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

March 5, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Mar-05 vol. Array (PDF)

L152 - Thu 5 Mar 2020 / Jeu 5 mar 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 5 March 2020 Jeudi 5 mars 2020

Orders of the Day

Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour un système judiciaire plus efficace et plus solide

Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour connecter la population aux services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire

Displaying of postcards

Members’ Statements

Indigenous scholarship award

International Women’s Day

The Love Lettering Project

Missing children

Bill Hunter

Sexual assault crisis centres / Centres d’aide pour victimes d’agression sexuelle

Seva Food Bank

Pharmacare

Haven on the Queensway

Introduction of Visitors

Member for Ottawa South

Question Period

Education funding

Education funding

Sexual assault crisis centres

Sexual assault crisis centres

Beverage alcohol sales

Social assistance

Public transit

Autism treatment

Education funding

Equal opportunity

Forensic testing

Mining industry

Women’s shelters

Government fiscal policies

Northern Health Travel Grant

Natural gas

Member for Ottawa South

Deferred Votes

Concurrence in supply

Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour un système judiciaire plus efficace et plus solide

Introduction of Visitors

Petitions

Education funding

Public transit

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Nuclear energy

Affordable housing

Public transit

Veterans memorial

Agri-food industry

Winter highway maintenance

Public transit

Telecommunications in correctional facilities

Public transit

Private Members’ Public Business

Nuclear energy

Great Lakes Protection Amendment Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Indigenous affairs

Nuclear energy

Great Lakes Protection Amendment Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Indigenous affairs

Nuclear energy

Orders of the Day

Rebuilding Consumer Confidence Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 visant à rétablir la confiance chez les consommateurs

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour un système judiciaire plus efficace et plus solide

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 3, 2020, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 161,

An Act to enact the Legal Aid Services Act, 2020 and to make various amendments to other Acts dealing with the courts and other justice matters / Projet de loi 161, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 2020 sur les services d’aide juridique et apportant diverses modifications à des lois traitant des tribunaux et d’autres questions relatives à la justice.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this matter, the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook had the floor. I recognize her to resume her remarks.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was very proud to stand in the Legislature this week to speak to Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act. It’s a bill that I, of course, and our members will be supporting, and I hope that the opposition recognize the value in this bill and vote in favour of it as well. I move that the question be now put.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Skelly has moved that the question be now put. I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour connecter la population aux services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 4, 2020, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 175,

An Act to amend and repeal various Acts respecting home care and community services / Projet de loi 175, Loi modifiant et abrogeant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m advised that when we were last debating this item, the member for Peterborough–Kawartha had made his presentation, but that we are now in questions and responses related to his presentation.

Questions? The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was here to hear the debates from the member from—Peterborough–Kawartha, I believe.

Mr. Dave Smith: God’s country.

Miss Monique Taylor: God’s country, yes—it is a beautiful place. But what we think as New Democrats is that there is a lot missing from this bill that will actually encourage the hiring practices of more PSWs, because we know that that is a major problem within our system. The meat that goes with that hiring practice is good wages, stable jobs, pensions, the feasibility of being able to move around within the community, because we’ve heard from several PSWs how difficult it is and that they’re not being paid for going from one home to another—the tight time that they’re squeezed when they are at that home taking care of our most vulnerable citizens.

Could the member please tell me what he believes is within this bill that would actually ensure that we have good employment levels for people who are in the PSW position?

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

Mr. Dave Smith: I appreciate the question from the member. She said that she was listening to my speech yesterday when I talked about it. Obviously, she missed a portion of the speech where I referred to a comment—unfortunately, I don’t have the quote right in front of me at the moment—but the president of the personal support workers of Ontario has said that this bill will help support personal support workers, and should improve the work conditions for them and allow us to retain more PSWs in it. We already spoke about that in the speech, and as I said, it was a quote directly from the president of the Ontario Personal Support Workers Association.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Yesterday in the Legislature, I was here to listen to your comments about this bill, and you spoke passionately about the need to transform the delivery of health care in Ontario. As a member representing one of the ridings in Hamilton—the Hamilton Ontario health teams are so supportive of what we are doing. Part of that is the transition, including our home care, into this approach, into this continuum of care.

My question to the member from Peterborough–Kawartha is, could you please expand on why it is so important to include home care in this inclusive approach to health care in Ontario?

Mr. Dave Smith: I greatly appreciate the question.

What we have seen over the last number of years is that the health care system has become more siloed, where we’re not having a lot of collaboration between different groups. When the LHINs were formed, they created part of that problem with the siloing.

The legislation that we’re fixing was first introduced in the 1990s, and the world has changed since then. We know, through various management techniques, that more collaboration makes for a better process all the way through. This legislation will help break down some of those barriers, so that instead of focusing on the system, we’re focusing on the individual patients’ needs and how we are designing care specifically for those patient needs. As we move forward, we’re gong to see that this is the best way to approach it: patient-centric.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): There is not enough time for a further question or comment. Further debate?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: When I walked into this chamber on my first day, I held a belief that remains unchanged today, and that is, the spirit of legislation is about clear transparency, specific direction and strong accountability. Legislation is about the details. I find too many components of Bill 175 leave too many decisions to be discussed later, too much to be determined.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone where you just end up completely talking past them? I am often speaking with nurses, PSWs and front-line staff, and the conversation around home care is often about the quality of care received, and less often about how community care services are delivered and organized.

Yet, this legislation is supposed to only speak about the delivery and organization of community care services. Okay. Well, I guess kind of okay—except we are missing some pieces. I feel the conversation about how we organize and deliver community care services is without crucial details.

It is clear that the current home and community system does not work, but that does not mean there should be a blank cheque, like a residential congregate care model, which is not a bad idea for transitioning patients, but it leaves many questions with unknown answers, since it is yet to be legally defined.

It is concerning that home and community care services enable a new care setting, called residential congregate care models, which feels like there are more questions on their legality and oversight than we have answers—too much to be determined.

The caution I really need to express here is around the possibility of privatization. As Canadians, we are especially sensitive to the organization and delivery of health care services when it comes to the possibility of privatization. It is why I find it alarming when I read that Bill 175, Connecting People to Home and Community Care, removes restrictions on contracting out.

It feels like cracking the door a little, right? It’s just a little bit of leeway for privatization. We know that this is a slippery slope. Since we have PSW shortages all over Ontario—well, not just a shortage; it’s actually a crisis. My fear is that any privatization will continue to deepen the strain on the sector as more PSWs are pulled away from the public sector and are enticed into the private sector, which, instead of reducing the burden on public systems, makes it worse.

Just because people can afford care doesn’t mean that they are not going to pay for it out of pocket. It is proven that these patients will likely just supplement the care and top their care up. The burden will remain the same. Just those that can afford additional care will get excellent care, and the others will get the same standard with no additional relief.

Of course, we don’t know what this means yet, because this legislation opens the door without providing much in the way of details; because, unlike the spirit of legislation that should be derived from clarity and accountability, there is too much to be determined in this bill, Bill 175.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Sorry to interrupt the member. I’ve stopped the clock. The side conversations are very distracting. I would ask all members to either listen or to sit quietly so that I may listen. Thank you very much.

I return to the member.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: When I knew I was going to speak on Bill 175 today, I reached out to some of my constituents who are the receivers of home care. Today, I’m going to highlight one specific individual. I’ve become increasingly close to one of my constituents in my riding of St. Catharines who has spinal muscular atrophy, which is a degenerative disease. He is 31 years old, and since he doesn’t automatically qualify for drug support through current legislation, his health is getting worse and worse. He has applied for home care. I think Jared right now is speaking to a home care provider.

He is recently engaged to his beautiful fiancée, Sydney. Jared wants to be at home in an environment that is functional for him. In fact, I think he has an interview for a PSW today, and he might be doing that right now. It actually is something that Jared is going to need.

Jared and Sydney are looking forward to this extra home support from a PSW. The support these workers provide families is worth more than the currency of the actual hours spent helping Jared. This type of support needs to be measured in the emotional support it provides a household and a family. It provides more space, time and energy to be able to rejuvenate herself.

Jared has been on a waiting list for a year and a half. He is hopeful that he will receive medication to ensure he doesn’t need more home care down the road. But in the absence of that support, he is about to access a system that will leave him with some question marks. You see, if Jared is accepted, and I fully expect he will be, and he has a complaint, he will have to worry about this new process having reduced transparency.

Moving the determination of this complaint process into a non-accessible backroom may pose a problem when it comes to accountability. As a member of this chamber, I can’t even describe to Jared what the complaint process is going to look like because it will be created away from this chamber. That’s not fair to Jared today.

But Jared has a bigger concern: If Jared’s condition degenerates—as it will, since it’s SMA and it’s a degenerative disease—how easily will he be able to depend on there being more hours of the day for him to access a PSW, since there is no strategy here addressing the PSW shortage? We have an opportunity to address the PSW shortage, and this legislation doesn’t do it.

Often, when we are speaking about PSW shortages, it is painted in black-and-white terms in relation to access and quality of care—except Jared asked me to bring up one more point around the quality of PSW care: When we have a shortage, that can also mean there is reduced choice. When I speak with Jared about his home care, he doesn’t just talk about the quality of care; he talks about the quality of care that works just for him. That is an important distinction, so I will reiterate it: the quality of PSW care that just works for Jared’s illness.

When Jared is paired up with a PSW, if there is some disconnect or complaint, Jared is worried that there will not be another person readily available to support him. His concerns are legitimate. There are many people in our communities across Ontario who often have missed visits because they may not be a priority for personal care. An example is bathing. Because PSWs are so short-staffed, they have to go to people who need their briefs changed or need an appliance change. Jared might not get the support he needs because he doesn’t qualify as urgent enough.

Many PSWs quit because they might get paid more money working for a hospital, or, frankly, a Starbucks, where they do not fear physical strain and emotional strain and they do get a pension.

PSWs in home care are expected to go in and use home lifts with one person, where in other environments like long-term care or hospitals it requires two people—a two-man lift for using it—as a policy. And yet, as these are all symptoms of the PSW crisis, there is no clear direction from this legislation to address any of the real concerns in home care.

Jared, who is stepping into a home care environment, is left with more questions—some of which this legislation does not even pose—than answers.

Speaker, I want to wrap up just to ask everyone, when we’re passing this bill, Bill 175, to keep Jared in mind, to make sure that we listen and we understand that there is a shortage of PSWs and that they are overworked and underpaid. And it’s not because of them; it’s because people are not listening.

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

Mr. Deepak Anand: Let’s just look at the data alone. Seniors account for 17% of the population, with life expectancy for females at around 85 and males at 81. As per the Ministry of Finance, the number of seniors is increasing and their life expectancy is increasing. What that means is, actually, there are going to be more seniors and more strain on health care.

Our government—to home and community care—will give future governments the flexibility to update the framework as needed, avoiding the stagnation of the current struggling system.

Is the member willing to admit the status quo is not working and that patients and caregivers need the help?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to thank the member for the question.

As I said earlier when I stood up and started off, when I walked into the chamber my first day, I held a belief that remains unchanged today, and that is that the spirit of legislation is about clear transparency, specific direction and strong accountability. And when it comes to that, I feel that the patients across Ontario in home care deserve that. I believe that the PSWs who go to their job every day and really want to give that home care and give that direction to their patients—they take an oath when they become a PSW, and that oath is to care, to make sure that their patients are looked after and that they have the right and the dignity to continue to have that care at home.

So when looking at private health care, I think that we should look at the overworking of the PSWs.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from St. Catharines for her comments, especially about opening the door to privatization.

We hear the government talk a lot about the Liberals, but what we see here is that the Liberals and Conservatives are like frenemies: They pretend to hate each other, but they do the exact same thing. We see that they strangle our public system until they make room for privatization. It’s the Liberal-Conservative coalition.

Why are the Conservatives continuing the Liberal plan of privatizing our health care system?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you to my colleague for the question on privatization.

This is dangerous. It could lead to privatization for profit—non-profit loopholes—by restricting the direct delivery of home and community care services to not-for-profits but giving them the option to contract out services. We have to really think about that. Like I said, it’s dangerous and it could lead to privatization.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: The member spoke about congregate care models. On Monday, the member for Nickel Belt, who has been a long-standing health critic for the opposition, said that Ontario should be open to congregate living, to support our growing population of seniors. However, her colleagues have been implying that this changing of the definition of a private hospital is somehow a back door to privatization. If the members opposite are open to congregate care models like the ones that we’ve instituted at Branson and Humber and other facilities, then why are they so opposed to these necessary legislative changes?

Have they looked at the regulations which set out in quite a lot of detail information about the regulation of services? You can find that at ontario.com/registry. It’s open for comments, and we’d love to have your feedback.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Residential congregate care models, in any definition, could mean that you could have a group of 14 people within a home with different behavioural issues, with different illnesses or disabilities.

What I don’t see in Bill 175 is a clear plan. There’s no definition in Bill 175 of congregate care models, so this is a problem for the people of Ontario. We’re passing the legislation, Bill 175, but it’s not clear. If it’s not clear to a member on the other side—we know that the Liberal government failed for 14 years, but you’re following suit because you’re not giving clear messages to the people in Ontario. This is not a clear message in this bill, and it should be. If we’re going to pass legislation, let’s make sure that the people of Ontario have the right information and it’s clear.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Again, I’d like to thank the member for St. Catharines for mentioning the abysmal wages that PSWs work for. In this world, you get what you pay for. Quite frankly, the way in which PSWs are paid is absolutely abominable. If we’re talking about quality of care, we need to make sure that the people looking after folks in long-term care are also well looked after.

The member from Peterborough–Kawartha talked about modernizing the system and said that he had heard from PSWs who said that they were happy with their rate of pay. I will say to this government: That kind of comment was said by no PSW ever.

To the member from St. Catharines: Why do you think the Conservatives are avoiding talking about the wages paid to PSWs in this legislation?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you to the member, my colleague here.

I had the pleasure of attending a conference a while back by the Ontario Health Coalition, where they had their annual report. Members spoke about their experience of being a PSW and caring for residents. They found it difficult. They have five or six patients that they have to handle in a day. They’re only given five to six minutes to interact with them—that’s dressing, or feeding, and looking after that resident and giving them quality time—simply because the staff-to-resident ratio is way too high. It’s way too high.

They are underpaid. They make minimum wage. A lot of them are holding three jobs or doing five patients—and it’s not because they don’t care.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions? I recognize the member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

Mr. Aris Babikian: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my lucky day.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Every day is your lucky day, sir.

Mr. Aris Babikian: Thank you.

The Leader of the Opposition once called for the province’s local health integration networks to be shut down. Will the member opposite be supporting our efforts to transition home care delivery into our communities? Or do they think the current one-size-fits-all approach is still appropriate for Ontario’s patients?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Transferring one bureaucracy to another isn’t going to solve this problem.

In Ontario, we have to realize that Bill 175 is not clear. We need to have transparency, specific direction and we have to have strong accountability. This bill doesn’t prove it.

There are too many unclear answers for front-line staff, for PSWs, for congregate care models within the homes. We need clear answers and, like I said earlier, if the legislation isn’t clear, how are the people in Ontario going to get a clear message with this Bill 175?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We have time for one quick question and response.

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you to my colleague for her wonderful remarks on this bill. You spoke so passionately about Jared. We have a similar constituent in my riding of Scarborough Southwest who’s dealing with almost the exact same situation, and when I look at this bill, I personally don’t think that people like Jared will be benefiting. In your opinion, do you think that it provides the home care from a people-centred perspective, and what are your thoughts on that?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Jared is a unique case. The problem is that there’s going to be somebody coming in under this bill, they’re going to assess them—and it’s not a personal assessment; it’s going to be a general assessment. It’s not a one-size-fits-all when you’re looking to hire a PSW, when you’re under the care and you need specific care for yourself.

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I am so pleased to speak in favour of the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, put forward by the Minister of Health. This proposed legislation is the latest in a series of steps our government has taken to end hallway health care and ensure that Ontarians receive the quality care that they deserve and expect. It’s a promise we made to the people of Ontario, and it’s a promise we continue to deliver on.

It’s no secret that the majority of our province’s hospitals are at, or over, capacity throughout the year. It’s a problem that the previous government did recognize—but the difference is how we’re going abut fixing it. For years under the previous government, health care was a sector faced with band-aid solution after band-aid solution to address issues in the short term without a long-term strategy.

Our approach is different. We are investing $27 billion over 10 years in hospital infrastructure projects to build capacity in hospitals and in other community-based care facilities. We’re well on our way to creating 15,000 long-term-care beds to alleviate pressure in that area. And now we’re revitalizing our home and community care systems.

We are continuing to break down silos in government and the broader public sector and we’re looking at our health care system holistically. We know that capacity is an issue and are acting on it. But we also know that there are patients currently in the hospital who would be better suited to an alternative level of care. But the current system isn’t effective in ensuring that they receive that care.

I had the privilege of sitting on the board of directors of Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga from 2006 to 2011. The silos, capacity issues and patients in hospitals better suited to an alternative level of care are issues that I’m very familiar with, because we’re facing the same issues now as we were nine to 15 years ago. That’s why we’re putting this act forward—to enable integrated and innovative models of home and community care; to break down the long-standing barriers that have separated home care from the rest of the health care system; and to allow for the seamless coordination of services for patients while maintaining and strengthening oversight and accountability measures.

Last year, more than 700,000 Ontarians received home care and 600,000 Ontarians used community support services. As the minister stated, care at home is less expensive, frees up capacity in our hospitals—and it’s where patients prefer to be.

But our current system can’t keep up, and while our home and community care providers are providing the best care that they can, they are limited by the system and the rules currently in place. Under the current system via Ontario’s local health integration networks, patients are faced with lack of communication and coordination amongst the care providers, duplicate or triplicate assessments or care plans, and a lack of data access for care teams, patients and families.

The current legislation, the Home Care and Community Services Act, 1994, may have met the needs and preferences of Ontarians back in 1994, but 25 years later, it is no longer enough and requires significant modernization to keep up with the Ontario of the 21st century.

This legislation will make it possible for Ontario health to fund home and community care services as an integrated health service through the Ontario health teams. We’re allowing Ontario health teams to coordinate care closer to the front line rather than by a bureaucracy to be the most responsive to a patient’s ongoing and evolving needs.

We’re allowing Ontario health teams to embed home care into other care settings so patients experience integrated home care. And we’re further allowing them to develop flexible care plans based on patient outcomes, rather than the current restrictive care plans that have a set number of hours or visits that could leave a patient without care or forced to go to a hospital, further worsening our capacity issue.

The legislation will also make home and community care subject to the accountability provisions in the Connecting Care Act, 2019, passed last year.

Further, the framework being proposed will allow flexibility for more innovative models of care by removing the emphasis on visit-based care and allowing virtual supports, where appropriate and effective, in addition to providing an oversight model for residential congregate services to support patients with needs that require care beyond what could be offered at home.

While we are proposing new frameworks and policies, there are elements of the previous act that we will be retaining: the definition of home and community care services and their respective eligibility criteria; the requirement for an established complaints process; and the right to appeal certain decisions to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

Importantly—as this is something the members opposite continue to repeat in spite of the facts—we are maintaining restrictions that limit the delivery of community services to non-profit corporations.

We are also preserving the existing approach with respect to client copayments, where only community services can have copayments. To be clear, if you don’t pay a copayment now you will not pay a copayment for the same services under the framework and legislation being proposed.

In all, the new legislation will have several positive impacts: It will make it easier for people to access home and community care in hospitals, primary care or community settings. Hospitals and primary care settings and others will be able to arrange care directly for patients, instead of referring people to a separate home care organization. Doing so will reduce burdensome administration and delays for patients.

It will help people connect with their care providers through secure video conferencing and remote telemetric or monitoring devices. People with chronic conditions will be monitored at home, with a nurse checking in as needed. Nurses or therapists can use video conferencing to work with a personal support worker in the home to provide more specialized care, where appropriate.

It will provide more choice for people with high care needs to get new care in new community settings. Patients will be discharged from hospitals into a transitional care setting to gain strength and functionality to return home.

It will keep people healthier at home by empowering care teams to work together, enabling front-line care providers to make more decisions about care, and integrating home care into primary care and acute care. Breaking barriers to access to information will create teams that work together to support patients.

We understand that the changes won’t be immediate, and we have a plan in place to ensure patients receive uninterrupted care. To ensure ongoing stability of service while home and community care transitions into Ontario health teams, LHINs are being refocused into interim and transitional organizations called home and community care support services to reflect their mandate of delivering home and community care, as well as long-term-care-home placements. During the transition, patients and caregivers will continue to access home and community care services in the same way and use the same contacts.

The expertise, experience and delivery capacity of the people who deliver home care and community care today will support continuity and care during transition.

Speaker, in my community, health care always has been, and will continue to be, top of mind for residents. I am proud to say that our government is taking steps to increase capacity in our health care system while supporting individualized, effective, efficient and innovative alternate levels of care.

We know the changes will not occur overnight. However, once complete our health care system—publicly funded for those who seem to forget that fact—will be able to serve our growing and aging population in a way that puts their needs and priorities first. This is something I wholeheartedly support and I ask all members in this chamber to support as well.

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

Mr. Jamie West: I want to thank the member opposite from Mississauga–Streetsville. She mentioned the erosion of care over the past 15 years, and I agree with that. The Liberals did a horrible job, and I was saddened to see CEOs from hospitals having to hold these cheques that were below the rate of inflation, so our system kept getting worse and worse.

However, she neglected to mention that the previous government, under the Mike Harris Conservatives, closed 26 hospitals and laid off 6,000 nurses. Our current Conservative government has created 24 beds in two years, in terms of targets.

So knowing the history of the previous Conservative government and what we’ve done so far including licence plates and buck-a-beer and things that have failed like that—why should the people of Ontario feel confident that we’re going to get this right?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It’s very important that we understand what we as a government—how we came about to bringing this act forward. It came about because we listened to everyone; we listened to all the stakeholders, including our front-line providers, including nurses.

I’ve worked very, very closely with the nurses in my community. When I served on the hospital board, I spent a lot of time with them, understanding what their needs were. I listened to patients. I sat with them in the emergency room, understanding their fright and their need when they’re waiting for a hospital bed. I spent a lot of time with the administration to understand where things fell through. And I also spent a lot of time when we put the LHINs into place, although it was something that I did not agree with at the time, to make sure that we made it work as best as possible.

And we did: In Mississauga and Halton, we made sure that it really worked. Our front-line nurses are extremely important to us, and they were very important in putting this together.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: This morning, my colleague from Mississauga–Streetsville spoke eloquently about the need to transform health care delivery in Ontario. She shared her experiences concerning a very antiquated, very disconnected system that had been created under the past Liberal government. As you know, Madam Speaker, we are taking a very different approach.

My question to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville is: Why, in your experience in the health care system, is it necessary for this government to enact Bill 175, the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act? Why is it necessary to create a better continuum of care in all aspects of health care in Ontario?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Thank you to the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for that question.

It’s extremely important. Rather than immediately taking everybody out of the current system and putting in a new system, we want to make sure that the transition is as seamless as possible. We want to ensure that patients don’t fall through the cracks. We want to make sure that the care that they need, whether it’s at home, whether it’s in a hospital facility or whether it’s in a long-term-care home, is transitioned in a way that works for the patient.

This is how this all came about: We worked very closely with our front-line providers, we worked closely with the LHINs, and we worked closely with the physicians to make sure that they understood that when a patient, for example, leaves the hospital, they have one point of contact, so that they can get the home care that they need, so that they can get the long-term-care bed that they need. We’ve been working diligently with each of those providers. We will have a seamless transition to make sure they don’t fall through the cracks.

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

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you again to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville. Earlier in her response to my question, the previous question, she talked about speaking with front-line workers, which is really, really important. In lobby days and in conversations that I’ve had, that all of us have had here, public sector workers continue to tell us that as we privatize public sector health work, the private company takes the gravy work—the valuable, profitable work—and they leave the hard work and the more expensive work to the public sector, so it’s harder and less affordable for government to make ends meet.

She also said, in many responses: If you do not pay a copayment now, you will not pay a copayment under the new legislation. I’ve heard that from the government several times during the debate. So my question is, with the Conservative government: Do you support further privatization of Ontario health care?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I want to thank the member opposite for that question, because it’s a very important question.

Speaker, today we have what we call a health card. It’s what we use when we need our health care. Whether it’s visiting a physician, whether it’s needing to go to the hospital, we make sure that we have that. Nothing will change. Today, we have a publicly funded health care system and we will continue to have a publicly funded health care system, so that everyone across this province knows that the care is there where and when they need it.

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

Mr. Deepak Anand: I want to recognize MPP Nina Tangri, who is doing a wonderful job.

The hospital is not always the best place for the patient to receive care once their essential needs have been taken care of. As a matter of fact, a study in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation concluded that after certain hospital-based operations, such as joint replacement, discharge to home is a more effective strategy than discharge to a rehab facility, for the vast majority of patients.

Madam Speaker, through you, I want to ask the member: Right now, a hospital patient might have to do multiple assessments before receiving home care. How will this legislation streamline the process and get patients into home care faster? As you know, patients and the caregivers are already in pain.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Malton, and my constituent, for that question. It’s extremely important.

What we are seeing today is, when somebody, for example, is discharged from the hospital, they often have to go through numerous assessments, numerous tests. Quite frankly, when you’re sick, when you’re not well, it’s very difficult, sometimes taking many trips to the hospital or to a testing centre or for X-rays.

In this system, with this act, we are now allowing one health assessment. This will streamline so much for everyone, and that assessment is then accessible to all of those providers so that they can work together to have the right treatment in place for that patient.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I’ve been listening intently to this conversation this morning. When you responded to my colleague from Sudbury, you talked about the health card, and didn’t he understand that a health card meant that people didn’t have to pay for their health care system. That’s quite true, and we’re happy to see that you’re not changing that portion of it, so far. But what does happen to the health card is that it is then billed back to the government, which then pays a for-profit company with our precious health care dollars.

Now, we all know that our health care dollars are very precious. They’re very slim, they’re very needed. Our health care system is the biggest budget within the Legislature. So when we’re giving up those dollars for profit, for a company to come and put those dollars in their pocket, it takes that money out of our system.

Does the member realize that it was the Harris government that opened home care for privatization—

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to thank the member for her passion for the people of this province.

We understand that sometimes, the opposition is living in a world where they’re constantly talking about the past. I can bring up the past. I can bring up Bob Rae in the 1990s, to 1995, and the work that they did in my hospital, at Credit Valley. The work that they did there really brought turmoil into that hospital. There was a huge amount of waste taking place. Rae days came into place. I gave birth to my child and I had to listen to the nurses argue with each other over who was going to take which day off as a Rae day and how upset they were.

We can live in the past. However, Speaker, we have to move forward. We have to look at our patients. We have to look at how our health care system looks today and what our health care system is going to look like a year from now, and 20 years from now. We have to understand our aging population. We’re living longer. We’re sicker. How do we make sure that we can all have the best health care—publicly funded health care—for everyone?

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: Home care is something that is deeply important to me, and it’s important to me for a number of reasons. Above all, in Niagara, we have one of the highest populations of seniors in the entire country—not just in the province, but the entire country. So for me, it’s an issue of respecting our seniors—seniors who built our community, who built our communities right across Ontario; seniors who deserve the respect of their community and their government after a lifetime of work.

I mean that. Go into a Rotary Club or a Lions Club or a Legion hall and look at those walls. Those walls have photos of past presidents and executive members who used those organizations to build the neighbourhoods that we all love.

It’s about not only saying thank you and showing respect, but it’s also about giving those residents what they deserve. What they deserve is to retire peacefully and be able to live in the comfort of their own homes for as long as possible, Madam Speaker.

What we have in Ontario right now falls vastly short of that goal. Instead of seniors being able to rely on home care properly, we have a system that is broken. Let me say that again: The Ontario home care system is broken. We know the past Liberal government ignored this problem for years. Frankly, they ignored the issues facing our seniors for a long time, whether it was in home care, long-term care or hospital care. It was not adequately dealt with under the last government.

Just last week, the president of the Ontario Nurses’ Association agreed with home care CEOs who said, “Home care is in desperate need of a fix.” I couldn’t agree more.

Let me give you one example from my riding. This example comes from a young woman named Mary, who is the primary caregiver for her mother, Maria. Our office has been working with Mary since October of last year regarding issues with the home care company that is delivering service to her mother. In fact, right now there are three separate companies that are delivering these services: CarePartners, March of Dimes and ParaMed. Because of the way that this government has set up home care, Mary’s mom just receives a rotating crew of home care workers.

That means that a different crew comes in every day, and she has to explain the issues. She’s thankful for the nurses who do come to assist her, but it’s difficult for her to explain time and time again about the complex medical needs. And make no mistake, it’s hard on the nurses as well. They’re already forced to do too much work with too little time.

ParaMed is often short on weekends, which results in care being cancelled on short notice, and sometimes without notice being given to the family at all. Mary’s mother needs to be fed through a syringe, and yet, time and time again, ParaMed has failed to train workers on how to properly feed her mother. Cancellations and lack of training from the companies this government pays for—that means Mary is left doing this work for her mother by herself. Thankfully, Mary is an RPN, but she herself works on weekends, so these cancellations mean that her own livelihood is affected.

She is essentially working her own job and then another job on top of that because she cares about her mother—quite frankly, like we all do—and because the private company taking the government’s money cannot fulfill its mandate.

If it weren’t for Mary’s knowledge and her deep love for her mother, then her mother, Maria, might be left for days at a time without being properly cared for or—think about this—even fed, and that is at the direction of the private company that we pay for. But not every family has someone as caring and loving as Mary. What happens to Maria if Mary can’t take it? What if Mary wants to take a hard-earned vacation with her family but she can’t?

Madam Speaker, does that sound like something the Ontario government should be proud of?

Let me be clear: This has nothing to do with the front-line workers. I’ve worked alongside so many of these home care workers in my community, and they’re nothing short of heroes. The work they do, because they care about their patients, is truly moving. In fact, I firmly believe that it’s the workers who stop this system from entirely discarding the future of our seniors. Without those workers actually caring about their patients, we would be in a far worse position.

So the government should be thankful that these workers have stopped this system from collapsing altogether. They keep it running with unpaid overtime, salaries that are too low and mileage that doesn’t reflect their real travel time. Yet, instead of thanking them, this bill seems to gut their protection to have a union. There’s nothing here that protects their hard-earned labour rights or rights to form a union and get decent benefits that they all deserve. In fact, if anything, this bill, like so many other initiatives of this government, puts workers at risk of layoffs.

So I hope that before this goes any further, the minister will commit that not one worker will lose their job under this bill.

When this bill first arose, my colleague from Nickel Belt rose and spoke on it, and her comments were spot-on. This government claims that they’re going to fix home care, but they’re not addressing the problem, which is actually hiring and keeping the home care workers. And it’s pretty easy to figure out why they can’t keep them. Some of the companies I just mentioned would pay these workers way less than minimum wage if they legally were allowed to. That’s shameful.

Interjection.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Good call.

Some of these companies’ CEOs are raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars while the workers actually taking care of our parents and our grandparents are working for minimum wage.

Madam Speaker, it gets worse. I called some home care workers in my riding this weekend, and I want this government to hear what they’re saying.

Erin, a wonderful young mother in Niagara, who is deeply involved in her community, had this to say: “The current compensation system actually promotes poor patient care, creates competition between workers, vying for more and doing less. Ultimately it’s the patients who suffer most. And good workers like me who put their best foot forward are compensated less and it’s their own families who suffer. I’ve never cleared $35,000” a year “and that’s when I was working over full-time hours, 12- to 16-hour days multiple days per week.”

And it goes even further: It’s the front-line workers who have been bringing this work home with them. Yes, the organization is funded by government, but the government does not pay unless the paperwork is properly filed. Do you know who has the responsibility for a patient’s paperwork? It’s the worker who takes that home with them. Workers are telling me they don’t get paid extra for doing the paperwork. Often their days are so crammed that they do the paperwork by themselves at home.

They don’t do it for the money, as you can see. They do it because they care.

They are also on call, sometimes all weekend. Erin is a young mom; she loves her daughter. How can she arrange child care and be on call all weekend? On top of that, she’s going to need to pay for that child care, which eats into the shameful wages she gets paid. This is obscene. In this day and age, someone as caring in our community as Erin should be paid a decent wage to take care of our seniors and be able to care for her wonderful daughter.

Madam Speaker, we hear from a lot of folks in our community about how home care is affecting them. When your partner, your mother, your father, your grandmother or your grandfather gets ill, or to a point that they cannot fully take care of themselves at home, they may look at home care as an option. However, we see time and time again members of the community not receiving the necessary hours to fully address the issues their loved ones at home need.

We have constituents come into our office and tell me, “My mother” or “my father only gets one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening.” The health care workers are incredible, but they simply do not have the resources to be there for the total amount of time that is truly needed for our loved ones.

We’ve advocated in the past to the CCAC or directly to the care provider and said, “These people need more time.” Sometimes we are successful, but sometimes there just aren’t enough resources or health care workers to go around. It’s a real problem.

And now it comes back to my previous comment regarding the debate of my colleague from Nickel Belt. If you want to fix the system—and yes, this system desperately needs to be fixed. You have workers who are underpaid, overworked and underappreciated by terrible employers. Yet you see these employers get rich because the government funnels the money to these CEOs who don’t give a damn about what’s happening in these homes. It’s no wonder there’s high turnover and a struggle to attract home care workers. Enough is enough.

If this government wants to fix home care, I have a few solutions that you can implement with the stroke of a pen. First, demand that the greedy CEOs pay their workers a living wage and show them respect. Secondly, have the government itself value their work and recognize that this system doesn’t work without their care. Third, increase funding, but ensure the funding isn’t lost.

Let’s make being a home care worker a job that pays well, has good benefits and is secure. If you don’t do that, you won’t be able to retain workers. Beyond that, you’ll reduce the burden of stress on these workers and home care will drastically improve. That’s what workers deserve. That’s what our seniors deserve. That’s what our moms, our dads and our grandparents deserve. Home care needs to be fixed, and we have to pay people a respectable wage.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I will remind all members to ensure that their remarks are parliamentary and that their language reflects that.

Questions and comments?

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Thank you to the member for his comments this morning. I couldn’t agree more. Seniors are so important in our communities. They have worked their entire lives to contribute to our economy, to raise our children, and to grow our beautiful province. They deserve proper care when they are nearing end of life.

We all know that home care is in desperate need of a fix. After 15 years of Liberal mismanagement—they have only invested into 621 long-term-care beds over 15 years.

Our government is taking serious action and this bill, Bill 175, is just one more step, and one more piece of the puzzle, to support our seniors better through home and community care.

So, my question is, do you think the current one-size-fits-all approach is still appropriate for Ontario’s patients and Ontario’s seniors?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Well, I thank you for the question—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Response? The member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I was so anxious to get up.

To the member: I’ll tell you what I want to see in home care, and I’m going to disagree with you on your comment about 15 years of Liberals. It wasn’t just 15 years of Liberals; it’s been over two years of the Conservative government. So it’s been 17 years that we’ve been in a health care problem.

I’m going to read a thing that this bill does: “Bill 175 signals a move for for-profit providers to take over more of the home care sector budget.” The problem I see with that—and my colleague actually talked about it really quickly when she had her comments and asked a question. What happens in home care is—the pie is so big. Part of the pie is being divided up among private companies that pay their CEOs, and by the time it gets to front-line workers, there’s nothing left to make sure they’re being paid with respect and dignity. That’s the problem with this bill. There’s nothing in here to protect home care workers.

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

Mr. Jamie West: The member from Niagara Falls earlier talked about the PSW crisis. I want to thank him for mentioning the crisis—not that it’s a shortage, because it’s not a shortage. We have many people; they’re just exiting it.

Here’s a quote from OPSEU that says—from 2015, under the Liberal government at the time: “CarePartners CEO Linda Knight collects hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in salary and benefits through the local health integration network, which funds CCACs. Still,” the health and long-term care minister of the day under the Liberal Party “refuses to take action.”

Fast-forward to 2019 and a Conservative government: The exact same thing happened to USW 2020 and the exact same thing happened to SEIU under the Conservative government, where they refused to take action and step in and help these workers. Very fun to say: Liberal, Tory, same old story. Keep it up, guys.

My question for the member from Niagara, though, is: How would you recommend we solve this PSW crisis so that we can retain them and they stop exiting the field?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Response? I recognize the member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’m a jack-in-the-box: I just get up too quick. I apologize, Madam Speaker—certainly no disrespect.

I’m quite familiar with CarePartners because they actually service Niagara. Their CEO makes lots of money. Again, it goes back to that there’s only so much dollars in the pot. That’s why you want it publicly funded and publicly delivered, and that every single public dollar goes to front-line workers. That’s not what’s happening under the private situation.

To answer your question, how do you retain them? You pay them properly. You pay them properly and you pay them benefits.

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

Mr. Vincent Ke: The current system is not working for patients, and the current models of care are not providing personal support workers with the job security they need. The system is not on based on patient outcomes. Our approach, through Bill 175 and our regulations, offers a real solution to this problem.

My question is, why is the member opposite so committed to defending the status quo?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Sir, I’m not defending anything. Quite frankly—I’ll be very honest with you, what I’m defending is making sure that if my mom or my dad or my grandparent need care, they get the care they deserve, whether it’s in home care or whether it’s in our hospitals.

What’s going on in our system today—because I’ve been involved with it for the last eight years, particularly more so my wife than myself, with her mom and her dad—is that they’re not getting the care they deserve. If they don’t show up to an appointment to change the bandage for a sore on their foot, it gets worse.

What I’m saying is, there are ways to fix this. We’ve got to make sure our PSWs are compensated properly; to make sure they have the dollars they deserve and the funding they deserve, and that the funding isn’t going to some CEO who’s sitting up on Bay Street making $350,000 a year, when the person who’s providing the care for my mom and my dad and my grandparents is sitting there waiting for somebody to show up at 9:30 on a Saturday morning. That’s what I’m talking about, sir.

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

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you again to the member from Niagara Falls. He talked about the $350,000 CEOs make as a ballpark number. It’s interesting, the first thing Liberals and Conservatives do in government is reduce the taxes that people in that tax bracket pay—the ultra-wealthy. They reduce their taxes. We take public money, put it in privatization, and then we reduce the taxes that the wealthy pay for public infrastructure.

I asked earlier to the member opposite if they supported the further privatization of Ontario’s health care system, and the answer was, “Ontarians will continue to pay for their health with an OHIP card.” I’ve heard that many, many times. That seems to dodge the question. What do you think? Do you think that the question was answered?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to thank my colleague for the question.

I’ve talked about this, I think, ever since the day I came here six years ago. Having a health card is important; that’s for sure. But we have to make sure it’s publicly funded and publicly delivered. What that means is that every single tax dollar goes into health care.

I have never understood why we privatize and give valuable health care dollars—which are shrinking, which are harder to get. Why do we give them to CEOs? Somebody tell me that. Why are we not making sure that—particularly the PSWs, they’re not paid properly. They’re working for minimum wage. They get no money or very little money for travel time. They’re told they can only stay in a house, sometimes, for 20 minutes, because they have so many people to get to. It makes no sense.

If we want to make sure that we’re going to fix health care, stop privatizing it.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: I wanted to acknowledge the passionate presentation from the member from Niagara Falls.

In the discussion of access to care, the Liberal government, supported by the official opposition, established a home care regime where clients face service maximums. Our new models of home care remove service maximums. It’s an important distinction. What that’s going to ensure is that patients are the focus, which they should have been from the very beginning.

Is the member opposite defending a status quo, where vulnerable home care clients, like seniors you referred to earlier, have their services capped?

Mr. Wayne Gates: To my colleague across the road, first of all, I want to say I’m glad you’re slowing down in the race to get to the front. It was nice to see our member beat you yesterday.

Listen, you can say what you want and you can try to twist this, but this is an easy fix. The easy fix is that we have to make sure our PSWs are being paid properly so that people go into these jobs—because they’re needed, a lot of people. But they don’t. My colleague here talked about how they’d rather work at Tim Hortons than work as PSWs when it comes to compensation.

These are workers who care about your mom and your dad; in some cases, the only person they see is that care provider. So I’m saying to you guys, if you want to fix it in the bill, then let’s talk about how you fix it. How do you retain PSWs? Because if we don’t have enough PSWs, there’s going to be nobody there on Saturday morning; there’s going to be nobody there on Sunday morning to take care of our parents and our grandparents. That’s the issue I have with this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We don’t have enough time for one more question and comment.

Further debate?

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to join the debate. For those just joining us, it’s on Bill 175, Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020. With this bill, the government is rebuilding our long-neglected health care system and bringing it into the 21st century.

The purpose of Bill 175, and I think we need to restate it at this juncture of the debate, is to improve patient care, modernize how we carry out home and community care services, build healthier communities—we all subscribe to wanting to accomplish that; I know you do, Speaker—and end hallway health care.

In 2019, nearly three quarters of a million people in Ontario received home care services and over 600,000 people used community support services. Those figures, on the surface, are really quite staggering, aren’t they? But when you relate them to the region of Durham, where you and I have the privilege of serving constituents in the adjoining ridings of Oshawa and Whitby, we know the importance of those services.

Primarily, Bill 175 aims to streamline our outdated health care system when it comes to home and community care for the significant proportion of our population that depends on those services.

By supporting this proposed bill, patient care would be absolutely transformed.

In today’s questions and answers, yes, there were some very passionate presentations, but I think the answers and the questions drew out aspects that are important to be restated.

For example, it would be better coordinated, with health care workers becoming more empowered to work together. You’ll know, and others in this chamber will know, out of the meetings that we have with constituents and front-line providers, that’s what they’ve been advocating for, for quite a long time.

What this bill would also do is access the resources they need in order to deliver world-class health care. That’s also what they’ve been asking for, the front-line providers.

Added to that, our plan to end hallway health care is comprised of four main pillars.

Prevention is our first initiative; to help keep Ontarians healthy, as we should, and out of the hospital in the first place.

Secondly, it’s critical—it’s absolutely critical—that patients receive the specialized and personalized care they need, whether it be in the home or community environment, as the hospital is not always the best place for this to occur. This pillar aims to simultaneously consolidate and modernize our care delivery system on an individual level. This is an important aspect of the second pillar because we are responding directly to what we’ve heard across the province, including in the region of Durham—a care delivery system on an individual level, introducing the option for teleconferencing and digital care delivery.

Third, this government intends to integrate care with the hospital system to improve patient flow, meaning patients can be discharged with the knowledge, as they’ve asked, that they will receive the home and community care they need once they leave the hospital setting. This will also make more hospital beds available to those who need them, going a significant way to ending hallway care.

Now, the fourth pillar of our plan to end hallway health care is our commitment to invest a much-needed—everyone here knows that, and those watching—$27-billion investment over the next decade to directly fund the construction of modern hospital infrastructure and increase capacity. In our ridings, and in adjoining ridings and regions, we’ve seen the evidence of that investment in different settings—more recently with Rouge Valley, with the mental health beds coming back as they should have originally.

An additional $155 million is being invested across Ontario this year alone to expand home and community care resources across the province. Now, Speaker, of this $155 million, $15 million is going directly to a range of community-based services, including those for people with acquired brain injuries. This has been a request that we’ve had for quite a long time and we’re responding to it. We’re responding to it as a government now.

And this is an example, an important example, of the proposed legislation’s initiative to help reduce pressure on the long-term-care home system and wait times, while better directing patients to the specialized home care they so richly deserve. They’ve been waiting 15 years. We know the previous Liberal government just tinkered around the edges. That’s all they did, to no effect.

In application—I know I’m running out of time, and you’re being patient—Bill 175 would transition home and community care services to Ontario health teams in a proactive, responsible handover as they become better prepared and ready to uphold the high standards of care and provision of Ontario’s patients. The bill is a manifestation of this government’s ongoing commitment, and that’s been demonstrated in several ways, to working with—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. He will have the opportunity to continue his remarks. But seeing the time on the clock, debate—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Yes. Okay.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Displaying of postcards

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member for Parkdale–High Park on a point of order.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’m seeking unanimous consent to hold up these postcards during my member’s statement.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Ms. Karpoche is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to hold postcards during her member’s statement. Is the House—agreed.

Now it is time for members’ statements. I recognize the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, and I would remind all members that during members’ statements, it is respectful to be able to hear them.

Members’ Statements

Indigenous scholarship award

Ms. Sandy Shaw: This week we hosted McMaster University here at Queen’s Park. As the MPP for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, I am extremely proud to represent McMaster. Their incredible work benefits not just our local Hamilton, but has true impact on the world stage.

McMaster hosts a variety of archives, including the works of Bertrand Russell, Bruce Cockburn and Stuart McLean. Celebrated musician Tom Wilson will join this group when he donates his archives this spring.

As part of this celebration, Tom has established an Indigenous scholarship award to support Indigenous students from across Ontario’s secondary schools. This award was established—and I quote Tom—“to help bring honour, love, respect and shine a light back on the culture I have been introduced to later in life, and to honour the charitable nature that Bunny Wilson, who raised me, embodied throughout her life.” To help raise funds and awareness for the scholarship, a concert will be held on May 1 at the L.R. Wilson concert hall at McMaster University—I don’t think there’s a connection there.

We hear daily in this House of the very real struggles facing Indigenous communities. We hear about murdered and missing Indigenous women. We hear tragic stories about youth suicide. Daily we hear about the lack of access to clean water—a fundamental human right. Tom’s decision to establish this award is an important contribution that is dedicated to empowering the next generation of Indigenous people, who will lead us into the future.

International Women’s Day

Mrs. Nina Tangri: This coming Sunday, March 8, is International Women’s Day.

The first International Women’s Day was observed on March 9, 1911, in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, when more than one million women and men showed their support by participating in public events. Other countries soon followed suit in the years after, as the push for women to participate in society and labour grew.

In 1975, the United Nations marked International Women’s Year and passed a resolution designating March 8 of every year.

Today, International Women’s Day marks a day of unity, celebration, reflection, advocacy and action.

Last Friday, the Solicitor General and the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues visited my community of Mississauga–Streetsville and met with some first responders, our female police officers, at the headquarters. We met with Ingrid Berkeley-Brown, the deputy chief; former chief Jennifer Evans, who is such a wonderful inspiration; and many, many civilian officers, amongst others. They told us about the difficulties they faced in becoming officers—the challenges of having babysitting at different times of the day. It was such an enlightening experience for all of us to learn so much from our wonderful female officers.

Speaker, if any female members of this House aren’t already, I encourage you to try to get out there and join many people at the events coming up this year. Tomorrow in the city of Mississauga I will be meeting with young women and girls to share my experiences—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Members’ statements?

The Love Lettering Project

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I rise today to share an initiative that moved me deeply. It’s called the Love Lettering Project, founded by my constituent Lindsay Zier-Vogel. It’s a postcard-writing project aimed at combatting the hate that female and female-identifying politicians receive by sending thank-you letters.

Being a woman in politics can be a dangerous job. The unspoken rule now is that handling this kind of gendered hatred is just part of the job, but why should this be? Women already face barriers to holding elected positions, and then we have to face the unspoken acceptance of abuse once elected as well. We are expected to have the grit and mettle to rise above it and keep doing our jobs with grit and determination, but we shouldn’t have to.

As we mark International Women’s Day, I want to thank all women who are taking up the spaces they deserve—especially women who face additional barriers due to their intersecting identities—and I want to thank women who lift other women up.

Finally, Speaker, to all women interested in running for office, I want to say: You belong here.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We are continuing members’ statements. I would ask all members to quieten down as much as they can. I look forward to hearing the next statement from the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

Missing children

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: The Mississauga–Erin Mills community had a tough week, with two teens of the riding’s disappearance. I would like to thank the Peel Regional Police for their diligence and tireless work with me and the families of the teens around the clock for almost three days, until we located them. I appreciate the police’s efforts in locating the two missing teens.

To our first responders: The families and the whole community of Mississauga–Erin Mills appreciate your immediate response. We are all thrilled that the teens were located safe and sound.

Police and first responders work day and night making sure that we feel safe whenever we leave our homes. The Mississauga–Erin Mills community stood in solidarity and compassionately supported the families of the teens. Now, I would like to ask that we give the families and the teens the privacy they need to recover from this terrible event.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government for granting the Peel Regional Police $20.5 million this year to give police officers the tools and resources they need to keep our streets safe.

Bill Hunter

Mr. Faisal Hassan: This past Friday, our community lost a kind gentleman. Bill Hunter was like an older brother to me. He was always working hard to make things better for our people and for our community. He volunteered on my campaign, and was the best volunteer there was. As my sign captain, he would criss-cross York South–Weston every day to put up signs. He was dedicated.

I have known Bill for many years. He was a caring, compassionate and decent man. He was a respected community leader and will be missed by all of us. I’m sending my sincere condolences to the Hunter family, and I ask all members of the House to keep them in your thoughts and prayers.

Sexual assault crisis centres / Centres d’aide pour victimes d’agression sexuelle

Mr. John Fraser: I rise today to talk about sexual assault crisis centres in Ontario. In the budget in 2018, these centres were set to receive an additional 30% in funding, about $14.8 million over three years. Instead, they never saw this money and received $1 million annually, one time, split among 42 sexual assault centres across this province. The government, we heard yesterday, was going to take that money away. Then today, we heard reports that the government may be reversing this decision—which I welcome.

The reality is that these centres need more than $1 million annually, one time. The crisis centres have experienced a constant increase in demand since the #MeToo movement started. We encourage women and men to speak out about sexual assault, seek help and look to put measures in place to ensure their safety. How is this supposed to happen if the government cannot sufficiently supply the resources that are necessary to meet the demands in this critical sector?

It’s too late for the government to act like they’re coming to their senses. These centres need more support.

Monsieur le Président, cela ne suffit pas. C’est inacceptable. Ces centres ont besoin de plus d’aide, maintenant.

On the eve of International Women’s Day, it is time for the government to have serious consultations and sufficiently fund these programs that are already over capacity.

Seva Food Bank

Mr. Deepak Anand: Seva Food Bank is a registered charity under Sikhs Serving Canada in my riding of Mississauga–Malton, equipped with the mission of ending hunger by coordinating and delivering programs that improve the food security needs of the community, while also supporting their clients on their journey to self-reliance. Seva, in Punjabi and many other languages, means

an act of kindness without expectation of reward or personal benefit. Seva, the selfless help, is also an integral part of Sikhism. All Sikhs are encouraged by the living guru, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, to perform Seva. It is the highest duty that anyone can perform.

Our society is becoming more and more divided, and in these moments we need more organizations and more people who do selfless service. We need more people who bring each other together and do not divide us apart. This is exactly what Seva Food Bank is doing. Their goal is to provide access to a culturally appropriate and personally acceptable supply of good, nutritious food to all—Mr. Speaker, the word is “all”—people living in the community. They serve 900 families monthly; beneficiaries are from all diverse backgrounds, often marginalized populations with less disposable income and larger family structures.

This year, Seva Food Bank celebrated their 10th year of operation since opening their doors in 2010—

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

Pharmacare

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: What do subways, public health, child care, licence plates, families with autism and now class sizes and forced e-learning have in common? They are all cuts this government has made then retracted. Why do they make these retractions? It’s simple: They get embarrassed. The government hopes for a problem to go away, unless it gets so embarrassing they then have to act. If it is not embarrassing enough, their strategy is to remain silent and do nothing.

That is what still is happening with Jared Wayland, an SMA patient being made to wait for approval for a life-saving drug. He was told he could find approval through the case-by-case Exceptional Access Program in the Ministry of Health—except he isn’t getting approved, nor is he getting rejected. He just gets silence. This government just makes him wait and wait in silence, hoping the issue will just go away. It has almost been a year. Making a family wait without a response is heartbreaking. It’s heart-wrenching. How is it not embarrassing enough to act now? Giving hope to Jared and never giving him an answer—how is that not embarrassing?

This government needs to act now, not because it’s embarrassing, but because it’s the right thing to do. Approve patients like Jared who are waiting in this program, and do it not because it’s embarrassing, but because it’s the right thing to do.

Haven on the Queensway

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I rise to bring attention to an important non-profit organization in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Today I am joined by Susan Carbone, who is in the gallery, from Haven on the Queensway. Haven on the Queensway is dedicated to meeting the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of people in the greater Toronto area. Haven on the Queensway provides services that lessen the effect of poverty, homelessness, addiction and recovery; distributing food and clothing as well as providing support services for women, men, children and seniors.

Haven on the Queensway offers an atmosphere of respect, dignity and security as they help people on their way to becoming more self-sufficient.

Last week, I had the privilege of joining these amazing women to see first-hand what the volunteers and staff are doing. From providing food, clothing and children’s books to various rehabilitation services, Haven on the Queensway is where hope starts.

I want to congratulate Susan and the entire team of volunteers and staff at Haven on the Queensway for the amazing work that they do, and I would like to encourage all members of the House to check out what Haven on the Queensway does to support our community. Thank you, and thank you to all the volunteers.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to introduce my constituents Jennifer Malcolm and Bruce Malcolm. They are here to watch their daughter Paige in action. Paige is the page captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to welcome the Dietitians of Canada on their legislative day.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I wanted to introduce Michelle Mir. She’s a fourth-year Ryerson University student who is interning with me at my office today. Welcome, Michelle.

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to introduce the love of my life for the last 40 years. She’s in the gallery—my long-suffering wife, Linda Fraser.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is my pleasure to welcome, on behalf of the entire NDP caucus and our leader, Andrea Horwath, the members of the Ontario Association of Social Workers: Dr. Deepy Sur, who is the CEO; Dr. Peter Donahue, the president; Dr. Keith Adamson; Vanessa Rankin; Rita Mascherin; Dr. Rachelle Ashcroft; Patrick Fleming; Christie Hayos; Jaemar Ivey; Sylvie Rivard; Jennifer Taun; Lisa Van Hezewijk; Nancy Webb; Evelyn Weger; Ellen Sue Mesbur; and, last but certainly not least, from Windsor, Candice Hanna. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce Gary Mar, a former MLA from the Alberta Legislature who is now president and CEO of the Petroleum Services Association of Canada.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to this House a volunteer and a student at the University of Toronto, Kaela Biro.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I would like to welcome back our former pages here today: Elizabeth Becke from Mississauga–Lakeshore, Katie from Oakville and Katherine from Vaughan–Woodbridge.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Not to be outdone by the member from Ottawa South, I, too, would like to introduce my partner, Ted Hoyle, and my lovely grandson Emmett Parker. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I’d like to recognize Rasheeda Qureshi, the executive director of Seva Food Bank, from our riding of Mississauga–Malton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would like to welcome back strong advocates for the Ontario Autism Coalition: Michau van Speyk and Antoinette van Speyk, his mom.

Mr. Daryl Kramp: I’d like to welcome a tolerant and loving lady for almost 50 years: my wife, Carol Ann.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I would like to welcome the proud mother and grandparents of page Catharine, from Port Colborne in my riding: Andrea Boitor and Brenda and Evan Grabell.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I’d like to introduce Susan Carbone from Haven on the Queensway—thank you for your work—and my senior constituency assistant, Andrew Smith, to the Legislature today.

Miss Monique Taylor: From the Ontario Autism Coalition, I’d like to welcome Angela Brandt; her son Misha; Amanda Mooyer; her son Finn; Amy Moledzki; and, of course, welcome back, Michau van Speyk.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to welcome two of my staff to Queen’s Park: Sydney Bertrand, my executive assistant, and, all the way from God’s country, Brock Terry, my constituent assistant.

Mr. Joel Harden: I also want to thank our friends from social work who are here today, and for their breakfast.

I also want to thank Evelyn Weger, a new friend, who I look forward to staying in touch with.

And thank you to the Dietitians of Canada, who are here today for their lunch. I look forward to seeing them.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I would like to welcome a group of very successful and inspirational women to the House: Norma, Martha, Alexandra, Lucy, Lorena, Claudia, Allison, Wendy and America. It was a pleasure meeting with all of you this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d also like to like to give a warm welcome to my constituents Michau and his mom, Antoinette. Welcome.

Mr. David Piccini: From God’s country south, I’d like to welcome Hannah Phillips. Hannah is a Trent University co-op student working in my office and a fantastic addition to our team. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Hannah.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time that we have available this morning for introduction of visitors.

Member for Ottawa South

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I would just like to take a brief moment to thank and congratulate the member for Ottawa South. I know that today is his last official day in this House as leader of the Liberal Party. He is a true gentleman and has acted in a truly parliamentary fashion. Congratulations and thank you for everything.

Ms. Sara Singh: On behalf of the official opposition, we’d also like to extend our congratulations and thank you to the interim leader of the Liberal Party. We’re looking forward to your journey here in the Legislature. Thank you so much.

Question Period

Education funding

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier insisted he was offering teachers a “great deal.” If he looked out the window this morning, I’m sure he’ll find that he has a lot more work to do.

It’s been nearly a year since the Ford government announced its plan to fire 10,000 teachers, making mandatory online learning necessary and bringing cuts to our classrooms. For a year the government has ignored, and even hid, evidence of the damage that these cuts would do.

If the Premier is really committed to getting a deal, will he apologize today for what he has put students, parents and teachers through in our province?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the member for her question.

I think the Minister of Education made it pretty transparent; nothing was being hid. Actually, the unions knew about this for the last month.

This comes down to one thing: This comes down to compensation and benefits. The government and our minister made it parental approval for online learning. That was the biggest thing in their lives they were talking about, so now we got rid of that. We lowered the classroom sizes to 23. I don’t know what more they want.

I know what more they want, and the public knows, because overwhelmingly now you’ve seen the shift. The message to the unions is: The party is over with the taxpayers’ money. Pack your bags and get back into the classroom.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Restart the clock. The supplementary question.

Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, through you to the Premier: I think what Ontarians would like is for this Premier to take his cuts off the table. The Conservatives spent the last year making families pay the price for their cuts. There are still cuts on the table and students have lost their classes, they’ve lost their peace of mind and they’re even losing their graduation plans. Parents have lost time from work, and frankly, they’re losing their patience with another government that doesn’t care about their priorities. Teachers have lost jobs and their livelihoods, all because this Premier and this government refuse to listen to what Ontarians have been telling them since day one.

Does the Premier seriously think that, after all of this, he has nothing to apologize for?

Hon. Doug Ford: I think the only people that should be apologizing are the members across the aisle who destroyed the education system for 15 years.

Mr. Speaker, we’re putting $1.2 billion more into education. We’re putting $3.1 billion more into special education funding, the highest levels this province has ever seen. We have announced a four-year $200-million math strategy. We’re turning the corner with education. Again, rather than having our students with the lowest math scores in the country—50% of them are failing; one third of the teachers couldn’t pass the same math test. We’re finally turning the corner. We’re holding the unions accountable for the first time in 50 years.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, while Conservatives are trying to run away from the damage that they have created, experts are still ringing alarm bells about continued Conservative cuts in our schools. We know that changing the average class size funding from 22 to 23, a change that the minister continues to brag about, will mean 1,000 fewer teachers in our high schools. That’s 1,000 families that won’t have a job because of this government, thousands of students who will be losing their courses that those teachers teach.

How many more teachers will have to lose their jobs before the government finally does the right thing and takes these cuts off the table?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: While teacher union leaders are standing on the lawn and standing up for seniority-based hiring, standing up for higher benefits and higher pay, this government is standing with parents to get a deal that keeps children in class. And enough is enough with the delay; enough is enough. This has been a 300-day process. We have landed a positive plan, a good plan for parents. We’re freezing classroom sizes in elementary and in high school. We are ensuring 100% support for special education. We’re protecting full-day kindergarten.

Speaker, we are ensuring that 1% enhancement is offered to workers for wages and benefits, and we are standing strong in the defence of merit over union seniority.

Speaker, with respect to the teacher union presence, they should get off the lawn and get back to the table. Let’s get a deal done.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, and my question is to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, in the million-dollar class size consultation that this government tried to bury, Ontarians made it abundantly clear that they do not want cuts to education. But that didn’t stop this government from trying to convince them otherwise. Thanks to documents tabled with the estimates committee, we found that the Ministry of Education has spent $7.6 million on advertising in 2019-20 alone. That is almost what the Liberals spent in their pre-election government advertising blitz.

Does the Premier really think that it’s right to take money out of classrooms and funnel it into ads designed to sell people on a plan that they have already rejected?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Education to respond.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, this government is absolutely committed to staying focused on getting a deal at the table. That is why in this negotiation we’ve tabled a positive plan to incent the parties to stay at the table. Today, the teacher union leaders opted to strike instead of negotiating, and I find that really unfair to parents, who would have thought the parties would get to the table and focus on driving a deal that is good for workers, good for teachers, but of course, good for the students of this province. That is the aim, and it is my hope that they will return to the table with a focus on landing a deal.

Speaker, what is left to negotiate? The concern with classroom sizes? That’s off the table. The concern with the mandate in online learning? We’ve provided an opt-out. The concern with special education? We’ve retained 100% investment. What is left? What are they fighting for?

The Premier is right: It is about wages; it is about benefits; it is about seniority-based hiring. That is absolutely inconsistent with parental priorities. We’re going to stand hard to ensure that parents and kids get a good education and that they remain in class.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll tell you what they’re fighting for: They’re fighting for our kids, which is something that your government has failed to do.

Mr. Speaker, they spent last year trying to ram through a plan to jack up class sizes and force students into online courses. Spending millions on radio ads wasn’t enough to convince people that their kids should settle for less, and yet they’re still asking them to do just that. Ontarians deserve better than half measures and half-baked plans from this government. Have they really learned nothing from the past year?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, our plan is to ensure kids remain in class. It’s to ensure that we have a positive deal, that every student in Ontario has the benefit and the right to an education without interruption. That is why we’re taking action. We’ve done it this week. We’ve announced a plan that ensures classroom sizes are effectively frozen at last year’s rates. We’re ensuring, for special education needs, for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, that 100% support continues to flow in class. We are ensuring that full-day kindergarten is protected, for the contract.

And yes, we are standing strong and standing up for the principle that merit must guide hiring, not union seniority, not any other consideration of how long they’ve been involved in a union. It ought to be about the best teacher in the front of the class. That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s what parents want.

It’s time for the unions to get off the lawn and get back to the table.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: If this minister wanted a deal, he wouldn’t be making offers at the microphone and a podium; he’d be at the table.

My question is back to the Premier. The fact is that the Ford government has known all along who will get hit hardest by their cuts, and that is students. This morning, a grade 11 student told CBC Radio that she’s taking evening math classes because her regular class is too crowded to learn in. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that same story. That’s right now, just after the first wave of class size increases they brought in.

If the Premier wants to rebuild some trust with parents and students and get our kids back to school, why doesn’t he focus on how to improve opportunities for students instead of seeing how much he can cut?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The member opposite I think underscores a concern that this government is trying to solve, which is the fact that more than half of the students of this province are not meeting provincial standards in math. Yet the solution by the New Democratic Party is to spend more and have less accountability and fewer expectations for that investment. That is not a plan; that’s a way to squander hard-earned tax dollars in this province.

We need to ensure we get a greater return on the investment for parents. Every parent in this province has told us stories that they see more money flowing but they don’t see the result. It’s high time a government actually stands up for taxpayers, for students and for parents and says, “Yes, we expect better for the future of this province.”

That’s why we are ensuring that we’re protecting classroom sizes. We’re ensuring that merit guides hiring. We’re ensuring a 1% enhancement. We’re going to stand strong on those principles, on the priorities of parents, and work to get a deal that keeps kids in class.

Sexual assault crisis centres

Ms. Jill Andrew: I would like to start by saying that if it is in fact true that this government is going to reinstate the $1 million that they cut from rape crisis centres, that is a good thing and I thank you for that. But it is a shame that, on the eve of International Women’s Day, thousands of survivors had to hear the news of that $1 million being cut. Furthermore, that $1 million is nothing when in fact women are asking for $14 million to go to rape crisis centres.

This question, Mr. Speaker, goes to our Premier.

I am here to say that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have turned their backs on women, and it has to stop now. These rape crisis centres need their $14 million. They need to have a budget that works, not the lousy $1 million, which works out to about 24 grand for 42 centres. What are they supposed to buy with that—cookies?

My question is: Premier, are you going to take away funding again after International Women’s Day? We cannot play with women’s lives.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister for Children and Women’s Issues.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for her question.

Despite the failure to protect women by the previous government, this government is stepping up. I am proud to announce this morning that our government is annualizing $2 million for sexual assault centres across Ontario. This funding will go to support the important work that they are doing for victims and survivors of sexual assault and human trafficking with trauma-informed care.

We are restructuring to provide better services that actually serve the victims across Ontario. For the first time, victims are being heard. It is the work of sexual assault centres that makes a real impact for those seeking services.

In addition to this funding, my ministry is investing more than $172 million in support for survivors and violence prevention initiatives this year alone. We will continue to work with shelters and front-line workers on how we can improve and better support shelters and those fleeing violence in a sustainable way.

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

Ms. Jill Andrew: This government often says they’re putting money here, there and everywhere, but the big question is: Is it new money? That’s the big question.

Nonetheless, I bring it back to the Premier: We need $14 million for our rape crisis centres—$1 million, $2 million is peanuts. Rape survivors deserve more.

What are you doing for the 4,416 women and children being turned away from shelters across eastern Ontario? Is that part of your plan?

The Conservatives were told that without the funding for rape crisis centres, centres would have to fire staff, they’d have to cancel services, and wait times would grow longer. Rape survivors need help now. Gender-based violence is on the rise, and your money is going down. It doesn’t make sense.

Again to the Premier: Women in crisis deserve certainty, not more heartless cuts. Will this government finally do the right thing and ensure that rape crisis centres have long-term, stable funding, long-term—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Minister to respond.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for the question.

There has been a steady rise in the usage of shelters and other forms of services for those impacted by sexual assaults and other forms of violence. This is not new. In 2013, the Auditor General tabled her annual report on violence-against-women services which found that the previous government had failed to implement recommendations stemming from a 2001 report. That’s 12 years. For 15 years, they ran deficit after deficit, and yet they could not find any money for our most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that one in three Canadian women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime, and the stats are even worse for marginalized women. As a woman and a mother of three daughters, that is very haunting.

We will always remain committed to preventing and addressing violence against women and girls in all its forms, and that’s why I was very proud to announce today our $2 million in annualized, committed funding for sexual assault centres across Ontario.

Sexual assault crisis centres

Ms. Jane McKenna: My question is for the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues. We know that one in three women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime. Victims of sexual violence are getting younger and younger. The average age that a young woman is recruited by a human trafficker is just 13 years old. Speaker, I know that many sexual assault centres are on the front lines of the fight against human trafficking, including workers at Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services of Halton in my riding.

Can the minister let this House know what is being done regarding the funding to sexual assault centres in the fight against human trafficking?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the wonderful member from Burlington for that great question.

Speaker, today I can announce that we are confirming $2 million in additional annualized funding for sexual assault centres across Ontario.

On November 28, I was honoured to join the Premier, the Solicitor General and my colleagues as we announced phase 1 of the government’s human trafficking strategy. Phase 1 of the human trafficking strategy annualized $1.1 million in funding for sexual assault centres in Halton, Kenora, Sarnia and Waterloo. But, Speaker, we know there are service gaps, and the previous government left a lot of communities underserved in their human trafficking funding. I’ll have more to say about our government strategy in the supplementary.

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

Ms. Jane McKenna: Back to the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues: Thank you so much for that clear response. I know that our government takes human trafficking and all sexual violence seriously. That’s why we announced $20 million in new annualized funding for human trafficking.

But the minister is right: Not every community was served by the previous government’s approach to fighting this disgusting crime. Can the minister explain how our government is taking further steps to help sexual assault centres in more communities fight human trafficking?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you again to the member for that great question.

The member is right: We need to help more communities fight human trafficking, and under the leadership of Premier Ford, he has made it clear that we need to do more to support the victims and stop this heinous crime. That’s why, as part of the next steps we’re taking as a government, we’re annualizing an additional $1 million for the community supports fund to help all sexual assault centres fight human trafficking. That brings our total new investment for sexual assault centres to over $2 million.

Speaker, we know that we can always do more as a government, and we are committed to doing just that.

Beverage alcohol sales

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. It’s clear after this week’s most recent #PlateGate scandal that this Premier has a special gift. Some would call it the reverse Midas touch, because every time he gets his hands on a file, it’s one disaster after another.

It turns out his buck-a-beer scheme is no different. He made a big show of it; he actually ran his last campaign on it. But to the surprise of no one, you can’t find a buck-a-beer anywhere in Ontario.

Now experts are telling us that the Premier’s half-baked stunt actually made beer prices go up. Experts now say that prices have shot up about 10%, and the blame rests squarely on the Premier’s government.

Will the Premier admit to Ontarians that every idea he brews up is a bad one?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Finance to respond.

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for Essex for the question. The opposition often accuses us of being focused on alcohol, so it’s interesting to have them raise it.

Mr. Speaker, we have agreed and we have said that we need to liberalize, we need to make alcohol more easily available. We need to make sure that Ontarians are treated much in the way that people in other provinces are, so we’re taking those steps.

With regard to price, whether it’s beer or wine, this government has been clear. When it comes to the tax increases that were put into place by the previous government that were raising the costs of beverage alcohol, we have not enforced them.

Our view is, yes, Ontarians can have alcohol made available to them in ways that it is in other provinces. And we’ve made sure the taxes that are the government’s costs on that alcohol have not been raised since this government has been in office.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, even the Premier’s biggest critics didn’t think that he could mess up licence plates and beer, but of course, here we are. Leave it to this Premier to prove us all wrong.

Here’s the kicker for beer drinkers: Experts say that since the Premier came up with his idea, prices for a two-four have gone up by three bucks. The Premier couldn’t help himself, and now he’s ruined the party for everyone.

Will the Premier do the right thing, show some humility in this House, stand up and apologize to beer drinkers in the province of Ontario for his price hike?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Minister of Finance to reply.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Again, the focus on beer this early in the morning from the member from Essex is interesting.

Mr. Speaker, affordability has been a key issue for this government, making life affordable for regular families. That’s why, since this government has been—and in 2020, we’ve reduced costs for average families by $3 billion—$3 billion that we’ve reduced through the LIFT tax credit, through the CARE tax credit, things that the member from Essex and the opposition voted against.

We’re very serious about affordability. The member wants to talk about beer; we want to talk about life being more affordable for Ontarians. That’s what we’re focused on and that’s what we’ll be seeing in our March 25 budget.

Social assistance

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. One of the first campaign promises your government broke was to complete the Basic Income Pilot. Without citing any evidence, you told us that it wasn’t working because it was preventing people from getting a job. Well, we now have the first in-depth study of the Basic Income Pilot, and lo and behold, the Premier was off the mark. Three quarters of those who were working continued to do so. One quarter of low-wage workers moved to higher-paying jobs. Others started their own businesses.

Speaker, I don’t understand why the Premier cancelled a pilot that helped low-income people get better jobs and encouraged them to start businesses. Will the Premier keep his campaign promise and bring back the Basic Income Pilot?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

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

I confirm that, no, we will not be bringing back the Basic Income Pilot project. The reason is, a research project that only included 4,000 individuals is not an adequate solution to solving the problem in a province where we have far too many people living on social assistance.

As a matter of fact, the study that the member opposite cites also raised some concerns about the effectiveness of the program. It showed that nearly one in four of those employed six months before the pilot were unemployed during the pilot.

What we’re doing is actually taking action to ensure that people can get back to work, working with my colleague the minister responsible for labour and skills and training, making sure that those individuals are getting into employment, making sure that there are apprenticeships available, making sure that the public knows that there are skilled trades jobs available to them. We need those people desperately. We’re providing the training for those individuals. That’s how we’re moving people—

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I encourage the minister to read the report in depth. Those people who didn’t work in the pilot—most of them actually went back for education because they could now afford to get education to get a better job. Participants reported improvements to their physical and mental health. They drank less. Over half of smokers said they stopped smoking or smoked less. They were visiting emergency rooms less often. They were finding decent and stable housing. These results saved taxpayers money in health care, policing and social services. The McMaster study said that “the pilot was nothing short of successful.”

No wonder economists on the left and right are supporting a basic income.

So I ask the minister and the Premier: Will you admit that your decision to scrap the Basic Income Pilot was a big mistake and bring it back so we can study how it could best help people and actually save taxpayers—

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

Hon. Todd Smith: I don’t think I can be any more clear. No, we will not be bringing back a pilot that was involving 4,000 people across the province.

What we are doing on this side of the House—and our program and our mandate—is working. We are creating jobs for the people of Ontario. In the time that we have been elected, we have seen over 300,000 jobs created in this province. We’re ensuring that we’re getting the individuals who are on social assistance or those who don’t have a job into work. We have a number of prototypes that were launched earlier this winter, in Hamilton and Niagara and another one in Peel, and another one in Kawartha and Peterborough. Those are going to be the prototypes to get people back to work.

This new model is going to make it easy to use. It’s going to be more localized and it’s going to create better outcomes for those individuals and for our communities.

As well, we are kicking off our five-year poverty reduction strategy. We want to hear from people so that we can develop a strategy that actually is going to lift people up.

Public transit

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is, of course, to our Premier.

I want to remind everybody that my riding of Thornhill is part of Markham and the city of Vaughan, which have become tech hubs. In fact, all of York region is focused on getting the necessary jobs and getting people to those jobs throughout the GTA. That’s why I want to talk a little bit today with the Premier about the strong leadership that our government has taken on the transit file.

Everyone in Thornhill is anxious to see the Premier come up and celebrate with them, shovels in the ground, getting the Yonge subway expansion north right through our riding, the fantastic riding of Thornhill.

I’m going to ask the Premier if he can share with this House again the importance of transit projects, not just for Thornhill, not just for York region, but for the entire GTA.

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank our all-star member from Thornhill.

Finally, the GTA is going to get subways. York region is finally going to get subways. It’s an economic high-tech hub. Now people are going to be able to hop on a subway and get from point A to point B at a greater speed.

We’re spending $28.5 billion for the largest subway project in North America. That’s $28.5 billion, making sure that we get people from Toronto up to Richmond Hill and Markham and Thornhill—into that region. It will literally change their lives. Along with the other three subway lines that we’re doing: Eglinton out to the airport; connecting Scarborough—finally, the people of Scarborough are going to have a subway; and last, but not least, the Ontario Line, the crown jewel.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: Like myself and my husband, the Premier and his fabulous wife, Karla, have four adult children, and I know he was as anxious to get home to his kids when they were younger as I was. Our kids are all active: They play hockey; they do dance; they have programs they want to get to; and the families want to get home and want to spend quality time together.

Thornhill has been feeling very isolated for many years because of the transit problems that they face. We need to ensure that we’re cutting down on commuting time and also dealing with the gridlock. I wanted to get the Premier to maybe elaborate a little bit more on how building transit faster will ensure that the people of Thornhill and across the GTA get the subway services they deserve, in the time they need it.

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the great member for the question.

Our proposed legislation will ensure that we can speed up the process and finally ensure that we get the province moving again. The Building Transit Faster Act targets steps in the planning, design and construction process that have unnecessarily delayed projects in the past.

In the past, from the previous government, we saw overruns of over billions of dollars and time delays. We’re going to have shovels in the ground. You’re going to be seeing dirt fly everywhere because we’re building subways, subways, subways. We’re changing the lives of people in the GTA and Toronto.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. It’s unbelievable that families across Ontario are still waiting for an autism program that meets the needs of their children. Their lives are getting harder every day.

Last year, the Premier promised to double the funding for the autism program, and then he was quick to pat himself on the back. But yesterday, the FAO reported that this government has only spent half of the money to support children with autism while the wait-list continues to grow and grow.

Kids are going without the therapy that they need. It’s absolutely shameful what these families have to face. Why does the Premier insist on withholding the funding for children with autism?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services to reply on behalf of the government.

Hon. Todd Smith: Let me be clear again: Our government is spending $600 million this year on the Ontario Autism Program. As the member knows, the Financial Accountability Officer’s report, which came out yesterday, takes us up until the end of December. I can tell you that one-time funding has been rolling out at record pace over the last number of months. We will be spending $600 million, investing $600 million into our children with autism.

As the member opposite knows, we wanted to hear from our expert panel over the summer. We took the time to hear from the community about the program that was going to work for the community. We received that report in late December. It was in late December when I announced where we would be heading with the Ontario Autism Program. We are on track to do that, Mr. Speaker. Thousands of families that have never received any funding from the province are now receiving funding so they can get their kids in programs and start to get the services that they need.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I know that the minister had hoped that the heat was off of this, as he’s been boasting to families. But I’m here to tell him that families are not going away. Families are desperate, and we’re putting him on notice that we’re going to stand up here every day and make sure he knows it.

Funding has been moving painfully slow, and children are being forced to wait for access to therapy—never mind families in the north, who don’t even have therapy to access. Now we know why it’s been taking so long: This government has been secretly withholding the funding that it promised.

When the Premier announced that he was doubling the funding for the autism program, parents actually believed him. But the FAO report demonstrates, yet again, that families cannot trust this government.

Does the Premier expect families to continue to put their trust in this government when all he does is over-promise and under-deliver?

Hon. Todd Smith: Well, Speaker, I don’t know how I could be any more clear: We are spending $600 million for children with autism in those programs this year. That’s twice as much as the previous government spent on these families. We will spend $600 million next year as well, when the new needs-based program is fully up and running.

I’m happy to report that thousands of families who have never received any help from the province—they were waiting for service of any kind—are now receiving services. We have pilots that are running right now. Speech and language clinics are up and running for families who never received service before. Early intervention is now up and running for families. We have mental health services for families dealing with autism, for the first time in the province’s history, Mr. Speaker. We are making a record investment of $600 million this year, and thousands and thousands and thousands of families in Ontario are benefiting from that.

Education funding

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday the minister was touting the government’s backdown on class size increases and mandatory online learning, despite the fact that their new position would still take more teachers from schools, by some accounts another 1,000 teachers.

Although the government’s new position took a step back on regular class size increases, their position on class sizes for online classes has not changed. In the document that the minister distributed yesterday, the government says this: “Grades 9 to 12: The average class size, excluding online learning classes, shall not exceed 23.”

Can the minister clarify that this clause means that the average class size for online courses would remain at 35 in the government’s proposal? Can he also clarify how many more teachers would be removed from Ontario schools as a result of an average 35-to-1 formula for online courses?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the government made a decision to empower parents to have a say in online learning to make sure that they make the decision in consultation with students about if they want to pursue those courses. We believe there is a value proposition. We believe there is an educational opportunity for young people to consider online learning, to diversify course offerings and for them to learn the skills that they will need for the jobs of the future. This is a good thing.

But at the end of the day, the concern was that unions, politicians, everyone other than parents were making the decision about the pursuit of online learning. We’ve given them that say. That is important.

The bottom line is, when it comes to the strikes today and beyond, we’ve empowered parents to make that choice. We have frozen classroom sizes. We have ensured 100% of special education support. So my message to the unions today, as they escalate, is to negotiate. Work with the government. Let’s get a deal, Speaker.

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

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, an average class size of 35 means that classes could easily be larger than 40 and could get up into 50. Since we know from other jurisdictions that the completion rate of these courses is not what it should be and that students who are already at risk are the least likely to be successful, this proposal seems likely to put more Ontario students at risk. You still need a teacher, even if the course is online, and that teacher needs a relationship with those kids.

Yesterday I noted that the Ontario Student Trustees’ Association is concerned that students are not being given the responsibility for choosing their own courses and that a truly voluntary opt-in process would be much more effective for all students.

Can the minister explain why the government is ignoring students’ voices?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, we are 300 days into a negotiation. We have made a major move and a policy change in government, listening to the people we serve. Today, 300 days later, while the teacher unions strike, we have an opportunity to negotiate at the table, and this is the outstanding issue that impedes a deal? Is this the issue? Do we actually believe that the ratio for online learning is the issue why two million kids are out of class? It’s not about that. The member knows it. It is about ensuring the unions retain absolute seniority of hiring; it is about higher benefits and higher wages, and parents have had enough.

This government wants the teacher unions to end the delay, end the obstruction. Get to the table. Let’s get a deal, Speaker.

Equal opportunity

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is to the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues. I certainly want to make the House aware of the terrific evening we had on Tuesday in Oakville, where we had 650 people present and they were ecstatic to see you there. So I want to congratulate you and give a shout-out to you for that.

Speaker, women continue to be under-represented in many sectors critical to our province’s economic growth. This includes the STEM fields, where women make up a mere 23% of the STEM workforce.

In my riding of Oakville, we have Sheridan College, which offers many great STEM programs and partnerships, including one with the Information Technology Association of Canada, which is designed to support students and employers on artificial intelligence and cyber security.

Can the minister please explain to this House why it is so critical to support women, and what she is doing to help women with these careers?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member from Oakville for that great question, and thank you for the invitation to attend your riding.

Our government is preparing Ontario students for future success by equipping them with the skills they need for STEM learning. I have listened to feedback and the inspiring stories from female trailblazers in STEM and it is incredible to see how much passion they have in their field. With this knowledge, we are shaping the way that young girls are supported in this journey so that Ontario’s STEM workforce no longer loses out on the knowledge, diversit