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

February 18, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Feb-18 vol. Array (PDF)

L142 - Tue 18 Feb 2020 / Mar 18 fév 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 18 February 2020 Mardi 18 février 2020

Request to the Integrity Commissioner

Orders of the Day

Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative

Visiteurs

Members’ Statements

Educators

Wilma McNeill

Education funding

Events in Milton

Water quality

Mario Ruffolo

CAGE KTV

Teachers’ professional development

Chinese New Year

Airplane tragedy

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Education funding

Autism treatment

Education funding

Ontario economy

Government advertising

Education funding

Public transit

Autism treatment

Subventions destinées à l’éducation / Education funding

Police services

Licence plates

Infrastructure funding

Mental health and addiction services

Public transit

Victims of crime

Notice of dissatisfaction

Visitor

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Introduction of Bills

Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun

Education Statute Law Amendment Act (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder), 2020 / Loi de 2020 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’éducation (ensemble des troubles causés par l’alcoolisation foetale)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Public transit / Transports en commun

Petitions

Social assistance

Food safety

Long-term care

Education funding

Access to justice

Teachers’ professional development

Autism treatment

Food safety

Long-term care

Long-term care

Injured workers

Orders of the Day

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

Adjournment Debate

Long-term care

Subventions destinées à l’éducation / Education funding

Education funding

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Request to the Integrity Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I call for the orders of the day, I beg to inform the House that during the adjournment, the following document was tabled: a request by the member for Essex to the Honourable J. David Wake, Integrity Commissioner, for an opinion pursuant to

section 30 of the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994, on whether the member for Pickering–Uxbridge, Peter Bethlenfalvy, has contravened the act or Ontario parliamentary convention.

Orders of the Day

Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative

Mr. Calandra moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 167, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this. Let me just welcome all members back to the Legislature. I hope everybody had a happy and safe time in their ridings and a wonderful Family Day.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation, Bill 167, is not a long, in-depth act by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s an important bill to help modernize certain practices here in the Legislative Assembly. I don’t anticipate speaking very long on the bill. I hope that you will find support across the aisle for some of the changes that are here. I’ll just briefly go over some of the changes that are in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and with that, I think I would conclude my comments.

What the bill really does, as I said, is it modernizes some of the processes here in the Legislative Assembly. Some of the more important points here: It repeals some of the sections of the Legislative Assembly Act that dealt with our employees, those people who work with the Legislative Assembly, and that date back to 1975. It repeals those sections and brings in the modern labour relations code covering all of our employees here in the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it’s probably long overdue, but I think those who work for the Legislative Assembly deserve modern-day protection, as do all other Ontarians.

Another small but important piece, I think all members would agree, is the extension of parliamentary privilege over our committees and the Board of Internal Economy deliberations. This is something, obviously, that is very important. I think most members assumed that the parliamentary privilege that they enjoy here in the House extended to committees and to deliberations of the Board of Internal Economy. That was, in fact, not the reality, so this legislation will change that. Now, this is an important change which stems from some litigation that occurred at the federal level.

This act makes a change to ensure that members are properly protected, and that we can enjoy the protections that we have here in the House across the legislative precinct.

Another part of the bill is to better protect individuals who are working for the Legislative Assembly, but may have had—again, it’s a very small thing. It allows for a different type of swearing of an oath for those people who might not be able to swear an oath to Her Majesty because of some citizenship requirements in other countries. It allows a more modern approach to that, so that all our potential employees can have access to a job here and not be singled out because of other citizenship requirements.

Finally, I think the last thing I’ll touch on before sitting down is with respect to the extension of the protections of the Legislative Protective Service over the Whitney Block. As you know, the Legislative Protective Service has control, I believe, of the first four floors, but not the last floors, 5 and 6. This bill would extend that full protection to the entire Whitney Block. It removes an oddity, I would say, and makes it far easier for our Legislative Protective Service to be able to respond throughout the legislative precinct.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I will leave it at that. As I said, I can appreciate that this is not a very in-depth piece of legislation, but it is something that will help modernize this place, will provide members with the protections that we thought we had. With that, I will sit, and if there are any questions, I’d be delighted to entertain them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions or responses?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I have a question, and it’s based on what the House leader has said to the media in regard to the changes in the act. I’m glad he clarified it somewhat in his speech, and that is the extension of parliamentary privilege. It was said by yourself during the comments that you had with the media that currently members don’t have privilege when it comes to committees, but clearly, when you read

section 36 of the bill, it reads—and I won’t read the whole thing. I should say, actually,

section 37: “A member of the assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing the member brought by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said before the assembly or a committee....” So clearly, committees are covered under privilege. I’m just wondering why you said that.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the member for the question. This bill reiterates that privilege. There, of course, equally importantly, is the Board of Internal Economy, which is also a committee of this Legislature. There was some discussion that, in fact, following a court case from Ottawa, Board of Internal Economy deliberations in this Legislature were not covered by parliamentary privilege. We felt that it was important that that privilege be extended to the members who serve on that committee.

At the same time, we do reiterate that committees are covered by parliamentary privilege, the same privileges you can enjoy in the House. There can be no discrepancy or no discussion of that. We felt that it is important to both reiterate it and extend it to the Board of Internal Economy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I recognize the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: I’d like to ask the government House leader: Would you expand or explain in a little bit more detail the importance of confirming, or perhaps it’s actually the expansion, of the authority of the Legislative Protective Service in this Legislature?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the member for the question. Again, it’s a small thing, the extension of protections over to two floors of a building across the way, but it’s important because it helps to delineate who’s in charge of what. My understanding is that the OPP were in charge of floors 5 and 6—I could be corrected, but that’s my understanding—which could have led to an awkward situation should the Legislative Protective Service be in a position to respond quicker. I think that all members would agree that the Whitney Block is an important part of our Legislature, and that our protective services should be extended there.

Really, it helps end a duplication of services and makes sure that there is a correct line of command throughout the legislative precinct, and that the properties that we all, as members of provincial Parliament, have authority over.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, then, if I understood the answer correctly, you’re agreeing with me that, in fact, members’ privileges were protected under the current act.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Look, yes, absolutely. Members who served on the Board of Internal Economy, though, could potentially have been left at risk. This stems from the lawsuit that happened, by and large, in Ottawa when the Board of Internal Economy members made a ruling that one of the parties in Ottawa had used resources in contravention of the act of which members were allowed to utilize those resources.

I don’t want to get too much in depth here, because I don’t assign party to it. Through a litigation, a court case, that occurred, it became evident that, potentially, members of this Legislature, especially those who serve on the Board of Internal Economy, were not protected by privilege, and we wanted to make sure that they were. At the same time, we wanted to make sure that there would be no question as to whether members on the committee would be protected by the same privileges that we have here in the House. Do I believe that members on the committee were protected? I do. But I didn’t want to leave it up to

interpretation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Haldimand–Norfolk.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you, Speaker. I do have a question. I would ask, would the member perhaps explain in a little more detail the importance of reaffirming the oaths and affirmations required by employees of the assembly? I’m assuming, for example, that would be the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s a good question by the member. We do restate that here, but there had become a bit of a discrepancy with certain individuals who were successful in seeking employment at the Legislature who may be progressing toward Canadian citizenship but were unable to swear allegiance to Her Majesty at that time because it would have a detrimental effect on their other citizenship, for lack of a better word.

It meant that certain individuals—not a lot of them—as they were progressing to employment here, should they swear allegiance to Her Majesty would have had their citizenship from another country stripped from them, and this corrects that, in essence. It allows somebody to continue on their path toward employment here and it allows us to make exceptions—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. Response?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I take it the answer to my question was, “Yes” and “yes.” The government House leader agrees that, in fact, the existing Legislative Assembly Act did provide, and continues to provide, privilege to members on committees. I understand his argument in regard to what happened federally, and I’ll take that for what it is, but it brings me, then, to: Why would you say that?

I have to ask the question: Was it an attempt on the part of the minister to try to make this a better story for the government rather than really just trying to fix the Legislative Assembly Act?

Hon. Paul Calandra: That’s a strange question. It is not a very difficult bill. I’m not going to get partisan in it. What we’ve done here is to ensure that members can have that confidence that if you serve on the Board of Internal Economy, the privilege you enjoy here you will also enjoy there. What we’re restating, so that there can be no discrepancy, either by future court cases or by ones that might currently be in front of the court, is that those members who serve on parliamentary committees enjoy the exact same privileges.

I don’t anticipate scoring major points with the media or with members on either side of the House for this bill. It’s not something that I think the majority of Ontarians are going to be hitting the front lawns about, and I don’t expect rose petals as I walk out because I’ve made these slight changes. I would hope that all members would support that, Mr. Speaker. I suspect they would, and I do appreciate the questions from the member opposite. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Question? The member for Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Hi. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is: When governments come in, they have a particular agenda they’re trying to do to execute their platform, but it takes a real responsibility to do good housekeeping items. So, my question is, how is this going to modernize our current parliamentary proceedings, and how is this going to help us progress as a Legislature?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, I thank the member for that. I fully suspect that there might be other things that we might find in here that we might want to take a look at in committee as well. We did make some changes to the standing orders in the last session, which are now in place today, which I think will lead to better debate. These are small changes.

I think the more important parts are those with respect to labour relations and how our employees are treated, and bringing them up to current standards, as opposed to the 1970s. The clarification of legislative security and its role is also very important, Mr. Speaker. But as this bill proceeds, as it goes to committee, I think there might be other things that members might take a look at and say, “Perhaps we can add to this.”

I know members on all sides would agree that we have to do whatever we can to modernize this place and make it better so that members can really be engaged, not only in debate, but that members are protected in the way that they expect.

Again, as I said to the House leader opposite, if I gave the illusion to try to make this a better bill than it is, I do apologize for that. It really is just about modernizing the place and—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. We have time for one quick question and one quick response.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the government House leader: We do appreciate that the government actually gave us a copy of this bill way in advance, so that we were able to take a look at the proposed bill and compare it to the existing bill. Obviously, we came back with, “Yeah, we’re okay with this; you can move forward.”

So, my question is simply this: Are you prepared to do that with government legislation? Are you prepared to give us bills in advance so that we can take a look at them, and figure out how to make them better, before you bring them to the House?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I am always prepared to follow the rules that this Legislature puts forward. I am certainly not going to change ancient parliamentary traditions. When a bill is introduced in this House, we’ll deal with it in the House and in committees, the way it’s supposed to be done.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, those old habits are hard to break. I was waiting for the last two-minute summation, but I forgot, this is the way it works now.

That was an interesting exchange, I must say. I just want to start off by saying we will be supporting this legislation. As I said earlier, the government had brought us a copy of the legislation in advance some time last fall. We took a look at it; we were satisfied. This is really a housekeeping type of business and we don’t plan on holding this bill up for debate too much.

I just want to put a couple of things on the record, and I’m sure that we can get to a vote fairly quickly.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Okay, I got the answer I was looking for.

A couple of things. One is, just to be clear—and again, “privilege” is something that’s enjoyed by all members of this House when it comes to the ability to do our job. It is defined by—you cannot impede a member from being able to do their job, blocking them from getting into the Legislature, or being sued for something that we’ve said here or in committee. It is in order to make sure that members are free to do their jobs and are not, in any way, threatened or coerced into not being able to do the job that we’re sent here to do.

When I read in the paper the comments by the honourable member that somehow or other the government was extending privilege to committee where it didn’t exist, I just sort of went, “Whoa, that’s not the case. We’ve always had privilege on committee.” I just wanted to clarify that. So that’s good.

I understand why the government is doing what it’s doing in regard to the court case in Ottawa. It’s just to clarify what is already the case. It doesn’t actually extend any new privilege to members. It only codifies in a way that’s clearer that the privileges that members enjoy in this House, in its committees and in its buildings is something that, quite frankly, will continue to exist and cannot be interpreted differently. So I understand why the government is doing that in particular.

On the matter of the extension of the security, I kind of understand what the idea of that was. The reason I think that originally was there—why the top two floors of the Whitney Block were covered not by the Legislative Assembly—is because, typically, there were ministers’ offices up there, and they were considered to be covered by the OPP. So the various ministers of the crown were up on the last two floors of that building and, for some reason over the years, that was covered by the Ontario Provincial Police.

Putting them under the Legislative Assembly—we have a very professional security force here in the Legislature. I’m sure that they’re going to do a great job with the members that are here, meaning the members of that security force, along with the head of that security force, who happens to be in the chamber here as we speak. I understand why that’s being done, and that’s why we allowed that to go forward and are not going to be holding this up for any other thing.

The other one is the swearing of the oath. That, I think, is important, considering that Ontario today, as compared to 1867, is a very different place. We were a much more homogeneous society, mostly Britain—francophones, but mostly of British influence in Ontario in 1867. If you look at the oath and at how things sort of unfolded back then, they’re very different today. We are a much more multicultural place than we were in 1867, and not everybody prays to the same God, if they pray to a God at all.

Not everybody has the same traditions, and we need to recognize, in a modern society like ours, that there are people from around the world who believe in different things than we believe in, and we need to respect that. It would be like sending me over to give an oath on a belief or a religion that I know nothing about. What would that really mean? It would mean nothing. It would just mean to say I’m making words. But if a Hindu or a Sikh or a Muslim person or a Buddhist makes an oath to their own religion type of thing, it means a little bit more.

It means that that’s who they are, that they identify themselves through those particular customs. So I understand the logic of that, and, as New Democrats, we support that.

Now, members might ask why we are not doing the same for MPPs, and that would be a very good question. I had to double-check myself, and the answer is very simple: Our oath is not covered by this act. It’s not covered by the Legislative Assembly Act; it’s actually covered by the Constitution. The last time we tried to get an amendment to the Constitution, things didn’t go so well in Canada. There were three attempts to amend the Constitution after it was repatriated—three attempts or two? I believe it’s three. In every case, we were never able to get there because of the amending formula.

Everybody has a different view—province to province, territory to territory, First Nations and others—and we are in a position where it is hard to get an amendment to the Constitution. That’s why this has not been done in this act. The oath that all of us have to swear—either attest to the Bible or an oath to the Queen—you have to do as a result of the Constitution, and that is something that is beyond our power as an individual Legislature to be able to deal with.

Again, I don’t think we want to do much in the way of making amendments to this particular legislation, the bill that’s coming before us. We’ll see when it gets to committee. There may be something that we’ve not thought of, and that’s why the committee process is so necessary—to send a bill to committee so that we can actually take a little bit of time to take a look at it and, if need be, get the clause-by-clause to make the amendments that should be made. The Legislative Assembly Act doesn’t often go to committee or even get debated in this House. It’s something that happens infrequently, so it would be an opportunity, if we wanted to deal with something, to be able to deal with it there.

That being said, those are all comments that I have. I look forward to the questions from my honourable colleagues.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions?

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question to the member across the floor: It’s encouraging to hear that the opposition will be supporting this bill. Although you did raise one particular issue you had an issue with—you were challenging the reaffirmation of the privileges that we currently enjoy in the Legislature, and which will now be reaffirmed and will be enjoyed by members who sit on various committee. Besides that, what in this piece of legislation do you feel is the most critical change that we’re bringing forward?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That is an excellent question. I think all of it is important. The Legislative Assembly Act is given to what we are all about and how this assembly runs. It’s dealing, I think, with a number of issues that are all equally important. Security is obviously important to all of us, making sure that our privileges are maintained and protected by way of challenges to the courts. Those are important. I would argue that, really, none of the changes to the assembly are—how would you say?—minuscule.

The reality is, this is what makes a Legislature work. It’s kind of the backbone of the powers that we have, as a Legislature, to enact laws and do the things that people are sending us to do.

So I would argue that there’s not one thing that is more important than the other. The entirety of this act is important to Ontario, as it is important to us.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Again to the member across the floor: You mentioned the—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’m sorry; my mistake. It’s a new system. The member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank the member for Timmins for his comments. I wanted to ask him to expand upon something he had said earlier in this debate about the importance of a process that allows the official opposition to review proposed legislation in advance, and to work together prior to the introduction of a bill, before it is debated in this Legislature. He noted that this is a healthy process, that it enables some advance input into legislation, and perhaps brings us together in ways that we have not often seen in this Legislature. I just wanted him to elaborate a little bit further on that observation.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again, that’s a great question, and you’re going to love my answer even more. We’ve done it before. They’re called white papers, or tabling after first reading, referring a bill to committee.

I’m going to give you just a very quick example of how the government could have saved itself all kinds of heartache.

When the government wanted to move on changes to the autism program in Ontario—and I don’t want to cast aspersion on anything at this point, other than just to raise the issue. The government had issues with the existing program, and we would agree with you: There are lots of children who were being and are continually left behind, because the program that the Liberals put in place did not adequately respond to the needs of the children, nor of their parents.

The government said it wanted to do something. Imagine if they would have taken the time to send that issue to committee at first reading, or a white paper. What we could have come up with would have been a lot better than what the government came up with on its own.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Member from Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the member opposite from Timmins: You mentioned earlier in your statement that you recognize the importance of addressing or updating the requirement to reaffirm an oath.

The member, of course, has sat in this Legislature for many years. My question to the member is this: In your experience, I’m sure you have seen many, many changes, including an evolving and changing demographic. Perhaps you could speak to the importance of addressing this issue.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, again, it’s a good question. As we look at Ontario and we look at Canada—Mr. Speaker, to the member—the province has changed greatly. The looks of this province have changed, as far as who we are and the ethos of who we are. We have people from around the world who have come here to establish a new life in a place called Ontario. It obviously, because they come with different ideas and they come with different backgrounds, also changed the view of Ontario.

I think it’s incumbent upon us, as legislators of this province, to make sure that we keep our institutions modern in order to be able to deal with the changes that we see within our society. A society that tries to hold on to what they call the good old days, and not move forward with what the world is becoming, is one that will be left behind. I think this is a small step in being able to respond to that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Question?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I wanted to ask my friend the member for Timmins, who I know has a large Indigenous community in the riding he represents, to tell us more about the importance of the change that’s proposed in this act that would allow staff who identify as Indigenous or non-citizens to opt out of taking the oath of affirmation to the crown.

I think he has probably a deeper understanding than many of us who don’t have as many Indigenous people in our ridings. I’d like to hear his thoughts on that.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The First Nations communities, like us, are split on a number of issues, and one of them is, there are a lot of people who believe in the crown. They don’t believe in Ontario in the way that we understand it; they see themselves as having signed a treaty with Canada, the Queen—or, at the time, the King. So they find themselves in the situation of wanting to make sure that their treaties are respected and enacted upon by way of their deal that they have with the crown. That has always been a bit of a struggle as to how Ontario works into that, because we also signed a treaty. Treaty 9 was signed by the province of Ontario.

One of the things that this legislation will do is, for those who choose not to affirm to the crown they can affirm to whatever, in order to be able to see themselves in this Legislature in how they take the oath that they will do a good job here and live up to the rules of the assembly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the member from Timmins: As you mentioned earlier in your comments, the members opposite were given copies of the proposed changes to Bill 167, and one of the changes is to address what we believe is an antiquated system of requiring people to pay with cheques only. Were there any other changes that you recognized that you believe or that you feel should be looked at to modernize the way that we govern here in Ontario?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You’re going to be surprised at my answer: Yes, there are other things that we could have done in there. One that’s not popular with some is how members are paid. This Legislature has had its salaries frozen for the better part of 14 years, and we have failed to figure out a mechanism that is fairer to the taxpayer and fairer to the citizens, but also fairer to the members. Unfortunately, we’ve not been able to do that.

Now, will that happen under this legislation? I very much doubt it. There isn’t a political, how would I say, appetite out there, on either side of the House—either ourselves or you—or in the public to be able to deal with this. Unfortunately, it’s one of the things that we find ourselves in, and there are other examples.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I wanted to ask the member for Timmins to offer some reflections on the importance of the Legislative Assembly Act, along with the standing orders, in terms of the way that they govern the business of this place.

We have heard that the changes that are proposed in this act are largely housekeeping changes. Certainly that is demonstrated by the support that we have indicated for these changes, but the standing order changes were far from merely housekeeping. I wondered what the member for Timmins has to say about that.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The combination of the Legislative Assembly Act and the standing orders are essentially the rules of the game. Imagine having an NHL hockey game with no rules. It would be a lot of fun for the players, but it may not be so much fun for the audience, depending on how much you like to see some fighting. The reality is that you have to have rules about how this place is going to work.

Am I in agreement with the current rules in the standing orders and the Legislative Assembly Act? For the most part yes, but there are some that I think need to be changed. Because the real problem we’ve got ourselves into, Mr. Speaker, is that over successive Parliaments we have essentially given up the power of this assembly to the corner office—the executive—and that’s wrong. Our parliamentary system is set up in such a way that the executive has a role to administer government; the Legislature has a role to appropriate dollars and to make policy decisions as individual members. That is something that we’re losing.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the member opposite: You mentioned raises and I’m just wondering why you raised that particular issue in this particular debate. What are you proposing in terms of addressing salaries in the Legislature?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That was her debate?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook, I called for further debate, not questions and responses, so that’s your debate.

Now we’ll do questions and responses on what you’ve said. We now go to the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My answer is a very simple one: I have no proposal to bring forward. That wasn’t the point. The point is that, as an assembly, we have not been very good about how we deal with things in an open and transparent way. For example, I talked earlier about the issue of us delegating authority to the executive. Why do we do that?

The other issue is our global budgets when it comes to being able to pay our staff and to maintain our constituency offices. Many of us live in urban areas. The rents in those urban settings have gone up hugely—which is a whole other issue that this government is not dealing with. For us, in all of our offices, it means you’ve got to take money from somewhere else to offset the rents. There are things that, quite frankly, we could have done that I don’t think there’s a political appetite to do.

I’m not suggesting for one second that we do anything around wages. That was not the intent. My point was only an example of things that fall under the Legislative Assembly Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I recognize we have a new system this morning. We’ve changed the rules of the House. It’ll take a while. I’ve made a few mistakes myself on how we’re proceeding.

My suggestion at this point would be, if there were no questions and responses as I call them, then we get back to further debate and we’d go to this side as opposed to having a bunch of people ask you to respond to what you clearly meant as a question as opposed to further debate.

I’ll call for questions and responses. Questions and responses? Thank you very much.

Now we’ll do further debate. No further debate.

I’ll call for further debate over here, which gets us back on track. Is there any further debate on this side? No further debate on this side. In that case, I have a cheat sheet.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I wish I had those.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): And I have cheaters to read it with.

Mr. Calandra has moved second reading of Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? In my opinion, the motion has carried. I did not hear a no.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? I heard a no.

I recognize the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I ask that we refer the bill to the Legislative Assembly committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The bill has been referred. Is that the will of the House? That is the will of the House. The bill will be referred.

Orders of the day?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: No further orders until 10:15.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): No orders of the day. The House will stand in recess until 10:15.

The House recessed from 0937 to 1015.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. I wish to begin by informing the House that we chose to ring the bells this morning starting at about 10:10, based on the belief that the House had adjourned early and it would be helpful to the members to be called into the House at 10:15. So if the House has adjourned early and there are five minutes or more, we’re going to be ringing the bells at 10:10 and allowing the members to be informed to come into the House for 10:15.

Before I call for members’ statements, I want to inform the House of the applicable standing order, 33(a): “A member, other than a leader of a recognized party in the House or a minister of the crown, may be recognized to make a statement for not more than one and a half minutes.” We will be enforcing that standing order this morning—90 seconds for the members’ statements.

It’s now time for members’ statements. I recognize the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Visiteurs

M. Guy Bourgouin: Bonjour, monsieur le Président. Des représentants de l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, AEFO, sont avec nous aujourd’hui. Soyez les bienvenus à Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Educators

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Educators have shaped our lives. They have taught us, took a personal interest in our success, pushed us to be our best selves. Their work goes far beyond the subject matter.

A terrible event last year in my community demonstrated the devotion our educators have for their students. On Friday, November 15, 2019, a fire erupted at 235 Gosford Boulevard, displacing hundreds and claiming a life. May he rest in peace.

Our first responders, humanitarian and charitable organizations, and many more rushed to help. Our school communities played a great role in helping students displaced by the fire by providing food, clothing, transportation, counselling, monetary donations and more. Of all the schools affected by the fire, St. Augustine Catholic School had the most impacted students. Their compassionate and dedicated principal, Rob De Lorenzo, stated that over $33,000 in gift card donations were collected by the greater TCDSB community and went directly to the families of these students.

Today, in the galleries, I’m joined by two remarkable educators from James Cardinal McGuigan Catholic High School, where their impacted students were presented with clothing, food, furniture, transportation and, of course, an open door whenever they needed it. These educators are Ms. Luisa Barone, a child and youth worker, and Ms. Mina Addesa-Salustri, a school social worker. Thank you, Luisa and Mina, for being there for your students in their time of need. We owe you, and all schools who helped, a debt of gratitude.

The work of our educators goes far beyond the classroom. They are there for our children in times of great need, and they deserve our respect. They certainly have mine.

Wilma McNeill

Mr. Robert Bailey: Speaker, it’s good to see you in the chair today.

I rise today to recognize the late Wilma McNeill, a community champion in Sarnia–Lambton who passed away recently at the age of 88. Everyone who was fortunate enough to interact with Wilma on a regular basis will miss her vibrant energy, great sense of humour and positive spirit.

First and foremost, Wilma was a loving and devoted mother, grandmother and great-grandmother who always put her family first, no matter how many different projects and causes she was involved with.

One of Wilma’s most passionate projects was to have Remembrance Day restored as a statutory holiday in Ontario, a mission she worked on tirelessly for almost 30 years. During that time, she collected countless signatures on petitions, championed her cause in the media and lobbied politicians of all stripes, including this one. In fact, less than a week before she passed, Wilma had a face-to-face meeting with my friend and colleague, the Honourable Monte McNaughton, Ontario’s Minister of Labour, to discuss the idea of making November 11 a provincial holiday.

Whatever the cause, Wilma’s dedication and hard work were an inspiration for all of us on how to live our lives more harmoniously and make the world a better place for everyone. For her efforts, she was recognized with the Lieutenant Governor’s Community Volunteer Award and the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee award, among many others in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the late Wilma McNeill for her many acts of selflessness and her lifetime of service to Sarnia–Lambton. As Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said following her passing, “You wish you had 1,000 citizens like Wilma.”

Education funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today to salute the 200,000 teachers and education workers who are taking a stand this Friday to protect Ontario students.

I want to give a shout-out to the many businesses in my community who recognize the importance of quality public education to a healthy economy, businesses like physio 360, which opened its doors to those on the picket line in Byron, and Shelby’s Food Express, which delivered shawarma to Kensal Park line.

I want to thank the many London West families who are supporting education workers in their fight. For example, a parent of three school-aged children wrote to me that “the cuts proposed by the Ontario government will [turn] what should be a point of pride for Ontarians—our solid public education system—into something that puts us to shame. That the government is willing to fight so hard against Ontario families is disgraceful. It is something we all see and won’t forget.”

I want to thank the many students who know exactly what is at stake, including members of my own London West Youth Cabinet who have launched a petition campaign calling for a reversal of class size increases, an end to mandatory e-learning and for more supports for students with special needs.

Speaker, it’s time for this government to start listening to businesses, families and students. Negotiate a fair deal now, one that protects the quality of education in this province.

Events in Milton

Mr. Parm Gill: It’s always an honour and a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents.

As everybody knows, yesterday was Family Day. In my riding of Milton, my team and I organized an amazing free family skate at the Milton Sports Centre. We had a tremendous turnout, where at one point we actually reached capacity and then we had lots of people waiting to get on the ice rink. We had wonderful young families and kids that came out for the free skate and enjoyed free cookies and even mini sticks.

As we all know, Milton is one of the fastest-growing communities in the country. It’s also very, very diverse. Any time that we get an opportunity to meet with constituents at community events and listen to their issues and concerns is extremely important to me.

Another milestone in my community of Milton: We were also able to proclaim February as Black History Month in the town of Milton. I want to thank, of course, our mayor, all of my municipally elected colleagues, along with our federal member, who all attended. It’s obviously a tremendous honour to recognize and appreciate all of the contributions that the Black community has made, not just to Milton and the province of Ontario but to our country.

Water quality

Ms. Sandy Shaw: A question that is on the minds of many Ontarians lately is: Who protects our water? In Hamilton, my residents are struggling with the aftermath of sewergate, a massive sewage spill that contaminated Chedoke Creek and our beloved local wetland, Cootes Paradise. This past week, outrage has turned to dismay with the news that a consultant’s report has recommended doing nothing to clean up the mess. The reason why? Because, they conclude, it will probably happen again.

Hamiltonian John Boddy writes that if “Chedoke Creek fills up once with sewage, obey the law and clean it up. If it fills again, clean it up again.” I couldn’t agree more.

It has been shocking to learn how little input or control we as citizens have when it comes to protecting our water. Clearly, all levels of government have failed us. The government of Ontario has a responsibility for real-time reporting to ensure that the public is informed of water contamination. And cleanup and remediation should not be optional.

The climate crisis is overwhelming our aging infrastructure and is contributing to the contamination of our waterways. We need Ontario to commit to investments in good, green infrastructure. We need to radically rethink our relationship with water. Water is a public resource, a common good, and it is our collective responsibility to protect it.

Mario Ruffolo

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise with a heavy heart today to pay respect to Mario Ruffolo, a security guard who was tragically killed while working at Guelph central station on January 15.

Last week, a vigil was held to honour his memory and raise awareness about workplace safety. Every worker should come home at the end of the day. People talked about how Mario loved his family, cared for his father and had a passion for horses. They also started a conversation about the intersection of homelessness, mental health and addiction, and workplace safety. It’s a difficult conversation, but an important one.

When we fail to provide people with the care and services they need, it creates safety risks that are downloaded into public spaces and onto workers like Mario. We must move beyond thoughts and prayers by taking strong action on workplace safety and mental health services. That means more outreach workers and addiction counsellors, funding for mobile crisis intervention teams and investments in supportive housing, so that the most vulnerable have a safe and accessible place to live.

Mario’s death is a part of the human cost of not addressing the mental health crisis. To his family, friends and co-workers, I extend my sincere condolences.

CAGE KTV

Mr. Vincent Ke: Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 2020, I visited Canada’s biggest karaoke television enterprise, CAGE KTV, in my riding of Don Valley North, which is scheduled to open in two months.

CAGE KTV has a 15,000-square-foot facility that boasts a state-of-the-art game centre and features a fantastic gymnasium and basketball court, among their many sport, music and games attractions. It is bound to be a great entertainment centre and a popular destination for locals and tourists alike.

Thanks to our government’s open-for-business policy and its efforts to cut red tape for entrepreneurs and business operators, in these past 19 months we have helped businesses all over Ontario, which has resulted in the creation of more than 300,000 new jobs. This is good news for business and the economy, but it’s also good news for those who are now gainfully employed.

With our government’s job creation strategy, innovative and solid new business enterprises like CAGE KTV and so many others now find themselves in the right place at the right time to grow and flourish.

Teachers’ professional development

Mr. Chris Glover: This new session of the House is actually starting with yet another fiasco in our education system. I was speaking with a teacher candidate, Madeline from Cambridge, who attends Brock University. She signed up on February 3 to write the math proficiency test, which she needs to finish in order to complete her requirements to become a teacher. Last night, she checked the website, and thank goodness she did, because she found out she’s no longer registered to write the test today. She has to write at some point in the future. She’s on a wait-list.

This is a huge fiasco that’s hitting students and teacher candidates across the province. I’ve been told that students in Thunder Bay were planning to drive seven and a half hours to their location today, and now have been put on a wait-list. So they’ve had to put that on hold.

The first principle of education is that you prepare students for success, but the preparation materials on this government’s website state specifically that the sample questions on this website are not intended to be used for practice and do not cover the full range of subcategories and pedagogy components which will be assessed in the math proficiency test.

The students’ tests have been cancelled, they haven’t got the preparation materials, and if they don’t write the test on time, then they will not be able to graduate on time and they will not be able to start teaching positions in September. This government owes the teacher candidates of this province an apology.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I realize it’s the first day back and a lot of people are taking the opportunity to reacquaint themselves with their friends and colleagues, but could we keep the noise level down so that we can hear the statements?

Next statement?

Chinese New Year

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Today is the 25th day of the first month of the Chinese New Year. Since the House was not sitting, we were not able to organize a Chinese New Year celebration. However, as the Chinese saying goes, it is never too late. Please accept the red packet that I have prepared for you.

With many Chinese in the community in Richmond Hill, Chinese New Year is the most celebrated event for them.

This year is the year of the rat. People born in the rat year are optimistic, energetic and liked by all. Men born in the year of the rat are clever and adapt quickly to new environments, while women are organized and place great value on family.

Allow me to bring greetings to all of you here.

Remarks in Cantonese.

I wish all of you good health and wishes come true.

To everyone in the Legislative Assembly: Remarks in Cantonese. Meaning: “We will be of one accord, bringing prosperity to the country and peace to all men.”

Today is also the lunar birthday of my husband. Happy birthday, Albert, and may—

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

Airplane tragedy

Mr. Michael Parsa: Colleagues, as you all know, on January 8, our extended Canadian family was struck with the tragic loss of 176 lives, including 57 of our own, on board Ukraine airlines flight PS752. Those 57 Canadians were our close friends and neighbours. They were good parents and young children. They were renowned engineers, doctors and students. They had bright and promising futures. They had friends and family who will always love them. And they had hopes and dreams which will now go unfulfilled.

Even in this time of great sadness, the strength and resilience of the Persian Canadian community has been remarkable, and the outpouring of love and support from our fellow Canadians has been truly heartwarming. Since that tragic day, there have been dozens of vigils and memorials attended by Canadians from every community, and representatives from all parties and all levels of government came to stand in mourning and solidarity with the victims’ families.

I’d like to thank every member of this House for being there to grieve with our community, and Premier Ford in particular for announcing a scholarship fund in honour of the 57 Canadian victims. I appreciate his leadership and his friendship throughout this ordeal.

I’d also like to thank Mohamad Fakih for sponsoring the Canada Strong fundraising initiative in support of the Canadians who lost loved ones.

In the wake of the tragedy of flight PS752, we have shown the world what it means to be Canadian, and we will not rest until justice is served.

On behalf of myself, the member for Carleton and every member of this House, we offer our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims. May you find strength and comfort during this difficult time.

Applause.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill on a point of order.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House that members observe a moment of silence in recognition of those whose lives were taken on board Ukraine international airlines flight PS752.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Parsa is seeking the unanimous consent of the House so that members can observe a moment of silence in recognition of those whose lives were taken on board Ukraine international airlines flight PS752. Agreed? Agreed.

I’ll ask the members to rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I invite the members to introduce their guests, we’re dealing with new standing orders, so I’m going to read the relevant standing order as a reminder. Standing order 34: “Up to five minutes shall be allotted during both the morning and afternoon routine for members to recognize guests. Members may introduce visitors by stating only their name, title, organization and/or riding. No member shall seek to introduce a visitor at any time by way of a point of order.” We’re going to enforce this standing order this morning.

Introduction of visitors: the member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Speaker. I’d like to introduce Bud Wildman, a gentleman who I rely on, and who has served this province quite well and continues to.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Welcome.

Mr. Mike Harris: This is an exciting day for me. My son Jaxon is a page with us this session, so everybody be kind—but still give him a little hard time here and there.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Standing order 34, “name, title, organization and/or riding”—a little reminder.

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you, Speaker.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to welcome Annie Bishop, who is an educator from Waterloo.

And of course I’d like to welcome Jaxon Harris, from the great riding of Waterloo, as a page.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I wanted to invite Eva Ofosu-Amaah, who is an international student from Ghana. She is going to be volunteering with me, here at the Legislature, to learn more about our democracy. Welcome.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome Matt Dever from the Ottawa region, who is a member of our Ontario autism panel and a member of our implementation working group.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to welcome Addictions and Mental Health Ontario to the Legislature today.

We have Carol Lambie, president and CEO of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care; Brad Davey, executive director, ConnexOntario Health Services Information; Nick Boyce, director of Ontario Harm Reduction Network, Toronto; Natalie Aubin, administrative director, Mental Health and Addictions, Health Sciences North; Paula Reaume-Zimmer, integrated vice-president for mental health and addictions, Bluewater Health and Canadian Mental Health Association Lambton-Kent; Betty-Lou Kristy, director, Centre for Innovation in Peer Support, Support and Housing; Vaughan Dowie, CEO of Pine River Institute; and Adrienne Spafford, chief executive officer, Addictions and Mental Health Ontario.

Welcome.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to welcome, in the members’ gallery this morning, a group of young people from 4 My Canada. They are Lia Milousis, Emma Vandermeer, Wesley Wilcox and Pam Ross. Welcome.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am glad to welcome mothers April Wells and Tammy Linklater to the Legislature. They are here as wonderful activists from Oshawa, on behalf of their children with autism.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome Abbey Ramsay-Brown. She’s from the Exeter area and is representing the amazing riding of Huron–Bruce this session as a page.

Mr. Jamie West: It’s my pleasure to welcome my son, Sam West. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to welcome two of my constituents from Simcoe North, Brad and Zoe Fisher, who are here today for lunch and a tour. Enjoy your day here.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I’d like to welcome Krista Smith from Northern Autism Families and Sharon Bak from the Thunder Bay Family Network to the House this morning. Welcome.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It is a pleasure, on behalf of the riding of Dufferin–Caledon, to welcome Daniel Milone as a page. He is following in his older brother’s footsteps and serving in this session. Welcome.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome Suleiman Sualim from my riding of York South–Weston. Welcome to your House.

M lle Amanda Simard: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue à l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, l’AEFO. Ils sont ici avec nous aujourd’hui. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to welcome Hannah Moodey, the legislative page from my great riding of Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I would like to welcome parent Maureen Trewin Francella, who is here to advocate for her child, who has a developmental disability. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: Mr. Speaker, welcome back. I’m pleased to be here at the beginning of this session and to once again welcome autism families back to Queen’s Park. I have a list that could go on forever. I know other members of our party have also welcomed those families, so a blanket list of welcomes to our—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Standing order 34: name, title, organization and/or riding.

Miss Monique Taylor: Apologies.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Introduction of visitors?

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome to the House teacher candidates Brittney Vandersel, Scott Fawcett, Esther Fisher, Maggie Perry and Lucas Johnston Flanagan.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time we have available for introduction of visitors this morning. I apologize to the members who didn’t get a chance to introduce their guests. The standing orders are clear.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is to the Premier. Eight months ago, the Premier appointed a new Minister of Education who was supposed to bring in a new approach. Eight months later, schools across Ontario have closed and parents are scrambling to deal with the impacts of the government’s cuts. The government, the Premier and his minister have poisoned the relationship with teachers, with school boards, with the unions at the bargaining table and with the province’s parents and students. Why is this minister still at his job?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, he’s at his job because he’s one of the best ministers we’ve ever seen. That’s why he’s at his job. Minister Lecce is laser-focused on getting a deal. Minister Lecce is laser-focused on making sure kids stay in the classroom.

And through you, Mr. Speaker: We’ve been reasonable. We’ve made significant moves at the table. Priority number one, again, is to make sure the kids get back into the classroom. We listened to the parents and the students. We reduced the class size from 28 down to 25. We reduced mandatory online learning from four down to two. We committed to making sure we kept existing full-day kindergarten. That’s why he’s the best minister, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I would submit that the laser is broken and so is the operator of that laser.

Fewer cuts doesn’t mean that the cuts are off the table. That’s the problem that we have here in this province. Fewer cuts are still cuts, and parents don’t want those cuts to affect the quality of their kids’ education.

Families have scrambled as this Premier has been missing in action. He is refusing to admit that those classroom cuts are causing a crisis in our education system, and he has allowed his Minister of Education to belittle teachers and education workers, and ramp up the rhetoric—the same rhetoric that the Premier is using—that’s causing the chaos in our classrooms.

If the Premier has had any progress that he can point to that they’ve made on this file, he should do so now. If not, will he admit that it is actually time for a different approach with a new minister?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I know the NDP are a little tough on math, but I’ll just give the sheer numbers. When they talk about cuts—they consider $1.2 billion more, more than any government in the history of Ontario; we’re investing, again, $1.2 billion more into education in this province. We’re investing $3.1 billion in special education funding, the highest levels this province has ever, ever seen. We’ve announced a four-year math strategy, putting $200 million into math. So we were at the lowest level of math; we’ve become the highest level when it comes to gauging who has the best kids in the country. We will have the best kids in the country when it comes to math.

We’re taking the cellphones out of the classrooms. We’re making financial literacy a key part of our new math curriculum until kids can balance the finances—

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

The final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s pretty sad when you have a Premier who doesn’t understand the impact of inflation on budgets that are fixed in our various institutions, like our schools.

But look, students and their parents will tell you that every time this Premier says that his approach is working, things actually get worse in our schools. They don’t need an education minister—or a Premier, for that matter—spinning tales about bargaining sessions that the minister has never even attended. They don’t need dark-money ads anonymously attacking teachers in our schools. And they don’t need a government that fires 10,000 teachers.

Will the Premier do the right thing today and give a new Minister of Education a new mandate to bargain an actual deal that does not include cuts to the classrooms?

Interjections.

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

The government to reply: I recognize the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: We’re creating a new math curriculum for grades 1 to 8, which will be ready for the next school year. It’s well, well overdue.

We are more than doubling mental health funding in schools and investing in 180 mental health support staff.

We’re providing more than $2 billion for a child care early years program in 2019-20, and creating—are you ready for this one, Mr. Speaker?—30,000 new child care spaces in schools.

We said no teacher would lose their job because of the changes in the class size or online learning. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We’re doing exactly that. We’re investing $1.6 billion to ensure that no teacher loses their job. Promise made, promise kept.

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, but I have to say, nobody believes what he says because the evidence is not there. Teachers are losing their jobs, Speaker.

Two years ago, the Premier made another promise, and it was a promise to parents of children with autism. Here’s what he said: “We will be there to support you 1,000%.... I promise you, you won’t have to be protesting on the front of Queen’s Park like you have with the Liberal Premier.”

Today, once again, those parents are here and they are absolutely protesting on the lawn of Queen’s Park. Why did the Premier break his promise to these children and their families?

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

Hon. Todd Smith: I would just like to remind the member opposite that no government has gotten this file right in 30 years. That’s why we took the unprecedented step over the summer of last year to head out on a province-wide tour and meet with parents face to face, and understand the issues around the autism file and what wasn’t working for them.

At the same time, we convened an expert panel that met 18 times—all-day sessions—throughout the summer, to ensure that the autism community was developing a plan for the autism community, one that would work, one that would be sustainable, one that would be needs-based and one that was properly funded. That’s why this Premier infused an additional $300 million in programs, bringing this to a $600-million program. In Ontario, we’re bound to get this right. That’s what we’ll do for this community.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, things have gone from bad to worse in this province for children with autism. It is heartbreaking to see what those kids are going through—regressing, in terms of their progress—and what their parents have to be put through in terms of having the anxiety of knowing that they’re not getting the services that their kids deserve.

For two years—two years—families have heard empty promises from this Ford government, but the wait-list has gotten worse. It has barely moved. And the minister who was hired to fix this mess broke his promise. He promised that services would be in place by April of this year, and they are nowhere to be seen.

How long are families going to have to wait, Speaker?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that what I promised is that no child that was in an ABA behavioural therapy program would have their program end. They have had continuity. Any child that was in an ABA program has seen a seamless transition. They’ve had their programs extended.

At the same time, thousands and thousands of children across the province weren’t receiving any kind of service from their provincial government. That’s why we’re extending the childhood budgets and that’s why we’re also offering one-time funding for all families out there who have never received any help from any provincial government over the years.

All families will be receiving some help as we’re developing a new needs-based program in Ontario, one that’s going to work for all of these families in the future, and it will be properly funded. We’ve added $300 million to the Ontario Autism Program, twice the funding of the previous Liberal government.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, not only are there parents right now in this chamber weeping, but parents have been weeping for years and years as this callous government has transitioned their kids to nothing—to zero programs and to fewer therapists and access to services in communities from one end of this province to the other.

No parent should have to sit in frustration; nobody should sit in this chamber in tears as they watch their child waiting for the services that they so desperately need and deserve. No parent should be forced to protest on the lawn of Queen’s Park to get their government to listen to what they have to say and to get the help that their kids need. Yet, that’s exactly what these moms and dads have been forced to do, first by the Liberal government and now by the Ford government.

How long are they going to have to keep waiting, Speaker? If the answer is that for some transition that’s never going to appear, then shame on Mr. Ford, shame on him for breaking his promise, shame on this government.

Interjections.

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

Minister to reply.

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s why we’re taking the time to get this right. Because no government has ever—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I ask the member to take a seat. The official opposition must come to order. I have to be able to hear the minister who’s responding to the question.

Minister, please conclude your response.

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, what we are going to be providing in the new Ontario Autism Program is exactly what the autism community has asked for: Needs-based therapy, ABA therapy, as well as speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, and, for the first time ever, mental health services will be offered in the new OAP. And we will have early intervention as well.

What I heard as I travelled the province is that families, when they received their diagnosis, were lost. They didn’t know where to turn. That’s why we’re providing family foundational services upon diagnosis. There is going to be an urgent crisis response as well that’s available for families. This is going to be—

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

The next question.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: Welcome back, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Education.

From daily press conferences full of misinformation to gala speaking engagements at the Canadian Club, it seems like the minister has been everywhere during the break—everywhere but the bargaining table where talks with education unions—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I ask the member to withdraw her unparliamentary comment and then to place her question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Withdrawn.

Worse still, the government has done everything in their power to prevent a deal, refusing to back down on cuts, class size hikes and this absurd Alabama-style risky e-learning scheme.

It’s clear that this minister, like the last minister, has failed Ontarians. Will he finally admit that these cuts are causing irreparable damage to our public education system and step aside?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Over the past days, I’ve spoken to parents, and they’ve been clear that the union escalation is taking a toll on them. On the parents of a special-needs son who told me that they need consistency in their son’s day, on the single parents who said that they have used all of their vacation days to deal with these strikes, on low-income families who struggle to afford child care and on everyday people who work harder and take home less, it is for them, it is for their children that we have a duty to redouble our efforts to get a deal.

Our commitment is to keep them in a safe learning environment. Our commitment is to ensure that they are in class. That’s why I’m urging the unions to work with the government and the trustees in good faith to get a deal and ensure our children remain in class.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to withdraw his unparliamentary comment.

Mr. Paul Miller: I withdraw.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the minister: I can just say that all of that—that the minister just said—is on you, Minister. It is on the Minister of Education. Creating a safe learning environment for students with special needs? Try not increasing class sizes. Try not eliminating the staff who support those students.

They say that Ontarians are onside with their plan. Let me tell you, Ontarians don’t agree. They do not believe you. They are offside with parents and students. Their own consultation results said so, and then they tried to bury the results. They’re offside with educators, which isn’t a surprise when you try to fire 10,000 of them. And they’re offside with students, whose lives have been thrown into chaos because of this government’s cuts.

Mr. Speaker, when is this government going to face the fact that the only group onside with their plan is an anonymous front group set up by their wealthy friends?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Under this government, we are spending more, but we also expect more for the students of this province. That’s why in this negotiation we’re fighting for a good deal for students—a deal that invests more and expects more; a deal that ensures that merit is the guiding principle of hiring, not union seniority; a deal that protects, in writing, full-day kindergarten, a model that is working in our province, and maintaining the smallest classroom sizes in Canada for the earliest years; a deal that invests in student success, in math supports, in mental health and special education; a good deal that keeps kids in class.

That’s what we’re fighting for in this negotiation, and I urge the union, in good faith, to redouble their efforts, work with us, get a deal and keep kids in class.

Ontario economy

Mr. Billy Pang: Mr. Speaker, happy 2020.

My question is to our Premier. Since our government’s election, we have been focused on helping to economically turn this province around. For far too long, small business leaders throughout this province have had to endure economic and regulatory hardships that limited job potential and growth.

That is why our government acted to implement policies to help make our province more competitive. This includes our red tape legislation, the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, which will help companies save up to $338 million per year in compliance costs; or the tax relief we are providing to help businesses by cutting the small business tax rate from 3.5% to 3.2%.

Premier, can you share with the Legislature about Ontario’s economic and job creation standing in 2019?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank our all-star member from Markham–Unionville—he ended up with, like, 67% of the vote. The guy’s a champion up there.

Our government is making Ontario better. We’re making Ontario better with 307,000 jobs. As the previous government, the NDP and the Liberals, lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs, again, per capita, we’re leading North America in economic job growth right here in Ontario: 307,000 more families are working; 307,000 more families are putting food on the table, paying rent or paying a mortgage.

We did that by making sure we reduce the burdens on the backs of businesses: reducing taxes for small businesses by 8.75%; reducing the burden of red tape by $338 million; cutting workmen’s comp by 47%. That’s $2.2 billion. We’re making—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Billy Pang: Back to the Premier: This is truly incredible news. I know in my riding the results are starting to show, with people once again beginning to feel more confident in Ontario’s economic future. It goes to show that you have long championed the pivotal role that Ontario plays as the economic cornerstone for the strength of our country.

With over 300,000 jobs created since we formed government, Premier, you are correct in what the world is now saying about the economic miracle happening in our province. Can you share with the House more information about the economic success that is happening in Ontario and what this means going forward?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank our great member from Markham–Unionville.

Myself and the champion right beside me, the Minister of Economic Development, went down to the US. We went down to Washington and spoke to the 50 governors, the NGA, which we’re inviting for the first time to Toronto, April 21 to April 23.

Then we went down to Texas, Mr. Speaker, and we spoke to the Texas Chamber of Commerce. A gentleman we didn’t even know stood up and said, “The Ontario miracle: It’s a miracle how the previous government was down here and lost 300,000 jobs, and you are leading North America in job creation at 307,000 new jobs.”

They were asking how we did it. We create the environment for companies to thrive and prosper and grow. The people of Ontario have not seen this in decades. Seventy-six per cent of every single job created here in Canada was created right here in Ontario. Again, promises made, promises kept. There is—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. The next question?

Government advertising

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Nice to see you in the chair, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Two weeks ago, a shadowy group calling themselves the Vaughan Working Families spent untold thousands to run attack ads against teachers in four national newspapers. This group has been connected to a Mr. Quinto Annibale, a long-time Conservative donor and activist who this government appointed to the board of the LCBO. The government claims it has no knowledge of the ads and no connections to this group, but the ads mirror perfectly the government’s attacks on teachers and education workers.

Will the Premier confirm today, in this House, on the permanent record, that he, his Minister of Education, any other ministers or members of the PC caucus and any of the Premier’s ministers or ministers’ staff knew nothing about these ads?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Yes.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, pardon me. I didn’t hear the minister’s answer. I don’t know, does he want to reiterate for the House? You said yes, you—

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Yes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, you knew about the ads?

Well, that’s what we suspect, Speaker. We suspected that the government knew about these ads. In fact, we suspect that the government coordinated with these ads.

The so-called working families group tried to hide their identity, but the ads have been linked to some of the most well-connected Conservative insiders that you can find. Mr. Annibale travelled with the Minister of Economic Development to India in December. Mr. Annibale has personally donated over $30,000 to the PC Party. The Premier himself personally appointed Mr. Annibale to the LCBO. Yet today, when we tried to bring him before the government agencies committee, the Conservative members blocked us.

Why are this Premier and his government so afraid? What are they afraid of hearing from Mr. Annibale?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’ll reiterate. Not only do they have trouble with math, but apparently with understanding—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Member for Essex, come to order. Stop yelling across the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. If the House would come to order, we could all hear the person who has the floor.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I know.

Government House leader, reply.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll continue. As I mentioned in my first answer, of course I can confirm that the government did not have any knowledge of this ad. I can tell you that it wasn’t particularly helpful or useful, because the Minister of Education has been working so hard to get a deal that respects parents and teachers.

On this, let me be guided by the member for Toronto–Danforth, who, when asked about this very same thing, said that he did not believe that a law had been broken, nor did he believe that the member in question should be removed from his appointment.

Education funding

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Out front today there will be parents of children with autism, and those people who support them, protesting the mess your government has made of the Ontario Autism Program.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The government side, come to order.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, this Friday, for the first time in 20 years, every school in this province will be closed and kids will be out of school yet again. The Premier and his government are making a mess of education too: increasing class sizes, less support for vulnerable learners and a poorly thought-out plan for online learning—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The government side has to come to order.

I apologize to the member for Ottawa South for interrupting.

Start the clock. Member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: I know it’s hard to hear.

Our classrooms need to be strong, safe places for our kids to learn.

Speaker, through you, can the Premier explain to all of us here in the galleries, all over, why he thinks making class sizes larger is a good thing for Ontario’s kids and their families?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member for the question.

Speaker, what the Premier has indicated is that we expect more—notwithstanding that the government is investing more in public education. We expect more for our kids.

Since 2003-04, we have seen a more than 50% increase in investments in public education, but we haven’t seen the corresponding improvements in the system. Since that period, we have 12% more teachers in the schools and less than 1% more students. We spend over 80 cents on the dollar on compensation, yet hiring is still tied to seniority instead of qualification and equity considerations.

We need a system that truly works for the students of this province—a system that is ready for the disruption on the landscape, that ensures our kids are technologically savvy, financially literate, emotionally intelligent and ready for the jobs of tomorrow. That’s our mission.

We’re focused on a deal that keeps kids in class.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I would remind the minister that they’re spending less per pupil this year than they were last year.

Perhaps the minister could explain why private schools constantly market smaller class sizes to encourage people to come. Perhaps he can explain that to all of us.

Speaker, the government has been all over the map on education: larger class sizes; a poorly thought-out plan for online learning; firing their negotiating team 180 days in; talking about protecting full-day kindergarten, as if it was ever at risk—because they know Ontario families would revolt. Now they’re calling for a private mediator.

Clearly, the government has no plan, and they’re making a mess, just like they did with the Ontario Autism Program, just like they did with climate change, and just like they’ve done with their new licence plates.

Speaker, through you, is the minister really interested in negotiating a deal or not?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, the government is committed to doing everything possible to get a deal that keeps children in class.

This has gone on for too long, and I think the parents of this province recognize that, given that this takes place every few years in this province.

In this negotiation, we are fighting hard at the table, with a mission to get a deal, but a good deal for our students—a deal that, yes, invests more but expects more from the system; a deal that ensures that merit triumphs over union seniority; a deal that protects, in writing, full-day kindergarten, a deal that codifies that through the negotiator; and a deal that ensures we retain the smallest classroom sizes in the nation for the earliest years. Our goal is a deal, but a good deal for the kids of this province.

Public transit

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next question: the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s nice to see you again.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Last week, I listened as the minister delivered a speech at the Economic Club of Canada, in continuing her tireless efforts to move our government’s subway expansion plan forward. She covered a lot of territory, from the region’s congestion crisis to the province’s landmark partnership with the city of Toronto. Thank you for that.

She also gave us a sneak peek at the tools she plans to introduce that will allow us to get shovels in the ground on time and on budget for our priority subway projects. Could the minister please tell us what those tools look like?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for the question.

Our government has been clear that we are committed to doing things differently. We’ve identified the roadblocks that have prevented big projects from being built for decades.

I’ve said in the past that our plan is ambitious but attainable.

The legislative tools I outlined earlier this month, if passed, will allow us to speed up the delivery of our projects, to ensure that they get built on time and on budget.

Improving coordination and on-time delivery are key objectives of our plan. Our plan, if passed, would give Metrolinx the authority to require stronger coordination of utility relocations within prescribed time frames. We are also looking at modernizing the province’s authority to assemble lands, while still treating landowners fairly.

Mr. Speaker, these are the tools that we need to get transit back on track. I look forward to sharing more in the supplementary.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I just want to say that the people of Etobicoke–Lakeshore are very appreciative that we are moving forward. It is clear that it’s time that we get transit built. Our four priority projects will connect more people to more places and bring public transit to communities with poor access, like Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park.

We campaigned on investing in our transit infrastructure, and that is exactly what this government is doing. Could the minister tell us more about her proposed plan to accelerate the delivery of our four priority subway projects?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you again to the member for the question. Mr. Speaker, we have identified the processes that have delayed timelines and pushed big projects like these off the rails. Improving coordination and streamlining the processes where we can are crucial to meeting our target dates.

Our plan proposes changes to the environmental assessment process, which will give us the flexibility to align our timelines with these projects. To be clear, these changes do not change the outcomes of the EA process, only the timelines.

I look forward to introducing our comprehensive plan in the near future. Our government has a plan to build public transit better and faster, and we’re doing so while protecting taxpayers’ best interests. In partnership and collaboration with our partners, we’re moving forward on our transit plans, because this is an undertaking that we can no longer afford to delay.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. Today, yet again, hundreds of families of children with autism are on the lawn to let you know that you are failing them.

One of the families with us here today is Talitha’s. Her daughter Amara waited for three years for therapy that she needs. She was next on the wait-list before your government froze and gutted the OAP. After years of waiting, Talitha’s hope was crushed. Amara finally received a childhood budget, but it lasted for only a few months. She now has to wait even longer, with fear of regression.

Given all the delays, cuts and misinformation, how can families like Talitha’s trust that they will ever get the help they need? Why does this government insist on making families’ lives harder?

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

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, what we’re actually doing is providing that certainty for families. We’ve been transparent all the way along. That’s why we had the expert panel meet over the summer last year and come up with over 120 recommendations—from the autism community, for the autism community. We are implementing those recommendations now, so that families like Talitha’s will have the assurances they need that a needs-based program will be there well into the future—one that’s adequately funded, not like the one that the previous government had. It was a band-aid to get them through the election period.

This program is one that is going to be funded to the tune of $600 million each and every year, one that is a needs-based program, while offering other services as well, like speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, mental health, early intervention, crisis response—all too much to mention in one little spot, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the supplementary question.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question: The member for Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the Premier: Adults with developmental disabilities are suffering under this Conservative government too. The Liberals severely underfunded supportive housing. They failed vulnerable families, and the Conservatives have sat on their hands. Now there are over 16,000 people on the wait-list, over 20 years long. Families are being told by this government that their options are hospitals and homeless shelters.

There are parents here today living the nightmare. April’s daughter Courtney has autism and is non-verbal. Courtney has been in a short-term psychiatric unit for nearly 16 months. Bonnie’s daughter Jennifer has Williams syndrome and has been bounced between shelters for over two years. Maureen’s son Steven has autism and high needs. He has been in a psychiatric unit over for 17 months. Tammy’s son Damion spent over 15 months in a hospital psych unit waiting for a behavioural treatment bed.

This is heart-wrenching and totally unacceptable. Will the Premier stop the platitudes and finally get to work solving—

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

The minister to respond.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much for the question from the member opposite. As the member knows, there is a growing demand for developmental services in Ontario, and there has been for many, many years. The previous government was in power for 15 years and chose not to make any investments in this sector during that time. We’re not going to be doing that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s why we have taken the steps to talk with other jurisdictions, leading jurisdictions in this area—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Todd Smith: —to ensure that we’re starting to meet the demand that exists with these individuals. We know that the list is growing because of the inaction of the previous 15 years. That’s why—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Windsor West, come to order.

Hon. Todd Smith: —we will be investing in this area. We’re currently having consultations with our partners in this sector—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Scarborough–Guildwood, come to order.

Hon. Todd Smith: —and as I mentioned, consulting with leading jurisdictions to find out what’s going to work. Those individuals who are in the most need are assessed on the priority. They get their housing first. We are going—

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

Subventions destinées à l’éducation / Education funding

M lle Amanda Simard: Ma question s’adresse au ministre de l’Éducation. Jeudi dernier, des milliers d’enseignants francophones ont débrayé pour la première fois depuis la création des 12 conseils scolaires francophones en 1998—1998, monsieur le Président; c’est sérieux.

Je suis allée moi-même rencontrer de ces enseignants dans mon comté et je peux vous assurer qu’ils sont là pour les élèves, pour défendre notre système d’éducation. On le sait maintenant qu’avec ce gouvernement conservateur, c’est constamment un « attachez vos tuques », et je peux vous dire que la semaine dernière, on a attaché nos tuques, nos cagoules de ski et sauté dans nos jambières pour dénoncer les coupes dévastatrices du gouvernement en éducation, des coupes encore plus atroces que les moins 49 degrés ressentis où plusieurs étaient.

Est-ce que le ministre va enfin faire la bonne chose et annuler ses coupes irresponsables et dévastatrices pour qu’on puisse finalement conclure une entente et assurer le maintien de la qualité de notre système d’éducation?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We want a good deal for students that keeps them in class. This negotiation, I can affirm to the member opposite what we’re fighting for and what we’re hoping to achieve through a voluntary settlement. It is to invest more in education, but to expect more for our kids. It is to ensure that hiring is premised and predicated on the experience, the diversity and the qualification of the candidate, not exclusively on union seniority. In this negotiation, we’re committed, in writing, to protecting full-day kindergarten, a model that works in Ontario. We’re committed to improving the outcomes of our students.

Nous allons continuer notre travail avec nos partenaires francophones en Ontario.

We will defend French-language education. We will work hard to improve it in every region of Ontario.

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

M lle Amanda Simard: Encore au ministre de l’Éducation. En fait, les préoccupations des enseignants, les mêmes que les parents, les élèves et les Ontariens, ce sont l’apprentissage en ligne obligatoire, la taille des salles de classe et les coupes dans l’appui pour les élèves avec des besoins particuliers—des préoccupations loin d’être déraisonnables, monsieur le Président. Ces coupes et mesures irréfléchies du gouvernement ont un effet dévastateur disproportionné sur les élèves francophones en Ontario. Par exemple, les cours obligatoires en ligne enlèvent les élèves de leur environnement francophone.

Est-ce que le gouvernement a considéré ces impacts avant d’adopter ces mesures? Et si oui, pourquoi va-t-il quand même de l’avant? Va-t-il continuer de prendre la hache avec les yeux fermés et faire le dommage irréparable qu’il est en train de faire?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We are, in fact, spending more, investing more in public education. In fact, under the leadership of this Premier, the highest public expenditure in French-language education is happening today, under a Progressive Conservative government, because we believe in linguistic duality and in the identity and the preservation of French language in Ontario.

We are investing more. We are trying to combat the challenge of access to French-language educators. We are committed to ensuring every student has access to a strong, performance-based education system. But we also expect more from the system. While investments have risen by 50%, we also need to see corresponding improvements to student performance. That is a reasonable expectation that parents deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest casualty of this debate are the kids, in fact, the students themselves who should be in class. That’s why I’m asking the unions in good faith to work with this government to get a deal and keep kids in class.

Police services

Mr. Deepak Anand: My question is for the Solicitor General. Members of my community and members of Peel caucus, this side and that side, appreciate the hard work of the Peel Regional Police in keeping people safe. But Mr. Speaker, we know that more needs to be done to tackle the gun-and-gang violence that is plaguing our community. I was so pleased to see Premier Ford, Solicitor General Jones and AG Downey—and the Peel caucus—announce a vital investment of $20.5 million to support Peel Regional Police in the fight against gun-and-gang violence.

On behalf of our community and on behalf of our caucus, I want to thank the Solicitor General for her leadership in helping keep Peel region safe by supporting our front-line officers.

Speaker, through you, can the Solicitor General tell this House and my community how our investments will support Peel Regional Police in fighting against local crime?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Malton. Every day, our government is working to ensure the safety of our communities and the safety of our streets, which is why I was so pleased earlier this year to stand with the Peel caucus and my colleague the Attorney General to talk about another investment that we’ve made in the region of Peel: $20.5 million.

It is clearly understood by our government that this is not an issue that is going to be solved exclusively with one ministry. That’s why I’m so pleased that we work together jointly on many cross-ministerial issues. The support will help tackle gun-and-gang violence as part of Ontario’s Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy. It builds on our intensive firearm bail team in Peel region that the Attorney General already announced, which focuses on prosecuting those involved in firearms offences.

I am pleased with the leadership of Chief Duraiappah, and I’m pleased with the leadership of the Peel—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Thank you, Solicitor General, for your answer. It is clear that our government understands the urgent need for action in Peel region, and that is why you’re responding to the call.

We know that criminals do not respect municipal borders. As MPP from Mississauga–Malton—where a shooting happened over the weekend in September 2019 that left a bystander teen dead; and the constant problem at Acorn Place—we know that criminals do not respect municipal borders. That’s why it is important for a coordinated, province-wide strategy to keep our communities safe, and not just the urban centres.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General explain how our investment in the Peel police fits into our government’s province-wide strategy to combat gang-and-gun violence, and keep our law-abiding and hard-working communities safe here in Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As the member opposite rightly said, crimes and gangs do not respect municipal boundaries. It’s why, since taking office, our government has invested over $106 million in the fight against gun-and-gang violence and gang activity across Ontario, including our most recent investment in the Peel region.

Addressing the crisis of gun-and-gang violence requires a multi-sectoral response. Our Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy works to combine prevention, intervention and enforcement through targeted investments from many partner ministries, including the Solicitor General; Attorney General; Children, Community and Social Services; and of course the Ministry of Education.

Our investments in Peel region are also part of our government’s new $195-million Community Safety and Policing Grant program, which supports policing partners across Ontario in addressing local community safety priorities as identified by each local service.

Licence plates

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. After a lot of money and a lot of fanfare from this government, we have been hearing from the community that the new licence plates that rolled out on February 1 are next to impossible to read in the dark.

As critic for transportation and highways, I received an email from an Ontarian who wrote, “It seems that the latest mistake by this Conservative government is yet another example of your policy of ‘ready, fire, aim.’ Your priorities are not ‘for the people.’ The same can be said for your gas pump stickers, which don’t stick, and are needless, unwanted propaganda. This is an important issue for public protection and safety. Recall. Remake. Resign.”

Does the Premier have the sense to recognize that this is something that needs to be fixed? And what is the plan to fix the plates?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government to reply: I recognize the Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I want to assure the member opposite and Ontarians listening today and across this province that we are aware that some Ontarians are reporting concerns with regard to readability to the naked eye under some light conditions. That said, we take this input very seriously and we’re working with our manufacturers to get to the bottom of it.

But, Speaker, I have to share with you that sticking with the status quo Liberal plate that was peeling and flaking was not an option. I’m very pleased to share with you that we’re employing new technologies in Ontario plates that have been tested under a whole host of visibility conditions with successful reading results.

I want to assure the member opposite: We take the input very seriously. We’re drilling down on it and getting to the bottom of it.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad to know there’s new technology, but my eyes are pretty standard, and I should be able to read them as a driver on the roads.

This Premier found buckets of money to brand Ontario licence plates with PC Party blue, and now there are serious concerns about whether those plates even work. They are weirdly reflective, and when lights shine on them, the whole plate glows and letters and numbers cannot be read with the naked human eye. This is not helpful nor is it safe.

Last week, QP Briefing got the scoop that this government planned to throw away thousands of perfectly good and readable white licence plates.

Why is the government scrapping perfectly good white plates when their glowing propaganda plates are problematic? I thought Ontario was a place to grow, not a place to glow.

Again, I would like to know what this Premier plans to do to fix these plates and keep us safe.

Interjections.

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

The minister to reply.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the member opposite that sticking with the status quo Liberal plates that were peeling and flaking was absolutely not an option.

I am pleased to share with you that the plates that have been introduced to this province are working. They’re working on the 407, and they’re being read. They’ve been tested under a whole host of visibility conditions. We absolutely have confidence in our plates.

I know it’s difficult for the members opposite to adjust to change, but let me tell you—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize; I have to interrupt the member.

I’m going to ask the opposition to come to order. The clock is ticking.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The minister to reply.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you. These plates have been tested.

I want to share with you as well, Mr. Speaker, that we’re employing technology in the plates that is already being used in other provinces, like Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and 13 other states.

These plates are working. People like them.

But I have to make sure that everyone understands, we’ve heard—

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

The next question.

Infrastructure funding

Mr. David Piccini: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Minister, for years roads, bridges and other vital infrastructure projects were neglected due to systemic underfunding. Every day, constituents and local elected officials in upper and lower tiers in my riding ask me what our government’s plans are to help support our local infrastructure priorities.

Minister, I know we’re committed to investing $144 billion for things like transit, roads and hospitals right across the province. These investments will have a significant positive impact on economic development in Northumberland–Peterborough South and will improve my riding’s ability to attract investment and create jobs.

Can the minister tell this House and, most importantly, constituents in Northumberland–Peterborough South what infrastructure investments our government is making and how they will help the people of my riding?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to thank the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South for his important question and the great work he does.

As I’ve indicated to the House a number of times, Ontario has nominated more than 350 projects to the federal government under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, or ICIP, for final funding approval. This includes 144 road, bridge, air and marine infrastructure projects and over 200 public transit projects, for a total provincial investment of more than $480 million through the public transit and rural and northern streams of the ICIP agreement.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Liberal government, we’re making historic investments in infrastructure while working to maximize the federal funding available to Ontario so we can build and improve the infrastructure projects that are important to all of us.

I look forward to the supplementary.

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

Minister, what are you doing to ensure that these long-awaited projects in my riding receive the vital funding that they deserve?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Again, thank you to the member. I understand that after almost a year of waiting, the member and his constituents are puzzled as to why less than a third of the more than 350 nominated projects have received federal approval. However, I remain optimistic that the federal minister’s letter of approval is in the mail and will soon arrive in my office. The minute I receive the formal written approval, I will personally ensure that the member and his constituents and municipal partners know that they can move forward and put shovels in the ground to get these projects built.

Mr. Speaker, we have made infrastructure a marquee part of our mandate. On this side of the House, we understand that investments like these will get people moving, grow the economy and serve the needs of people and businesses across our great province.

Again, I’m optimistic the federal government will move quickly on these approvals.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians who seek help for mental health or addiction issues are faced with long and growing wait-lists for services. For years, the Liberals chronically underfunded mental health and addiction programs and neglected the growing demand for these services. This Conservative government has paid a lot of lip service to increasing mental health and addictions funding, but a year and a half into their mandate they have not put forward an extra penny of provincial funding to improve supports.

With the end of the fiscal year quickly approaching, this government does not have much time to match the $174 million in federal funding. Will this government match this funding?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to reply on behalf of the government.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that question. Our government is delivering real action by investing an historic $3.8 billion over the next 10 years to build a comprehensive, integrated and connected mental health and addictions system. We’re committed to building this system where services are easier to access, because we know there have been issues with access; of high quality, because we know that there hasn’t been a standard of quality and care; and focused on better outcomes for everyone, including children, youth and families.

While you claim that money has not been invested, we have in fact made an additional $10 million annually in child and youth mental health core services funding in communities across the province. We’ve invested money in the education system—$27 million—and $6 million in intensive services for youth and addictions, including withdrawal management services.

Mr. Speaker, we are making investments and we will continue to make investments to build a system that works—

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

The supplementary question?

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Back to the Premier: Overdose and opioid-related deaths in Ontario doubled in the last three years. We’re into the second year of this Conservative government’s mandate, and what has the Premier done? Conducted an unnecessary review of overdose prevention sites, rebranded the service, and arbitrarily limited the number of sites. Already 21 sites aren’t enough, but only 16 have been approved so far.

In British Columbia, overdose rates plateaued when the government took concrete action. When will this government take this public health crisis seriously by listening to the evidence and funding a site in every community that needs one?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Our government does take the opioid crisis seriously, and in fact, as you’ve mentioned, has organized and set up 16 consumption and treatment sites in communities in need across Ontario. CTS sites not only save lives by preventing overdose-related deaths, but also connect people to primary care treatment and rehabilitation as well as other health and social services to help them overcome their addiction. This should be the primary reason for the consumption and treatment sites.

Overall availability and access, as measured by the number of consumption booths and hours of operation, have in fact increased under these 16 sites when compared to the same sites under previous models. Mr. Speaker, our government has allocated $31.3 million in funding for up to 21 consumption and treatment sites. We are weighing applications and reviewing them on an as-needed basis.

Public transit

Mrs. Robin Martin: My question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation. It is no secret to commuters across the GTA that lengthy, drawn-out and delayed construction timelines are one of the key barriers to reducing gridlock and getting people back on to public transit. People are sick of delays, whether it’s political decisions that are holding up the process or construction delays that seem to drag on endlessly.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell the House what the government plans to do in order to speed up building transit and reduce the gridlock that plagues Toronto streets and infuriates the commuters of this city?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Associate Minister of Transportation (GTA).

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and it’s also very nice to see you again. I know all of us are excited about kicking off the new year and continuing the good work that we started in terms of making life better for the people of Ontario.

One of the challenges that we have had historically when it comes to transit is that different levels of government were on different pages regarding transit planning, and there was a lack of leadership at the provincial level. Well, Mr. Speaker, we solved that problem last fall when the city and the province entered into a historic partnership to build the single largest subway expansion program in the province’s history. Now our focus is on introducing new measures to speed up the construction timelines for these major projects. Mr. Speaker, with Premier Ford’s leadership, the era of delays is over.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister. It’s always good to hear that the province and the city are working together to enhance transit and get shovels in the ground. The steps we’ve taken will provide more transit relief to commuters across the region. However, I think I speak for many when I say that the current nightmare that occurs in local communities, like my own, going through rapid transit construction, is far from painless.

Through you, Speaker, to the honourable minister, what is the government planning to do to expedite building transit and end construction nightmares that plague commuters and businesses with what sometimes seems like no end in sight?

Hon. Kinga Surma: I want to thank the member for her advocacy on this file. Over the last number of months, the province and the city have been working together to develop a framework to build transit quickly. On February 6, at the Economic Club, our very own Minister of Transportation outlined some of the steps we are planning on taking when it comes to speeding up building public transit on our four key subway lines. That involves speeding up approvals and timelines for things like utility relocations, environmental assessments and permitting.

To be clear, we’re not going to be compromising public safety or environmental oversight. We want to speed up and solidify timelines that have historically delayed major infrastructure projects. The time to build is now, and with our government it’s really happening.

Victims of crime

Ms. Jill Andrew: My question is to the Premier. Last week, we learned from the Globe and Mail that thanks to this government’s heartless cuts, rape crisis centres across the province are struggling to provide basic services to survivors. For years, the Liberals failed to provide enough funding to meet the needs of survivors, and now this Conservative government is making things worse with continuing over $20 million in cuts to front-line services for next year.

Rape and sexual assault crisis centres are not asking for much: less than 1%, to be exact, of what Conservatives are spending to tear down windmills.

To the Premier: Why does this government care more about supporting PC Party donors, their friends, than they do survivors?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General to reply.

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the question.

This government is supporting victims across the province, and we support the families who are on the wrong end of crime. We’re giving them the support they need in so many ways. We recognize the important work of victims’ service organizations across the province, which are committed to supporting the individuals at a time of need and over a long period of time. It’s critical that we support them, and we are supporting them.

I had a fantastic meeting with several of the organizations and the central organization for rape crisis centres last week—very informative. We had a great conversation about how the system is working and how the system can work better. It’s about sometimes coordinating better and making sure that we’re understanding the needs of victims. When they need the help, we’re making sure that we are there for them.

The previous Liberal government tried to politicize the issue of victims of crime, and that was the wrong way to go. We want to ensure that we’re going to fix the system, to make sure the system is working properly for those in time of need when they need it—

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

The supplementary question.

Ms. Jill Andrew: We don’t coordinate survivors; we support and listen to survivors.

My question is back to the Premier. Historical child abuse survivors are not getting any support, by the way. If this government truly gave a darn, they would reverse their reckless cuts.

Again, Liberal lip service and Conservative cuts aren’t helping anyone. Ontarians need a government that’s finally on their side and fighting for what matters to them. Survivors and crisis centres need support, and they need it today, not tomorrow.

Will the minister stop taking their cuts out on women and survivors and finally provide Ontario’s rape crisis centres with the funding they deserve?

Hon. Doug Downey: This government is committed to supporting victims. The Ministry of the Attorney General has been undertaking a comprehensive review of the services that are providing services to victims of crime, their families and witnesses. We take this issue seriously. These are some of the most vulnerable in our province. We need to be there in a meaningful way to deliver the services they need most when they need it the most.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time we have for question period this morning.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 36(a), the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Education concerning le système d’éducation publique. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Visitor

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I also want to welcome a former member to this Legislature who served the riding of Algoma in the 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th Parliaments: Bud Wildman. Welcome back to Queen’s Park. We’re glad to have you here.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1144 to 1500.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask members to introduce their guests: Pursuant to standing order 36(a), the member for Ottawa South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education concerning class size. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m pleased to note the presence in the House of a former member of the Legislature, who represented the riding of Kingston and the Islands in the 42nd Parliament: Sophie Kiwala is here. Welcome, Sophie. It’s great to see you here.

Introduction of visitors? Remember, we have five minutes to introduce our visitors.

Ms. Kathleen O.

Wynne: I’d like to introduce some stakeholders who are here to support the introduction of my private member’s bill on fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Sophie Kiwala, as you’ve just introduced, former MPP for Kingston and the Islands; Sharron Richards, co-chair of the Toronto FASD Network; Mary Hutchings, co-chair of the Toronto FASD leadership team; Steve Catney, founder and executive director of Alliance Youth Services; Mary Cunningham, lead of the education action group of the FASD Ontario Network of Expertise; Allan Mountford, member of the FASD Ontario Network of Expertise; Brian Philcox, chairman of FASworld; Mark Courtepatte, executive member of the Ontario FASD Action Network; and Savanna Pietrantonio, an adult living with FASD.

I believe that my intern, Jeremy Istead, who has helped me with this private member’s bill, will be here as well. I want to thank them all for being here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I once again remind members of standing order 34, which says that members may introduce visitors by stating only their name, title, organization and/or riding.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated February 18, 2020, of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Pursuant to standing order 111(f)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Report deemed adopted.

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Mr. Deepak Anand: I beg leave to present the first report 2020 from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Anand presents the committee’s report. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Deepak Anand: That’s it, Mr. Speaker.

Report presented.

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Ms. Catherine Fife: I beg leave to present a report on the Public Accounts of the Province,

chapter 2, 2018 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Fife presents the committee’s report and moves the adoption of its recommendations. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Ms. Catherine Fife: As Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I’m pleased to table the committee’s report today, entitled Public Accounts of the Province,

chapter 2, 2018 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the permanent membership of the committee: France Gélinas, Vice-Chair; Jill Andrew; Toby Barrett; Stan Cho; Stephen Crawford; John Fraser; Goldie Ghamari; Norm Miller; Michael Parsa; and Nina Tangri.

The committee extends its appreciation to the officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Energy, Ontario Financing Authority and Independent Electricity System Operator.

The committee also acknowledges the assistance provided during the hearings and report-writing deliberations by the Office of the Auditor General, the Clerk of the Committee and the staff in the legislative research service.

I now move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Fife moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of