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

November 28, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Nov-28 (PDF)

L133 - Thu 28 Nov 2019 / Jeu 28 nov 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 28 November 2019 Jeudi 28 novembre 2019

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Introduction of Visitors

John Roxburgh Smith

Oral Questions

Climate change

Government contracts

Religious freedom

Tourism

Education funding

Northern Ontario

Government accountability

Human trafficking

Environmental protection

Legislative reform

Winter highway maintenance

Mental health and addiction services

Pharmacare

Flooding

Treaties recognition

Human trafficking

Women’s services

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Fire in Toronto

Legislative reform

Out of the Cold program

Cressida Power

City of Brampton

Scarborough

Minister’s comments

The Dam

Diabetes

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Estimates

Introduction of Bills

Stop Cyberbullying in Ontario Day Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée pour l’élimination de la cyberintimidation en Ontario

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Woman Abuse Prevention Month

Petitions

Alzheimer’s disease

Animal protection

Education funding

Long-term care

Food safety

Long-term care

Veterans memorial

Veterans memorial

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Services d’urgence

Long-term care

Private Members’ Public Business

Reserved Parking for Electric Vehicle Charging Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le stationnement réservé à la recharge des véhicules électriques

Occupational Safety and Health Day Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de la sécurité et de la santé au travail

Anti-racism activities

Reserved Parking for Electric Vehicle Charging Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le stationnement réservé à la recharge des véhicules électriques

Occupational Safety and Health Day Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de la sécurité et de la santé au travail

Anti-racism activities

Reserved Parking for Electric Vehicle Charging Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le stationnement réservé à la recharge des véhicules électriques

Occupational Safety and Health Day Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de la sécurité et de la santé au travail

Anti-racism activities

Legislative reform

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 116,

An Act to enact the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence Act, 2019 and the Opioid Damages and Health Costs Recovery Act, 2019, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 116:

—That the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet on Friday, December 6, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be Wednesday, December 4, 2019, at 9 a.m.; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee and their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2019; and

—That each member of the subcommittee or their designate provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2019; and

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by eight minutes divided equally amongst the recognized parties for questioning, and two minutes for the independent member; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be Friday, December 6, 2019, at 5 p.m.; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be Monday, December 9, 2019, at 12 p.m.; and

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

That on Tuesday, December 10, 2019, at 5 p.m. those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2019. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 74. Further debate.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I will be splitting my time with the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, Mr. Speaker, only just to briefly say that it’s an important bill that we want to see brought forward as soon as possible, and I think the motion speaks to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I thank the government House leader for splitting his time with me. We’re introducing this act, as you know,

An Act to enact the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence Act, 2019 and the Opioid Damages and Health Costs Recovery Act, 2019, to do two things, basically: establish a Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence within Ontario Health, and support the province’s participation in the national class action lawsuit that the British Columbia government launched last year against more than 40 opioid manufacturers and wholesalers.

This mental health centre of excellence would really help us by laying a strong foundation on which we can develop and implement our mental health and addictions strategy. We heard from everyone during the debate so far that, really, these things are not controversial. I think we were all in agreement that these are things we should do, and that’s really why we feel it’s necessary to move on now.

It’s a simple act. It does two things—two things that I think everybody spoke in support of. It really is something that we feel it is time to move forward on. In fact, most of the submissions made by the members opposite discussed how they wanted to get on with other pressing matters in this area and others. So I think that we’re all in agreement that it’s something that we should move forward with as soon as possible. The next step would be to take it to committee, as the motion suggests. I’m certainly in favour of doing that.

I think we’re all agreed. I know the member from Nickel Belt spoke passionately about how this, finally, was enacting part of the 2010 select committee on mental health’s recommendations. To have this kind of a centre, an organizing hub—like Cancer Care Ontario does for cancer, we can do in the mental health area. I’m encouraging everyone to vote in support of this motion.

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

M. Gilles Bisson: J’ai besoin de dire que je ne suis pas fier ni content qu’on se trouve encore à cette Assemblée dans la situation de débattre une autre motion par le gouvernement qui fait le bâillon. Comme on dit, cette Assemblée est ici pour la raison d’être capable de représenter le public.

Quand on utilise le bâillon pour couper le débat dans les comités, où le public a une chance de venir nous parler, de se prononcer sur un projet de loi—ce qu’ils aiment, ce qu’ils n’aiment pas—le gouvernement dit : « Non, on va limiter l’habileté du public à venir à Queen’s Park au comité législatif », premièrement. Et, deuxièmement, de nier le droit aux citoyens de l’Ontario à avoir le comité d’aller chez eux, dans les différentes régions de la province, sur un projet de loi tel que celui, je pense que c’est vraiment une faiblesse de la part du gouvernement qui décrit une manière d’attitude que le gouvernement a envers toute la question de démocratie et le rôle que le public doit jouer.

So donc, écoute, je comprends : il va y avoir des fois pour un gouvernement quand il va falloir rentrer le bâillon. Ça, je le comprends. S’il y a une grosse opposition sur un projet de loi idéologique, oui, en certains cas, l’opposition va essayer de frustrer le gouvernement, et le gouvernement a des outils pour les arrêter. Le bâillon, c’est un de ces outils-là. Mais quand le gouvernement le fait à toute occasion, sur tous les projets de loi, il faut se demander la question : c’est quoi qu’eux autres pensent de la démocratie et le rôle du public?

Moi, je pense que c’est une des raisons pourquoi le public se méfie des politiciens et se méfie de nos institutions. Si le public ne se voit pas dans les décisions qu’on fait ici et n’entend pas leurs mots, leurs pensées et leurs vouloirs quand ça vient à ce qu’on fait ici, le public, à un point, dit : « Écoute, je ne suis plus intéressé. On ne va pas aller aux urnes pour voter; on ne va pas payer attention. Je vais faire autre affaire. » Je pense que ça, c’est une des grosses faiblesses de notre démocratie. Ce jour ici est un bon exemple de ça.

Si on regarde, madame la Présidente, le pourcentage du monde qui vient voter, il est à la baisse chaque élection. Déjà, c’est anormal d’avoir quelque 60 % de la population en total de voteurs dans les élections provinciales. On est rendu à 50 % et même moins que 50 % dans beaucoup des comtés à travers la province. Il faut se demander la question : pourquoi est-ce que le public n’est plus intéressé à suivre ce qui arrive à l’Assemblée législative et de participer aux élections? Ce n’est pas tout le problème, mais c’est une

partie du problème.

As I was saying, Madam Speaker, it’s no pleasure and I’m not happy to be able to stand yet again in this House and to speak on a time allocation motion on the part of the government in regard to this mental health act, the changes that they’re making.

As I was saying, and I’m just very quickly going to make the point, the government is not using time allocation as it was intended. Time allocation should be a tool that’s very rarely used. I am of the view that if I was the government, I would not use time allocation as much as humanly possible because I think you have to allow the legislative process to work, to have proper debate in the Legislature, right?

There used to be a time in this House not that long ago, when I first started here, where some bills got very little debate because most of us agreed. We allowed those bills to either go from second to third reading or to go into committee. But those bills that were more contentious, or those bills that the public was interested in—we tended to stay in the House and talk a little bit more about it, and about what we liked and disliked about the bill. The really neat part about that process was the government used to actually listen and amend their legislation based on what some of their own members were saying and what the opposition was saying.

But the really important part, and what was really key, is governments used to allow the public to come before our committees in order to make presentations on the particular bill. And those committees used to travel quite frequently during the intersession, either in the summer or in the January-February period. Committees used to travel two weeks or three weeks at a time on a piece of legislation.

In this particular bill, it’s one of those bills that we should travel. The member who got up just prior to me talked about how the opposition supports this bill. Yes, that’s fine. But mental health is an issue that affects many, many people in our society. In all of our communities across Ontario there are people who are looking for support and help when it comes to dealing with their mental health issues. We see it in our constituency offices pretty well on a daily basis.

There are a lot of people out there who recognize there’s a lot of work that has to be done yet in order to be able to deal effectively with how to treat mental health issues in a more effective way, because there’s a cost to society if we don’t do a good job.

It’s a cost to employers as far as lost time and lost productivity. The system costs more money because when people with a mental health issue—let’s say it becomes acute. Well, then it becomes very expensive to treat. It either becomes an addiction issue, or it becomes anger management issues—it becomes all kinds of issues that society has to pay for in other forms, either by way of policing, institutionalization or whatever it might be.

So I think there are a lot of people in Ontario who would like to speak to this particular bill and to talk about what they see as the strengths in this bill, and where they think that the bill could be made better. The government would be well served to engage with the public through the committee process in order to be able to have that happen.

I heard the government House leader and I heard the member talk about, “Oh, let’s just get on with it. This is a great bill. Oh, wow, let’s just do it—you know, we’ve just got to do this quickly.” Legislation is not about passing things quickly. It’s not like this is a War Measures Act. There are very few times when we’re pushed to pass legislation quickly. In a case of an emergency that may be the case, but in the case of this particular legislation, governments of all stripes over the years have tried the best they can to deal with mental health issues and how to be able to deal with mental health issues in a more effective way.

This bill is another one of those tools that we are building in order to be able to get to a point where we do a better job. The government would be well served to allow that bill to go into committee in a natural way, allow the subcommittee to meet, and then the general committee to meet, and decide where the bill should travel, how long it should be out on the road, and to be able to give it proper time in clause-by-clause in order to be able to deal with how we can make the bill better.

We all have stories of dealing with mental health issues. My sister was schizophrenic. She’s now deceased, but suffered. Her whole life was dealing with schizophrenia. What was bad for my sister Louise was that she not only had voices, she had visions, so when she would be off her meds, I’ll tell you, life got really complicated for her. Many a time she was in harm’s way when it came to how she treated herself, as a result of what the voices and visions were telling her.

If there wasn’t somebody around to make sure that she took her meds and she got proper treatment, she was in danger—not to other people, but she was in danger to herself. Luckily, my mum and my dad, at the time, and my brother and I were there to be able to help her many times to go through some of the difficult bumps on the road that she had to go through with her life. She lived a very productive and very successful life. She lived independently.

She did great when she was on her meds and she was properly treated, but often she would fall off of her meds, she would not be properly treated and she would end up back in an institution in order to stabilize.

Louise was lucky: She had a family and she had

an ACT team under the Canadian Mental Health Association that was there to help her. But we all see it in our constituency offices: that there are many people who don’t know how to go to get help from the Canadian Mental Health Association or any other agency—or don’t want the help, in many cases, because they don’t think there’s anything wrong. Those are the issues that we’ve got to get to. That’s what a committee, properly constituted, going out on the road and talking to Ontarians across the province, would be able to do.

I just think it’s a sad, sad day for democracy and a sad day for this Legislature and the people of Ontario when a government says, “The only way that we’re going to pass legislation is by use of time allocation. Not only do we just time-allocate the bill quickly through the House”—that’s one thing. All right. I’ve been around here a while. Having less time for me to speak is probably a gift to some of you, and maybe to some of my own people. I get that. But the voice of the public should never be shut out. The voice of the public has to be heard.

At a time when people are cynical about politics, the Legislature and politicians, I think we need to pay special attention to making sure that we leave our ears open and listen to what the public is telling us when it comes to the work that we do here.

So time allocation on bills like this, I think, is totally unnecessary. That’s why, again, we’re going to vote against the time allocation—not because we don’t think the bill has some merit, but because we do think the bill has some merit and that the bill should go to the public so that the public can have their say.

None of the newer members who have been just elected in the last 10 or 15 years have really seen how committees can function. It used to be that the committees were where everything happened. We did very little in this House when I first got here in 1990. We used to do most of our work in committee. A bill would come to the House, it would be debated—not for an infinite amount of time. It wasn’t time-allocated. The House leaders would work out an arrangement by way of negotiations about what it was that members on each side of the committee wanted when it came to dealing with bills.

But then the committees were struck and did the work that they were tasked to do. And I’ll tell you, Madam Speaker: Members took that job seriously, on all sides of the House.

I remember dealing with plenty of bills when I first got here: everything from mental health to municipal zoning to forestry and mining issues—all kinds of stuff—where I sat on committee in order to deal with the, back then, government legislation, which I was a member of. Members would go to committee from both the government side and the opposition side, and they took their job seriously. They would listen to what the public had to say. They would put forward the arguments to us—at that time, the government—in committee about why it was that the bill had to be changed. And we listened.

We didn’t change everything that the opposition wanted, because sometimes we didn’t agree, and that’s fair. But we listened, and many a time, bills were changed.

It was pretty well all of the time—it wasn’t most of the time; it was all of the time—that you would go out and you would do a couple of weeks of hearings, you would hear what the public had to say, you would come back and there would be amendment packages coming in from the opposition and the government that were the thickness of a book. A lot of those amendments were adopted. Just because it said “Liberal” or “Conservative” on the amendment, we didn’t care, as a government. If it was a good idea, you put it in the bill. You’re going to get credit for it anyway.

This is what the government is missing here: If you do a good job and you listen to the public and, yes, listen to the opposition, and you adopt some of those amendments, at the end of the day you’re going to benefit. It’s not so much the opposition that wins the reward; it’s the government, because the government of the day is the one who ultimately is responsible for passing the legislation. They get the credit, so why wouldn’t a government want legislation to go to committees so that you’re able to do a better job on the bill?

I’m going to hear from the other side, “Oh, yeah, but you know, the opposition is just being dilatorious. They’re really not interested.” Poppycock. There’s not a member in this House, on any side of the House, who doesn’t care about what they’re doing. Every member is an honourable member. We put forward our ideas and we put forward our arguments for reasons of who we are, where we come from, what our life experiences are, and what we’re trying to do to represent our constituents. And, yes, there’s differences of opinion, absolutely.

The government says, “We want to do A,” and we say, “Well, we think that A maybe shouldn’t happen” or “It should be amended.” And that’s fair. That’s what this place is all about.

We still have a monarchy, but we got rid of the role of kings and queens to be absolute rulers for a reason: because the public said, “Listen, this doesn’t work for us. The king and queen decide what they want to do. Then they just do what they have to do and they have no consequence for us.” Well, we’ve evolved into a modern democracy, a responsible government, where the Legislatures or the House of Commons in Canada decide the public business by way of regulation and by way of legislation. But there has to be accountability, Madam Speaker. There has to be transparency.

There’s got to be a way that the public can look into what we’re doing, not just by watching us on TV when we have debates, but, quite frankly, that they are able to come and participate at committee. I’ll tell you, the public reacts well when we do that. I remember when we used to travel bills of all types. I can tell you that I very seldom remember going out on the road for committee work where we didn’t have people who showed up. We often had to turn people away.

I remember the Adams mine fight. When we were government, that was just starting up. We had introduced a bill that would ban the use of the Adams mine to have garbage brought in from the city of Toronto. Well, there were people in Timiskaming who wanted that garbage. I didn’t agree with them. A lot of people in this House still don’t agree with them.

But they had the right to come and be heard, and when we introduced our legislation banning the shipping of garbage, the people who were in favour of the Adams mine project showed up in droves to the committee and made their arguments, in a passionate way, why they thought it was a good idea. We gave them their day as a government. We said, “Bring ’em on. Let them say what they have to say. Let them express what they have to express.” It helped the debate. It helped to bring the community together, to come to some sort of understanding about what this project was all about.

Eventually, what that did was that it actually built a stronger coalition against having garbage from Toronto being sent into the Adams mine. The proof of that is the fight that happened afterwards, when the Harris government came into power and changed the legislation that the NDP had put in place in order to allow the garbage to go north. The people in Timiskaming, by a majority, organized against that, and people like my good friend John Vanthof, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, was one of the key organizers in the farm community, which was one of the leaders of the people against the Adams mine project.

One of the reasons that John is with us today as a member is that experience that he went through with the Adams mine fight, as we call it.

Charlie Angus was the other. I don’t think Charlie was even an MP at the time when it started, but a lot of people got their start—or not their start, but their itch to want to do more and to serve the public—as a result of that whole process. So allowing the public to come to committee to be able to present on the issues that matter to them, one way or another, is a bonus for the government. It’s something that allows the government to say, “Hey, look what we’ve got here for you. We have this legislation. What do you think about it?”

In this particular case, you’re going to have people who are going to like this bill, and that’s fine. But we should be listening to the public and saying, “What is it that we can do to make it better?” Because if the government thinks it has a monopoly on what they think should be done around mental health, well, then they don’t understand the mental health file, quite frankly. Nobody in this Legislature, myself included, knows exactly what to do when it comes to dealing with mental health effectively. It’s a very complex, very involved system, where it ain’t exactly easy.

We all get it. I was talking to my staff just the other day where we had a particular constituent who had an issue. I’ll just say “an issue,” and I won’t say anything else or talk about the issue. I don’t want to divulge who this person is. She had a problem, and the problem was caused by some decisions she had made. She asked us to try to walk back the problem that she had, to get a solution. So I contacted the people responsible, and they were prepared to walk back what was going to happen that was going to affect her. There were conditions.

The person said, “Okay, as long as this constituent agrees to one, two and three.” She refused. It’s a mental health issue, right? As a result, she’s going to be affected in a negative way.

I think we need to provide support to people so that they can live a more productive and more full life and be able to cope with everything that happens when it comes to the complexity of our lives.

Imagine what people are having to face in all of our communities. We’re lucky: Most of us went to school. Most of us were successful in some way. Most of us have got a few bucks. Most of us have pretty good families, where we have a good support network around us. It’s easier for you and I, Madam Speaker, to be able to navigate our way through life because of our circumstance and our sheer luck of being born in the families that we were born into. But in some cases, people were not so lucky, or it’s just a simple matter of mental health issues, like my sister.

You need to be able to make sure that you build a system that’s robust enough to allow people to find their way into trying to seek help and, once they’ve made contact, that help could actually be delivered in a way that helps respond to the person’s issue or crisis of the day. But time-allocating this bill is not going to accomplish that.

I know that the government, especially new members here—and I don’t mean this in a condescending way; please understand. I was a new member. I did a lot of silly things when I first got elected here too—and I don’t mean that in a negative way. But I know that the government members are being told, “Oh, yeah, well, we’ve got to get on. We have our agenda. We were elected. We’ve got to get all of this done now.” That’s not why you were elected. That’s not why you were sent here. You weren’t sent here just because you ran under the particular Conservative, NDP or Liberal banner that you ran under.

You’re here now because you represent your constituents, and your constituents want to know that they’re being heard.

When government members—and I was one of them. Listen, I did this too. I’m speaking from experience here, so I’m not trying to be holier-than-thou. Brand new government members—and I was a brand new government member when I first got here—say, “Yeah, yeah. We won the election. We have the right to do this. We’ve got to do it. The opposition is in the way. Yeah, yeah.” We get all hyped up. Then after a while, you start to realize: “Hang on. I’m just being wound up by my own people here.” Maybe what we need to do is show some independence as members and say, “No, we’re not going to allow that to happen.”

Should the government get their bill? All the time. There’s no rule in the Legislature today that prevents the government from passing any bill that it wants, right? Should the government get its way? Absolutely. You won the election. You have a majority. The people have spoken. We do not have a right, as the opposition, to stop the government from being able to govern. But you have a responsibility, also, to listen to the public and the opposition about how you can do better with what you’re proposing. Time allocation is not the way to get there.

Again, you know that I’m no fan of time allocation, but I understand how it worked its way into our rules. There are extreme cases where government may have to use time allocation. If the government is trying to pass their budget, for example, and is at a complete impasse, and all of a sudden we’re in a position where the bills aren’t going to get paid, well, the government has to act, right? There are reasons why we have closure, and there are reasons why we have time allocation. I don’t like them, but I understand why they’re there. But this is not such a bill.

At this point, over 95% of all bills passed in this House have been passed by way of time allocation. That’s a bad record. It used to be an extreme, extreme case when government would use closure before the days of time allocation. Closure was hardly ever used, and if it was used, the threshold was a lot higher.

I’m trying to remember—and I may be wrong, and the Clerks might want to correct me—but when I first got here, the test to call the question on a debate was nowhere near seven or eight hours. It was more like 20 hours or 25 hours, because members had to have the opportunity—the Speaker had to say to himself or herself: “Is there anything new being said? Are there other members who want to talk? Is there some value or input to be given into the debate?” If the Speaker decided, “Yes, there is,” the Speaker would refuse the question being called.

I remember being a member of government when we tried to call the question on a couple of occasions. I remember on a agricultural bill, the Speaker—it was our own Speaker; it was an NDP Speaker—looked around, saw there were people ready to speak; they were bringing forward new ideas on the legislation. The Speaker said, “No, let the debate continue.” The test was very high when it came to the question being called.

Again, it goes back to what Parliament is all about. We’ve got to remember, Parliament is not something that just popped up yesterday. The British parliamentary system has been developed over a period of hundreds of years. It goes back all the way to Runnymede, when they first met as a group of people trying to influence the decision of kings at that time. Over the years, more and more of the public has demanded, and the crown has ceded, the responsibility of governing to Parliament. It used to be a time with the monarchy that the monarch decided everything and Parliament was only there to rubber stamp.

And if Parliament didn’t do what the King wanted, guess what? The King would just dissolve Parliament and go off and do something else.

An interesting story about ship-money: I think it was King Charles—remember him? He was unfortunately the monarch who lost his head, as they might say, as a result of his actions. But the story is, he was in a war constantly with Parliament because Parliament was not voting him the money that he wanted for whatever he was doing. So he got mad and he dissolved Parliament for a long period of time. He had a lawyer he knew who was in his circle of confidants who had figured out that there was a law on the British books that allowed the King to go directly to the public to raise money for the navy.

It was called ship-money. If you lived in a port city or nearby a port city, or if you were a key community in support of the business of the navy—and as we know, the British navy was very big and powerful, and was really in the ascendant at that point—he had the right to levy the tax directly. It was called ship-money. So he bypassed Parliament altogether, I don’t remember for how many years, but it was for quite a long time. He just kept on taxing by way of ship-money.

My worry about all of this, and why I raise King Charles and what happened by way of development of powers for the Legislature as a result of those actions, is we’re now going full circle, Madam Speaker. We now have an executive where the Prime Minister, or the Premier, depending which Legislature you’re in, has more and more power invested in their office than we’ve ever had before. One of the reasons for that is that members have given up their responsibility, to a certain extent, by toeing the line of the Premier’s office.

Look at what happened in England when it came to Brexit. I think that was a declaration of how the British parliamentary system works. That nation is divided 50-50: “Shall we stay or shall we go?” And people are passionate on both sides. Parliament was hung on the decision, and rightfully so; so is the public. The Prime Minister just couldn’t do what he wanted. In fact, he couldn’t even call an election when he wanted because Parliament—the way that Parliament is set up in Britain—because of the circumstance Parliament needed a vote in the House in order to be able to get the writ.

Eventually, the opposition ceded and allowed the election to happened; it’s now going to happen on December 8, but my point is it’s a testament to how Parliament actually works and does what it’s supposed to do.

We are supposed to be a reflection of the people, and we need to be those people who are listening and acting—not always agreeing with what the public has to say, but at least listening and taking some action on what they have to say.

Where we’ve moved to now is that we have a Premier who now has more regulatory authority than we ever had, because we, as legislators, when we used to draft legislation, never, never used to allow regulatory power to sit in the hands of cabinet in the way that it does now. We would write the legislation specifically as to what we intended, as legislators, for the legislation to do. We didn’t write in the legislation, “And all of this can be decided by regulation.” But now you’ve got the cabinet, through the Premier, who can take a law, once passed, and pretty well change it to their will by way of regulation, which means to say it doesn’t even come back here. How is that good for the public?

So we’re kind of going full circle. We used to have kings and queens who made all the decisions, and we, the public, just suffered the decision, to where now we’ve invested the power in the Office of the Premier, and the Premier is kind of acting as if he or she is the king or the queen. I think that’s wrong. I think the way that Parliament was set up is to create a check and balance between the executive and the Parliament, and that the two institutions are somewhat separate.

But unlike the republican system in the United States and in France and other places, we don’t have checks and balances to the point that the governing party cannot pass its legislation. Of course, the government is going to support its government legislation whenever it is that they’re trying to get things done, but you have to have a system that respects the public.

So I would just say that allowing the public to come forward to say something on this bill would be a good thing for the government, it would be a good thing for the institution of Parliament, and it would be a great thing for them. Because maybe, for once, they can start to see themselves in legislation. I know that some members on the other side say, “Oh, yeah, yeah. You’re just saying that.” No, actually, I’m not just saying that. It’s how Parliament is supposed to work.

I would encourage people, if they ever have the time—and I know we’re all busy, so where you get the time to read a book sometimes is a pretty taxing thing in our business. But take the time to go back and read some of the history on how Parliament has developed over the years. It will be a real eye-opener, because you’ll begin to understand why the institution of Parliament is set up the way that it is and why we have certain rules. Right?

It’s about making sure that there is a check and balance between the executive and the Parliament—that, yes, they are related, but they are somewhat independent so that Parliament cannot be told what to do against its will, even if it’s within their own party.

The British Parliament demonstrates that highly well, where you see, on a regular basis, members of the government just doing what they think is right as individuals or for their constituency, and entire blocs—in this case it was the Conservative governments; before that it was Labour governments—where members voted against their own governments on matters of principle. You saw that happen both under Labour and under Conservative governments in England. I think that was the strength of what the parliamentary system is.

So I would encourage the members to actually defeat this motion, to vote against time allocation and allow the committee to do its work. If the bill doesn’t get passed until sometime in February, it’s okay. If it doesn’t get passed until sometime in February, it’s going to be because we actually go out and listen to the public and design a better bill. So I encourage members of the House on all sides to vote against this time allocation motion.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’m happy to be able to speak to the time allocation motion on Bill 116 today.

Democracy requires that there is due diligence, there is thought and there is consideration. From the very beginning, when we first were elected, the Minister of Health, in talking about overdose prevention sites, was saying that we need to get this right, that this needed to be something that we considered.

We now see with this time allocation motion that there seems to be this rush to push this through, to not consider. Really, there are so many things that need to be included, so many things that have to be done, including, as the member from Timmins has mentioned, the importance of consultations, of listening to the public. If we take a look at our legislative roles, we are Ontario’s official opposition: Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. That is not simply something negative; that is simply another position that needs to be considered and taken into account when crafting legislation.

So many people have shared their very personal and difficult stories when it comes to mental health within this chamber. But yet, the public has not had as much of an opportunity, through consultations, to indicate what we need to do as legislators to make sure that this legislation is crafted well. We really need to not have something such as time allocation. We need to go out and we need to listen to the public and consider what they would like to say.

Right now, when we take a look at this, we have such a patchwork health care system. Some parts of our bodies are covered by our health care; our minds, our eyes and our teeth are somehow all seen as separate. The World Health Organization recognized the flaw in the system when they stated, “There is no health without mental health.” But that isn’t how health care is treated within this province. We can see a doctor about a physical ailment with just our health card. Mental health services are costly and inaccessible and often hard to navigate.

A staggering one third of Canadians struggling with mental health aren’t able to obtain counselling services despite requesting them. It shouldn’t be difficult for those experiencing a mental health crisis to get support, but it often is. Many Ontarians simply can’t afford consistent and reliable access to counselling, and they therefore go without support during times they need it the most.

We need to do some serious work to end this patchwork health care model, as it ignores how important mental health is to our overall well-being. If we ignore our minds, we ignore our bodies. Our system is so dynamic, and it requires both pieces working together. People who are struggling with mental health—their sleep suffers, they lose energy and their cognitive functions begin to alter. It is such an incredibly important consideration, and yet, here we see legislation being pushed through with time allocation without the proper consideration. Has there been consultation with experts? I don’t see it.

The government has not yet been clear about who it has consulted, when it consulted and what the content was of those consultations.

One of the problems with Bill 116 is that neither

schedule in the bill establishes policies, funding or resources that impact front-line services to support mental health and addiction issues. That is entirely problematic.

What we would need to see from this is consultation with families and consultation with people who have been affected by the opioid crisis. There are so many people across this province who have had their lives completely interrupted and sometimes destroyed by the loss of a family member through addictions and through mental health.

What is also problematic—and this is why we don’t understand the time allocation motion—is that, if you look at Bill 116, there’s no requirement for the government to redirect the compensation from a lawsuit that they’re proposing with the pharmaceutical companies. That money is not necessarily going to go to front-line services to deal with this opioid crisis. That’s entirely problematic. Where is the money going to go?

Furthermore, suing those opioid manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies doesn’t necessarily solve the problem. Within Ontario, the problem with the drug crisis is that there are illicit drugs that are causing poisonings, overdoses and deaths, so a safe supply is really something that we should be looking at.

There seems to be a double standard in our health care system within Ontario which we need to address. You can see a doctor about having type 2 diabetes just by presenting your health card. Nobody would bat an eye if you wanted to take time off of work if you’re dealing with a heart condition. Yet our attitude towards mental health is exactly the opposite, and it’s even worse when we consider addiction. You can’t access mental health services just by showing your health card. Most Ontarians have to rely on their benefits to access care.

This legislation does not address that, and pushing it through with time allocation shows that this government really hasn’t listened to the needs of Ontario.

If this government wants to show that it’s serious about tackling mental health, they need to do what front-line workers have repeatedly requested: Stop the cuts and actually invest in mental health services. Why are we pushing through this legislation? If you are in such a rush, then you should be showing that you are in a rush to deal with this by investing.

In my community, the overdose prevention site was such a political kickball, and still is. We started off this sitting of the Legislature with 21 approved sites. The government cut that back to 15. That doesn’t show that the government is necessarily serious about dealing with this. Those six sites were defunded. Now there’s talk that they can reapply and they may get funding, but if you’re going to follow the BC NDP model, which is to adequately deal with and attack the opioid crisis, (1) you need to declare it a public health emergency, but (2) you also need to expand access, not limit and deny access.

And so this time allocation motion is curious in that there seems to be this presentation as though there is a rush to get this done, and yet all of the actions prior have been absolutely to the contrary.

There are many organizations in this province that are already doing their utmost to provide mental health services to Ontarians, but they’re dealing with extensive wait times due to a lack of provincial investment. Show that you are willing to do something by investing.

Rebecca Machado is the executive director of Daya Counselling, a charitable organization in London that provides thousands of hours of counselling to hundreds of Londoners each year. In particular, Daya offers free and sliding-scale counselling services in London to both couples and families who would not otherwise be able to afford these services. These services are so highly sought after that every Monday, Daya opens their phone lines to accept requests for these subsidized services, and almost every single week, without fail, the slots are filled within mere minutes.

In fact, by 9:30 that morning, all the spots are filled. This is because there’s a lack of provincial investment in mental health services.

Let’s think about that for a moment. If somebody calls after 9:30 in the morning, well, Speaker, they’re invited to call back next week or are redirected to other programs that have similarly extensive wait-lists. Daya and other organizations like them are doing the best they can to help Ontarians deal with their mental health, but they also need a government that supports their efforts. The fact that services at Daya are at capacity mere minutes after they open for the day demonstrates how badly Ontarians need these services fully funded.

So we see time allocation, this rush to get this legislation through, but we don’t see a rush to provide funding that Ontarians actually need. That’s one of my main issues that we’re dealing with in this bill today. I’m concerned that this bill and the time allocation on this bill don’t establish policies or a funding model that will directly impact front-line services. It will also keep those front-line service providers from delivering mental health care. This bill needs to empower them.

It needs to provide funding so they can not only maintain but expand their services and address the lengthy wait times that people have to deal with. Mental health is not something that we can delay, and, quite frankly, it’s not something we can ignore.

Rebecca, if I may quote her, said that “If there is money to be spent, it would likely be better spent fully funding those services that exist but have long (or even closed) waiting lists, or by beginning to fund the community-based agencies that are already filling the gaps through charitably funded mental health and addictions support.”

The front-line workers and organizations that are already doing the work to provide Ontarians with mental health care deserve to be listened to and to have their efforts respected and funded by the government.

But I think there’s a reason that this bill doesn’t include any actual funding for mental health, and that’s because the government has made significant cuts to mental health funding in this province. So we see time allocation on this bill, and it seems an empty gesture because of those cuts.

One of the first actions this government took was slashing $330 million for mental health and addiction services. Ontario already needed greater investments in mental health, and yet the government cut the funding instead. There are an estimated 12,000 children in Ontario who are waiting up to 18 months for mental health treatment. This number represents a 63% increase for children visiting the ER for mental health issues than there were in 2006.

Instead of seeing this as the crisis in children’s mental health that it is, this government actually went ahead with their cuts. Last May, the Financial Accountability Office actually found that the government cut $69 million from the children and youth mental health program for the 2019-20 school year. This represents a 15% cut of the overall program, compared to last year’s estimates.

If this government was serious about mental health, such as it is presenting by pushing this time allocation motion through, then we should see seriousness with funding. We should see that cut undone, that funding restored.

There’s no reason our kids should be waiting in the ER for hours when going through a mental health crisis. That’s the last thing someone in crisis should have to endure.

Cuts will not help Ontarians access mental health support faster. Simply put, only funding will. If the government wants to show their commitment to mental health, they need to reverse these cuts and put those funds back into front-line organizations. Let’s see actions, not words.

If this government were to pursue real actions with funding, rather than time allocation motions such as we are discussing today, then we would be able to address one of the biggest problems within our province, one that we hear about at every single door we knock on, and that is hallway medicine.

When you think of that statistic and that number of 12,000 children waiting in the ER, it’s frightening. It’s unacceptable.

I think back to my days as a teacher. One of the reasons I entered politics is because of the lack of mental health supports that were available to students. You see, when a child would have an episode, we would hear over the PA system, “Code yellow.” That was a cue to teachers to keep all their kids in the classroom; don’t let them in the hallway. Then you’d hear screaming, cursing and yelling as the student who was having an episode was being withdrawn from school.

We can never blame that child who was having that episode because, clearly, they had a need that our society was not meeting. But you think about the impacts of that. You think about all the children who are stuck in their classrooms, not able to use the washroom, not able to get a drink of water, but also hearing someone who is suffering and who is in pain.

We talk about improving educational outcomes for students, but, really, we need to address their mental health needs. Otherwise, everyone is impacted.

We look at the rise of violence in our school systems as well—the pictures of educational assistants and teachers who are having to wear Kevlar bodysuits. This government should be addressing that, not pushing through a bill with time allocation when we consider that every single day, there are kids in the classroom who are witnessing violence—professionals, educators being attacked, having to wear shields so they’re not spat upon.

Can you imagine wearing a Kevlar suit in your classroom, as designated by your school board, such that your arms had to be in “this” position for your entire day, for your own protection? You tell me that’s an investment in mental health? That is something we need to be addressing, not pushing through legislation that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed upon.

I’d like to return to a couple of stories from my riding. In 2015, Alex Godfrey sought help from the Victoria Hospital during a severe mental health crisis. Alex expected to stay only a single night while she received care, but overcrowding meant that Alex had to spend four nights and five days in a windowless area while she waited to enter the hospital’s mental health floor. It wasn’t a nice and open room. It didn’t have a bathroom and, as I said, it didn’t have a window to look outside.

In fact, Alex later said that she felt more like a little caged zoo animal, and that her stay definitely hindered her ability to heal. Here’s someone who entered the hospital, and yet it actually set them back.

A similar situation happened to Dawn Warren when she sought mental health support. You see, she struggled with postpartum depression, something that a lot of mothers go through, and during this difficult time, she sought the assistance of health care professionals. She waited hours to be admitted and eventually was placed on a bed in an overflow area. Guess what, Speaker? It was just a hallway. She was stuck there for over 100 hours. Someone struggling with depression; a busy and bustling hallway; patients, doctors; no privacy, no bathroom—how are you supposed to get better?

With this bill, we see this push to send this legislation through at breakneck pace with time allocation, but there are still so many stories like these of people struggling. We need to see funding, not a rush for legislation.

It’s been a short while since we’ve had this sitting of the Legislature. When we first ran for election, we knew what the issue was when we knocked on doors, and that was to deal with the hallway health care crisis. It hasn’t changed. You go out and you knock on doors and people are still saying the same issues. We still receive calls—and I’m sure you do as well on the opposite side of the House—and letters from constituents who are suffering in hallways, people who don’t have privacy and dignity in their hospitals. That’s not because of the care they’re receiving, it is because of funding. Quite frankly, it’s because of the cuts to funding.

I also wanted to point out a couple of disparities between this legislation and the model which this government seems to be copying from BC, and some curious absences, ones that need to be included before we should even be considering time allocation.

The $330 million that was cut from mental health and addiction services removed the arbitrary caps on overdose prevention sites. Those six sites that were cut? They should have their funding restored.

Also, I hear from constituents who have talked about, rather than taking opioids, having pain injections. Yet the government seems to want to cut funding for that. Here’s a way in which people can adequately deal with their pain, and yet that’s being taken away.

In addition to declaring this the public health emergency that it is, we also need to reconvene the provincial Opioid Emergency Task Force. If there’s such a rush, government, if there’s such a crisis, such as time allocation would presume there is, then why are these actions not being taken?

We have words on paper and then we have actions. Those two things do not seem to be meeting, and that is a great concern. We need to restore funding for mental health, making sure we are dealing with children and youth. And, Speaker, we need to make sure that this government is actually taking action rather than simply dealing with low-hanging fruit or words.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Another day, another time allocation motion. We have certainly seen this movie before. Ever since the Legislature reconvened on October 28, this government has chosen to use the heavy hand of a time allocation motion to push through its agenda.

Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, of course the government has the right to move forward with its legislative agenda. But at the same time, every MPP in this chamber, as the voice of the people who elected us, also has the right to participate in debate on the legislative initiatives that are brought forward by the government. The people of this province have the right to participate in public input on legislative initiatives that are being brought forward.

I want to commend my colleague the member for London North Centre, who pointed out some of the challenges that we face in London. London has a unique set of challenges, perhaps, but every community across this province faces its own unique set of challenges.

Speaker, even if one agreed that time allocation is an appropriate mechanism for this government to use to push forward its agenda, there are some big concerns about the content of this specific time allocation motion, which allows a single day of public hearings right here in Toronto.

There are people from London who may have a lot of insights, a lot of front-line experience, a lot of valuable suggestions and knowledge to share about our experience with the opioid crisis in London and our experience with mental health patients lining the hallways of the hospital, unable to access emergency care or community care. People from London may really want to participate in the public input process on this bill, but with a very short turnaround, with only one day of public hearings, and with those public hearings held in Toronto, it may simply be not possible for that to happen.

My colleague the member for Timmins spoke earlier. I can’t imagine how difficult it would be for people from Timmins, the constituents he represents—who also have very unique challenges with mental health and addictions—to get down to Toronto to participate in these public hearings.

So, Speaker, we are, as my colleagues have said, going to be voting against this time allocation motion. We do not believe that time allocation is an appropriate tool for governments to use on a routine, regular—practically daily—basis to move their agenda through. The purpose of the Legislative Assembly, the reason that we are here, is to work on behalf of the people we represent, to bring the priorities, the concerns and the ideas of the people that we represent to this assembly. A time allocation motion limits our ability to do that. It undermines our effectiveness as representatives of our communities.

That is why there should be a process of negotiation between the government and the official opposition and the independent members about how we’re going to manage the business of the House. In some cases, it’s very clear that there is a lot of consensus around legislation. In those cases, let’s move the legislation forward; we can come to some kind of agreement about how we’re going to proceed. But this government doesn’t want to engage in those kinds of discussions. They’ve been very clear that they have no interest in approaching the work that we do in that way.

They prefer to lay these time allocation motions on the table with very little turnaround for people to request to participate in the public input process.

Now, Speaker, I will say that at least there is a public input process for this particular piece of legislation, because we have several examples of bills that this government has introduced in previous sessions that skipped the public input process altogether: The time allocation motion moved the bill immediately from second reading to third reading without any opportunity for the public to participate, to offer ideas, to suggest amendments to strengthen legislation and was completely shut out of the process that this government chose to follow.

So we’re going to be opposing the time allocation motion. We believe that the crisis in mental health in this province merits much more fulsome debate in this chamber.

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

Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 74, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 116,

An Act to enact the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence Act, 2019 and the Opioid Damages and Health Costs Recovery Act, 2019.

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

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Orders of the day? I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: No further business.

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

The House recessed from 1008 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the members to give me their attention for a moment.

We have, in the Speaker’s gallery, the family of the late John Roxburgh Smith, MPP for Hamilton Mountain during the 28th, 29th and 30th Parliaments: his wife, Judith Smith; daughter Hayley Post and her husband, John; son Drew Smith and his wife, Elizabeth; son John Smith and his wife, Ashley; grandchildren Edwina, Hamish, Charlotte and Lucia; and many cherished family friends and other members of the family.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery are David Warner, who was Speaker in the 35th Parliament and is currently the Chair of the Association of Former Parliamentarians; Jean-Marc Lalonde, MPP for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell during the 36th, 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments; Annamarie Castrilli, MPP for Downsview during the 36th Parliament; Steve Gilchrist, who was MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments; and Rosario Marchese, who was the MPP for Trinity–Spadina during the 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments.

Please join me in welcoming our guests who are here with us today.

Applause.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome vice-president John Fairley from St. Clair College in Windsor, who is over in the east members’ gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park, John.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature this morning friends of former Speaker Dr. Alvin Curling: Shazaad Mohammed, who is an ambassador of peace with the Universal Peace Federation under the United Nations; William Fong, vice-president of Masami Group; and Sacha Singh, president of D&S Re/Max Realty. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to welcome the Ontario Book Publishers Organization and all the groups that are part of this advocacy day today at Queen’s Park. In particular, I’d like to give a shout-out to Lesley Steeve, editor-in-chief at Irwin Law. Welcome, Lesley.

Hon. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome dear friends from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound: Sandra Johnson and her daughter, Pam Atchison.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the great privilege of welcoming to the Legislature today two constituents, Ken Kohut and Siva Sivapalan, who will be here watching the proceedings. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to welcome Alayna Munce of Brick Books. She is a London West constituent and is visiting today with the Ontario Book Publishers Organization. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Christina Maria Mitas: I’d like to welcome Kenny, one of the vice-presidents of my riding association in Scarborough Centre and a super amazing volunteer. Thanks for being here.

Hon. Ross Romano: I would like to echo the introduction this morning of the member from Windsor–Tecumseh and welcome and introduce John Fairley to the House today. He is vice-president of college communications and community relations and executive director at St. Clair College. Welcome, John.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome my friend Natalie Montgomery to the Legislature, who I see is sitting in the gallery. Welcome to the people’s House.

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s my daily welcome to parents and advocates of people living with autism. Today with us we have Amanda Mooyer and Stacy Kennedy. Welcome back to Queen’s Park—and a personal welcome to the family of John Smith. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Good morning. It’s my pleasure to welcome some special visitors to the House today, the family of our wonderful page, Julian Bal, from the great riding of Cambridge: his mom, Cambridge family physician Sharon Bal; his father, a Cambridge dentist, George Bal; his 10-year-old sister, Vanessa Bal of Cambridge; and also his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Bal from Markham and Mr. and Mrs. Kular from Acton. Thank you for coming today, and welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome Chief Greg Sage of the Halton Region paramedic service, Chief Carrie Hassberger of the Rama First Nation paramedic service, Chief Mike Nolan of the Renfrew county paramedic service, and Neal Roberts of the Middlesex-London paramedic service. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I too would like to welcome a good friend of mine, a good friend of ours, the chief of Middlesex–London EMS, Neal Roberts. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I have guests who are making their way in to the House. That includes Michael Perley, from the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco; Dr. Atul Kapur, from Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada; and Lubaba Gemma and Saadia Sarker, who are members of the Youth Health Action Network; as well as representatives from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario, the Association of Parents in Catholic Education, the Lung Association, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, Asthma Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and Alliance. Welcome to Queen’s Park. They’re here to support the Vaping is not for Kids bill. Thank you.

Mr. Billy Pang: I would like to welcome Holly Kent and members of the Ontario Book Publishers Organization to Queen’s Park. They are having a book fair in room 228 today, and I encourage our colleagues to stop by and support the many great titles being produced in Ontario. Thank you.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I’d just like to welcome Conceivable Dreams. Natalie Montgomery and others from Conceivable Dreams are here and had a breakfast this morning and will be talking to legislators.

Also, I want to recognize and acknowledge the presence—but she’s not here yet—of journalist, author, artist, super mother and super grandmother, my mother-in-law, Sally Martin.

John Roxburgh Smith

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to recognize the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find we have unanimous consent to recognize the former member of provincial Parliament from the riding of Hamilton Mountain, John Roxburgh Smith, with five minutes being allocated to the government, five minutes being allocated to the official opposition and five minutes being allotted to the independent members, with the independent members going first, followed by the NDP and, finally, by the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to do a tribute to former member John Roxburgh Smith. Agreed? Agreed.

I’m going to recognize the member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’ll be splitting my time with the member from Ottawa South. I’m honoured to rise today to pay tribute to John Roxburgh Smith for his distinguished public service and contributions to our province, our country and his community. I welcome his wife, Judith Smith, his children, grandchildren, nieces, cousins, friends and many colleagues who are here today.

I appreciate the legacy that Mr. Smith leaves behind, accomplishments in service that include serving as MPP and cabinet minister in the Ontario Legislature, as an alderman in Hamilton, on boards and as a rector and archdeacon of St. George’s Church in Hamilton.

I’m especially inspired by Mr. Smith’s contributions to humanitarian service, in particular for his work in founding, with a group of friends, an organization that helped hundreds of Vietnamese refugees come to Canada. Mr. Smith’s purposeful life of service is an inspiration to all of us.

I want to thank you, Mr. Smith, for your contributions to public life in this province and in this country. I especially want to thank your family for their support of your work and for sharing you with all Ontarians.

May you rest in peace, Mr. Smith, and may your legacy of public service and support for humanitarian causes endure.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s an honour to say a few words in tribute to John Roxburgh Smith, member of provincial Parliament, with many of his family and friends here. I asked David Warner, who we all know and who served with him briefly, “What was he like?” David said he was a quiet man and that he’d never heard anyone say a bad word about him. That’s the first of three things I learned about John Roxburgh Smith: that it is possible to leave this place with the respect of all of your colleagues.

The second thing that I learned is: Act on your conviction. I’m going to read a short

article from the Toronto Star in 1975:

“Correctional Services Minister John Roxburgh Smith, a cabinet newcomer, has a background on paper at least that would qualify him as a maverick.

“In April 1971, he joined opposition members as a lone Progressive Conservative to vote in favour of providing research money and independent staff for a committee to investigate post-secondary education spending.”

Earlier in 1968, he accused his government of neglecting teacher training.

Speaker, I kind of wish he was around today because we might be able to attract him over to this little corner of the Legislature. He did vote against his government in the 1973 budget because of the energy tax, so maybe my hopes are a little unfounded and he wouldn’t be that comfortable over here.

As Minister of Corrections, he worked to expand the opportunities for community input and correctional staffing to be more inclusive of women and Indigenous communities.

The third thing I learned from John Roxburgh Smith is live your conviction. John Roxburgh Smith was a person of deep faith, an educator, a prize-winning gardener, a husband, a father, a grandfather. He created an organization to assist refugee Vietnamese boat people, the families coming from Vietnam to our country.

He was an ordained priest in the Reformed Episcopal Church. John Roxburgh Smith was guided by his faith in humanity. He served his community not just as an elected member here, but, afterwards, as a very active participant in the community he served.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: It is an honour to rise today on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues to pay tribute to John Roxburgh Smith. I want to begin by extending a warm welcome to his loved ones who are here with us today: his beloved wife, Judy, his children, Hayley, Drew and John and their spouses, his four grandchildren, his niece, cousins and other guests who have joined us here today.

As you know, he was the MPP for my riding of Hamilton Mountain, and I know our community is eternally grateful for his years of commitment and service. John Smith truly believed in leading by example as a politician, as a community leader and as a father. He was a man who dedicated his life to the betterment of his community and to those around him, and he took his work very seriously.

When I spoke to his wife, Judy, she told me that he was always going full speed; there was always more for him to do. She told me that John always worked to help advance others, that it wasn’t about him. It was about making sure other people had the opportunity to rise and reach their full potential. He was tirelessly driven to make his community and the people around him better. He would always try to figure out a way to make somebody rise through their own commitment. One of the things Judy told me that was very important to him was that what he did in this life was to make sure that when he left it, he left it a better place.

After his years as a Hamilton alderman and MPP, he found a new way to serve his community through his faith. He was very proud that he was ordained and was able to continue to serve others, and his service was also extended abroad through his work to help sponsor and settle Vietnamese refugees. Ultimately, he helped over 3,000 people build a new, safe and secure life in Canada—truly a wonderful legacy.

Judy also told me that, for John, the politics came second. He believed that we’re all human and we’re all in this together. Though sometimes we get caught up in the politics, when the rubber hits the road at the end of the day, we’re all here to serve our community and to truly leave it better than we found it. He did that through passion and commitment and truly serving our community.

He knew that we had different ways on how we did this, different political views, but it truly came down to human rights at the end of it. She spoke to me about letters she received from the MPP who came after him, Mr. Brian Charlton, who took over Hamilton Mountain, and how pleased she was to hear from the Charltons, because, like they said, it didn’t matter the politics and who beat who, at the end of the day, we were all here serving our community. It truly meant so much to Judy, and she was happy to share that with me.

He was a dedicated, compassionate public servant, and we can all learn so much from the life of John Smith. I think that’s why it’s important that we do these honourees here in the Legislature, to make sure it puts some human perspective back into the job that we do.

Thank you for sharing John with us for all of those years throughout his different services to our community. He was truly appreciated. We are grateful for his years of service—again, to humbly serve our community and to leave this place better than we found it. Thank you so much for all of his years of service.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll next recognize the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: I’m honoured to rise today to speak about the life and legacy of John Roxburgh Smith. John Smith was a Progressive Conservative MPP who represented the riding of Hamilton Mountain in this Legislature for 10 years, from 1967 to 1977. He served in cabinet as Minister of Correctional Services and Minister of Government Services. He sat on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. His family says his last political quest was to convince the provincial government to replace the statue of Chief Tecumseh in the lobby here at Queen’s Park.

John stepped into political life at an early age, serving as a Hamilton alderman during two different periods. He enjoyed political life, but helping people really was his true calling. During the exodus of refugees from Vietnam, John invited a group of friends to form a charity called the Mountain Fund to Help Save the Boat People. For 14 years, he worked tirelessly in helping Vietnamese refugees resettle in Canada. Under John’s leadership, the group resettled 3,000 Vietnamese refugees.

His wife, Judy, tells the story of the time that John insisted on driving to the Toronto airport in the middle of the night, during a snowstorm, to meet a refugee family that had just arrived. He told his wife, “They can’t wait any longer. They have suffered enough.” That was the heart of John Smith.

He was a man of faith, a man who lived his life according to his firm belief in the Christian gospel. After leaving the political arena, John became an ordained minister. He told his friend Reverend Paul Luth that his years as an ordained minister were some of the most fulfilling of his life. He loved the ministry and poured himself into his work. While serving as rector and later as archdeacon at St. George’s Church in Hamilton, John made it a point of knowing the name of every single person in the congregation. He had a way of making an instant connection with people.

In 2012, he was awarded the Queen’s diamond jubilee medal, a medal to honour his significant contributions to his community. He was the founder of the Sir John A. Macdonald Society. He also served on the Ontario Horticultural Association executive and volunteered his summers to work among the Inuit in the Arctic.

People who knew him say John was a soft-spoken man, but he had a fierce and compassionate spirit for helping those in need. John passed away on December 6 last year at the age of 82. In the days before he died, a steady stream of people arrived at the intensive care unit at Hamilton General Hospital. The hospital waiting room was packed with refugees, some from as far away as California. They wanted to hold his hand and thank him for what he had done for them. The doctors were so moved by the outpouring of gratitude that they allowed the hundreds of visitors to stay.

When John would walk through Lime Ridge Mall in Hamilton, he would often be stopped by people whom he had helped over the years. His family would comment that he was famous for helping people.

John Smith adored his family. He was married to his wife, Judy, for 43 years, and together they raised three children and four grandchildren. His family and extended family members are sitting in the gallery here today. Please join me in welcoming his wife, Judy; daughter, Hayley; sons Drew and John; and their spouses, grandchildren and extended family and friends back to the Legislature where John served for a decade. You must be very proud.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I want to thank the member for their eloquent tributes in memory of John Roxburgh Smith’s extraordinary life of faith and service. Once again, we thank his family and friends for joining us here this morning.

Oral Questions

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. This week the Minister of Energy justified his government’s scrapping of clean energy contracts by quoting what he called his “favourite periodical”, a climate change conspiracy website called Climate Change Dispatch. The minister seems to doubt climate science, and is now getting dubious facts from conspiracies he finds online.

The minister says he likes to consider both sides of the question. When it comes to the question of whether there is a climate crisis, does the energy minister believe there are two legitimate sides of the coin?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I certainly do believe in climate change. That’s why I’m proud of the fact that Ontario is one of the cleanest energy jurisdictions on the continent: 92% of our energy system is GHG-emission-free, and more than 60% of it comes from a clean nuclear source, which the NDP do not support.

Let’s be clear that this journey started 18 years ago. Then-Premier Harris issued a directive to phase out coal, starting with the Lakeview Generating Station. It took 14 years and other governments to complete that journey, but it was a major step in ensuring that Ontario would be one of the cleanest energy jurisdictions in North America and for the world to marvel at.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Minister of Energy: In the face of a major new report that says the world needs to take bold action to tackle the climate crisis, the Ford government rejects the consensus of climate scientists that we are facing a human-caused climate crisis and clings to climate denial websites. The minister couldn’t even answer a yes-or-no question from the media on whether he believes human activity is a significant contributor to climate change.

I’d like to give him another chance. Does the minister believe human activity is a significant contributor to climate change?

Hon. Greg Rickford: It’s always interesting when an official opposition has to use the media to carry the big boxes for them. Isn’t it interesting over the past week that they’ve had to quote big words that they had to check in the dictionary from a Toronto Star reporter, or a headline from the CBC which was a departure from the facts in the discussion that was had that day, Mr. Speaker?

Here’s the truth: Ontario leads North America as one of the cleanest—as the cleanest energy jurisdiction. It’s because we remained committed to a coal phase-out over the course of 18 years. It’s because we believe in the people in the Durham region who every day go to work as a skilled workforce to ensure that we have world-class, safe nuclear energy to supply almost two thirds of this province with its energy. We remain committed to those kinds of investments, not projects that have made our system too complex, non-competitive and, more importantlyfor families, seniors and Indigenous communities across the province—

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

Final supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, we all know what it means when a minister won’t address the question. I think we all know that.

Denying the climate crisis, a human-caused climate crisis, would certainly explain many of this government’s actions. The government ripped up clean energy contracts costing Ontarians at least $231 million and spent millions more on stickers on gas pumps that didn’t even stick. and fighting a losing court battle against putting a price on pollution. The Ford government would clearly rather rip down windmills and stick up stickers than invest in the clean energy economy of Ontario’s future.

I’d like to ask for a third time: Does the minister believe that human-caused climate change is real?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Climate change is real, Mr. Speaker. There’s no dispute about that anywhere in this place; I’m pretty sure of that. The question is, how do we develop a clean, affordable energy system here in Ontario?

Here’s how we don’t do it, Mr. Speaker. In the 2015 annual report, the Auditor General concluded that ratepayers paid—wait for it—$37 billion more than necessary from 2006 to 2014. The same hydro rates went up by 22%. She also determined that we’d spend an additional $133 billion by 2032 due to the global adjustment electricity fees on hydro bills.

Do you want to talk about expensive and how we got there, Mr. Speaker? I’ll tell you how we got there. There were votes in this place that made that system the most complex and expensive in the system, and that member voted for it every single time.

Government contracts

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I guess the answer to my last question was a no, so we’ll go to my next.

For over a year, the Premier has insisted that scrapping clean energy would lead to a 12% reduction in hydro bills. Now the contracts have been scrapped and the price tag for scrapping them has gone from zero dollars—and I’m sure you remember, Speaker—to $231 million. Can the minister tell families when they can expect their bills to go down?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Let’s be clear on the cost savings from scrapping more than 750 of these projects: $790 million in net present value. That’s not accommodating for inflationary rates. That’s not accommodating for the fact that this would, in fact, fortify a system that has become so complex and so expensive, it runs the risk of putting Ontario out of business, and families are spending too much more for their energy. We’ve taken the kinds of extraordinary steps—most of them from the Auditor General—to ensure that we have a path to reduce hydro rates in the province of Ontario, and it’s coming soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker. I don’t think he quite addressed the question there.

After one year of the Ford government, hydro bills are higher than they have ever been. In fact, they’re climbing. The Ford government’s strategy so far has consisted of meddling at Hydro One and tearing up contracts for renewable energy. That’s made a lot of money for energy companies raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for bungled contracts, but families are still waiting for relief. Can the minister tell families when they can expect their bills to go down?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, it just occurred to me that the impact of the increase in hydro rates from 2009 to 2015, which ranged from 5.5% every year to 22% every year, fully endorsed by the member opposite in cahoots with the previous Liberal government—because it wasn’t on the bill. You see, they didn’t have to hide it. An inflationary rate this past November 1 we take very seriously, Mr. Speaker—and we’ve spent the last year making sure that we get rid of the things and pressures that have been on our system to make this one of the most complex and expensive there is.

But that member has never had to account for the fact that on November 1, 2015, he gave a ringing endorsement for a 22% increase to the ratepayers of Ontario. The people of Kenora, the people of Thunder Bay, the residents who live in Kiiwetinoong—you name the community, they paid way too much, and he voted—

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

The final supplementary.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Member for Toronto–Danforth, final supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, thank you, Speaker. I think they’re getting a bit touchy on that side.

Speaker, if the Premier’s job was to make energy companies millions of dollars, he has done an amazingly good job. Let’s face it: The US energy company Avista took home a $103-million cancellation fee when the Premier bungled a deal with them. Renewable energy providers here in Ontario will be paid at least $231 million not to generate electricity.

But families aren’t getting a break. They’re certainly not seeing a 12% reduction in their bills, as was promised.

Does the Ford government have any intention of delivering on their promise to reduce hydro bills by 12%?

Hon. Greg Rickford: We certainly do, Mr. Speaker. It started with

an act that some might have deemed colloquial in nature, but it was the “clean up the hydro mess” act—the mess that was created by the previous government and supported 100% of the time by the official opposition.

No less than 90 communities across this province said that they were unwilling host communities to the Green Energy Act. I think that’s grounds to repeal that act, if I’m not mistaken. That’s exactly what we did, and we scrapped 750 projects that went with it, because they were going to continue to support the most complex and expensive energy system we have.

We are finally at a place where we have gotten rid of all the ridiculous things that were built into our energy system, baked into it. We’re going to deliver on our promise to reduce hydro rates for major employers, small businesses, seniors, Indigenous communities and communities all across our great province.

Religious freedom

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Premier. On Monday, the Legislature unanimously passed a motion calling on this government to communicate directly to the Premier of Quebec our opposition to Quebec’s Bill 21. The Premier has a meeting face to face with Premier Legault, and there is an expectation from organizations such as the World Sikh Organization, the Toronto Board of Rabbis and the National Council of Canadian Muslims that this government will do what it says it will do and communicate Ontario’s concern and opposition to Bill 21 directly to Premier Legault.

Yet the Premier is refusing to address this serious violation of basic human rights. Why, Premier?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I’ve addressed this on multiple occasions, both yesterday and in a speech to this House. We’ve reaffirmed on multiple occasions, both the Premier on behalf of the government and the members of this Legislature on behalf of all parliamentarians, that a bill like that has no place in the province of Ontario, and we would fight something like that.

I would encourage the members opposite to continue to do what we’re doing, to work towards those things and focus on those things that unify the country, and help us do that.

At the same time, let’s also talk about other things, like the economy. Let’s work to build a better economy.

Mr. Speaker, again, finally, I think that we’ve been very clear on this. I appreciate the honourable member for bringing it up. But hopefully, we can move on from the politics of this and move towards doing what’s right for the people of Canada.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: I think it’s important that we acknowledge that this House indeed stood up and spoke out, but we are still waiting to have the Premier address and do what the motion calls on him to do.

This meeting is a chance to defend basic human rights in Ontario and across this country, Speaker. The Premier hasn’t been shy about standing up for Alberta’s equalization payments or for his opposition to pharmacare here in the country. Yet when it comes to basic human rights, he suddenly doesn’t know where he stands, and can’t stand up and speak out and say what he needs to. The Premier needs to show leadership on the national stage. Leaders don’t sit silent when human rights are at stake.

Cabinet ministers stood proudly to announce their support for this motion. The Associate Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction even tweeted out a video talking about his support. So why don’t any of these cabinet ministers mention that they have no intention of actually doing what the motion says that it will do?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The easy thing would be for me to ramp up, but I’m not going to, Mr. Speaker.

The communities that the minister of small business and trade talked about, and the member from Milton, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, the education minister and the member for York Centre—these are all very important communities, not just to the government but to all members of the House.

I remind the honourable member that it was unanimous in this Parliament on the motion that was brought forward, not once but twice. The Premier has spoken often about this and has been extraordinarily clear—prior to the first motion, prior to the second motion, and since—that a bill like this would have no place in the province of Ontario.

Tourism

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is for the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. Visiting Ontario’s museums, art galleries and attractions is a great experience, but it can be very expensive for lower- to middle-income families. I know within the ministry, there are several cultural assets like the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the McMichael gallery, the Royal Botanical Gardens, the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto, Science North in Sudbury and the parks commission in Niagara. It would be great if the government could make these assets attainable for all Ontario families.

Can the minister inform this House how her ministry’s assets support lower- and middle-income families so they can see the incredible works of art and history that this province has to offer?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to say thank you to the member from Oakville for that question. I know as a father of two daughters that are my daughter’s age—it’s really important that we continue to make the arts, the cultural history of our province, our museums and our historic sites accessible and attainable for every family in this wonderful province.

Now, he mentioned the AGO. I’m so very proud of the Art Gallery of Ontario. They offer free admission to all Indigenous peoples and they offer those 25 years of age and under free admission on every Wednesday evening. In addition, the Royal Ontario Museum, which I believe is one of the best-run museums in the world, offers free admission on the third Tuesday of each month from 5:30 to 8:30. They also offer the Daphne Cockwell Gallery, dedicated to First Peoples art and culture, free of charge for every Ontarian.

Speaker, I often say that we are the world in one province. We also have world-class facilities that every Ontario child deserves to see.

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

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you, Minister. It’s wonderful to hear that very positive news.

Ensuring all families have access to arts and culture and all our natural heritage is incredibly important. Since my constituents neither live in Toronto or near any of the other cultural assets, it can sometimes be difficult for them to take

part in these free events.

In my community, we have the Oakville Museum, which recently told the story in an exhibit—“Preserving Peace: Souvenirs of Peacekeeping”—of Eva Martinez, the first female United Nations observer who spoke about her experience with the UN peacekeeping mission in Guatemala in 1997. The value of learning of experiences such as this are immeasurable and essential to instilling pride in our province and country.

Can the minister tell us what she is doing to support local museums like this, and help local families access these services?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a very good question. I’m glad that he was able to tell this House about the wonderful work that they’re doing in Oakville at their museum.

Again, in our ministry, our goal is to build on and grow our spectacular double bottom line; that is, a $71-billion economic imprint, but at the same time preserving and protecting our cultural history and our fabric. We do so within this ministry by investing directly into museums across Ontario to ensure that they continue to operate.

One of the things I’m most excited about, Speaker, that was in the fall economic statement is the fact that we are going to expand the Fun Pass to all museums, galleries and attractions throughout Ontario so that we can make local museums, local historic sites and local attractions free for children. We’ll have more details in the months ahead, but this is, I think, one of the most exciting things this government can be doing to make sure that we are offering the entire world in one province to every child that lives in our great communities.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Minister of Education. Elementary and secondary teachers are continuing job action today, standing firm in defence of our public education system and against this government’s cuts. Teachers are standing up for students and their right to learn in a classroom that isn’t bursting at the seams. They’re standing up for parents who don’t want their kids left to fend for themselves with risky online courses, or to fall through the cracks as 10,000 caring adults and countless supports disappear from our schools.

As negotiations drag on, could the minister update the House on the status of those negotiations?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It is the position of this government that we want a deal, not a strike, to keep the children of this province in class. That’s why, this week, we’re meeting with OSSTF and ETFO, as well as with all teacher unions over the coming seven days, but the three major unions will be met with this week as part of our plan to negotiate in good faith, to provide predictability for parents.

What is regrettable through this experience, Mr. Speaker, is that irrespective of government and Premier and party, the one constant through this process every three years is that unions choose to escalate. My message to them, and I hope the member opposite would agree with this premise: to cease from escalation, to stand with parents, to stay at the table and let’s get a deal that keeps the children of this province in class.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: That’s exactly the kind of demonization of the workers we expect from this government, and it is not helpful.

The reason there’s no progress at the bargaining table is because there have been no real moves by the minister to stop his cuts. Only this government would try to spin eliminating 10,000 jobs to eliminating 6,000 jobs and massively increasing class sizes as some kind of reasonable move.

By now, it should be pretty darned clear to this minister and this government that Ontarians don’t support the elimination of those jobs, they don’t support mandatory online learning replacing in-person instruction, and they don’t support trading their children’s education for short-term savings. Will the minister listen, get back to work, stop the spin and reverse these terrible cuts to our classrooms?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: As I made clear, the Premier and this entire government are committed to getting a resolution, as we did with CUPE, that provides predictability for the families and the children of this province. However, what is telling is that when given the opportunity to affirm her support with parents against escalation, she and the leader of the New Democrats have said nothing, and that abdication of responsibility to say with clarity that they oppose escalation, they oppose their children being out of class—or, more importantly, having steps being taken to undermine their education—is in fact quite telling and regrettable.

My position, and the position of every member of this team, is to keep children in class through negotiated settlements that are good for teachers, good for students and good for parents in this province.

Northern Ontario

Mr. Mike Harris: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Earlier this month, the minister delivered our government’s fall economic statement and, with it, our plan to build Ontario together. The minister outlined a plan to make life more affordable for Ontarians across the province. It’s a plan that also recognizes the unique challenges and opportunities in northern Ontario.

Could the minister please inform the House about the steps our government is taking to make life more affordable for families and individuals living in the north?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member from Kitchener–Conestoga. He represents his constituents well. Of course, he also grew up in the north, and so he appreciates the unique challenges and opportunities that face our citizens in the north. We understand that as a government. That is why, in our fall economic statement, we have put forward the proposal to reduce the cost of living in the north by reducing the cost of aviation fuel, reducing the tax from 6.7 cents to 2.7 cents.

Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? I often talk about affordability not as grandiose gestures but tangible actions. That means reducing the cost of groceries for a family of four by $230 a year or reducing the cost of air travel by $135.

I’d ask our colleagues in the opposition, where the north is well represented, how they plan to vote—I know they voted twice against reducing the cost of living in the north, but how they plan to vote when this comes for a final vote in this Legislature.

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

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you to the minister for his answer. The proposed aviation fuel tax cut makes it abundantly clear that this is a government committed to supporting northern Ontario. Our government is dedicated to making life more affordable for Ontarians across the province. No matter where you live, we want to put more money in your pocket and make it easier for families and individuals.

Could the minister please inform the House about what other steps this government is taking to improve affordability?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for the question. The aviation fuel tax reduction will reduce the cost of living in Thunder Bay, Timmins, Sudbury and across the north, and that’s important. Again, I ask the members across the Legislature to think about that.

But, Mr. Speaker, that’s not all this government has done. We’ve also introduced our low-income tax credit so that 1.1 million Ontarians will see a reduction in their costs and, in fact, eliminates 580,000 Ontarians who make minimum wage from the tax rolls. Our low-income child care tax credit targets the families most in need and will reduce costs by an average of $1,200 for those families in child care.

These are the specific actions we’re taking. Again, not grandiose statements about making life affordable, but specific actions we’re taking to make life more affordable. I ask all our colleagues in our House to support these kinds of important actions.

Government accountability

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is for the Premier. Today’s Globe and Mail reports that Brad Blair, the decorated police veteran who was fired as acting OPP commissioner when he blew the whistle on the Premier’s attempts to hire his friend, has launched a constitutional challenge against the government—specifically against Bill 100, the government’s blatant attempt to place itself above the law and to make the Premier immune from lawsuits. Does the Ford government truly believe that their legislation is justifiable and constitutional?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: It’s interesting, because I know all members of the House understand the rules and how things work. To ask me about a question that is in the courts is very difficult for me to respond to. So I look forward to the member’s second question, which perhaps I can actually deal with.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: That actually was the point of the question. But if the Ford government genuinely thought this legislation was defensible, they wouldn’t have buried it in an omnibus bill and rammed it through with only two days of hearings.

The former commissioner wasn’t afraid to blow the whistle when the Premier tried to appoint his friend as OPP commissioner or when the Premier asked him to buy a van and keep it off the books, and he’s not afraid to take on the Ford government now. Brad Blair shouldn’t have to take this government to court to do the right thing. So a question that the Attorney General can answer is: How much money is the government willing to waste to drag this through the courts?

Hon. Doug Downey: I miss the member from Essex on these kinds of questions.

Again, it’s matter of litigation. I can’t address matters of litigation when they’re proceeding. So I would love to have a dialogue, perhaps when litigation is completed, about whatever the process was or whatever perceived difficulties the member has, but for the moment, as a matter of litigation, I can’t respond.

Human trafficking

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is for the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues. Human trafficking is a serious issue happening across the globe and across our province. This summer, the minister visited my riding of Niagara West and held a round table with those impacted by human trafficking in our region, where it is a serious problem. It was shocking for me to hear about the realities of human trafficking in our province, and especially the reality of human trafficking happening in our local communities.

Did you know that the average age for recruitment is only 13 years old, and over 70% of human trafficking victims identified by police are under the age of 25? It is disgusting and completely unacceptable. Could the minister tell the House what she is doing to stop human trafficking in our province?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for Niagara West for the important question. First, I would like to thank and acknowledge the Minister of Infrastructure for all her advocacy on this file for the past five years. Her knowledge and activism have helped me personally as our government works to build a comprehensive anti-human trafficking strategy.

The member is right. Human trafficking is a crisis that is happening across the province, in all of our communities and at all levels of society. Victims are being lured by perpetrators who rob them of their safety and dignity and profit from their abuse. That is why, this morning, our government announced that we are committing $20 million per year to support survivors and to combat human trafficking. This is a first step as we develop a comprehensive anti-human trafficking strategy. Our goal is that everyone in this province can live safely and free from the threat, fear or experience of exploitation and violence.

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

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I would like to thank the minister for her response and investment in such an important issue in our province. I would also like to congratulate the minister and the Solicitor General on co-developing and working together to build a new, stronger, cross-government strategy to raise awareness of these horrific crimes, ensure survivors get the supports they need, and that we hold offenders accountable. It’s so important to have across-government work.

Human trafficking impacts so many aspects of a survivor’s life, and this requires wraparound services. I know that at the round table that we did hold earlier this year, we heard from survivors who have been supported by local community organizations in my riding like Gillian’s Place, the Niagara Sexual Assault Centre and even the Niagara Falls firefighters, but there is so much more to be done.

Could the minister tell the House exactly what this funding is for and what exactly our government is doing to support those who have been impacted by human trafficking?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you again to the member for that question. The funding announced this morning is part of a range of investments we have made to combat human trafficking, prevent and end violence against women, support victims of sexual violence and exploitation, and end gang-related activity. This announcement is a signal that we are taking immediate action on what we heard from stakeholders in our human trafficking round table discussions this summer—that there was a need for consistent and reliable funding.

This funding includes supports for culturally relevant services and care designed by and for Indigenous peoples within Ontario. It also includes support for projects that offer wraparound services to those being trafficked and increased protection for people at risk of being trafficked.

As we continue to develop a new anti-human trafficking strategy, we all need to work together. This means working across sectors, across jurisdictions and across the aisle, so we can raise awareness, help survivors and—

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

Next question.

Environmental protection

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question this morning is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment shifted blame from his ministry and denied any responsibility for informing Hamiltonians of a massive sewage spill his own ministry has been investigating for some time. The minister’s own officials have known of the spill since the spring of 2018, if not earlier than that, and yet his ministry chose not to tell Hamiltonians or their watershed neighbours like Burlington. They didn’t tell them about what the potential for contamination could mean for the health of citizens and for our environment.

To the minister: If Hamilton has “failed its citizens,” what does it say about this government that knew about this spill and said basically, “Oh, well. Not my job to tell anyone”?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks very much to the member opposite. We’ve been working with public health down there, the municipality and the conservation authority, to deal with this issue. But under the current system, the onus of municipalities, local health authorities and conservation authorities is to notify the public of these health and safety matters.

While the city complied with the intent of the ministry orders, we think more should have been done to fulfill the responsibility. Mr. Speaker, we’re going to take action on that. It’s part of our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, which is a year old tomorrow. In this plan, which continues to evolve and make Ontario a better place to live, we’re going to transfer into a system that delivers online notification to people living across Ontario so that any sewage spills or any event such as that going on, they will be able to go online and get real-time data to ensure that they’re informed of what’s going on.

Again, I reiterate: The city council of Hamilton let their people down. Hopefully they learn from their errors, move on and become more open and transparent to the people of Hamilton.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: That’s all well and good, but I believe the ministry has the discretion to make sure that Hamiltonians were informed, and you chose not to use that discretionary power.

Obviously, Ontarians deserve transparency when it comes to the contamination of our ecosystems, especially when that contamination could affect our water supply. Families walk their dogs by rivers and creeks and they let their kids play in ponds. They deserve to know what could be lurking.

We now know the Ministry of the Environment has known about the massive sewage spill for some time in Hamilton. My question again to the minister—the people of Hamilton and the people of Ontario deserve to know what’s in our water. How many other spills and leaks is the ministry currently waiting for someone else to report?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks again for the question. Other jurisdictions are informing their people if there are spillages of sewage or not. Unfortunately, the city of Hamilton decided not to be fully open to the people of the city. It’s unfortunate that that council failed its residents.

But whether or not the member opposite wants to make up certain rules and regulations, the onus to report today, in any type of system, is on the municipalities. We are working, as the Ministry of the Environment, to ensure that the cleanup is happening and that the water and the resources are returned to the best state possible. We are making changes to the system, for online, real-time data to be available to all residents of Ontario for any source of sewage contamination.

We are going to continue to work and ensure that system is up and going. Our main environmental plan will start dealing with waste water treatment. We are going to make Ontario a better place to live in as we protect our land, air and sea, and make a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

Legislative reform

Mr. Mike Harris: My question is for the government House leader. Yesterday, the government House leader introduced a package of changes to the standing orders. The NDP claims that these proposed changes will allow our government to ram through legislation and pass a bill in a single day.

Would the government House leader please explain if the proposed changes to the standing orders really limit debate, as the NDP claims?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Let me congratulate the member for Kitchener–Conestoga. He has been a wealth of knowledge over the summer as we’ve been consulting on potential changes to the standing orders. He has been a very fierce advocate for improving debate and the ability for members across the aisle to engage in more fulsome debate. So I thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member—because I know this is important to the member. But let me assure the member and all members of the House that in fact, the changes that are being proposed to the standing orders in no way impact or have given this government more tools to pass a bill in one day. In fact, we’ve added the following standing order, 47(d), which says: “A bill, and a time allocation motion applying to that same bill, may not be considered on the same ... day.” We of course have not removed the ability for the opposition to provide reasoned amendments, which would also allow them to delay the passage of legislation.

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the NDP withdrew from the process—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you to the government House leader for those kind words and clearing up what we’re here to talk about today.

If the NDP indicated that they did not want to support the proposed changes, I assume that would also mean that they don’t support the accommodation of members with disabilities. I find that quite outstanding.

Would the government House leader please explain what consultation process went into these proposals?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you very much for the question. The member raises a very important point, because early on in the process, we talked a lot about which standing orders we could modernize. In the standing order changes, we did make a proposal that members with a disability would not have to ask for unanimous consent in order to participate in the daily operations of the House. We made some changes with respect to cellphones and laptops. I’m sure if you look around the chamber—most members have laptops and phones on their desks.

We reached out in early October and said to the opposition, “What are the things that we can agree upon? Let’s put those on the table. Let’s pass those”—like those I was talking about with respect to members with disabilities—“and let’s debate the rest of it.” The NDP chose at that point to withdraw from the discussions, unfortunately.

I am encouraged that both the Liberal Party and the Green Party have continued to participate. I think the standing orders will reflect improved opportunity for debate across both sides of the House.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Yesterday it snowed again in northern Ontario, and once again the province’s response was to close Highways 11 and 17. Once again, northern Ontario families were cut off, and once again, the movement of goods throughout northern Ontario came to a halt.

The government officially treats Highways 11 and 17 in northern Ontario as class 2—literally second-class. This means the province thinks it’s okay that northern Ontario drivers must wait longer for their highways to be cleared.

Why does this Premier think that northern Ontario families deserve second-class safety and services?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’m happy to rise in the House to answer this question yet again. And I will do it every single day because I’m sure that every day in the north it will snow and the Ministry of Transportation will work closely with the OPP to make sure that we are taking steps to ensure the safety of our motorists in the north.

I’m sure, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite would not want to subject our motorists to unsafe driving conditions. That’s what we work on and that’s what we’re focused on at the Ministry of Transportation. I’m happy to report, as I have already in this House, that we exceed our safety standards and our snowplowing standards on Highway 11 and Highway 17. They exceed the standards that we expect for our class 1 highways.

We will continue, Mr. Speaker, to find ways to exceed those standards and to continue to do better, because on this side of the House we are focused on the safety of the motorists of the north.

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: The answer to snow, Madam Minister, is more plows.

Earlier this month, this government voted down my bill to apply the same snow clearance standards to northern Highways 11 and 17 as to the 400-series highways in the south. The government voted to keep northern Ontario as second class. The member for Nipissing said that second-class status for the north was fine by him. This week, northern Ontario families are seeing this second-class status for themselves with repeated highway closures.

The answer to snow is not to close northern highways; the answer is to run more plows. Will the Premier listen to northern Ontario families and stop this second-class treatment?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’m very pleased to say that our government has taken concrete steps to improve the lives of people living in northern Ontario. But instead of supporting our initiatives that help the people living in northern Ontario, the NDP decided to vote against it and to play politics. In this year’s budget, Mr. Speaker, our government reaffirmed our commitment.

The four-laning of Highway 69 and Highway 11 and Highway 17 in the north, including stretches between Kenora and the Manitoba border; the creation of a mining working group that’s going to focus on attracting investment to northern Ontario: The opposition voted against those initiatives. But that’s not just it; they’re voting against the Ontario Seniors Dental Care Program, they’re voting against the child care tax credit and they’re voting against the Low-income Individuals and Families Tax Credit. They’re also voting against the aviation fuel tax credit, which will make the life of people living in the north—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. The next question.

Mental health and addiction services

Mr. Stan Cho: My question is for our province’s first Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Mental health and addictions affect people and families in all of our communities across this great province each and every year. No matter where in Ontario, we know that each year 2.5 million Ontarians—that’s one in five, Mr. Speaker—will experience a mental health or addiction challenge. And for many living in northern Ontario, especially those in our Indigenous communities, there’s next to no mental health and addiction support.

I know that our government recognizes that we must do more. Would the minister please explain what this government is doing to address mental health and addiction in northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I want to thank the member from Willowdale for his excellent and important question.

I recently travelled throughout northern Ontario, visiting many of the remote communities that provided me with an understanding of the mental health and addiction challenges faced by many Ontarians living in rural and remote communities each and every day. My travels took me from Thunder Bay to Sioux Lookout and all the way to remote Indigenous communities such as Pikangikum and Sandy Lake.

During my travels, I met with a number of Indigenous leaders, community organizations and first responders, who continue to work with populations who were continually neglected by previous governments. I heard from the people with lived experience in these communities.

Our government remains committed to taking real action to ensure that Ontarians in the north receive access to high-quality mental health and addiction services where and when they need them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stan Cho: I am proud to stand here in this Legislature knowing that our government is making mental health and addictions a top priority.

I’m also proud that our government is continuing to deliver real action to address the mental health and addiction crisis in northern Ontario.

I’m also pleased to hear that the minister has taken the time to meet with Indigenous partners and front-line workers throughout the north. I know that these first-hand experiences will inform much of the work that we are doing to address the gaps in our mental health and addiction system.

Speaker, would the minister please provide this House with more detail on the mental health and addiction supports being provided for those incredible citizens in northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: