up there. My friends, we’re going to move 24,000 people an hour. Do you know what’s the best news of all, Mr. Speaker? It’s creating 1,000 great-paying jobs.

Curriculum

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Minister of Education. The government’s plan to have high school students take the equivalent of an entire semester of coursework online is raising alarms with parents and experts alike. While the data is scarce, what we do know is that far too many students fail to complete these courses because they don’t have the supports they need. Questions are swirling about access to technology, suitability for all types of learners and the overall quality of the educational experience.

Can the minister provide any evidence that shifting 440 hours of in-person learning out of the classroom and online will be good for students?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s a pleasure to stand today in this House and talk about the amazing ways we’re bringing education back in Ontario. We’re making education work for you, your sons, the families of our members in this House, our teachers and every single person who cares about making sure that we correct the mess that the Liberal government, the past administration, mired us into.

Let’s talk about online learning for a second. Do you know there are school boards across this province that lead by example, and their students are embracing online learning? It doesn’t matter whether it’s rural Ontario, northern Ontario or urban Ontario; teachers and boards are leading the way.

My question back to the member opposite is, why is she so caught up in the past? Why on earth is that member in the past and not embracing the technology for the good it can bring into our classrooms? All I can say to that, Speaker, is shame on her—

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, that minister knows perfectly well this is not about preparing students to use technology or building resiliency. It is about less face-to-face learning, less one-on-one attention, because this government is cutting 10,000 teaching jobs and forcing students into mandatory online courses.

The government didn’t just unilaterally change graduate requirements with a stroke of a pen here; it also signalled that the delivery of e-learning programs would be shifted away from school boards and centralized. Parents don’t know who will be delivering these courses, where or how students will take them, or what will happen if students fail to complete the courses.

Minister, who will be delivering online courses to Ontario students?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: You know what, Mr. Speaker? Honest to goodness, to the people watching I say, please don’t get caught up in the rhetoric of this opposition party, because it’s absolutely nothing but nonsense that they’re spewing across Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that in my home riding of Huron–Bruce, Avon Maitland is doing a phenomenal job bringing math into the classroom and supplementing it with online facts and learning. Honest to Pete, there are great examples that we can use. It’s best practices.

Seriously, Speaker, this party is doing nothing but fearmongering. To that end, I want to quote the CBC fact-check from yesterday. We’ve heard this party opposite go on and on and cause fear in parents and teachers alike. But the CBC fact-check just yesterday said, “Boosting the average secondary class size to 28 would still see Ontario rank on the lower end of the spectrum” across Canada. So—

Interjections.

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

I’ll inform the government members again that once the standing ovation erupted, I could not hear the Minister of Education even though she’s quite close to me. I had to stand up and interrupt her.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Our government for the people has been working hard to deliver on our campaign promises. We promised to end the Liberal culture of waste, and that is what we are doing. There’s no better example of our government’s commitment to this promise than the recent announcement made by the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

Last week, the minister tabled the Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, the start of reform for our electricity system so that it works for the people, not the insiders. Unlike the Liberals, we are actually listening to the people, and they told us the system was inefficient and it was not transparent. The Ontario Energy Board was out of date. It was neglected by the previous government for 15 years—15 long years—while the OEB held up key projects.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House about the steps our government is taking to reform the OEB in Bill 87?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Barrie-Innisfil for her outstanding work for her constituents and her support on this important piece of legislation.

There couldn’t be a more important time for us to modernize the Ontario Energy Board. We’ve heard it from stakeholders across this province. I spoke at the Electricity Distributors Association meeting last night. More than 400 people involved in the business of local distribution companies applauded loudly when we told them that we would be putting an end to thousands and thousands of pages of submissions to the energy board for fairly routine regulatory matters.

We heard loud and clear from Indigenous communities when the east-west tie was announced, overriding unforeseen delays and stalling hundreds of Indigenous people from across northern Ontario who wanted to get to work on this important project.

It sounds like we have some support here. I’m going to read a quote here from the member from Toronto–Danforth: “I would say that at best, the Ontario Energy Board, the regulator, is a drowsy chaperone, and at worst they’re a ... glove puppet.” Will he stand with us and support to clean up the—

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you to the minister for taking a strong lead on this important file and listening to the people of Ontario. We know that the previous Liberal government didn’t listen. They destroyed our electricity system through their misguided ideological policies that forced families and businesses to pay way more on their hydro bills.

Our government has already taken significant action to replace these faulty policies in favour of initiatives that promote a competitive, low-cost electricity market. Now we’re continuing with our plan to eliminate the waste and unnecessary costs to our electricity system.

Can the minister please elaborate on the steps our government for the people is taking to overhaul the electricity system to make it more efficient and transparent?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Of course, what the member’s talking about is the now-famous trust fund cover-up, hydro’s accounting scheme that kept the costs of this program hidden from the people paying the bill, from the people of Ontario. That’s why it was so important for our government to replace the global adjustment refinancing structure with a transparent on-bill rebate. This transparent structure will save the people of Ontario more than $4 billion in borrowing costs.

What does the NDP stand for on this matter? Are they against transparency? Are they against the Ontario Energy Board modernization? Are they against conservation programs that are focused on vulnerable families, seniors and Indigenous communities? It’s time they stood with us to support this important act.

We’re hearing it from the people of Ontario. We’re hearing it from stakeholders. Get with the times and support this bill.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. The new Ontario autism program starts in a week, and service providers are still being laid off. Child and Community Resources, which serves a large part of northern Ontario, has cut 19 staff. We already know that northern and rural communities are underserved, and this disastrous new autism program is making it worse.

Did the minister anticipate layoffs in northern communities when she designed this program?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Let me be perfectly clear: Any layoffs related to the changes to the Ontario Autism Program are completely premature, and we’re encouraging agencies to find a better way. We are going to clear the wait-list over the next 18 months with 23,000 more children receiving some support from their Ontario government, which I expect would mean we would need more service providers to support that.

We’ve also said that we are going to eliminate the income test. We listened to parents. We’ve also listened to parents by encouraging more choice for occupational therapy and speech and language therapy. We’ve decided to enhance the grace period for those on the existing program to an additional six months.

And just yesterday, I met with Autism Ontario to prove we are reaching out and we are listening. We signed a $750,000 contract with Autism Ontario yesterday so that they can continue to work with parents as we navigate through this new system.

But let me be perfectly clear: As a result of this plan, 100% of the children—not 25% of the children—with autism in Ontario will receive support from their Ontario government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: As a result of this plan, families have been put in crisis, and we have a complete disaster of an autism program right now in the province because the minister failed to communicate before she put the policy in place.

There were not enough trained therapists in northern Ontario before the changes to the Ontario Autism Program, and now there will be even fewer, as organizations like child and community resource centres are forced to make layoffs. The new autism program is making services harder to access for northern and rural Ontarians. Instead of investing and strengthening autism services, this minister has gutted them.

Did the minister know that her program would make it harder for children in the north to access services?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: As the member opposite knows, we are doubling our investment into the diagnostic hubs so that we can clear the 23,000-child wait-list, including making sure we have greater investments in northern Ontario because of the great leadership of our northern members, including the Minister of Finance and including the minister of northern affairs.

I will personally assure this member that we have decided to invest more money than any other jurisdiction in North America in terms of autism services. It could almost be double the $321-million investment that we talked—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Animal protection

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. In January, an Ontario Superior Court decision ruled that enforcement of animal welfare laws had to change. In early March, the OSPCA gave notice that it would no longer enforce these laws as of April 1—just six days from now—yet the government has not announced a plan to cover the gap.

The Guelph Humane Society has asked the government for the authority to continue its enforcement efforts until a long-term solution is in place. Will the government commit to protecting animals by allowing humane societies to continue using their expertise to enforce animal cruelty laws until a long-term plan is in place?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question.

Animal welfare will always be of the utmost importance to our government. We are committed to ensuring that animal welfare continues in the province. Both our government and the OSPCA have a long history and a shared commitment to protect animals in Ontario. We are actively reviewing the implications of this change to find a solution that works for everyone.

As we indicated earlier this year, we are actively exploring improvements to the animal welfare regime here in Ontario—even before the OSPCA’s announcement. We are continuing to work to find a solution that’s going to continue to protect animals within this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking: six days and we will not have an enforcement regime in place in Ontario.

I’ve received thousands and thousands of emails about this issue, asking for the government to step up and make sure an interim plan is in place. Protections for animals should not be left in limbo. We clearly need stronger laws to protect animals in human care.

Will the government commit today to putting in place a transition plan for the enforcement of animal cruelty laws and start immediate consultations for a permanent plan to bring the investigation and enforcement of animal cruelty laws under public jurisdiction?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member opposite for your interest in and your commitment to animal welfare, which we obviously share on this side of the House. We want to make sure that there is a solution that is in place for all animals that’s going to work for everyone across the province. We are certainly well aware of the time commitments involved here. We are actively working on this file and we will have more to say in the very near future.

Child protection

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. The Toronto Star posted an

article over the weekend and the headline was shocking: “A 14-Year-Old Girl is a ‘Sexually Mature Young Woman,’ Not a Child, Children’s Aid Society Lawyer Argues in Sex Abuse Suit.”

As a member of the governing caucus, I found it disturbing to read such a thing, as I know for certain that this is not a position held by our government or the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

Can the minister please shed some light on this case?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much for that important question. As I read that article, I was embarrassed that somebody making that statement would represent a children’s aid society in Ontario.

Let me tell you what I did. I have a 14-year-old daughter. She is a child. Any 14-year-old child in the care of this province is a child that we must protect. I immediately reached out to my deputy minister to inform her that the position of that defence lawyer was not the position or the view held by me as the minister, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario or the government of Ontario today. It is not the position of our Premier or this government caucus, and, as I understand it, that lawyer is no longer with the children’s aid society of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the minister: When I read the story, I was confident that our government would not accept this situation. Unfortunately, this House is reminded of the failures of our child welfare system far too often. Last fall we heard from Ontario’s chief coroner, who tabled a report on the death of children in care, and we were reminded that Indigenous children are disproportionately represented in care.

Minister, we know this cannot continue. Can you please tell what our government is doing to improve the child welfare system?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The coroner’s report that we’ve spoken about many times in this assembly was one of the most troubling documents I have ever read, where young girls in the care of the province of Ontario, up to 2017, were trafficked in group homes. This is not the first time—when we see what’s happened in Kenora—that the standards that should be in place have not been met by our child welfare system. That is why we will bring in robust legislation to hold the children’s aid societies of this province to a higher standard.

These are vulnerable children who deserve our protection, not turning a blind eye and certainly not with the defence that the previous defence lawyer brought. We are going to encourage more consultation with our Indigenous children as well as those who are Black and those who are in custody and care with three new round tables. We recognize those children are overrepresented. In addition, we will be embedding within my ministry a children’s advocate.

But let me be clear: If you are receiving government funding to protect a child, I expect you to protect a child.

Long-term care

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Today, a new poll revealed that 80% of long-term-care workers experience constant, daily or weekly occurrences of violence on the job. These statistics are deeply disturbing, but, unfortunately, we all have heard these stories too many times over the years.

The violence is a direct result of understaffing in long-term-care homes and the increasing needs of residents with dementia or other complex behavioural issues that come with aging. Speaker, what concrete steps is the minister taking to ensure adequate staffing levels in our long-term-care homes so that this degree of workplace violence becomes a thing of the past?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. This is a concern, I know, throughout the province of Ontario. But let me be clear: Our government has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to violence of any kind in the workplace, and the health and safety of all Ontarians is a priority for our government. Every person who works in a long-term-care home should be able to go to work without feeling in danger or feeling that they are under attack from anyone in the home.

But there are increasing levels of concern here, mostly as a result of the increasing levels of dementia for the residents in the long-term-care homes, resulting in patient-on-patient violence and patient-on-staff violence.

We are studying this. We are looking at solutions to it. Some of it has to do with finding solutions to dementia. We’ve had a number of interesting proposals that have come forward to us in the Ministry of Health that can help diminish this kind of behaviour and allow patients to feel more comfortable and to feel less stress in their circumstances and less likely to act out.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, I know the government has announced creating new beds, but without supporting those beds with more staff, we will not be able to help the prevention of the resident violence that’s happening in long-term care.

Today’s poll on long-term-care workplace violence is the second report since January to highlight the understaffing and lack of resources in Ontario’s long-term-care sector. Action is needed to be taken now. The Ontario government must create a long-term-care strategy that properly plans for Ontario’s aging population and includes a human resource strategy.

Will the Minister of Health commit to immediately developing a long-term-care strategy to fix the problems in long-term care, address workplace violence and support front-line health care workers?

Hon. Christine Elliott: There are a number of actions that are already being taken, but of course more needs to be done, and we are already taking a look at health human resources issues across all levels, whether it’s long-term-care homes, hospitals or home care, to make sure that we are going to be able to meet the increasing need as we are building more long-term-care homes. We’re already at about half of our commitment to reach 15,000 new long-term-care spaces in the next five years.

We are working hard on that to make sure we have the people available there, but we also need to make sure that we continue with the training of staff who work in long-term-care homes who receive training in dealing with patients with dementia or behavioural issues. We’re also working with our partners, such as the Public Services Health and Safety Association, to make sure that long-term-care homes protect their employees.

So there is a lot of work that is currently being done. We want to make sure that everyone can be safe in their workplace and—

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

Fundraising

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question is to the Deputy Premier. I think we can all agree in the Legislature that the file on autism is a very tough file, and there were no easy solutions in this Legislature for this government or even previous governments. I’ve said many times, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a partisan issue.

So through you to the Deputy Premier, Mr. Speaker: Does the Deputy Premier think it’s appropriate that the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services sent out an email yesterday using autism and families who are in crisis to fundraise for the PC Party? And does the Deputy Premier think it’s appropriate to use a government press release in that email?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The email in question was sent out by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, and it was sent out because we’re proud that we’re going to be eliminating the wait-list for 23,000 children, or three out of four children, in the province of Ontario who were denied support by their Ontario government when that member opposite was the minister responsible.

What we have done is, we are investing almost double the amount of money from the $321 million we initially announced over five weeks ago, and we are looking forward to clearing the wait-list but also making sure that more children get the type of support that they need in this particular case. That’s why we are going to continue to double the investments in the diagnostic hubs. That’s also why we are going to provide more choice for parents with the childhood budget, including speech and occupational therapy.

We are also going to continue to consult with families over the next six months as we develop a needs-based severity test, as well as extending those children, the 25% who are currently in service, to receive additional service over the next six months.

That’s what our plan is about, and that’s why we’re proud of it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Coteau: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I don’t believe I heard an answer there. This is a question about the tone, the appropriateness, of sending out such a fundraising request.

The Premier was elected by going out there and telling people that he was going to put more money in the pockets of people, and I actually believe that he wants to do that. I believe he actually meant it. But this new program is doing something different, Mr. Speaker. It’s actually bankrupting families here in Ontario. I believe that the changes the minister made, in fact, put us backwards, and sends us backwards. It’s not good enough for families.

I’m going to ask the question again. To the Deputy Premier: Does the Deputy Premier think it’s appropriate to send out a PC Party email asking people to donate money back to the party, and within that email, Mr. Speaker, to embed an actual government press release? Does the Deputy Premier think that’s appropriate? It’s a simple question.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Let me be perfectly clear: Under the previous Liberal administration, they spent $256 million on autism. Under the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, that will be over $600 million. If they want to talk about being bankrupt, they bankrupted our province, they bankrupted the Ontario Autism Program and when they left office they were bankrupt of ideas. I am standing here today to say that we will clear the wait-list of 23,000 children. We will ensure every single child with autism gets a level of support from their Ontario government. There will not be an income test.

There will be lots of choice in how they spend their annual childhood budget, including in speech and occupational therapy.

We are going to continue to consult. As I mentioned yesterday, I met with Autism Ontario who will be our chief navigator with families on how they work through and navigate through the system. We are going to ensure that those children who are currently in service, those 25% of the children that the previous Liberal administration supported, will have an additional grace period of six months of the service that they currently have. So let me be perfectly clear: We’re proud of the program we’re building. We’re proud—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Next question.

Property taxation

Mr. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to rise. Our government, as you know, was elected on a promise to stand up for taxpayers. We promised, of course, during the last election to put more money into the pockets of Ontario families. That’s why my question to the Minister of Finance is this: After 15 years of the Liberal-NDP coalition tax-and-spend policies, policies that I believe hurt Ontario families, I built on the work done by the member from Milton for insurance policyholders and introduced my Respecting Property Taxpayers Act, 2019. Mr.

Speaker, the bill, if passed, will give taxpayers an equal voice on the board of the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. My private member’s bill will actually bring taxpayers to the table. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could comment on the importance of this initiative.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Markham–Stouffville for his leadership on this file. The Respecting Property Taxpayers Act, if passed, will make sure that the taxpayer has a greater voice when it comes to property taxes in the province of Ontario. The bill proposes moving from four taxpayer representatives to seven on the MPAC board of directors. By doing so, the bill, if passed, would ensure that there is an even representation between municipal interests and the interests of the taxpayer.

The bill shows exactly the kind of initiative we need to see in order to restore respect to the Ontario taxpayers. We look forward to debating this bill in the weeks to come and to stand up for the hard-working people in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Calandra: I want to thank the Minister of Finance for that response. It’s great, obviously, to see the support that this bill is already getting. I’m confident and I’m hopeful that when the bill makes it to this place for further debate that we will see support from all the members of the Legislature because all the members, I’m sure, would agree that Ontario families deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can all work together, because taxpayers have asked for this change. It’s about time, as well, after 15 years of Liberal-NDP coalition tax-and-spend policies, Ontario taxpayers are finally optimistic. They’re optimistic that they have a government that is focused on putting more money back in their pockets, but is also focused on respecting them and their hard work.

I wonder if the minister could go further and comment a little bit further on how important this initiative is to property taxpayers across Ontario.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: After ignoring the people of Ontario for 15 years, the Liberals left behind a disastrous record. The Liberals, supported by the NDP, were spending $40 million a day more than they took in. There was no accountability in the tax-and-spend policies of that government; taxpayers had no voice. Our government is changing that, and the member from Markham–Stouffville is changing that through his proposed bill. His bill, if passed, would be yet another way to restore respect for taxpayers and make sure they have their voices heard when it comes to property taxes.

Speaker, our government is standing up for the taxpayers, and we look forward to debating this bill in the weeks to come.

Addiction services

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We’ve learned that there was a 15% increase in the number of people who died from opioid-related deaths in the first six months of 2018. New Democrats have called on the government to declare a public health emergency and direct immediate resources where they’re needed to combat the growing crisis. Yet, while a record number of people are dying, the minister has delayed improving consumption and treatment centre applications, and the future of these harm reduction services remains unknown after Sunday.

Will the minister immediately approve and fund all of the existing overdose prevention sites and commit to funding additional sites beyond the arbitrary 21-site cap?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The opioid issue is an important concern for all of us in the province of Ontario. It is a public health emergency, and it is something that we have put our attention to.

The consumption and treatment centres are still already open. They have been able to remain open throughout as they transition from overdose prevention sites to consumption and treatment services sites, which is what we want to see. We want to see people have their lives saved, of course, but also get into the treatment services that they want and need. The services and the sites are still open. We are aware of the March 31 deadline. We are working very hard on that. We are reviewing those applications and making final decisions. I will have more to say about it in the next few days.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Back to the minister: The federal government has earmarked $1.9 billion for mental health and addictions care if the provincial government agrees to match the funding—money that could go towards the worsening opioid crisis and improving mental health and addiction services for Ontarians. All 629 opioid-related deaths could have been prevented. However, the bilateral agreement shows that this government isn’t spending a dime as part of the agreement in the first term. Why is the minister leaving $1.9 billion on the table when mental health and addiction services are in a state of crisis and more lives are being lost every day?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Christine Elliott: The member is correct: There has been a commitment made by the federal government of $1.9 billion, which is being matched by the provincial government—the same amount—for a total of $3.8 billion over 10 years to deal with mental health and addictions issues in the province of Ontario.

We are actively working on it. We are working with the federal government, and I can say that there have been investments that have been made already. That is where you are not correct. There have been investments that are being made. We are actively in consultations; we’ve had many across the province. Many great solutions have appeared, but we are putting together a comprehensive and connected mental health and addiction system.

I look forward to discussing your ideas with the members of your caucus, with the members of the other parties, to make sure that we get this right, because $3.8 billion is a lot of money. We want to make sure that we can put it towards issues and services that are going to save lives, including more detox beds, more mental health beds, more community services and so on. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it at another time in a discussion with you—

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

Taxation

Mr. Mike Harris: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Good guy.

Mr. Mike Harris: He is a good guy.

Many Ontarians are concerned by the federal government’s carbon tax, and certainly those in the agricultural community are no exception, Mr. Speaker. It is no secret that a carbon tax would increase the cost of putting food on tables across the province. When production costs increase, less money goes into the pockets of farmers and workers. All the while, consumers feel the strain in their wallets at the checkout.

Stakeholders across Ontario’s agri-food sector have also raised concerns about economic impact, job losses, cost of production, and they feel that the carbon tax will not help the environment or reduce emissions at all.

Could the minister please tell the House about the work our government is doing to stand up for farmers and oppose the carbon tax?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: