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

November 26, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Nov-26 (PDF)

L131 - Tue 26 Nov 2019 / Mar 26 nov 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 November 2019 Mardi 26 novembre 2019

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Government contracts

Education funding

Small business

Education funding

Autism treatment

Impaired drivers

Poverty

Small business

Winter highway maintenance

Children’s services

Assistance to farmers

Retirement homes

Suicide prevention

Employment standards

Notices of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Soins de longue durée

CPAC

Ambulance services

Anti-bullying initiatives

Northern Ontario

Vaping products and e-cigarettes

Velvet revolution

Tenant protection

Visit to Punjab

Jim Flaherty

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Dyslexia Awareness Month Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le Mois de sensibilisation à la dyslexie

Ensuring Transparency and Integrity in Political Party Elections Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à assurer la transparence et l’intégrité des élections des partis politiques

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

White Ribbon campaign

Visitor

Petitions

Long-term care

Health care

Education funding

Water extraction

Education funding

Documents gouvernementaux

Affordable housing

Education funding

Fish and wildlife management

Library services

Emergency services

Long-term care

Multiple sclerosis

Orders of the Day

Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les services provinciaux visant le bien-être des animaux

Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les bases nécessaires à la promotion et à la protection des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances

Adjournment Debate

Tenant protection

Environmental protection

Poverty

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 138,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

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

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 138:

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, December 2, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and

That the deadline for requests to appear be 2 p.m. on Thursday, November 28, 2019; and

That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee and their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 3 p.m. on Thursday, November 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 4 p.m. on Thursday, November 28, 2019; and

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

That the deadline for filing written submissions be Monday, December 2, 2019, at 6 p.m.; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 12 p.m.; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall be authorized to meet on Wednesday, December 4, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and Thursday, December 5, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., and 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Thursday, December 5, 2019, at 5 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 Monday, December 9, 2019. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

That in the event of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 20 minutes; and

That third reading debate be limited to two hours with 50 minutes for the government, 50 minutes for the official opposition, and 20 minutes for the independents.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 72. Does the minister wish to lead off the debate? Further debate?

Mr. Michael Mantha: As always, c’est un grand plaisir, it’s always a privilege and a pleasure to stand up on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin and talk to the, once again, common theme of this government of time allocation. If I’m correct on my dates, which I think I am, we are Tuesday the 26th; we are looking at submissions by November 28. That’s two days.

This is a common theme and a common pattern for this government: to really rush things forward, take away the opportunity of individuals to express themselves and bring the concerns of their constituents forward, and it’s something that I wish this government would seriously consider looking at. If they are so proud of what they’ve developed in this fall economic statement, take it out to the public, give them the days and the opportunity, and the weeks that are required to prepare, have the debate, and let’s move forward with it.

There’s nothing wrong with good, robust debate, especially to a bill like this where there are lots of changes that are going to be happening.

So I’m just going to jump in and have a discussion.

Every time we have a new government, something that I always say when I sit down and have a discussion with constituents back in my riding is that every government comes in and has ideas—good, bad or whatever. But it’s when they start breaking what is working well, or not investing in what needs investment—I’ve always told people back home that governments are notorious for breaking something that is working well in order for them to claim they fixed it. That’s something that they do. The worst part of this is that they’re actually breaking even more stuff. Forward thinking really isn’t about breaking more; it’s about trying to repair what has been broken.

However, once again, this government is imposing time allocation, cutting debate short. It’s getting to be a habit for them, and this is really eroding our democracy. This is really taking away from the public bringing their issues forward and bringing their voices forward.

Members of this government have a lot of power due to our parliamentary system. In Westminster fashion, we trust that they will use this power carefully and wisely. After all, many other countries in the world have decided that a government that gets 40% of the vote probably shouldn’t get 100% of the power, but such is our system that we have right now. We’ve just gone through the federal election and people want electoral reform. People want to have a greater say and people want to have proper representation.

However, having 100% of the power doesn’t mean the government should be doing anything they want, and it especially doesn’t mean that they should rush into it. Now, I know this government just enjoys it and welcomes every time we stand in this House and we talk about the flaws that they are putting forward in their bills. We take our position seriously. We not only oppose but we also propose, and it’s up to this government to take those propositions forward and consider them and add them to the legislation that they’re bringing forward.

Sometimes things are important that often affect the lives of many Ontarians in ways we don’t always foresee. We point out the flaws because we shouldn’t pass legislation without fully understanding what we are doing.

So why are we rushing this piece of legislation, big or small, with a time allocation motion? It’s a fairly dangerous and irresponsible thing do. We use it in times of emergency or when the House as a whole has a full agreement on it. It’s not a measure to skip the democratic debates we have, just so the government can move faster on their agenda.

The House has a democratic right and a duty to study and debate the legislation that is introduced. When this government chooses to time-allocate debate on something as big and important as this update to the budget, which amends many laws at the same time, they show a clear disrespect for our democratic institution of this province and they completely disregard the best interests of Ontarians. I truly believe this budget update is not in the best interests of Ontarians.

In the government’s budget, they took things from bad to worse for everyday families, and in the fall economic statement, they’re sticking with their cuts. It doesn’t matter how many times they change the finance minister; nothing in this budget shows that the government has heard the concerns of Ontarians. Teachers and education workers are still worried about losing their jobs. Hospital and health care workers are still trying their best while emergency rooms are filling, the waiting times are extended and people are being treated in hallways.

Our children continue to worry about their future on this planet because the full-out Conservative government is still somehow regressing on the fight to protect the environment and tackle the real climate issues that we have. The 2019 budget was full of terrible cuts, but this fall economic statement is just adding insult to injury: more cuts to Indigenous affairs, more cuts to the environment and more cuts to legal aid.

This government keeps repeating that they’re doing it to balance the budget, and they’re not getting anywhere closer with it. That argument can only go so far when you are wasting $230 million on the cancellation of green energy projects or wasting a billion dollars cancelling a contract with the Beer Store.

La vérité, c’est que le gouvernement ne se préoccupe pas du monde ordinaire. Il ne se préoccupe pas des enseignants ni des travailleurs en éducation ou bien des travailleurs en santé. Cette mise à jour économique n’offre rien de véritable ou de concret pour aider les Ontariennes et Ontariens; ça part dans tous les sens.

Notre province vit de véritables problèmes auxquels on peut offrir des solutions concrètes, mais le gouvernement préfère créer de faux problèmes et passer tout son temps à essayer de les régler. Je le répète souvent aux gens qui ne travaillent pas ici à Queen’s Park, et puis dans mon comté, parce que c’est plutôt contre-intuitif, mais le gouvernement ne fait que passer des coupures et casser de bonnes fonctions pour réclamer qu’ils les aient construites ou qu’ils les aient réparées. C’est un peu comme ça qu’on s’est retrouvé avec le système d’hydro qu’on a toujours aujourd’hui.

Le gouvernement conservateur préfère ne pas écouter l’opposition pour comprendre ce qui ne marche pas dans notre province et passe simplement ses projets de loi le plus rapidement possible.

In my opinion, Speaker, the use of this time allocation on such an important bill is not the right thing to do. That’s why I will use my time to make sure that this government understands what is missing, on behalf of the people in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin and across northern Ontario. Because trying to keep cutting essential services in the hopes of probably balancing the budget before the next recession, so that we can pay off all our debts and maybe have a few years of government that will be interested in re-investing in programs that have been decimated and left for dead for years, is a big gamble.

Why can’t we look at investing in smarter ways instead, trying to address chronic problems in our system by being creative and shifting the money around to make sure the government continues to serve its main purpose, which is helping people, helping Ontarians?

For one, this bill isn’t addressing the growing problem that we have in northern Ontario. We’ve been very generous with the government by making it pretty clear where the gaps are in the standards of access for people in northern Ontario. It’s not a secret that northern Ontario depends on many government services. We’re creative and resourceful, but the reality is we rely on government to support our communities, to support our municipalities. There are just different challenges in northern Ontario—not better, not good, not bad, just different. Our communities are smaller.

Our distances to services are much greater. Here we are in November, and one of our biggest challenges is accessing those services. Now, the good people that are there in those services—the nurses and the doctors—are there waiting for us; however, the challenge is for us getting there.

What I mean by “getting there” is transportation. Now, not all of my communities have buses or the availability of using differentt options. We have our roads. We don’t have a choice, Mr. Speaker; we have to use those roads. We have to get into our vehicle, if we have a vehicle, and our distances are quite far in between. To give you an example, there’s a couple in Manitouwadge. It’s the furthest community on Highway 614, going into the furthest part of my riding. For them to see a specialist, it’s a four-hour ride either going to Thunder Bay or Sault Ste. Marie.

Now, I don’t know about you, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes we wait a very long time to get that appointment with a specialist. Myself, personally, I had an appointment with a specialist last week, and guess what? It got cancelled. It’s been rescheduled. So now it’s rescheduled for March.

These are the things that are really challenging for us. When we do have that specialist appointment, we don’t have a choice. We have to take the road. It’s not because we’re irresponsible and it’s not because we’re reckless, but we have to get to the destination of the hospital.

Well, first I want to say, this government last week voted against the motion the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay brought forward in regard to improving the highway classification. Where we have an easy fix, where we have opportunities that we can fix issues quickly—and I know we have a lot of complex problems that we have to deal with; I’ll be touching a little bit later on the hydro issue that we have and the complexity of that. But this one, I think, shouldn’t have been contested.

What the member was asking for was to raise the classification of the Trans-Canada Highway—the artery that connects us from coast to coast to coast—to raise it to the same classification level as the 400 series. I think that was a very easy ask.

But here’s the challenge: It was refused. The Conservatives stood in their place. There were three northern MPPs who were at the cabinet table. If anybody knew anything about northern highways—like, I don’t know if there’s a bubble around Kenora–Rainy River or North Bay or Sault Ste. Marie and, for some reason, those roads are magically safer than the rest of them across northern Ontario.

I remember the member from North Bay when he was on this side, in opposition, how he just, in frustration, demanded that the highways’ conditions and classifications should be raised. I was sure that we were going to get some type of movement on this, but we didn’t. What we received in return was, “The roads are good enough.” Well, I’m sorry.

Let me to go back to that lady who leaves from Manitouwadge and travels on the highway, coming out 614 to hit Highway 17 to either go to Sault Ste. Marie or Thunder Bay. There’s no plow that is stationed in Manitouwadge. So if a storm happens during the evening or the event, she’s stranded and she’s missed out on that specialist appointment. Or let’s say there is no storm and she goes out. Because the standards are so low and the equipment is not there—and let me just make this clear, Mr.

Speaker: My issue is not with the men and women who go on the trucks, who go on the plows, who go on the sanders, who take our roads and make them safer. My issue is not with the contractors. They’re living up to their contracts. Some of them still need to be monitored. Actually, no, I’m going to rephrase that: Definitely, some of them need to be monitored, because I’m fully aware that there have been issues in regard to how certain providers are making those services for our highways.

What needs to happen is that we need to increase the classifications of those roads. These are our arteries. This is having a negative impact on our economy. It’s having a negative impact when our kids can’t get to school, when our family members and loved ones can’t get to their activities or their health care appointments. So this is one thing that this government could have fixed—it was an easy fix—but they chose not to.

Another one: Again, let’s go on to the transportation issue. At one time we used to have the Northlander passenger train. We also used to have Greyhound. Many of the communities relied—students relied—on these services. Now, once again, this government, when they were in opposition, was singing to the same tune we were, which is, bring back the Northlander passenger train, bring back passenger rail service in northern Ontario, bring back those opportunities in order to get people to and from their destinations. What’s changed? Well, probably the same argument that changed from when they were in opposition with our highway conditions: “Northern Ontario? It’s good enough. It’s good enough.”

It’s not bad enough that we don’t have those transportation options available to us—safer transportation where we could get the congestion off of our highways. “No, we’re also going to make it harder for you by not raising the classifications of your highways in northern Ontario.”

This government recently announced that they’re looking at moving the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission from the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines to the MTO. Good or bad, I’m not sure yet. The one thing that I am concerned about is, I’m seeing what is happening right now within the Ministry of Transportation and the transit systems that are in southern Ontario. My big concern, Speaker, is, what the heck is going to happen and where is the focus going to be, and are we in northern Ontario going to get lost in the unending world of the Ministry of Transportation? That’s my concern.

I want to make sure, and I’m going to be making sure, that these issues are going to be dealt with.

Here’s another issue that wasn’t part of their fall economic statement. We all have doctors in our communities, right? We are all proud of our doctors when they come to our community, regardless of where you are. Well, here’s a funny story. Actually, it’s not a funny story. It’s a frustrating story, Mr. Speaker.

Imagine you’re in a small community in northern Ontario, so you’re in Blind River. And while you’re in Blind River, you not only recruit one doctor, but you recruit two doctors, and you were informed by the ministry that to bring those doctors to your community, you’re looking at about a six- to eight-week process. Doctors pick up their practice—and they were practising. These are not new doctors. These are doctors that were licensed, ready to practise here in Ontario, and they pick up their practice and come to the community along with their families.

They get to the community and find out once they get there—they’ve uplifted and moved and settled in, anchored in the community of Blind River to provide services and to deal with the wait times. People are excited about having a doctor, because in many communities across northern Ontario, you’re looking at about 1,500 to 2,200 people that are orphan patients. So people are excited about having a doctor finally available in their community. And what happens is that the doctors get there and they’re told, “Well, wait a second.

Due to the bureaucracy within the ministry, it may take up to 20 weeks before you start practising.” Twenty weeks. These are not new doctors.

Again, these are things, easy fixes that the government could be fixing within their own bureaucracy. It’s not happening.

Oh, boy, there’s lots, Mr. Speaker. There’s lots. Let’s talk about hydro. We have proposed some suggestions to this government that they can consider. And here’s another easy fix: Why don’t you look at doing a flat line on the delivery charges? Do the calculation. Look at what that will mean for people in northern Ontario. It will mean a very good decrease on their hydro bills for them. That’s an easy fix.

There are some complex issues that we need to deal with in hydro. Let’s face the facts: This whole issue started with the deregulation of the hydro system under the Harris government. Then fast-forward to what the McGuinty government did and what the Kathleen Wynne government did. It’s a mess. I understand that it’s complex.

But where you can fix things in order to make it more efficient for Ontarians, you should be able to do that. These are suggestions. This is stuff you could do quickly, as with the roads, as with the transit system. Again, these are easy fixes that this government can do, but for whatever reason, you’re not doing them; you’re not listening to Ontarians.

Here’s another one. I just received this from a constituent yesterday. She is concerned not only with her hydro bill but the rent for her home.

Here, I just did that for a second time. I think Claire Prashaw will enjoy that. I just had to chuck another piece of ice in there. Hi, Claire. How are you doing? I miss you.

This is from Christine Marien. She lives in Elliot Lake. Here’s her message:

“Hi, Michael,

“I’m just very concerned with the cost of living and the rent’s outrageously high and hydro not being any better. What’s going to happen to us all on monthly benefits? I was up last night worrying about this. We are going to be homeless. I wanted to move back to Wasaga Beach. After seeing the rent online, I thought, ‘Jeez, I can’t even go back.’ Rent control has to come in. People can’t live in a thousand-and-something-dollar amount. Shouldn’t we have a right to live? I’m very worried what’s going to happen to all of us.”

Again, we didn’t see any of these changes that were going to be provided under this economic statement.

Speaker, I could go on and on in regard to what needs to happen, what needs to change.

Broadband Internet: Did we see anything in the economic statement? No. Northern Ontarians keep hearing time and time again in regard to how great it is for people across southern Ontario. There is a huge need and a focus on eastern Ontario. I don’t take away anything from eastern Ontario. They need it, but so does northern Ontario. I don’t hear these announcements coming forward for northern Ontario.

Oh, Speaker, there are so many things.

Here’s the frustrating part: Where this government had the opportunity to hear all these concerns, they’ve chosen once again to put in time allocation. They’re taking away every democratic right of all of these MPPs—your MPPs, as well—to bring those issues forward.

Again, I’m disappointed in this government for bringing time allocation on such a huge change, and I would hope that they would reconsider, in looking at making the opportunity available for all Ontarians in order to bring just some of these issues from my constituents—but I’m sure there are a lot more across this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Mr. Stan Cho: It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House, and I’m happy to do so this morning, to speak to the time allocation of the fall economic statement and to reiterate the importance of passing this bill in a timely manner.

I do want to talk about time for a little bit. Why is it so important that we pass the FES, Bill 138, quickly? Well, 17 days, if we wait—that would be the entire budget for the Ministry of the Environment. I think we can all agree in this House that fighting climate change and reducing our carbon footprint on this earth is crucial. If we waited for 48 days of interest payments on our debt, that would be the entire spend of all of the Ministries of the Environment across our entire country. That’s 48 days.

The urgency of getting our finances under control cannot be understated in this Legislature. Madam Speaker, every second that we don’t act to address our crippling debt, left behind by the last government, we are paying $400 in interest. That’s $1.4 million every hour. We know on the government side that that is money that we must be investing back into our central programs and services that we rely on. Of course, I’m talking about our investments into health care, our investments into education, infrastructure, transit. This is where money should be going.

It shouldn’t be going to service a debt from reckless spending, a lack of transparency and scandal after scandal. This money should be better spent.

I think everybody in this House can agree that when you run your household at home, your household finances, you must be fiscally responsible. If interest on your credit cards at home was your fourth-largest expense after your mortgage or your car payments or your insurance, you would know that there’s something you must change. Well, Madam Speaker, that’s exactly the situation we face here in government. We cannot have our fourth-largest expense be interest on our debt.

And so, I urge all members of this House to consider the time urgency of getting our finances under control. It’s not just about the money that should be going to our programs and services; it’s also signalling to the credit rating agencies our plan and an update on our plan, to say that our plan is working. We need foreign investment. We need investment into Ontario. We need local investment. We need local job creation. This is an urgent matter. This is a matter that—really, every second that passes, we are putting more money into servicing that debt.

I am proud to say that on this side of the House, on the government side of the House, we understand that urgency. That’s why we are acting to right the wrongs of the past. We’ve got that optimistic lens as we look forward into the future, so that we understand—Madam Speaker, on the current path, if we were to continue with our debt situation and our deficit the way it was, by the time these pages here in the Legislature were of age to run for an election, we would at that point be spending more on interest payments than we do on health care. Our debt would grow to half a trillion dollars by that point.

This is an urgent matter, so I urge all members of this House to consider this when you are voting on Bill 138, when you are considering time allocation. The urgency of getting our finances under control cannot be understated.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I have to say that I’m saddened to be participating in today’s debate on a time allocation motion on Bill 138. I’m saddened because I was hopeful that there was going to be a new era in this Legislature when we got called back following a five-month recess during the federal election.

Unfortunately, the new era has yet to materialize. We were here just last week, in fact, debating time allocation on another bill. It appears that this government has decided that time allocation motions have become routine. This is the way that they are managing their House schedule. They can’t contemplate any other means of working across the aisle to discuss how to move legislation through the process.

We know, for example, when we look at the bills that have been passed by this government since the election in 2018—21 government bills have passed, almost all of them omnibus bills, I might add, Speaker, and every single one of those bills has been time-allocated. This government is so uncreative that they can’t even come up with any method of getting their legislation through other than the heavy hammer of time allocation.

Time allocation was never, ever intended to be used on a regular basis as a means of closing debate and ramming legislation through. Certainly it was never intended to be used to close off debate prematurely. Yet what we have seen is that of those 21 bills that have been passed, all of them with time allocation, in nine of those bills—almost half—the time allocation motion was moved before there had even been seven hours of debate.

What that means from our side, from the official opposition side—we have 40 caucus members. Seven hours of debate represents maybe five, sometimes six caucus members being able to participate in the debate. That is not helpful to democracy. That does not enable us as MPPs to be the voice of our constituents and participate in debates about legislation that is fundamental to the way the people that we represent live their lives.

The other troubling aspect of the way this government operates is that five of those bills that have been time-allocated didn’t go to committee at all. Debate was cut off. The government moved a time allocation motion that sent the bill directly from second reading to third reading, with no public input, no opportunity for the public to come to committee and raise concerns, make suggestions, or offer support for what this government was going to do—no opportunity like that whatsoever.

In fact, one of the bills that this government has passed—this will go down in the annals of the history books—had the cloud of the “notwithstanding” clause hanging over it. This government made very clear that if the Legislature did not pass the bill on cutting the size of Toronto city council in half, it was prepared to introduce the “notwithstanding” clause, a completely unprecedented use of a mechanism that was written into the Constitution only to be used in the rarest of circumstances, circumstances that would be so much out of the ordinary that only in those cases would the “notwithstanding” clause justify being implemented.

The time allocation motion that we have before us today just repeats the trend that we have seen throughout the term of this government. This motion provides two days’ notice for the public to get their requests to present to a committee in to the Clerks. So they have to file a notice that they would like to present by this Thursday at 2 o’clock. Exactly two days from now, people have to be ready to notify the Clerk that they want to present. The time allocation provides one day of public input, with 15 minutes per presenter.

And when we talk about “one day,” we’re not talking about an eight-hour day; we’re talking about a day within the standing orders of this Legislature, which means that when you have 15 minutes per presenter, we will enable 21 deputations in total to come to this Legislature to express concerns about this bill.

Now, 21 might seem like a reasonable number, but the reality is, there are 40 schedules in this bill. There are 40 schedules that cover a wide range of issues and concerns and priorities that groups across this province, individuals, people in communities across Ontario might have something to say about, and 21 of those organizations or individuals will have an opportunity to come to committee to share what they think about what this government is doing.

Written submissions: The deadline to receive written submissions is Monday, December 2, at 6 p.m. So, I guess, to their credit, there is a little bit more time for people to gather their thoughts, if they have something in writing that they would like to submit about this bill. But the problem is that after the 6 p.m. deadline on Monday, December 2, there is exactly half a day for MPPs who have listened to the public input that’s provided to review any written submissions.

There is exactly half a day to turn around, to analyze, to interpret, to process the information that has been received and try to fashion it into amendments to strengthen the legislation, to improve the legislation, which is the whole point of public input.

How, Speaker, can you realistically take in the content of the 21 deputations that will be made to the public committee? How can you take in potentially hundreds of written submissions that might be received by this committee? How can you analyze it and interpret it and process all that, and then also craft amendments to be brought forward the next day by noon?

The deadline for written submissions is 6 p.m. on Monday, December 2, and amendments have to be filed by noon on Tuesday, December 3. That is not a democratic process, Speaker. That does not support the process of crafting good legislation, legislation that addresses some of the gaps that people might have identified, some of the red flags that might have been identified. Surely that is why we’re here. We’re not here just to rubber-stamp whatever this government thinks is in the best interests of the people of this province.

We’re here to do the best job that we can as the representatives of the people who sent us here. Time allocation motions, especially time allocation motions that are so limited as this one, undermine our ability to represent the people that we serve.

I mentioned the fact that this bill has 40 schedules. Each of those schedules addresses more than 40 pieces of legislation that currently exist. There is a lot of content in this bill that has to be interpreted through the lens of whatever sector people are involved with, whatever experiences they have had, what expertise they might bring to an issue. It is very difficult to apply that kind of analysis to omnibus legislation, because it takes people in so many different directions that it’s challenging to try to fully understand what the implications of this legislation might be.

Speaker, I went through the 40 schedules. I was a researcher before I was elected, so I like to do this. I tried to group those 40 schedules into some kind of thematic grouping so we can see all the places that this legislation touches in the lives of people in this province.

Seven schedules deal with alcohol or beer or cannabis or tobacco. I guess it’s not surprising that seven of those schedules would address alcohol, beer and cannabis. This is a government that doesn’t seem to be able to introduce legislation without something to do with alcohol. We’ve seen that almost everything they have brought forward has something to do with making it easier for people to drink alcohol 24 hours at airports, to drink alcohol at tailgating parties, to take their dogs onto patios so they can drink alcohol in the company of their pets.

Many of the pieces of legislation that this government has introduced have some kind of alcohol-related measure in them, so seven of the schedules of Bill 138 deal with either alcohol, beer, cannabis or tobacco, as I said. I’m sure that there will be a lot of people who will want to come and comment on some of those schedules, and they will have to be lined up pretty quickly in order to get that request to present to the committee in to the Clerks.

Now, four of the schedules in Bill 138 deal with tax rates—revenue generation for the government. There’s a

schedule that deals with tax rates for beer, a

schedule that deals with the gasoline tax in northern Ontario, a

schedule that deals with small business tax rates and, again, a

schedule that deals with tobacco tax rates. As I said before, there may be a lot of people who want to come and comment on those schedules about taxes.

Four of the schedules deal with municipal matters. There is a

schedule that is specific to the City of Toronto Act, a

schedule about the Development Charges Act, a

schedule about the Municipal Act and a

schedule about the Planning Act.

The interesting thing about the Planning Act schedule—that’s

schedule 31 of this bill—is that it is related to community benefit charges. This was an initiative that was brought in by this government in Bill 108, a bill that was time-allocated and rushed through this Legislature. This is exactly one of the consequences of time-allocating bills, of rushing bills through the process, of limiting public input: You make mistakes. You make mistakes, and that’s why

schedule 31 has to be included in Bill 138: Because this government has acknowledged that there was a problem with what they had included in Bill 108 on community benefit charges.

We know that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is quite concerned about what this government is doing with community benefit charges. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario issued a statement saying that they remain concerned that development charge and community benefit charge revenue will be inadequate to support growth without additional support from existing property taxpayers.

They repeat the same cautions that they had expressed around Bill 108: that the methodology for calculating the community benefit charge is of vital importance to the successful financing of local growth-related infrastructure. This bill does nothing to address the fundamental concerns that were raised by AMO during the debate on Bill 108 about the ability of municipalities to levy community benefit charges that will ensure that growth includes access to recreational facilities, green space and all of those things that our communities need to be healthy and livable places for citizens.

The Planning Act amendments that are in

schedule 31 also include new measures around appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, the LPAT. So now, with Bill 138, developers can appeal community benefit charges to the LPAT. When they make those appeals, Bill 138 is very specific that a ruling by the LPAT in response to an appeal—the LPAT is not allowed to raise the amount of a community benefit charge, but it can lower it, which is something that I think developers would be quite interested in. Similarly, the LPAT cannot shorten the time that community benefit charges can be deferred, but it can extend the time before developers have to pay the community benefit charge.

It’s interesting that the measure that’s included in

schedule 31 is something that we have seen many times on the part of this government in terms of responding to the lobbying efforts, the advocacy efforts, of the development community, which certainly would stand to benefit from this new process of appealing community benefit charges.

There are six schedules in Bill 138 that deal with electronic records. Certainly, we live in a digital age, and we recognize that electronic sharing of information and accessing forms electronically makes sense from a government service delivery perspective. But those six schedules deal with a very diverse set of government services.

Schedule 5 enables electronic records for services that are provided under child, family and youth services.

Schedule 9 deals with the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act.

Schedule 18 deals with the Highway Traffic Act.

Schedule 24 deals with the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

Schedule 26 deals with the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

Schedule 35 deals with the Shortline Railways Act.

I mention those because I think, again, it reinforces the fact that there are numerous stakeholders who might have very specific concerns related to how the implementation of electronic records is going to work in their sector. Again, we have a limit of 21 deputants who will be able to appear before the committee. That’s not going to make it easy for some of these stakeholders to come and express their concerns.

There are five schedules in this legislation that deal with financial services.

Schedule 7 deals with the Commodity Futures Act and the Ontario Securities Commission.

Schedule 12 is the Financial Professionals Title Protection Act.

Schedule 29 is the Pension Benefits Act.

Schedule 34 is the Securities Act.

Schedule 40 repeals the Toronto Stock Exchange Act.

Once again, Speaker, a lot of organizations, industry associations and professionals who are involved in the financial services sector may have something to say, may have an interest in these particular schedules. They will have to act fast to figure out what the implications are of these proposed amendments on the work they do, and then to try to get something ready to take to the committee.

There are two schedules in Bill 138 that deal with courts.

Schedule 3 makes changes to the way that the courts deal with youth who are convicted of cannabis offences.

Schedule 33 deals with amendments to the Provincial Offences Act.

We know that we see young people, racialized young people, who go through the court system and are failed dismally by the justice system in this province. I am sure that there are many citizens who have had that experience of being failed by the justice system, and many youth who end up in the justice system who should be supported by community supports to prevent their entering the justice system, and they might have something to say about these schedules in Bill 138.

I now want to talk about the biggest concern, I would say, within Bill 138, and that is around the four or five schedules that deal with health care.

Schedule 15 deals with the Health Insurance Act. This

schedule of the bill allows the minister to share personal information about OHIP billing. Certainly, we know that the privacy of personal health information is sacrosanct. It is the foundation on which an effective health care system relies, because if people don’t have trust that their personal health information will be protected, they may be reluctant to disclose certain health concerns to their physician, if they believe that their information is at risk of being made public.

Schedule 15, the changes to the Health Insurance Act, is one of the concerning schedules, but I think the most troubling

schedule in this bill is

schedule 30, and that deals with the Personal Health Information Protection Act. That allows the use of de-identified data to actually identify someone. It also allows cabinet and Ontario health teams to be able to collect, use and disclose personal health info.

That, Speaker, is extremely concerning, and that is why we had the current privacy commissioner, Brian Beamish, raise serious concerns about these changes to the Personal Health Information Protection Act. He said in a Globe

article that they were consulted in advance and that they put those concerns right out there.

But I guess this government wasn’t interested in what the Ontario privacy commissioner had to say, just like they’re not interested in the French Language Services Commissioner, which is why they eliminated that office, and they weren’t interested in what the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth had to say, which is why they eliminated that position. They certainly weren’t interested in the Environmental Commissioner’s perspective, which is why they eliminated her office almost immediately after being elected. This government doesn’t really have much use for the kind of independent advice that the legislative watchdog offices are able to provide.

It’s not only privacy commissioner Brian Beamish who has flagged concerns about these changes to the Personal Health Information Protection Act. Teresa Scassa, the Canada Research Chair in information law and policy at the University of Ottawa, says that these changes came as a complete surprise.

She says, “These are big things, and they need to be open and transparent, with more public input.” She also cautioned that there would be a need for much more nuanced controls around how this de-identified data is able to be used, because, she says, when combined with other population data available to groups such as marketers or insurers, the data sets could be used to profile individuals and communities.

We’ve seen this. We’ve seen this, Speaker. Earlier we saw this government float the idea about the possibility of administrative health data representing what they called a high-value data set that would boost Ontario’s digital economy if that high-value data set could be made available to marketers, to—you can imagine. You can imagine all of the business opportunities that might open up to people if they could access this high-value data set of people’s personal health information.

But you can also, Speaker, recognize how concerning this would be, how alarming this would be, the possibility that people’s personal health information could be collected, sold potentially for profit, but in particular used to identify the person whose data is represented.

I mentioned initially

schedule 15, which deals with the Health Insurance Act. The interesting thing about that

schedule is that it came as a total surprise to the Ontario Medical Association. There was no consultation done with doctors, with physicians, prior to the development of these changes. There was no heads-up that this is what this government is proposing to do.

As a result, the medical community is scrambling to put together a response to Bill 138 and to prepare to participate in the public input meetings, which, as we have noted, are going to be happening very, very quickly. There’s a lot of work going on behind the scenes to provide meaningful input into these schedules of Bill 138, to propose changes that would improve it and avoid some of the very negative consequences that could be the fallout of hastily developed legislation that didn’t take into account the perspective of the people who are on the front lines and who can think through what these changes might do in the sector in which they work.

I want to share an email I received from a family physician in London. She’s a new family physician who recently opened up her practice in the community, and someone who is absolutely committed to the patients she serves. She writes, “The transition to practice has been overwhelming and challenging intellectually, emotionally, and professionally.” I want to preface this: We have a shortage of family physicians in London. We have a major shortage of family physicians, so we are so grateful that physicians like this physician who contacted me—we’re very grateful that she has opened up a practice in the community.

But she goes on to say that on top of the challenges of opening up this practice, “the financial burden of starting a family practice is immense.” She says she’s doing her “best to build a family practice from scratch to provide what I believe is good-quality and empathetic health care to the patients I am rostering.”

She says, “Like every one of my colleagues, my first priority is the health and safety of my patients. My hope is that my patients and I will be working together for the next 20 to 30 years. But actions by current (and past) government give me significant worry, and make me question how I will sustain myself for the career I hope to have.”

She says, “As a new graduate, I am quickly learning that one of the most stressful parts of my job is our relationship with government/MOHLTC, the idea of a constant threat that any new announcement or proposal from the government can negatively impact my ability to keep my office running.”

She emphasizes that “doctors can only work with government when there is a foundation of trust.” Bringing forward legislation that was developed without that open consultative process is not the way to build trust. Bringing in a time allocation motion that cuts off debate and moves very quickly to a very limited period of public input is not the way to build a foundation of trust.

I have another email that I received from a psychiatrist in my community. People in this House will have heard me, on numerous occasions, talking about the crisis of mental health in my communities. It’s a crisis that MPPs are experiencing across the province. We hear the desperate stories of patients, often mental health patients, who are lined up on stretchers in the hallway—no dignity, no privacy. The hospital is the only place where they can get treatment, because there is such a shortage of community-based mental health services.

This psychiatrist writes to me to say, “London has struggled to retain psychiatrists in particular due to huge demand and limited resources outside of the hospital....

“London lost three psychiatrists in May and another one through death, and speaking to a patient who drove up from Windsor—the wait-list to see psychiatrists is only growing every day. I would like to focus on my patients and patient care and” be preoccupied “with what decisions I need to make on their behalf, not live in fear that someone is going to knock on my door and accuse me of things, and I would be found guilty before I could even show the facts. My psychiatry colleagues are overworked across the province, working up to 12 hours a day in clinic seeing patients....”

Then she goes on to say, “I am quite concerned about the impact of Bill 138 on the mental health of physicians, which means that physicians will either leave the province or have serious mental health concerns, including suicide....”

She says, “I would hope that you strongly consider the impact of Bill 138 on patients and physicians in Ontario—physicians will leave and London will be much worse off than it is now.”

These are very troubling concerns, Speaker. This government claims to be entrusted with ending hallway health care. The schedules that they have brought forward in Bill 138 could actually be compromising health care. It could make the crisis in our hospital system even worse.

Last week, I met with a pharmacist who provides pharmacy services in long-term-care facilities. That’s another

schedule that’s included in Bill 138,

schedule 28, which makes changes to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act related to reimbursement for long-term-care pharmacies. She writes, “The cuts that are being proposed are extremely short-sighted and are based off misinformation. I cannot comprehend how someone can propose ending hallway medicine and in the same breath make cuts to a profession that reduces the frequency and number of elderly that are sent to the ER and admitted to the hospital.”

If this government is concerned about the amounts that are being spent on pharmaceuticals, there is an option. We could look at a universal pharmacare program that would harness the collective purchasing power of every Ontarian and lower prescription drug costs. But instead, we heard the Premier say point-blank, “Ontario is not interested in a national pharmacare program.” Instead, they’re going to try to reduce drug costs by compromising the health and well-being of seniors who are living in long-term-care facilities by making these huge cuts to long-term-care pharmaceutical services.

All of these issues that I’ve raised really merit much more in-depth discussion, much more thorough review and the opportunity to hear from the public so that fixes can be made, so that the legislation can be improved before it actually makes people’s lives worse. What we have seen right from the very day they took office—what this government has done is that things that were bad already have become worse.

The legislation that they have introduced has taken things from—we had health care hanging by a thread under the Liberals, and now it is worse than it has ever been because, let’s face it, the fall economic statement that this government introduced did nothing to reverse the cuts to health care. It actually made the cuts to health care much deeper than—

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

Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 72 relating to allocation of time on Bill 138,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: It’s not really an introduction, but what I would like to do is wish my wingman, Jamie West, a very, very happy birthday. Happy birthday.

Mr. Norman Miller: I would like to welcome the family of today’s page captain, Laura Foell. In the east members’ gallery are her mother, Deanna Foell; her father, Dr. Blaine Foell; and her grandfather, Vern Foell, all from Huntsville, Muskoka. Welcome and have a great day today.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is my pleasure to welcome two dear friends to Queen’s Park today: Noah Tepperman and Jay Katz, both of them from Windsor—not both of them from my riding, unfortunately. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I don’t know if I can call him my wingman, but I would like to wish the Minister of Education a very happy birthday.

Mr. Jamie West: I want to welcome Jane Kovarikova and the entire group from Child Welfare PAC for coming to Queen’s Park. I know there are many meetings with members today, and also that there will be a reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230. I appreciate everyone coming out.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Did you know that Sue Christiansen is here? She is a great worker in my riding. She works in my office and also campaigns for me. Welcome, Sue.

Mr. Ian Arthur: It is my absolute pleasure to welcome to the House again Kelly McGarry. She’s a constituent of mine in Kingston, and it has been wonderful to work with her.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to welcome Paul Johnston, Teresa Johnston, Peter Johnston and Barb Pullen. They are winners of the “lunch with your MPP” from the Terry Fox Run.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome everybody who is here from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs for their annual advocacy day. They’re here today with a delegation that includes Jewish community leaders, grassroots advocates and, of course, university students. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I’m looking forward to speaking to many of you.

I see Ed Prutschi is here from Thornhill. Welcome, Ed.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to welcome members from the Canadian institute of Jewish affairs, who I look forward to speaking with at the reception during lunch today. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I hope you enjoy your day here.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I’d like to specifically welcome Dr. Stephen Sinclair, who is a leader in this province and country in combatting anti-Semitism, and a great constituent from the riding of King–Vaughan. Thank you, Dr. Sinclair, for being here today.

Miss Monique Taylor: My daily introduction to autism parents and advocates: Today we have Amy Moledzki, Michau van Speyk and Kelly McGarry. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

From the Child Welfare PAC, as you’ve already heard, Jane Kovarikova is here with many of her colleagues, who are having a reception today. Hopefully, many will join us. With them today was also Wendy Miller from the OACAS. It was fantastic to see her today.

I had breakfast with Christine Legree from Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition. Welcome, all, to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’d like to introduce a slew of guests I have from Simcoe county. I have Claire Malcolmson, Paul Harpley, Laurie Wallace, Tim Clark, Ross Pityk, Margaret Prophet, Jennie Ucar, Wilma Bunnik, Angela Michieli, David Stinson, Christine Legree, Bob Bite, and members from the Shanty Bay Change Agents—Maija, Nari and Elsa—as well as members of the rescue Lake Simcoe group, south Lake Simcoe naturalization group, Ladies of the Lake, Innisfil District Association, Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition and the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I would like to introduce my page from Simcoe North, Lennon Langstaff. Today, his mom, Carly Hawkins, and his stepmom, Brandy Langstaff, are here to welcome him.

I’d also like to introduce members of Child Welfare PAC: Jane Kovarikova, Meaghan Martin, Ingrid Palmer, Renée Ferguson, Rebekah Jacques, Amy Coté, Nadia George, Stéphane Duclos, Jeremy Muchmaker, Paul Berendson and Kemesha Alli. I also encourage all members to join us at the reception this evening.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome members of the White Ribbon campaign: the executive director is Humberto Carolo; Jeff Feiner is the board chair; Mona Mitchell is the incoming board chair; Kate Bojin is the director of programs; and Manoj Paul is the director of finance and operations. Since 1991, men have worn white ribbons as a pledge to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls.

We will be having a picture on the main staircase after question period this morning to support this cause.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I, too, would like to welcome all the volunteers and supporters of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA and in particular, our good friend and my good friend, Hartley Lefton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Ford government seemed to break their election promise of lowering hydro bills by 12%. The minister announced that bills will not be going down; they’ll actually be going up a minimum of the cost of living annually. Will people ever actually see those promised savings on their bills?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Greg Rickford: They sure will. We’ve been taking steps over the past year to deal with the hydro mess. In fact, it started out with a piece of legislation that was effectively worded as such. It repealed the Green Energy Act. It dealt with conservation programs that were redundant and no longer useful in the system, while protecting Ontario’s most vulnerable groups and their rates. It dealt with a corporate attitude in the utilities of Ontario that were paying executives way too much money.

There are a number of other steps, and one, most importantly, was to take down 750 projects that most municipalities—if not all—didn’t want, the grid didn’t need and that were terribly expensive. We got rid of those.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, during the campaign, the Premier promised that the horrendous hydro bills people were paying under the Liberals would go down, but families are seeing the opposite.

Dawn Van Nostrand wrote us with concern about her bill, which jumped 7% from last year. She writes, “I am now on a fixed income. My mortgage, heat and hydro are my highest monthly payments. However, I am one of the lucky ones. What happens to the people who are dependent on OAS and CPP? Do they have to start making horrible life choices to keep the power on?”

That’s the question for this government, Speaker: Do people like Dawn have to start making horrible life choices to keep the power on, just like they did under the Liberals?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? I think that’s the second example of a constituent from the opposition. I’ll tell you what: Table their names, give them to me, and I would be happy to give them—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I just gave you the name. They’re in the Hansard now.

Hon. Greg Rickford: That’s right. They’re tabled, so it’s official.

We will follow up with those folks—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Please make your comments through the Chair. Conclude your answer.

Hon. Greg Rickford: More importantly, Mr. Speaker, through the Chair, I would be happy to meet with those folks, and I would explain to them the statistics year in and year out, that, for the record, I have repeated in this place, most notably, an increase of 22% on November 2015. At the same time, the Auditor General, who, conveniently, the Leader of the Opposition is not speaking about today, concluded that ratepayers paid $37 billion more necessary from 2006 to 2014 under the previous Liberal government that they supported 100% of the time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s what people see: The Premier promised bills would be 12% lower; retirees are getting bills that are 7% higher. The Premier’s meddling at Hydro One and the hundreds of millions spent tearing down wind farms aren’t reducing hydro bills.

Can the Ford government tell us when bills will start going down, or are they ready to admit that they never intended to keep this promise and it was just another Liberal stretch goal?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Somebody appreciates what we’re trying to accomplish here in an effort to reduce hydro bills—turns out, it’s the Auditor General. When the government tabled their 2018-19 public accounts, the auditor actually reviewed our allocation. In speaking to the media yesterday, she stated that her office had “already looked at the costs associated with the cancellation of the contracts.”

The audit “looked at all of the ‘big contracts’ and a sample of smaller ... deals to determine whether the government’s ‘calculations are reasonable.’”

The auditor herself concluded: “Based on the review of the contracts and estimates of the payment, I find the audit to be clean.”

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, the people of Ontario and this amazing caucus recognize the steps that this government had to take to ensure that hydro rates can come down in the future. We intend to deliver on that promise, but not until we’ve cleaned up the mess that they supported of that previous government 100% at the time.

Government contracts

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s interesting that the minister is making these claims, because concern about the real cost of the Ford government’s $231-million war on renewable energy continues to grow.

Ontario’s auditor has made it clear that her office will be taking the same approach that that office took during the gas plants scandal: They will conduct a review when the Ford government cabinet, or this assembly, or, as with the Liberal gas plants—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’m finding it quite difficult to concentrate. It’s quite rude, actually.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Start the clock. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. She can place her question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The auditor will be taking the same approach as they took during the gas plants scandal: They will conduct a review when the Ford cabinet, or this assembly, or, as with the Liberal gas plants, the public accounts committee, asks for one.

No minister has stepped up yet, Speaker. The government blocked the assembly’s efforts to call in the auditor.

Will the government finally do the right thing and direct its public accounts members to vote in favour of calling in the auditor?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Who is the question addressed to?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It was to the Premier, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I look to the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Greg Rickford: It turns out that the auditor has been called. It turns out that through the global adjustment, between—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Greg Rickford: Oh, my goodness. Okay.

It turns out, Mr. Speaker, that from November 1, 2009, to November 1, 2015, we saw rate increases from 5.5% to 22%. As Abigail Mae, my little girl, likes to tell me, the thing is that nobody knew about it. Nobody knew about it, Mr. Speaker, because it was put in this innovative global adjustment fund that was really 90% of a ratepayer’s bill. It had been created by the previous government, which was asked to leave because of that scheme. It had been supported by the official opposition 100% of the time, to build those wind towers, Mr. Speaker, and maybe even put them up on the Danforth, as the one member had suggested. They would be only too happy to have 90-metre towers.

Ontario rejected that plan, and they’re supporting us in our measures to reduce hydro rates for everybody in this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It turns out that the Conservatives are doing exactly what the Liberals did.

Today’s Toronto Star reports that only a fraction of the companies entitled to compensation have been processed, and that the price tag, which has already grown from zero, which is what the Premier claimed it was going to be, up to $231 million, will just keep growing.

During the Liberal gas plants scandal, the Conservatives were adamant about calling in the auditor. When they sat on this side of the House as opposition, they wanted that Auditor General to review what the Liberals were paying for the cancelled gas plants.

So now, what are they afraid of? What are they afraid of? Will they call in the auditor and do the right thing?

Hon. Greg Rickford: We’re not afraid of anything, actually. It’s always incredible when the opposition party needs the Toronto Star to do their heavy lifting. I’ll take no lessons from the NDP on this.

The Auditor General has spoken loud and clear. She looked at all of those big contracts and a sample of smaller deals to determine whether the government’s calculations were reasonable. The auditor herself concluded—and I quote for the benefit of this place—“Based on the review of the contracts and estimates of the payment, I find the audit to be clean.”

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I think this minister might want to talk to some of his colleagues who were in the Legislature when the Liberal gas plants scandal went down, because they can tell you exactly what happened.

It’s amazing how much the Ford government sounds like the former Liberal government. Just like the Liberals, they first claimed their electricity boondoggle would cost nothing. Then, just like the Liberals, they adjusted the price tag to $230 million. And now, just like the Liberals, they say the auditor has reviewed the numbers in public accounts and signed off on them. And just like the Liberals, they’re refusing to call in the auditor.

Tomorrow, New Democrats will be moving a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, just like what happened when the Liberal gas plants scandal went down. We’re going to ask for the auditor to look into this.

Will the Ford government allow that motion to pass? Or will they continue to stand in the way of transparency and accountability and follow in the horrifying footsteps of the Liberals?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Would that be the horrifying footsteps of the Liberals that the NDP followed in 100% of the time?

I’ll tell you what my colleagues around this place had to say about their days in opposition and the decisions made by the previous Liberal government and the ones that the NDP supported 100% of the time. They talked out loud about how these wind towers were going to be expensive and erratic. They talked about how they would scar the landscape.

So I had to go where I had gone after all of my years in university: to the literature. I looked through periodicals, and I came across the Climate Change Dispatch. I had a quote yesterday: “Power grid operators had been struggling to keep the grid stable due to erratic feed-in and the subsidized feed-in of wind energy caused German electricity prices to become among the most expensive worldwide.”

That’s why we led and got rid of those contracts—

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

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. But all I would urge the members to do is to vote the same way at committee as you did the last time when this was on the docket: to vote with us to call in the Auditor General.

It has already been a tough year for parents and students, but today they started their school day with more uncertainty than usual. Parents, students and teachers are all pointing to the Premier’s classroom cuts as the culprit here.

Is the Premier ready to admit that the Ford government’s education cuts, which have already done so much damage, were reckless and poorly planned and have created the conflict that parents are seeing today?

Hon. Paul Calandra: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, it is the government’s aim to get deals with all teacher unions in the province of Ontario. We have turned to mediation as an authentic means to get those deals, as we did with CUPE.

What is regrettable is that on this date, across the province of Ontario, parents will face more uncertainty singly because unions have opted to escalate at a time when we are trying to keep them at the table and keep their kids in class. That is our aim. We’re going to continue to be reasonable and continue to invest in public education at the highest levels ever invested in Ontario’s history, because we believe in the potential of every student in this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What’s regrettable is that for months the Ford government insisted their cuts wouldn’t hurt kids in the classroom, and now they’re doing everything they can to keep the cuts in place. Only the Ford government would claim that expanding class sizes from 22 to 25 students isn’t an increase in class sizes. Only the Ford government would claim that moving from zero mandatory online courses to two is a decrease in the number of mandatory online courses. Half of a bad plan is still a bad plan.

Teachers, parents and students don’t want these cuts finessed. They want these cuts reversed. When will the government do that?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, what hurts kids are strikes, and we seek to avoid them, to keep children in this province in class.

Mr. Speaker, we’re not going to be deterred from our aim to keep kids in class, get good deals for teachers and, at the end of the day, improve education for students in this province.

Small business

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Earlier this month, the minister delivered our government’s fall economic statement and, with it, our plan to build Ontario together. The minister outlined a plan that involves creating a competitive business environment in our province.

It’s clear that our government understands the importance of supporting small businesses. Would the minister please inform the House of what actions our government is taking to support small businesses in our province?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for that question. Our government understands that small business is essential to our province’s economy. That’s why we remain committed to making a more competitive business environment for all those small businesses.

To do so, we have committed, in the fall economic statement, to cut the small business tax rate by 8.7%. That will save over 275,000 small businesses up to $1,500 a year. It’s a measure that will benefit small businesses across the province.

That’s why, when we visited the family-owned 247 Salon in Brampton with the member from Brampton West and the Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction two weeks ago, we talked to that small business person. We talked to Lu. She understood that this is a government that’s for small business, and that’s because it creates jobs and opportunity in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Parsa: Thank you to the minister for his response. It’s really exciting to be a part of this government’s plan to build Ontario together. Ours is a government that understands that Ontario’s competitiveness is essential to our long-term success.

Tax relief for small businesses means that savings can be reinvested to help small businesses grow, create more jobs and boost our economy.

Would the minister please inform the House about the additional steps the government is taking to ensure its vision for an Ontario that is a top global destination to invest, work and create jobs in becomes a reality?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Again, I thank the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for the question.

When you talk to Lu, what’s interesting about Lu is she’s like a lot of other Ontarians. Her husband is also a small business owner. She owns a salon; he owns an auto repair shop. She said, “We just want to be able to employ people, get ahead, have the things our family wants; and we can do that with a government that supports us.”

One of the things we’re doing as well for Lu, for her husband and for all those 275,000 small business people is, we are going to create a small business strategy, a strategy for small business success. We’ll be talking to small business people about what else we can do, what regulations we can cut, what taxes we can reduce: what we can do to make them successful, to make our province successful.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. While the education minister is busy bungling education negotiations and forcing teachers into job action, students and families are feeling the impact of this government’s cuts. School budget cuts in places like Kitchener mean that schools that are already 600 students over capacity are now having to force kids into even bigger classes with fewer teachers.

With teachers taking action to defend public education against cuts, will this government stop their spin, stop the attacks on teachers and education workers and reverse their cuts?

Hon. Paul Calandra: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the government is going to continue to invest in the defence of public education. It’s why we have increased expenditures to the highest levels ever recorded in Ontario history.

Those parents—I agree—seek an investment in their children’s future, which is why we put more money into the system than ever before.

Those parents also seek predictability. The question for every member of this Legislature is: Do they stand with parents and with the government to say to unions to cease escalation, stop hurting our kids and start keeping their focus on getting a deal at the table? That is the question. My suspicion is that there is not unanimity of purpose on that question.

Our aim, under this government, is to keep kids in class and to get good deals, as we did with CUPE, that ensure that children’s education is never compromised in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: If that is the government’s aim, they’re doing an absolutely terrible job of it. And inflating your spending numbers by throwing child care rebates into that is complete fiction.

I want to go back to the Minister of Education this time. The minister wants to play the blame game, but it’s his own government that’s to blame for the absolute mess in our schools. The minister says he wants kids in class, but I have heard from kids whose classes are so full now, thanks to this government’s cuts, that their desks are out in the hallway. The minister says he wants predictability, but the only thing predictable is that this government’s cuts are going to get deeper and more teachers will be fired, and kids are going to suffer.

The minister keeps saying he’s being reasonable, but Mr. Speaker, in a world where 10,000 pink slips and overcrowded, underfunded classrooms are considered reasonable, we don’t want any part of it. Reverse your cuts.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The way by which we avoid any further escalation is twofold. The first is for unions to consider mediation as a legitimate means to get a deal, because parents in this province are sick and fed up with, every three years, irrespective of the Premier and the party—it does not matter. What is truly the constant is that irrespective of party, there is escalation by unions.

Students of this province should not be compromised in their education. There should be a continuum of education in the class. We should be able to get a good deal for all parties, to keep teachers in class, but most importantly, to provide predictability for the parents of this province, so that every child in Ontario is able to get education every single day this year.

Autism treatment

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week, the minister made a light-hearted quip in this House about not being in the Hockey Hall of Fame yet, but if his handling of autism doesn’t improve, he may surely find himself in the political hall of shame.

Rachael Wilcox’s son is a nine-year-old boy with autism. His parents are paying out of pocket for his ABA therapy. They have exhausted their savings and are being forced to dig deeper and deeper into their lines of credit, and this government dithers and refuses to release funds to assist families like theirs.

Speaker, will the minister stop skating around his responsibilities and help out this young boy and his family?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question, and thank you, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to respond. For the last five months, I’ve been honoured to be the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, something that I am taking very seriously, Mr. Speaker. The one thing that I can tell you about the autism file is that over the last 30 years, dating back to the Bob Rae government, no government has ever got this file right.

That’s why, over the last five months, I’ve been taking the time to criss-cross the province and talk with interested stakeholders in every community, while at the same time we had an Ontario autism panel that was working deliberately: 18 days they met, face to face, in all-day sessions to develop an autism program in Ontario for the autism community in Ontario.

This is going to be the gold standard when it’s finally developed, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that my officials have been working extremely hard, since getting the recommendations from the Ontario autism panel about three weeks ago, to develop a truly needs-based program, one that has double the amount of funding in it than the previous Liberal government’s.

I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: This government has been ragging the puck on autism, and I say that because I spoke with Rachael Wilcox, and she heard back from the ministry. This is what they told her: The ministry’s first priority is young children, not older ones that are nine years old like her son. Their second priority is those who have been on the wait-list the longest, not her son, who has only been waiting nearly three years. Three years is an eternity in a child’s development.

The minister stated that this government has doubled it and has added $300 million for autism, but apparently providing it to families is not the ministry’s priority. Speaker, can the minister tell this House and Rachael when her son will become a priority?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite and I can tell Rachael that when this program is fully up and running, every child in the province will be able to get supports from the Ontario government, something that we were never able to say before in the province’s history.

I can tell you, Speaker, that right now, more children than ever in the province’s history are getting support from the Ontario government: 11,499 of them, to be exact, as of November 1. That’s not good enough; I acknowledge that. That’s why we continue to roll out childhood budgets to families across the province.

That is why we are continuing to work towards the gold standard Ontario Autism Program, so that families like Rachael’s and families all across the province—I’ve heard from every member of this Legislature, I’m sure, over the last five months, about constituents or a number of constituents who aren’t getting the services they need. But with the investment of an additional $300 million and a truly needs-based program, we will be able to reach those families with the help they’re looking for.

Impaired drivers

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is for the Solicitor General. With the holiday season fast approaching, I know that many people in my riding and in communities across Ontario will be attending holiday parties with their families, friends or co-workers. Most of us know not to drive home while under the influence. However, during the last holiday season, police services in the greater Toronto area laid hundreds of charges for impaired driving, including 265 impaired driving offences charged by Peel Regional Police. It’s clear that some people still need a reminder about Ontario’s impaired driving laws, especially considering the changing landscape of federal cannabis legalization.

Can the Solicitor General explain to this House about the importance of Festive RIDE programs?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Brampton West. I don’t think it is a surprise to any in this House and the vast majority of Ontario residents that impaired driving, whether by alcohol or drugs, is an offence and we need to stop it in its tracks in our communities.

He’s absolutely right: The RIDE program is augmented during this time of year. It’s a tool that we give our front-line officers to keep our roads safe.

I want to remind the public that when you see someone who is abusing it, whether it is through alcohol or drugs, we need to speak up and talk out, because ultimately, we need to keep our communities safe. Whether that is a danger to others on the road or pedestrians, we all have a responsibility.

That is why the municipal police forces across Ontario are increasing their RIDE checks in the coming weeks. Ontario already has strong, immediate penalties for those who drive while under the influence, including 90-day driver’s licence suspensions, seven-day vehicle impoundment—

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

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Speaker, through you, I want to thank the Solicitor General for that answer. I want to thank the hard-working members of the Peel Regional Police service for their work in my community of Brampton West.

Our police services work hard to keep our roads and communities safe from impaired driving every day, especially during the holiday season. It’s an important reminder that whether it’s alcohol, drugs or both, impaired is impaired. Keeping our communities safe is a shared responsibility, and we all have a part to play in community safety.

Can the Solicitor General outline how our government is supporting Festive RIDE programs across Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Brampton West for sharing this important message. Every day, our police do incredible work to keep our communities safe. Often this work is silent, preventive and unseen. On behalf of all members of the House, I want to thank the police services and front-line officers who are participating in these many holiday RIDE programs, starting this week.

As I said before, our government is committed to providing police services with the tools and resources they need to do their job effectively and keep our communities safe.

Finally, Speaker, as a plea, as a reminder: If you are planning to celebrate the season, please plan ahead. Drive sober. Get home safely. Your families expect it.

Poverty

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is for the Premier. A new report released today shows what hundreds of thousands of racialized Ontarians and their families already know because it is their lived experience: Black and other racialized people make up nearly 46% of the GTA’s workforce but 63% of the working poor. Black communities, in particular, experience among the highest rates of working poverty in Ontario.

What are the Premier’s plans to address the connection between anti-Black racism and working poverty?

Hon. Paul Calandra: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. It’s a very important one, and that’s why we’re taking a cross-sector approach and a cross-government approach to this very, very important issue, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that over the last number of months that we’ve been the government of Ontario, I am very proud of our record when it comes to job creation for all residents of Ontario. We have created over 250,000 jobs. At the same time, we have seen salaries and pay increase during that time.

That’s why we’ve taken a very, very concerted effort in my ministry and others, along with the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development, to ensure that we’re lifting people out of poverty by getting them into work. And there is a lot of work out there. As the Premier has often said in this House, and certainly the Minister of Labour has said, with the success that we’ve had in creating jobs, there are good jobs out there for all the people of Ontario, that need to be filled.

We’re doing what we can in the employment sector in the part of social assistance to lift people out of poverty by giving them a job.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question? The member for Brampton Centre.

Ms. Sara Singh: Back to the Premier: Speaker, that answer and this government simply just ignores the real facts on the ground. Low-wage and precarious employment are what this government and the previous Liberal government had to offer for Ontarians. The economy may be working for the friends of the Premier, but for too many families in places like Brampton, Scarborough and across the greater Toronto area, life is hard, and those jobs simply are not there.

The report shows that over 10% of the working poor in the GTA are second- and third-generation Black residents. The data is clear: Increasing economic inequality disproportionately impacts racialized—racialized—communities, so we need to hear the minister acknowledge racialized communities.

My question for the Premier and the minister is, what is this government’s plan to address poverty and the disproportionate impact on racialized workers here in Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: The Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Our government is committed to supporting better outcomes for Black children, youth and families through the Ontario Black Youth Action Plan. Speaker, organizations across the province that are funded through the Black Youth Action Plan are doing amazing work. They are providing key services in communities across the province, including:

—culturally focused parenting initiatives and mentor programs for Black children and youth ages six to 25;

—programming to support young people’s wellness by connecting them and their families to local resources and help them take preventive measures;

—supporting access to higher education and skills development opportunities;

—providing training and work placement opportunities to help Black youth who have graduated from post-secondary secure high-quality employment and advance their careers; and

—investing in community outreach and promoting anti-violence.

Our government is focused on improving outcomes for Black children, youth, and families throughout Ontario.

Small business

Mr. Norman Miller: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Co-ops provide people in Ontario with access to valuable goods and services, including those that might be otherwise out of reach. They also provide job opportunities across the province, especially in rural and northern regions, where they foster inclusive economic growth for newcomers, women and low-income individuals.

Our government understands that outdated and burdensome legislation creates barriers for co-ops, costing them time and money, which prevents them from growing. Can the minister inform the House on what steps the government is taking to support co-operative corporations in Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for this important question. Part of our plan to create a more competitive province and to create better opportunities for Ontarians is to modernize the co-operative corporation sector so that they can continue to contribute, particularly in rural and northern Ontario.

Our government recognizes the importance of serving this important sector and the role that they play in communities. That is why, after extensive review and consultations on the Co-operative Corporations Act, we are proposing changes that will level the playing field. We are going to remove the current 50% rule that limits co-operatives to working only with their members and unfairly restricts them from doing business with other members of the community.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one part of our plan to grow Ontario together.

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

Mr. Norman Miller: Thank you to the minister for his answer. I am proud of the work our government is doing to support the success of co-operative corporations in Ontario. Co-ops are an integral part of the small business landscape in Ontario and we remain committed to creating a competitive business environment to ensure their success.

Earlier this month, the minister introduced our government’s fall economic statement, which outlines our government’s plan to build Ontario together. Could the minister please inform the House about any additional steps this government is taking to support small business in Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Small business, as I have said before in this Legislature, is essential. Some 98% of the businesses in Ontario are small businesses, and two million Ontarians, or almost one third of the private sector workforce, work for small business. That’s why we are taking a number of steps. We are setting up the small business success task force. We are reducing the small business tax rate by 8.7%. We’ve reduced WSIB premiums. We have eliminated the cap-and-trade carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, when you put all of those supports in place—the proposed tax relief measures and the other measures—Ontario small business will expect to see $2.3 billion of relief in 2020.

Mr. Speaker, this is part of our plan to build our province together and to work with small business to support our province and to support our employees.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last night, Highway 17 east to Nipigon was closed to snow. At the same time, Highway 11 between Nipigon and Cochrane was closed to snow. This is the Trans-Canada Highway; this isn’t just a northern Ontario issue. All the trucks that come out of the GTA, out of the engine of Ontario, serving the rest of the country, are stopped dead right there. Millions of dollars of economic activity stopped dead right there. Why won’t this government treat the Trans-Canada portion of Highways 11 and 17 the same as the Trans-Canada portion of the 400 series of highways?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I want to thank the member for continuing to raise his concerns about highway safety and the economic impact, as well, of road closures on the lives of Ontarians and on the businesses of Ontario. It is something that, at the Ministry of Transportation, is of great concern to us.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very good record in Ontario of safety on our highways and of maintenance on our highways. As I’ve said in this House before, making sure that we keep those standards as high as possible is a priority in the Ministry of Transportation. We are working diligently to make sure that we are taking all the steps necessary.

Unfortunately, when it snows, for safety concerns—which I am sure the member opposite would agree is a concern for all—sometimes we have to close the highways. But once those measures have been taken, all necessary steps are taken to reopen those highways as quickly as possible. And in Ontario and in the north, on sections of Highway 11, we are beating the standards of class 1 highways already—

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

Mr. John Vanthof: We are all in favour of safety in this Legislature. The issue with snow on the Trans-Canada Highway: If you can’t get it off quick enough, do it more often. That’s why this side of the House pushed for Highways 11 and 17 to have class 1 standards like the 400 series highways. You solidly voted against it. The member of Nipissing stated in the media that we don’t need class 1 highways in the north.

Again, this isn’t just a safety issue. Northerners are cut off, but I don’t think that southern Ontario realizes how much it’s costing the province, costing the country, to not clean the snow.

The answer is not, “Well, it’s snowing; close the highway.” It happens all of the time. It’s snowing; run more plows. That’s the answer. Why won’t you do it?

Interjections.

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

The minister to reply.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: As the member opposite knows, sections of Highway 11 and sections of Highway 17 are already considered class 1 highways. And as he knows, because I’ve repeated it in the House, we already exceed the standard for class 1 highways on other-classed sections of Highway 11 and Highway 17. We already do run more plows, Mr. Speaker, because we take the safety of drivers and of motorists on those highways very seriously. We want to make sure we’re getting goods to market.

The standard for class 1 highways is getting to bare pavement in eight hours. We exceed those standards, Mr. Speaker. Since 2015-16, we’ve invested $40 million more on northern highway safety and maintenance. We continue to work to improve our record and to clear snow faster and to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to ensure the safety of our motorists. We will continue to do so, but we are investing in northern highways and we will continue to do so in the appropriate way.

Children’s services

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is to the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues. Speaker, I know that she has had a busy summer touring the province to learn about Ontario’s child welfare system, speaking to those on the front line. In fact, the minister came to my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, where she met with our local children’s aid society. We spoke about what is currently working in the system, as well as what could be improved.

Can the minister update the House on how these visits to the different children’s aid societies in Ontario have gone so far, in respect to modernizing the child welfare system?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for that great question. I had the opportunity to visit your beautiful riding this summer. Thank you for joining me as we toured the Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, one of the 33 different children’s aid societies I have met with so far.

Speaker, we know that all children and youth in Ontario deserve the best care and support, especially those in the child welfare system. The services provided to those in the child welfare space need to be high-quality, culturally appropriate and truly responsive to their needs.

That is why, in August, I announced a review of Ontario’s child welfare system. We want to modernize the system and are committed to improving outcomes for children and youth in care, as well as youth transitioning out of care. By consulting with those on the front line and those with lived experience, we can understand their needs and implement their suggestions to improve our system.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It’s reassuring to know that you are working hard to better understand the needs of the child welfare system by directly speaking to those on the front line and who work in the system. This was the first visit by a minister to the local society in some time, and staff were pleased to report on the progress being made. I also know that there was an online survey for those in the child welfare space to participate. This included front-line workers, family law professionals and children who are part of the system, just to name a few.

Can the minister let this House know the impact of the survey and what she has been hearing so far as she looks to modernize the child welfare system?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you, again, to the member.

Speaker, I want to take a moment and thank all of those who participated in our online survey. There were children and youth in the system, families, Indigenous partners, family law professionals, caregivers, front-line workers and sector leaders who took the time to share their experiences. I am proud to share that we had over 3,500 responses to the survey. It is through this feedback that we can modernize the system, where we reduce barriers and build a system that is focused on prevention and early intervention. This would mean that less children and youth would be placed in care and more would be able to stay with their families, which we know provides the best outcomes.

I look forward to continuing to meet with front-line workers, including Indigenous partners, so we can create a system that provides the services needed for children and youth to succeed and thrive.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Minister of Colleges and Universities.

With respect to my friend’s comments about Laurentian’s specifics, I would be happy to discuss this with you further, and happy to meet with Mr. Haché, the president of Laurentian, as well to discuss—

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

Supplementary question? The member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Encore pour le premier ministre par intérim : monsieur le Président, ceci est encore un exemple de l’ampleur des coupes en éducation postsecondaire, et encore plus à la communauté franco-ontarienne par ce gouvernement conservateur.

Ce gouvernement, tout comme les libéraux avant eux, traite les Franco-Ontariens comme des acquis. C’est une question d’équité, monsieur le Président. Comment est-ce que le gouvernement compte régler le problème de la pénurie des enseignants francophones quand la demande ne cesse d’augmenter?

Hon. Ross Romano: To the Minister of Francophone Affairs.

Pour ce qui est de la question de la pénurie des enseignants francophones, c’est une très bonne question, une question sur laquelle notre gouvernement se penche, et je travaille de très près avec mon collègue le ministre de l’Éducation pour nous concentrer sur cela et pour nous assurer que les étudiants francophones dans cette province et les enseignants—

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

Assistance to farmers

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Mr. Speaker, farmers in Ontario have been dealing with a cold, wet spring and a disappointing harvest. Often this is the nature of farming, and we have to do our best to support our farmers in these difficult times.

Last week I received an email from Andy Corput, a farmer in my riding, telling me that after a long and difficult harvest, his propane shipments had been cut off due to a CN strike. I’m happy to say that as of early this morning, the strike is over. Nevertheless, this highlights the difficulties our farmers face regularly, especially those who rely on propane to dry the harvest, which otherwise could be lost.

Andy was not the only farmer struggling. Will the minister please tell us about what the government has done about this strike?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for the question. I’m proud to say that given the strike is ending, farmers can rest assured that CN rail workers will be back on the job tomorrow at 6:30 a.m., and we can expect propane shipments to start once again.

This was squarely a federal issue. Last week I called my federal counterpart, Minister Bibeau, to press the federal government on this very issue. The Premier likewise pressed the Prime Minister on this matter, highlighting the struggles farmers face.

Last Friday I visited Dan Veldman, a corn farmer in my riding facing much the same issue that was mentioned.

Our government acted quickly and proactively, and reviewed ways to help farmers in rural communities during this time. This highlights the vulnerabilities farmers face regularly, but our government will always be ready to stand up for Ontario farmers and rural communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to supporting farmers and supporting rural Ontario, and I am encouraged that the strike has ended and am encouraged by our government’s quick action on the matter.

Farmers have struggled long enough, and deserve clarity when every effort is made to ensure that they are able to dry their harvest and bring their goods to market. Their livelihood depends on it.

Unfortunately, I know this isn’t the only federal issue that is impacting farmers. Can the minister tell us the other issues he’s working on with his federal counterparts?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member again for that great supplementary question. I’m pleased that Minister Bibeau has been reappointed to her role, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on the challenges our farmers are facing. I’ve talked to her a number of times since the reappointment.

Another urgent federal issue impacting our farmers is the shortage of processing capacity for our cattle. The CFIA has suspended the licence of one of the large federal plants here in Ontario, which means that farmers have nowhere to ship their cattle.

We have communicated to the federal government the urgent situation our farmers are facing. We urge them to find a solution as quickly as possible that both maintains our high levels of food safety and creates capacity for our farmers.

We are committed to standing up for our farmers and working with the federal government as they address these challenges our farmers are facing. Thanks again for the question.

Retirement homes

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Over the weekend, we learned from a CBC Marketplace investigation that some seniors homes are using Ontario’s trespassing law to ban family members from visiting their loved ones when they speak out about their living conditions.

In Ottawa, Mary Sardelis was banned from seeing her 97-year-old mother, Voula, for 316 days after she raised concerns about her mom’s living situation.

Speaker, it’s not an isolated incident. The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly gets called about trespass matters like this at least once a week.

In my opinion and, I think, in this House’s opinion, banning family members for raising concerns about living conditions of seniors is wrong.

So my question for this government: Will they launch a full investigation into retirement homes using trespassing laws in these ways, to make sure that family members can access their loved ones when they want to see them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I would like to thank the member who’s raising that question. I’m well aware of this. It’s my understanding that one of the family members is banned from coming into the long-term-care home because of some—how can I say it?—uneasy incident that happened and is now being investigated. I will come up there later in more detail. The daughter of the 97-year-old senior can contact her mother in different ways, because when the daughter comes to the retirement home, some violent incident happened against the staff.

So I’d like to get more details, and next time I will get a more detailed answer to you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Joel Harden: Back to the Deputy Premier or the minister: Just to be clear, this is a CBC Marketplace study. Any of us can avail ourselves in watching it. If you haven’t watched it, you really must.

In this case, Mary was not allowed to see her mom, Voula, on Christmas, Thanksgiving or even her birthday, for 316 days for asking questions about the living conditions of her mother. That’s not disrespectful of the staff. That is the duty of us and families to take care of each other.

I think it’s unacceptable that Mary had to risk arrest. She defied the trespass order, went into the home and waited for police to come so she could raise her objection to this process.

I want this government to take this concern seriously. I’m not trying to score points. I want you, as a minister, to actually do something about this. I want you to use your power to investigate retirement homes to make sure Mary and other loved ones get access to their loved ones on a timely basis. Please do your job.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you again for the question. At the present time, the situation is under investigation so I cannot answer in more detail. But I’ll make sure that we will help the family at the same time, for the staff and all of the residents in that retirement home. So I will get back to you with more later.

Suicide prevention

Mr. Vincent Ke: My question is for the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Minister, suicides continue to affect too many people and families across Ontario each and every day. In fact, suicide has become the second-leading cause of death for young Canadians aged 15 to 19. We know that in Ontario, about 14% of high school students reported having seriously contemplated suicide in the past year and about 4% reported having attempted suicide. These numbers are staggering.

Minister, could you please share with the members of this Legislature what our government is doing to address suicides in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the member from Don Valley North for that question. As the member mentioned, suicide continues to affect many people and families across Ontario each and every year, including far too many young people in communities throughout the province. That is why we will continue to invest $3.8 billion over the next 10 years to build an integrated mental health and addictions system.

Our investment will reach across an individual’s entire lifespan, where services are easier to access, of high quality and focused on better outcomes for Ontarians, including children, youth and their families.

Notre investissement couvrira toute la vie d’une personne, où les services sont plus faciles d’accès, de haute qualité et axés sur de meilleurs résultats pour la population ontarienne, y compris les enfants, les jeunes at leurs familles.

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

Mr. Vincent Ke: I want to thank the minister for his response. I am thrilled to hear that our government is taking the ongoing issues around suicide very seriously.

Suicides continue to affect people of all ages across Ontario. It is reassuring to hear that our government is taking real action to address suicides and is supporting suicide prevention initiatives across the province.

I know that constituents in my riding of Don Valley North would like to know more about the various programs and services that are available to those who may be struggling. Minister, could you please provide some additional details about the investments we are making to address the ongoing issue of suicides in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’m proud to stand here today knowing that our government has taken real action to address the ongoing issues surrounding suicide across this province. Recently, our government was proud to announce an investment of $3 million over three years in a new mental health initiative called Project Now, which aims to end child and youth suicide in Mississauga within the next decade, by the year 2029.

Recent investments also include $6 million in intensive services for youth addictions, including withdrawal management services and residential treatment, and $3.5 million for early psychosis intervention services. In addition, we will be providing $3.3 million over four years to test an integrated youth services approach currently known as youth wellness hubs.

Mr. Speaker, new investments are also being made across our government, such as mental health initiatives in the schools—

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

Employment standards

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. More than 18 months ago, the Ministry of Labour ordered Isabelle Faure’s employer, Mankind Grooming, to pay her $5,000 in back wages. When the payment deadline was missed, the order was sent to the Ministry of Finance, but the ministry has not collected the payment because the company Isabelle worked for changed its legal name.

Isabelle says that she had no way of knowing that the Ministry of Labour would do “essentially nothing” to enforce its own regulations, and she has yet to receive her money.

Will this government act now to enforce orders against employers like Isabelle’s who break workplace laws?

Hon. Paul Calandra: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I commend the member from London West for this question.

I want to be crystal clear: Our government stands shoulder to shoulder with every worker in the province of Ontario. As Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development, I expect that the Employment Standards Act is followed to the letter, and I believe strongly that the Occupational Health and Safety Act should be followed as well.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll have more to say in the supplementary on this particular issue but, again, we expect the Employment Standards Act to be followed and the Occupational Health and Safety Act to be followed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, this government is not standing shoulder to shoulder with Isabelle, nor with many other workers.

A year ago, the Ministry of Labour ruled that Juan Jose Lira Cervantes was owed more than $25,000 in lost wages and benefits. Like Isabelle, Juan is still waiting for his money. The corporation that owned Domino’s Pizza, Juan’s employer, simply dissolved two months after the order was issued. The Ministry of Finance says it can’t collect from a company that no longer exists, even though the Domino’s Pizza franchise where Juan worked is still going strong. You can go there today and order a pizza.

About two thirds of employees whose wages are stolen by their employers never receive what they are owed. Will this government close the loopholes that allow employers to ignore their obligations to the people who work for them?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: As Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development, I believe strongly that when someone goes to work, they deserve to be paid for a fair day’s work.

But let me tell you a bit about what we did in our ministry in 2018 and 2019. Mr. Speaker, we resolved 22,434 claims in the province to ensure that people were paid for a day’s work and for their time working with an employer.

We continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with every single worker in the province of Ontario. That’s why I am proud of our track record. In 16 months, we have created more than a quarter of a million new jobs in the province. Wages are going up. I thought the member from London West would support our action to eliminate the provincial income tax for those earning under $30,000 per year.

Notices of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Beaches–East York has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services concerning Black communities in poverty. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 72 relating to allocation of time on Bill 138,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes.

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

The division bells rang from 1139 to 1144.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the members to please take their seats.

On November 26, 2019, Mr. Calandra moved government notice of motion number 72 relating to allocation of time on Bill 138. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Fullerton, Merrilee

Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda C.

Ke, Vincent

Khanjin, Andrea

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

MacLeod, Lisa

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norman

Mitas, Christina Maria

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael

Pettapiece, Randy

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Roberts, Jeremy

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Yakabuski, John

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arthur, Ian

Begum, Doly

Bell, Jessica

Berns-McGown, Rima

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris

Gretzky, Lisa

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Horwath, Andrea

Kernaghan, Terence

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Miller, Paul

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Simard, Amanda

Singh, Gurratan

Singh, Sara

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

West, Jamie

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 61; the nays are 41.

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

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1147 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine and PhD candidate in my riding of London North Centre: Jane Kovarikova, and the Child Welfare Political Action Committee members who all have lived experience, including Christine Bradley, Kristy Denette, Carina Chan, Amelia Merhar and Carlos McDonald, but also the Child Welfare PAC allies volunteering in the Legislature today, including Wendy Miller, David Morneau, Stephanie Vizi, Jana Smith and Ann Fitzpatrick. Welcome to the people’s House.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I welcome back to the House some of our guests from White Ribbon: Humberto Carolo, the executive director; Jeff Feiner, board chair; Mona Mitchell, incoming board chair; Kate Bojin, director of programs; and Manoj Paul, director of finance and operations. I recognize some of you were here in the morning who aren’t here in the afternoon, but I’m very happy to see you. Welcome to the Legislature.

Members’ Statements

Soins de longue durée

M. Michael Mantha: On vient juste de finir notre semaine de circonscription, et je suis certain que tous les députés, quand ils ont visité leurs communautés, ont reçu les histoires ou bien donc les misères que les gens de nos circonscriptions ont à travers leur journée. Je veux en partager une aujourd’hui.

J’ai rencontré M me Lorraine Lemieux à Chapleau. M me Lemieux me contait comment elle prenait soin de sa mère qui était prise dans un lit à long terme à l’hôpital—excusez, un « ALC bed » qui est à l’hôpital, qui devrait être un « long-term-care bed ». Elle prend soin de sa mère. Elle est là trois ou quatre fois par jour pour faire certain qu’on prend bien soin de sa mère. Puis Lorraine est claire que son problème n’est pas avec les gens qui travaillent à l’hôpital. Ce n’est pas avec eux. Elle sait qu’eux autres font tout leur possible.

Mais une journée, ce qui est arrivé avec sa mère—elle a été prise dans son lit sans se faire changer pour la pleine journée. Coudonc. Elle m’a regardé et elle a dit : « C’est ma mère. Je l’aime, ma mère, puis je vais en prendre soin. Mais je ne sais pas où aller pour faire certain que les problèmes soient adressés et pour qu’on prenne bien soin d’elle. »

Lorraine m’a laissé savoir que son problème n’est pas avec les gens à l’hôpital. Son problème est avec les fonds qui ne sont pas disponibles pour l’hôpital. Il faut qu’on change les affaires et puis qu’on fasse les investissements nécessaires dans nos maisons à longue durée.

CPAC

Mrs. Daisy Wai: This weekend, I had the honour of participating in the 2019 CPAC annual gala. CPAC, formerly the Chinese Professionals Association of Canada, was first founded in 1992 as a registered not-for-profit organization. Their mandate is to assist internationally trained professionals in gaining recognition, cultural integration, career advancement and civic engagement in Canada and abroad.

I am very impressed with the four recipients they recognized this year. Serena Chan, a partner of IBM Financi