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

April 25, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Apr-25 (PDF)

L019 - Wed 25 Apr 2018 / Mer 25 avr 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 April 2018 Mercredi 25 avril 2018

Orders of the Day

2018 Ontario budget

Government Contract Wages Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur les salaires pour les marchés publics

Introduction of Visitors

Special report, Auditor General

Oral Questions

Government accounting practices

Government accounting practices

Taxation

Taxation

Government accounting practices

Government accounting practices

Wood frame construction

Provincial debt

Child care

Cycling policies

Doctor shortage

Academic testing

Seniors

Opioid abuse

Correction of record

Visitor

Deferred Votes

2018 Ontario budget

Correction of record

Members’ Statements

Volunteers

Workplace safety

Climate change

Bruce Power

Tenant protection

Attack in Toronto

Believe to Achieve Organization

Skilled trades

Women’s health

Introduction of Bills

Luso Canadian Charitable Society Act, 2018

James Wilson Holdings Limited Act, 2018

Non-Disclosure Provisions in Agreements Act (Wind Turbines), 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur les dispositions de non-divulgation dans les accords (éoliennes)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Cancer Awareness Month / Mois de la sensibilisation au cancer

Petitions

Doctor shortage

Long-term care

Inclusiveness

Employment standards

Provincial truth and reconciliation day

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Employment standards

Injured workers

Health care funding

Dental care

Orders of the Day

Pay Transparency Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transparence salariale

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

2018 Ontario budget

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 24, 2018, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate.

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning. It is game day in Toronto: a big night tonight, game seven for the Toronto Maple Leafs. I’ve got my Leafs tie on today. We’re ready for seventh heaven in Boston, hopefully. Also, the Jays are at home, Toronto FC is playing and so are the Raptors—a big day for Toronto sports.

Now, let’s get right into this.

Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to rise and add to the debate regarding the Wynne Liberal government’s 2018 budget. I say that because it’s always a pleasure to stand here in the Legislature and represent the great riding of Prince Edward–Hastings. That riding is going to disappear as of the next election. It’s being chopped in two, and two new ridings are being created: Bay of Quinte and Hastings–Lennox and Addington. It’s less of a pleasure to discuss a budget that’s so brazenly about trying to buy people’s votes with their own money while also using what has been referred to as creative—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I must respond. The member will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

They are using creative accounting to make the books look better than they really are.

How did we get to this point in Ontario? Like everything else with this government, it comes back to how they’re doing in public opinion polls. The Premier’s approval is at a historic low, and an election is just on the horizon. Soon, each member of the Legislature, if they haven’t already—at least those who are running for re-election—will be out pounding the pavement and knocking on doors all over their respective ridings. That’s the current landscape of Ontario politics. That’s why nobody was surprised when, right on cue, the Liberal government was suddenly promising to clean up every mess it allowed to pile up over the last 15 years while they’ve been running the show.

It’s also why no one was shocked that Premier Wynne and other members of her government have been so happy to go out and campaign on these promises on the taxpayer dime. It has been estimated that Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals have spent nearly $300,000 of taxpayers’ money campaigning over the last several weeks. As of Monday of this week, no fewer than 39 times have the Premier and Liberal ministers held campaign-style events since they unveiled their bloated budget. Each and every one of these announcements is taking approximately $7,500 out of the taxpayers’ pocket.

The government’s audacity was on full display after they pulled front-line health care workers away from their critically important jobs a couple of times and, one time, even referred to them as “eye candy” for a political campaign-style announcement.

With 39 campaign-style events in the last few weeks, that means that the Premier has spent no less than $292,500 trying to cling to power. Speaker, we have a clear message about this sort of waste: The party with the taxpayers’ money is over. And we mean it.

One question that some folks in my riding have been wondering, and it’s a fair question that we in the opposition have raised on their behalf, is this: Will the Liberals refund the taxpayers the nearly $300,000 that they’ve spent campaigning? Unfortunately, their refusal to address the question is a pretty clear answer that they will not pay back taxpayers and will continue to campaign on the taxpayers’ dime.

A big-spending budget just weeks before an election would truly be a fitting end to 15 years of a Liberal government wasting money, raising taxes, soaring hydro rates and driving jobs out of Ontario. The Premier may think taxpayers are fools but they’re a lot smarter than she gives them credit for and they see right through this budget.

In fact, nothing in this budget bill implements or even starts to implement their big-ticket budget promises on health care, child care or transit. It’s further proof that these are simply more empty Liberal election promises that they can’t be trusted to keep.

I recall back in the 2014 election, when the Minister of Agriculture at the time stood up in Northumberland–Quinte West, which will be part of the riding where I’m running in—Bay of Quinte—to announce that they were going to be spending $100 million on expanding natural gas into rural Ontario. What length of pipe has been laid so far, four years later? Not a single length of pipe. Another empty promise that was made during the 2014 election campaign—a $100-million promise, and nothing there to show for it.

While the budget doesn’t do any of the things that Premier Wynne is happy to go around campaigning on using tax dollars, it does allow for some things she is conveniently very quiet about: raising taxes.

Schedule 33 would allow the government to implement the $2-billion tax increase over the next three years and gives the Premier a loophole to raise taxes after the election through any bill introduced in the calendar year 2018. Of course, they’re not holding any press conferences to talk about that—to tell folks that they’re planning to raise taxes after the election.

For so many years now, we’ve heard the Liberal government say one thing and then do another. Over the past 15 years, the McGuinty and Wynne Liberals have slashed health care and closed more schools than any other government in our province’s history. They’ve also wasted $1 billion on their own self-interest with the gas plant scandal.

One doesn’t need to look any further than the most recent report from the Auditor General. In her report, the AG found more than $1 billion in waste in a single year by reviewing just a handful of programs offered by various ministries. The amount of waste under this government is stunning and is second to none.

This government has proven time and time again that they can throw money at problems when they feel the need to but have done little to address that matter for folks in my riding in Prince Edward–Hastings and elsewhere across the province. They keep spending millions and billions of dollars but not fixing the problem or streamlining to get the money to the front lines, where it needs to go.

Mr. Speaker, it didn’t take long for the alarm bells to start ringing after the unveiling of this big-spending, big-borrowing budget. At home, local chambers of commerce expressed their reservations over the new budget:

“Although the government is making smart investments in skills development, the ever-rising cost of doing business in Ontario is hindering economic growth,” said Quinte West Chamber of Commerce manager Suzanne Andrews. “The Ontario budget clearly reveals that this government does not believe in crafting an environment where business can grow and create jobs as it provides no help for businesses and will leave some, including small businesses, paying more in taxes.”

While discussing the new budget, Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce executive director Emily Cowan said, “It does nothing to alleviate rising input costs or tangibly address low business confidence in the province.”

But it’s not just the businesses across the Bay of Quinte region that are losing faith in the province. Businesses across Ontario have similar fears that the cost and difficulty of doing business in Ontario are making them less competitive in an increasingly global market and making it harder for them to survive, let alone to thrive.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey of its membership, and there were some worrisome findings there. The survey found that only a little more than half of Ontario businesses—54%—report confidence in their organization’s economic outlook. That’s down from 62% just last year. This is a scary thing in and of itself, but we need to remind ourselves that if businesses that are already here in Ontario are losing faith in this province, then investors and businesses who are currently not in Ontario are surely losing faith in the market as well. They’re not going to come and locate and create jobs here.

Low business confidence in the province is a massive concern, and it turns out that businesses are not the only ones losing faith and confidence in Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario. Last week, Moody’s Investors Service changed the outlook on the province of Ontario’s ratings to negative from stable. It’s clear that that creative accounting from a desperate government is not going to fool anybody in the financial world. Creditors are already starting to worry about Ontario’s future as Premier Wynne continues to spend at unsustainable levels.

The release from Moody’s stated the following: “The outlook change to negative from stable on Ontario’s ratings reflects Moody’s expectations that spending pressure will challenge the province’s ability to sustain balanced fiscal results across multiple years. Furthermore Moody’s assumes that the financing requirements will be larger than previously assumed, leading to an upward trend in the debt burden and a faster rise in interest expense than previously anticipated.”

That’s scary stuff. There’s a whole lot to unpack from that statement. Interest on our debt is already crowding out the services that we depend on, like schools, hospitals, and our roads and bridges. This province simply can’t afford a change in our credit rating. It’s shameful that the Wynne Liberal government’s reckless policies have led to Ontario’s credit outlook being downgraded, again, and we fear that credit downgrades may be in the province’s future again unless we start to fix the mess that they’ve made of the finances here in Ontario.

We already find ourselves paying a lot of money each year in interest. That amount is $12.5 billion this year, rising to $13.8 billion by 2021. If there was a ministry of interest payments, Mr. Speaker, you know it would be the third largest ministry in Ontario, behind health care and education.

When we have to spend a large percentage of our tax dollars to service the debt, not to mention what will happen if our credit rating is downgraded again—our interest rates go up—it’s very difficult to grow our economy. More tax dollars are being drained away to pay interest on the debt, and yet the government continues down the path of massive spending that folks know we simply can’t afford.

It’s fitting that the AG of Ontario is giving her review of the Wynne Liberal government’s Pre-election Report on Ontario’s Finances this morning, given that the government has gone to great lengths to challenge her expertise.

A recent Globe and Mail

article entitled “Bad Books: How Ontario’s New Hydro Accounting Could Cost Taxpayers Billions” shed light on some shady tactics being used by a desperate government. The

article starts with a very concerning line that I’d like to get into the record: “As Ontarians head to the polls in June, voters have to make sense of two competing versions of their province’s bottom line: the Auditor General’s and the Kathleen Wynne government’s.”

Speaker, I’m going to side with the independent auditor of the Legislature any time over the untrustworthy Premier of Ontario. The Auditor General of Ontario has said that “the government is making up its own accounting rules.”

The Globe and Mail

article explains why the government went to great lengths to ditch Canadian accounting standards. The reason was that they needed to change their own accounting rules to make their rather unfair hydro plan work. Essentially, this is a plan that will see us pay billions more to get hydro rates down because the government wanted to because they needed to get re-elected, because the soaring cost of electricity was killing them at the doors and in the polls.

The

article goes on to say: “The fair hydro plan’s complexity comes at a cost. Had the province borrowed directly, the interest costs likely would total tens of billions of dollars over the plan’s duration. But using information and assumptions supplied by the government, the Financial Accountability Office ... calculated the additional interest costs at $4 billion over 30 years.”

The AG summed it up by saying, “We’re talking $4 billion more than needed, to get an accounting result.” It’s shocking that the Liberal government would carry on this way and disrespect taxpayers as well as the auditor by trying to pull a fast one with accounting tricks. The consequences of this are pretty serious. The AG stated, “If you get away with doing something that is inappropriate accounting, the next time you’ll do it again, and you’ll do it again. Pretty soon they won’t have any numbers that will have any integrity behind them.”

This is the behaviour of a government that is increasingly self-centred and desperate. They say the word “care” a lot, but they don’t seem to care about the impact putting out questionable financial information will clearly have. The investors, businesses and, most importantly, the general public, who are already losing confidence in this province, will continue to lose faith in everything the government says or does. That would be a disaster for future governments of any political stripe.

Protecting integrity and honesty in government, what little of it may be left, is something that we should all be fighting for. But to Premier Wynne, it doesn’t matter if you’re the Auditor General of Ontario, the Financial Accountability Officer or a regular citizen of the province; she firmly believes that she knows better than you. To her, these people are all wrong because they have the audacity to be critical of what her government is doing. Every business owner that expresses frustration, every financial watchdog that raises concerns: All of them are disregarded, and then they are vilified by this Premier.

There are plenty of canaries in the coal mine here in Ontario, and the Wynne Liberals seem to think that the best plan is to buy more canaries and just keep on digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper. The arrogance extends to everything this government does and the blatant disregard that they have for the many experts who are pleading with them to rethink the way that they’re doing things when it comes to the financial future of Ontario.

I certainly have a number of issues with this Liberal government, and also their most recent budget, but for any of my constituents who may be watching on the parliamentary channel today, I want to ensure that I spend a couple of moments discussing a

section of the budget that actually was okay. That’s

schedule 23, Speaker.

Before I get to that section, I want to take you back to the fall of last year, when Sears Canada announced plans to liquidate all of its remaining stores and assets. It was a difficult day for many across the country, but particularly difficult for my community. This was because close to 600 employees at the massive distribution centre at 500 College Street East in Belleville were suddenly left jobless by that announcement.

Last year, I reached out to the Minister of Economic Development to ensure that sufficient supports were made available by the Ontario government to assist in job search and retraining for Sears employees who were going to be looking for work. At the time, I stated that concerns raised about the Sears pension plan and hardship fund needed to be addressed in order to ensure that commitments made to long-time Sears employees were honoured. I’m glad that the government appears to be acting on this issue with

schedule 23 of the budget bill.

Schedule 23 provides the amendments required to cover the Sears Canada pensioners, and this particular portion of the budget bill is a component that I do support.

Another element to the budget that has received some praise locally is its focus on broadband Internet access, although it’s limited in its scope. In the same Belleville Intelligencer

article that I mentioned earlier in my remarks, Belleville Chamber of Commerce CEO Jill Raycroft said, “In my appeal to the Minister of Finance earlier this year, we asked them to pay attention to our needs for Internet access and retraining in the Quinte region. I’m glad to see they acknowledged the broadband infrastructure needs we noted in our pre-budget submission.” We’ll see what actually comes of this, or whether or not it’s just another empty Liberal pre-election, pre-budget comment. If it ends up the same way as the natural gas promise in 2014, we’re not going to see much more as far as broadband expansion, and that worries me.

As I begin to conclude my remarks, I would like to summarize some of the main takeaways regarding this budget. During their time in power, the Liberals have more than doubled the debt here in Ontario. It’s more than $300 billion and counting, quickly on its way to $400 billion, or more than $22,000 per person in the province. The thing that really gets folks upset is that they don’t feel that we’re are getting good value for all the hard-earned taxpayer dollars that are being spent and wasted. The Liberals have doubled the debt, and yet we have hallway health care in many hospitals here in Ontario.

The Liberals have doubled the debt, yet they still closed more schools than any other government in Ontario’s history.

People feel like they are paying more and they’re getting less. They feel that their government promises them the world and keeps failing to deliver. Folks are wondering why only now, after so many years in power and so much money added to our debt, the government is saying that it’s now choosing to care. Caring for people should not be a choice for a government; it should be a given.

A good government doesn’t feel the need to force the word “care” into every speech or press release. It’s a sad attempt to prove that it cares. A good government shows that it cares by providing the services that its citizens expect and deserve. No one believes this government cares about them, because they keep failing to deliver for the people of Ontario. Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals will do, say, or promise anything to cling to power, but the record shows they can’t be trusted to keep their word.

Here are a few of the biggest broken budget promises:

(1) Balanced budgets until 2019-20: Just last year, the Wynne Liberals were promising years of balanced budgets. But today, they are announcing a $6.7-billion deficit and deficits for the next six years.

(2) Reducing auto insurance rates by 15% on average: That was in the 2013 budget. Kathleen Wynne later said this was nothing but a “stretch goal” designed to get the NDP support for the budget.

(3) One billion dollars for the Ring of Fire in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 budgets: The Wynne Liberals continued to reannounce the $1 billion of funding for the Ring of Fire, but have failed to take any action on this, and nothing has happened. The Liberals’ most recent throne speech and budget made no mention of this important project.

(4) A Hydro One fire sale in the 2015 budget: The Liberals made no mention of their plans to sell off Hydro One during the election campaign. As soon as they won, what did they do? They flip-flopped their support for public ownership.

Everything that’s promised in this budget will end, likely, in a long list of broken Liberal election promises. We’ve seen it over and over again.

You may recall, leading into the 2003 election, when Premier McGuinty said that they would not raise taxes. What happened following the election? The biggest tax increase this province has ever seen—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry to interrupt, but pursuant to standing order 58(d), I’m now required to put the question.

Mr. Sousa has moved—

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank God. It went so fast.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Are we done? Good.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Are we done?

Mr. Sousa has moved, seconded by Ms. Wynne, that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

Those opposed, say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be voted on after question period today.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day.

Government Contract Wages Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur les salaires pour les marchés publics

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 24, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 53,

An Act respecting the establishment of minimum government contract wages / Projet de loi 53, Loi concernant la fixation de salaires minimums pour les marchés publics.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I’ll say up front that I may share my time if I happen to run out of words, but that’s unlikely.

I was here yesterday afternoon for the debate on Bill 53 and the Ontario Fair Wage Policy. You can see that things in this Legislature are starting to get very raunchy, I would say. I was just saying to the member from Toronto Danforth: You remember the last US campaign between Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton. Michelle Obama would go out and she would say, “When they go low, we go high.” That was kind of what was happening in here yesterday. I think part of that is because we’re only a few days away from the writ being dropped.

The government, with this Bill 53, is trying to get another crack at the voters, at that sector of the voters, in an attempt to improve their ratings, because they have been falling so low in the polls.

Anyway, I wanted to spend a couple of minutes, if you will indulge me, Speaker, just thinking about the work that went into, from my office and from some of the legislative staff’s perspective—I just wanted to take a few minutes.

I’m not running again in the upcoming election, after seven years, and I wanted to take an opportunity to thank the staff here in the Legislature.

From the Speaker’s office to the table Clerks to the translators, our security officers, right down to the people who clean our offices and the people who work in the cafeteria and the people who do Hansard, my seven years have been nothing but pleasant with all of the staff here in the Legislature.

Whether it was on a committee, where they were giving us advice on how to deal with some conflict that was going on, or whether it was here in the House, giving us advice on procedure, they’ve always been kind and—the word that comes to me—unfazed, regardless of the situations that they encounter, and always non-partisan, in a very political arena; always non-partisan, has been my experience. I wanted to make sure that the staff know that I actually appreciated their work over the last seven years.

I also wanted to take the opportunity to thank my constituency staff and to thank my Queen’s Park staff, our caucus staff and our colleagues for all of the hard work that they do day in and day out, particularly in the constituency, Speaker, where they’re dealing with people—we are the last stop in their shopping. We’re the last resort. They’ve been everywhere. They may have been to the government ministries. They’ve been to, in some cases, the police, or they’ve been to the municipality. At the end of the day, they come to our constituency offices. Sometimes they just get heard with no results, but many times they get very good outcomes in our constit offices.

I wanted to thank my NDP colleagues, many of whom I didn’t know when I came here seven years ago.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: We love you, Cindy.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Taras.

I didn’t know them, but they’ve all become good friends, family and a real team. I’ve forged some relationships, of course, with members of government and members of the official opposition. At every opportunity, we’re all here to do a job, and I’ve appreciated the time that I’ve had here.

Finally, I of course want to thank the fine folks of my riding—in Welland, Port Colborne, Thorold, Wainfleet and the south end of St. Catharines—for their support over the years.

Now I’ll get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for that.

This bill is important, but I don’t know that it’s necessarily important at this time. Here we are, eight days away from an election, and this bill that has been introduced by the Minister of Labour—we know that it will be time-allocated. The bill addresses a fair wage policy that has been sitting around since 1995. There have been no adjustments made to any of these wage schedules that affect government building service employees and some of the construction industry. The minister said yesterday that many of the wage schedules currently in place fall below the current minimum wage.

The government has been here for 15 years. There was a report that came out from a Mr. Gunderson, I think his name was, in 2007, so we’re talking about 11 years ago. Professor Morley Gunderson from the University of Toronto’s Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for Wellington–Halton Hills on a point of order.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Yes. I apologize to the member from Welland for interrupting, but I don’t think there’s a quorum in the House. There should be.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Could the Clerks’ table check, please?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. William Short): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. William Short): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Welland can continue.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker.

So it was actually back in 2007 that the Ontario government announced it was commissioning Professor Morley Gunderson from the University of Toronto Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources to conduct a full, independent review of Ontario’s fair wage policy—this is 11 years ago, Speaker. This decision was received positively by both labour and management stakeholders, who generally regarded the ambiguous status of Ontario’s fair wage policy as undesirable.

For instance, representatives from the carpenters and from the OpenShop Contractors Association of Ontario were quoted as lauding the decision in an

article published shortly after the review was announced. Gunderson actually submitted his report to the government in 2008, 10 years ago, and, for reasons unknown, the report was never released to the public and no updates have been made to Ontario’s fair wage policy. Since then, for 10 full years, actually, the issue has fallen off the policy agenda—and released on the eve of an election.

When I met with Ministry of Labour staff for a briefing yesterday, I think it was—the days all run together here. The last time, the review actually took—not the Gunderson review of the policy but the actual review of the wage schedules, of which there are at least 100, we were told yesterday—that review alone took two years.

So we have this bill here, we know it will be time-allocated, as have 75% or 80% of the bills in this session—many, many important bills that many of us never got to speak to because of that time allocation—so nothing in this bill is going to happen anytime soon. If it took two years to do those wage

schedule reviews 10 years ago, we can expect that this bill will not do anything for anyone, probably for the full term of the next session, whatever that session is. Is it the 42nd or 43rd, Speaker?

Interjection.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Forty-third.

We’ve had comments from other people, like David Frame, who is the director of government relations at the Ontario General Contractors Association. He was quoted in the Canadian Press, I think. He said that this particular legislation caught them off guard, totally by surprise. He said the Liberal government had consulted with them on wage schedules a year ago but they had not heard a word from the government since. “What surprises me,” he says, is that they actually “don’t need legislation.”

I don’t know whether this is true or not; I’m going to be checking into it, but what he said was that they don’t need legislation. They can actually do this by regulation. There’s no reason to have introduced this legislation now. They have a regulatory authority that’s in place that actually brings the schedules up to date, but apparently, that authority didn’t do their homework for 10 years because none of those schedules have been reviewed for a very long time.

David Frame said that the association doesn’t challenge the premise of a fair wage scale but the skilled trades are so competitive at the moment that if a worker feels he or she isn’t receiving fair compensation, likely they can find more lucrative work in their field across the province. He said that he feels that the government is actually “trying to make employers look like the bad guys” with this legislation, “like we’re not paying our workers properly.” He said, “I know of no workers who are going to be helped by this” current legislation.

We also found an

article from Wayne Peterson, the executive director of the Construction Employers Coordinating Council of Ontario. He said that the industry welcomes the new bill, but they would have liked to have seen it introduced earlier, when they actually could have had some consultation on the bill, when it wasn’t on the eve of an election and perhaps the bill would have seen itself through second and third reading and had the wage schedules actually addressed during this term. He said that in its current form, to pass this legislation, “if it has no enforcement and no teeth, then it’s just frivolous legislation.”

According to the Workers’ Action Centre—they did a report, Speaker. Do you know the Workers’ Action Centre? They are advocates for people who are often working in lower-paid wage jobs, for people who are new immigrants, for people who perhaps are working, more likely, in non-union type jobs.

What they have said about this is that this fair wage policy “will do little to level the playing field, stop the downward spiral in wages and working conditions in government-contracted work, and ensure decent wages and working conditions if it is not enforced.”

The other interesting part about my briefing yesterday with the Ministry of Labour was that this legislation is only going to apply in its current form to government buildings that are occupied by government business. So while the government owns something like 5,000—I think it’s 4,838—buildings across the province, this will only apply to those government buildings that are having government activity occur in them and solely occur in them. If the government is only using part of that building, this won’t necessarily apply to that building. That is problematic as well because it leaves out a whole lot of workers in this province.

The Workers’ Action Centre said, “There has been little, if any, enforcement of Ontario’s fair wage policy over the years. Investigations may only be conducted in response to a complaint.” I don’t hear that as changing. When I heard the minister speak about this yesterday, he said this is just going to become another

section of the employment standards branch and that the enforcement is going to occur out of there.

Well, we know that there are still millions of dollars uncollected by workers in this province on issues of overtime and vacation pay and severance pay, and now we’re going to add something else to the employment standards branch and only on a complaint basis. We know that workers are often fearful of filing a complaint against an employer. I know that they have put some anti-reprisal stuff in this legislation, but to have it be just on a complaint basis as opposed to actually having some rigorous enforcement is certainly problematic.

“There is no process,” according to the Workers’ Action Centre, “for proactive audits to determine if contractors are” even “complying with the wage policy. Nor has there been any requirement to report to the Parliament or publicly post enforcement of the fair wage policy and firms in violation of the fair wage policy” in workplaces so that workers are given the ability to know what they are entitled to, like they are, for example, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as you would know.

If the Liberals really cared about workers, they would have done a number of things, or there are a number of things that they could do that would immediately improve the lives of workers in this province. One of those things, Mr. Speaker, the one thing that every worker in this province wanted and every union that presented at the Bill 148 hearings wanted, was card check: card-based certification for every worker in every sector based on a 55% threshold of signing cards.

It was the one thing the government—it could have been their parting gift, actually, as they leave this House as the majority government. If they really cared about workers, they would have done that, because that actually would have addressed the bill that we’re talking about, Bill 53. It would have addressed some of that as well, because many people actually work in building services through contracts and subcontracts.

That’s the third thing, actually, before I lose this thought, that the Ministry of Labour briefing staff told us yesterday. Bill 53 won’t apply to current contracts. So I asked the question, “Well, how long are the current contracts?” The staff said, “They’re generally quite lengthy.” I said, “Well, what’s lengthy? Is it two- or three-year contracts for cleaning services, building security services, whatever else, whatever other employees are covered? Or is it five-to-10-year contracts?” I didn’t really get an answer, but I got the impression leaving that meeting that some of those contracts are as long as five to 10 years.

Even if this legislation could be put in place and administered with the wage schedules all reviewed tomorrow, it wouldn’t apply to anybody who currently has a government contract. It could be years. Instead of being the two years to actually review the wage schedule, it could actually be five or 10 years before this actually applies to workers who actually work for a contractor or subcontractor who has these contracts with the government. That, as well, is problematic.

There are modern fair wage policies across the country. There is one which follows the British Columbia Skills Development and Fair Wage Act requirements that all workers on government construction sites have either a journeyperson certificate or be a registered apprentice, which would further the government’s objective of strengthening Ontario’s apprenticeship program. Current tendering policies put employers who do not invest in skills training at a competitive advantage over those who make responsible investments in apprenticeship and skills training.

The government could have but didn’t address the issue of deeming. We’ve raised that issue for deeming for the last couple of years. It has certainly got raised in all of the 10 cities that we visited last summer during the Bill 148 hearings. “Deeming,” for the viewing public, is where a worker is injured on the job and there’s no likelihood of that person going back to the job that they were injured on. Then they are deemed to actually be able to go and do some phantom job. We have had people tell us that they have been injured on the job. Perhaps they were making $20 an hour.

Today, they are told, “Well, we think that you could be a greeter at Walmart.” That jobs pays—well, now it pays $14 an hour; before the minimum wage increase, perhaps it paid $11 an hour.

So, these people that were making $20 were deemed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, through this deeming process—which is a policy, and that policy doesn’t need any legislation. The government could actually direct WSIB to change the policies for the hundreds and probably thousands of workers who are deemed in this province. If they got rid of that policy, we wouldn’t have injured workers who are living in poverty. The end result of the deeming is that as the minimum wage goes up, the benefits are eroded from these workers, so they never actually get out of this circle of poverty. The government could have spent their time actually dealing with that issue.

The construction industry has the highest rate of workplace injuries of any industry in Canada. At 24.5 injuries per 1,000 workers, the construction industry is significantly above the Canadian average of just 15 injuries for all industries.

In light of this prevalence, another important impact on fair wage policies is the correlation between skills training and health and safety training and those outcomes. In these government contracts, it is important to ensure that the companies that are getting the contracts are actually keeping up with health and safety training for workers in that particular sector.

Often we’ve heard in these situations of bidding, where you’ve got the unionized bidding against the non-unionized, and the non-unionized contractors are lowballing the bids. It’s not competitive, because the unionized side has pensions and benefits and health and safety training, and on the other side perhaps those things aren’t there. That needs to be part of it. It can’t just be the wages, Speaker. When they are actually comparing these government bids, we need to make sure that it’s a level playing field for the workers.

The other issue that the government should have spent some time on—and this issue is extremely important with this fair wage policy—is the issue of independent and dependent contractors. This would have captured millions of Ontario workers who are currently not protected by the Employment Standards Act and likely won’t be protected under Bill 53 either.

It would have been as simple as putting in a definition, because in many cases, people are deemed to be an independent contractor when in fact they are not; they are an employee. Even a dependent contractor is really an employee. They are providing their own transportation to the job; they are providing their own materials; but they are deemed to be an independent contractor when in fact they should be an employee. The simple act by the government of actually putting in that definition would have captured millions of people so that they were protected by employment standards.

According to a study commissioned by the Ontario Construction Secretariat, the annual estimated revenue losses to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the Canada Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance system between 2007 and 2009—just over a three-year period—was in the order of between $1.4 billion and $2.4 billion by the underground economy—this issue of using people as independent contractors as opposed to employees.

Construction employers who improperly designate their employees as independent contractors are able to avoid paying their taxes: their CPP, their EI, their employer health tax and their WSIB premiums. More importantly, employees mischaracterized as independent contractors are not issued tax receipts and are thus able to underreport their income for tax purposes. This affects all of us, Speaker. It affects the programs that we try and provide at a provincial level in terms of health care and education and child care.

I wanted to spend a little bit of time talking about some of the other things that the government could have done. One of those things would have been to ban replacement workers. The NDP, through the Bill 148 hearings, tabled over 50 amendments that we heard about through those hearings and would have improved the lives of workers in this province.

I know, Speaker, that you and I talked about this recently. In Hamilton, there is a company: MANA. The workers there were represented by the United Steel Workers. They have been on strike for the last six years while the employer has continued to use replacement workers.

Now, we know that in most unionized settings—in fact, in 97% of unionized settings where we bargain collective agreements—settlements of contracts occur. Only in 3%, there are strikes. Sometimes those strikes are long and protracted. If the government had put in this legislation that had been there for, I don’t know, 100 years, I think, before Mike Harris, before the PCs—if the government had chosen to put that back in, we would have probably seen 100% of those strikes settled in a very short period of time.

Right now we’ve got York University still on strike, and it’s like nine weeks into that strike. We’ve got students worried about finishing their year, about getting their placements; that would have gone a long way.

The NDP had also proposed, during the Bill 148 hearings, three weeks’ paid vacation after the first year of employment, as opposed to after five years. The reason for that was because we know that, in the work lives of Ontarians, many people are temporary employees still today. Many workers don’t see five years with the same employer. In fact, when you talk to youth today, you know that 20-to-40-year-olds have no expectation that they’re going to actually be in the same job for more than five years.

We also proposed five paid sick or emergency leave days for all workers, and an additional five unpaid days, as opposed to the two paid sick days that eventually was passed in the legislation; and 10 days of paid leave for victims of intimate partner or domestic violence, which would have been provincially funded. The government chose to not support those amendments.

We proposed an address on the cap of temporary workers. What we’re talking about here in Bill 53 are temporary workers working for contractors who have got government contracts in government buildings or on government construction projects. Many of them are temporary. The NDP had proposed that we put a cap on temporary workers, that no employer could use more than 20% temporary workers at any given time, and I believe it was no longer than for a three-month period. If they stayed for longer than three months, then they became a permanent employee; but the Liberal government voted that amendment down as well.

They’re really not that worried about temporary workers in this province. If they were worried, they wouldn’t have waited 10 years to actually address the wage schedules under Bill 53.

The issue of temporary workers does not include all workers, so the legislation that actually got passed doesn’t include all workers, like the Toronto fair wage policy. The issue of benefits isn’t addressed either, so although the government of the day, the Liberal government, chose to put in equal pay language to address equal pay for temporary workers working side by side with permanent workers—full-time or part-time, but permanent workers—they didn’t address anything else. They didn’t address health and safety training. They didn’t address benefits. They didn’t address sick days.

They didn’t address pensions, if those permanent people happen to have a pension plan. It’s really just the hourly rate of pay that ended up getting addressed, so people can still be temporary for 10 years. We heard about people, actually, during the Bill 148 hearings, who have been temporary for a very long period of time.

The government also could have amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act to improve the lives of workers, for companies to be accredited on some of the health and safety issues, to reduce the unnecessary burdens of routine inspections. We know there are hundreds of thousands of businesses and agencies in this province and it is impossible for the enforcement people to actually get to every one of those agencies or businesses on a regular basis.

We also were looking to have amendments that would have granted expanded access to employee contact information during organizing drives. To go back to that card check, the easiest way to improve the lives of workers in this province would have been to make it easier for people to actually unionize.

On a more local piece, the government could have addressed the issue of Peterborough GE and those workers. They could have addressed the issue through the WSIB. I was going to have a question on that yesterday but, of course, the clock ran out and I didn’t get to it. I wanted to briefly speak to that issue, if I could, Speaker.

The GE people, for the last year—I think it was early last summer at one point, before we went on the Bill 148 hearings, that the GE Peterborough people had 750 claims and the vast majority of those claims had been denied. These are people who worked in a factory, who were exposed to more than 3,000 carcinogens over their careers with that factory. Many of these people have died from a variety of cancers and other respiratory illnesses over the years.

The Minister of Labour was out to their meeting in Peterborough, and he assured them that each and every one of them was going to be looked after; they were going to have their files reassessed, reviewed. There were discussions with OHCOW, the clinic for Ontario workers, to actually provide them with some additional funding so they could assist these workers in reviewing their files and making their case to have a review and perhaps an appeal of their claims.

I think there were 750 files outstanding; we heard earlier this year that, I think, 250 of them had been reviewed, but to date the government has not floated any of the money that they promised. Originally, the clinic was asking for $2 million to a review and assist these 750 workers or their families because, in some cases, the workers have died in the process of waiting for their claims to be reviewed. Then there was an agreement that the government would actually give them $1 million, and that, to date, hasn’t happened either, Speaker.

Most recently, there was supposed to be—in January, the Minister of Labour was actually brokering a way to deal with some of these issues, with a decision matrix in which WSIB would perhaps report back to OHCOW the status of these claims, and that hasn’t happened either.

These people are devastated. There was an

article here in the Toronto Star. It says, “The WSIB has already agreed to review some 250 previously denied compensation claims from people who blamed their illnesses on toxic substances they were exposed to while working at the General Electric plant in Peterborough.” The workers themselves and the advocates for the workers “had hoped ministry-funded body would receive additional resources to assist ailing GE Peterborough claimants assemble their cases.” Because it takes a lot of work. You’ll know that, Speaker, from being involved in the steel industry. With people with asbestosis and mesothelioma, it’s hard to prove those kinds of cases; it’s hard to prove cancers.

Frankly, from my perspective, all of these cancers at GE—if you worked at GE, it should just be presumptive legislation. Anybody who worked at GE and was exposed to these carcinogens—3,000 toxic substances—over a period of time should just have their claims automatically approved.

We even had workers’ spouses in to see us a while ago when we did a media event here at Queen’s Park. Some of the wives, the spouses, of these workers had died. Their exposure was from their spouses coming home, showering at home, washing their clothes, handling their clothes that had those toxic substances on them.

This is a devastating issue, Speaker, and something that the government should be spending their time on right now, eight days before an election, making sure that these people in Peterborough are looked after. They hoped that OHCOW was the one agency that could help provide them with the documentation and the medical write-ups and the proof. Sue James, whose father died of one tumour in his lung and four on his spine after three decades at Peterborough, says that the Liberal government has taken that away from them. They promised them that they were going to provide this funding, but at the end of the day, they really haven’t done a whole lot for them.

The most recent budget proposal submitted by OHCOW seeks $812,000 over 14 months to hire two occupational hygienists and a nurse to review the workers’ occupational history and medical file for work-relatedness in light of the new workplace exposure evidence at GE. But to date, these people are still sitting and waiting. I guess I ask: how many more of them are going to die while they are waiting to have their claims approved? This is a travesty. This is something that the Liberal government has control over and could take on, but they are choosing not to do it.

Instead, they are tabling a bill that will have no impact on any worker in this province for at least two years and probably for much longer than that.

I wanted to spend a minute talking about the partisanship of this Legislature as we get closer to an election. As I said, there was quite a ruckus going on in here yesterday. But it just kind of brought to mind for me, as we get closer and closer to election day, that things continue to digress. We all were elected here in this Legislature to represent people in our ridings. The Liberals don’t represent every person in this province. There are around 50 seats in this province that are—we were elected to represent those people, to be the voice of the people in our communities here in the Legislature and back in our ridings.

I raise this issue because I know it has happened to many opposition members, not just New Democrats. This week it happened in my riding. For the last seven years since I’ve been here, I have been trying to bring more long-term care beds to my riding. On Monday, there was an event. There was an announcement in my riding, but it was kept a secret by the Liberal government. I even tried to prod it out of them with a question on Monday to see whether or not they would actually talk about the announcement they were going to be making in my riding.

They sent the Minister of Community Safety down to the riding because it was a francophone announcement. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Seniors Affairs I don’t think actually speak French, so they sent the Minister of Community Safety to this event. This was for an announcement of, I think, 66 new beds at the Foyer Richelieu.

Over the years, I worked with the former Attorney General, Madeleine Meilleur, and a number of other ministers to try to get those beds for the Foyer Richelieu. I know that, at the end of the day, it’s the government who actually looks at the invitee list and decides who is attending and who is not attending, but I find that very disappointing. After having spent years trying to get beds for the Foyer Richelieu in Welland, to make them sustainable—they have a great volunteer base who fundraise for them, the Club Richelieu branch in Welland—that the government would not invite the local MPP to attend.

People will say, “Well, you know, crash the event.” Well, you cannot crash those kinds of events. I think it isn’t just disrespectful to the MPP; it is disrespectful to the people, the constituents in my riding and in opposition members’ ridings across this province. It’s disrespectful to the people who elected us to be their voices here at Queen’s Park. The closer and closer we get to an election, the more and more we see that happening.

It’s interesting because the announcement at the end of the day was for 66 beds, but not until, I think it’s 2022—four years. I know, Speaker, because I had a nursing home built in my riding in 2016, that it takes one year. It only takes one year. Once again, it’s an election promise in the Welland riding, where we have never had a Liberal elected in 65 or 70 years—just using it as a ploy at election time, when this home well deserved to have beds approved for many, many years. In fact, they should have gotten the last RFP in 2015 that got built in the for-profit sector, Royal Rose—a very nice home. But as New Democrats, we don’t believe that health care dollars should be going to profit.

I raise that issue because, as I’m leaving here in a few months, I think that it is annoying and it’s disrespectful. At the end of the day, although the Liberals think that that is a good announcement—and it is; it is a good announcement. But they think it will parlay into votes in the riding.

In fact, I’ll meet some people from that nursing home in my community probably over the weekend, and they will say, “Cindy, why weren’t you at the announcement of the 66 new beds?” I’ll say, “Because the Liberals didn’t invite me.” Then they’ll say, “Well, that’s not right, because you are the person who was elected to represent the people here, and those are our tax dollars. They’re not Liberal dollars; they’re taxpayers’ dollars.” So at the end of the day, it is very disrespectful when the Liberals do that.

I have to say, there are a couple of Liberals who are very good at inviting people to their events—only a couple. I would say that the member from St. Catharines is always very gracious about inviting people to his events, and the Minister of Agriculture—I know he has been down to my riding and has invited me. But other than that, Speaker, it’s just not right, what happens. I won’t ever be here in government, as I’m retiring, but I would hope that when the NDP are elected, they would keep that in mind and not do the same.

I’m going to spend my last few minutes on a little more detail from the Workers’ Action Centre on Bill 53, because I think they make some really important points in this report. I’m going to quote from this; I’m not going to take any credit or say that it’s my own words.

Deena Ladd of the Workers’ Action Centre said, “We were heartened when the government announced on February 21 ... that it would be seeking public input on updates to its fair wage policy to ensure government contract workers continue to receive fair wages and benefits. A ‘refreshed policy will better reflect Ontario’s evolving workforce,’” said the Minister of Labour at the time.

“We were hopeful that the government would follow the footsteps of its Changing Workplaces Review and examine how the fair wage policy could better protect workers made vulnerable through government contracting and subcontracting.”

She goes on to say, “That would mean starting off the consultation by addressing what scope of government contracting should be covered by the fair wage policy. That has not happened yet.” And now, I say, Speaker, it won’t happen; it’s not going to happen.

“Instead, we have witnessed a process of invitation-only meetings” by the government “to discuss narrow questions on the construction and building services that the fair wage policy has historically addressed. The fair wage policy consultation is not publicly available on the Ministry of Labour website. It is not on the” government’s “consultation calendar. It does not meet the principles of the ministry’s engagement framework, a framework that calls for authentic engagement and inclusivity and balance.

On the employee side, beyond the unions that were rightfully invited, there was no representation of non-unionized workers from construction and building services who would be affected by a fair wage policy in these sectors, much less non-unionized workers impacted by government contracting.”

So, no consultation with the people that this was actually going to affect. That is very disheartening, Speaker, that you’re talking about a fair wage policy and the people that it’s going to affect were not even invited to the table.

She goes on to say that the consultation “must seek to encourage ‘involvement from the full range and diversity of stakeholders affected, remove barriers for those groups that are hardest to reach, and aim for fair and balanced participation.’”

Many of these people work in buildings. They don’t get to see each other. It isn’t like they’re working in a hospital where there may be 100 people doing the same job and they get to talk every day. And as I said, a lot of people working in these jobs are minorities, are new immigrants, so there should have been fair and balanced participation in the consultation.

The minister said yesterday that they consulted far and wide, but apparently they didn’t consult all of the right people.

The Workers’ Action Centre goes on to say, “However, the narrow scope of the fair wage policy is clearly out of date.” So, we haven’t reviewed the policy since, I don’t know, 2001? We had a report in 2008 that the government did nothing about. Now we haven’t even looked at the scope, which the Workers’ Action Centre says is clearly out of date.

Government contracting work is now in many more sectors than just construction and building services, and so the scope of the actual legislation needs to be expanded in a number of ways to take into account changing workplaces and the ways in which government actually does business today. It needs to cover all government-contracted goods and services, and it should be expanded to include “all contracts entered into by the government with a company for provision of any goods or services.”

As I said earlier, and I think it’s important to keep repeating this, Bill 53 exempts—anybody who is in a government contract today before it actually becomes law, or before the wage schedules are actually reviewed, will be exempted. The information that was imparted to me was that lots of these contracts are very long-term contracts, so it’s going to leave out a large number of workers in this province.

“When the fair wage policy was” originally “established it covered sectors that were, at that time, being contracted out. Times have changed. However, the government failed to update the fair wage policy when it began to contract out other services that had previously been done by government employees.”

We heard about that last year from the member from Kitchener–Waterloo on the issue of IT services that were being contracted out, that were always done in-house by the government and are now being addressed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): One minute.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Okay. I’m looking at this clock and not that clock.

I’ll wrap up, Speaker, by encouraging the government, while they are taking their two years to address the wage schedules, to, at the same time, go back and have more meaningful consultation with the workers that this legislation is actually going to impact. Get the Workers’ Action Centre in, get the people in who really need to have a fair wage policy, and do the right thing.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I am very pleased today to introduce to the House Deanna Allain and Carlin. She has with her a training dog for autistic children. It’s very, very interesting what she does, and I’m really pleased to welcome both of them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This morning, it’s my pleasure to introduce the family of page captain Ryan-Michael Harding. With us are his mother, Olympia Morfetas; his father, Karl-Scott Harding; sister Sophia Harding; brother Kevin Harding; grandmother Sophia Morfetas; and aunt Elpida Morfetas. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to welcome the family of page captain Stephanie Shen: her father, Jeffrey Shen, and her grandparents Jia and Jiang Shen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Tove Schmidt, the mother of page Dwight, and his grandmother, Dolores.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I would like to welcome two family members of page Rowan Watchmaker. They are Neomi Madjmudar, her cousin, and Kashyap Madjmudar, her grand-uncle. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome Tiffanie Tse and Maria Lambaris. They’re third-year medical students at the University of Toronto, as well as members of the organizing committee for #Spots4Docs. I also want to welcome Schehrezade Yousafzai, a grade 10 student at Havergal College. Welcome, girls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I would like to welcome Cheryl Richardson and Sandy Byers, who are here to spend their day with their favourite MPP for the day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to introduce this morning my daughter, Allison Dawes, and my grandsons, William Dawes and Nathan Dawes, who are here to visit us this morning from the great riding of Mr. Miller, Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure today to welcome to Queen’s Park and to the Legislature a good friend and neighbour of mine, Mr. Lorne Given.

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: À

titre de députée d’Ottawa–Orléans, j’aimerais encore une fois reconnaître la présence—on a eu plusieurs invités pour notre page Maxime Dufault. Aujourd’hui, ses grands-parents sont avec nous. Carole Martineau et Pierre Dufault sont ici à l’Assemblée législative. Bienvenue, chers grands-parents. Merci beaucoup d’être ici.

Hon. Laura Albanese: Please join me in welcoming the family of page Eric Albishausen. We have his aunt, Denise Churchill, and cousins Branden and Luke Churchill with us in the members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ross Romano: I’d like to welcome a friend formerly from Sault Ste. Marie, from the Sault College institute there, Mr. Patrick Whitten. He is with us today in the gallery.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome OSSTF president Harvey Bischof, and Paul Kossta to Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to welcome Mario Mazziotti and Tara St. Jean, who came down to Queen’s Park for lunch with their MPP today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome Cambridge page Madeline Buss’s great-aunt and uncle, Dorothy and Steve Dunlop, and great-uncle, John Leckie. They’ll be in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: I believe they’re just entering now. Rob Milligan, our former colleague, is coming in with his class. I’m not certain what the name of the school is; I’ll get that and we’ll maybe do a point of order at the end. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Rob, I’m hoping they gave you the same enthusiasm when you were in caucus.

As it is the tradition of the Speaker to introduce former members, I would like to introduce the former member from Northumberland–Quinte West in the 40th Parliament, Mr. Rob Milligan. Welcome.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d just like to fill in the blanks; everybody’s wondering. They are from Campbellford District High School in Northumberland–Quinte West riding.

I would also like to introduce a former page and member of the model Parliament here, Josée Stephens, who is with us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome. We all love to have the blanks filled in.

Special report, Auditor General

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled:

Review of the 2018 Pre-Election Report on Ontario’s Finances from the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.

It is therefore—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You can signal me early; then we may be able to pick up from where we left off yesterday.

Therefore—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Rob, how are you doing?

Sorry. I apologize, Speaker. It’s just the Peterborough way of doing things.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not in this House.

Therefore, it is time for question period.

Oral Questions

Government accounting practices

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier.

The opening sentence of the Auditor General’s blistering report says it all: The numbers from the Liberal government are “not a reasonable presentation of Ontario’s finances.” There you have it, Speaker.

Auditor Bonnie Lysyk revealed that Ontario’s deficit this year is actually $11.7 billion, up $5 billion from the numbers the Liberals just reported. They’re off by 75%. Next year, they’re off by 85% as the deficit grows to $12.2 billion, and the year after that, the Liberals understate the number by almost 100% as the deficit hits $12.5 billion.

The Liberal government cannot be trusted. Will the government finally come clean about the true state of Ontario’s finances?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the opposition member. I know that the minister responsible for the Treasury Board Secretariat is going to be happy to respond in the supplementary, and I’ve already answered the question in the public realm with the media today.

We thank the Auditor General for her response to the pre-election report. I know that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Ministry of Finance have been working closely with the Auditor General of Ontario on a wide variety of issues. There are issues that the Auditor General has raised in her response that she has raised before. These are ongoing conversations.

We have worked closely with accounts. We’ve been very, very careful as we made the decision as a government to reduce people’s electricity bills by 25%. We knew that that was necessary, and we worked very, very hard to make it clear that that would mean a cost over a period of time. We worked with accountants to create that plan—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: The Auditor General’s scathing report is an indictment of this Liberal government. Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk said, “The government did not properly record the true financial impact of the fair hydro plan....” She said, “Neither the expenses to pay power generators nor the interest on the funds borrowed ... have been included.”

There’s billions in cash going out the door, but they’re not listing it as an expense. They’re borrowing money to pay the bills but not recording the cheques, so it appears that there’s money in the bank when there isn’t any. Only Liberals think they can get away with that.

Mr. Speaker, why does this government present numbers that are off by 100%?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: All of that debt, all of those numbers are recorded. They are all recorded, and there is an accounting disagreement—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, all of those numbers are recorded. They are clearly laid out as debt that is being carried in the electricity system. We made a decision that people needed to have relief on their electricity bills, and we are spreading the cost of the billions of dollars of investments that we have made over—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay, we’re in warnings. Your outbursts are not acceptable.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —over a longer period of time, and carrying that within the electricity system, where it appropriately resides, as is done in other jurisdictions. There is an accounting disagreement that has been going on. I recognize that. We acknowledge that, and we will work with the Auditor General.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: I have to say, Speaker, that that is 100% wrong. It is not recorded as debt. It is recorded as an asset, something they legislated. Only a Liberal would legislate a debt as an asset.

As if that isn’t enough, the government then recorded pension revenue that wasn’t theirs and listed insufficient pension expenses. The auditor said, “It should not have done this.” She added, “The incorrect recording of pension revenues and expenses is an understatement of ... expenses.”

Speaker, the government’s books are off by up to 100%. They simply cannot be trusted. Nothing they ever tell us should ever be believed again, and the auditor has proved that. How can the people of Ontario ever trust one word this government says?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Mr. Steve Clark: I smell toast.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I smell a warning. The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I’m delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the Auditor General’s pre-election report, and to start by thanking the auditor. As an independent officer of the Legislature, the Auditor General brings a valued and incredibly important perspective to our work as government. We work closely with her and her officials, and I do want to take this opportunity to thank the outstanding officials in our government who have worked so closely with the auditor in her work.

Our government passed the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act in 2004 precisely because it was under a previous government that we woke up to a $6-billion surprise. We have fixed that, Speaker. Why? Because on this side of the House we believe that transparency and accountability are foremost in our thinking. That is why we are delighted to have this pre-election report today as an opportunity to once again be accountable to Ontarians.

Government accounting practices

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question goes back to the Premier. The auditor said, “The perception is created that government has more money available than it actually does.” The real deficit numbers are astounding, and they are double what they told us in this House: $11.7 billion next year; $12.2 billion the year after that; $12.5 billion the year after that—after they promised us that they would balance the budget. The deficit is out of control, and the government—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is warned.

Finish, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They can heckle all they want, but what they’re really trying to do is pull the wool over the people of Ontario’s eyes.

Will the Premier come clean and admit that the real numbers in her budget are double?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the work the Auditor General has done and I recognize that throughout her deliberations—and we did speak yesterday for some time. She says this, Mr. Speaker: The pre-election report provided, which is the one that we presented just at the time of the budget, is reasonable and is cautious and it’s underpinning a fiscal forecast. She reaffirms that our track back to balance is actually prudent. She recognizes that the forecast we put forward is actually cautious.

Furthermore, she is again referencing two issues that the accountants—professional accounting firms—are in dispute with the Auditor General in the reflection of those requirements. But it’s fully transparent. The debt is reflected. The amount of transactions is apparent. It’s there for all to see. And furthermore, it’s reaffirmed and reinforced by the investors who are making the loans in respect to those very issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You can tell their numbers are bogus because they’re playing musical chairs with who has to answer over there.

What the auditor actually said is that the election report is not a reasonable presentation of Ontario’s election finances. How can this government be trusted? The actual deficit will be double at $11.7 billion. The auditor is here to hold the government accountable, and they brush her aside like she’s a nuisance. She’s here for the good of the public. The Premier is only here for the good of the Liberal Party.

So I ask, Speaker: Why is this government so intent on avoiding accountability and where is the secret hidden ledger?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the member now is attacking the public service, the accountants of this organization. She’s attacking KPMG, which actually performs the audit for IESO. She’s attacking Deloitte, which has reaffirmed the process that has been made. She’s attacking E and Y, which has audited the work of OPG—clean audits in both cases, Mr. Speaker.

Furthermore, she’s attacking Deloitte—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford is warned.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: She’s attacking Deloitte, which is also reflected on the issue of pensions.

Let me be clear: We slayed the deficit based on the work we’ve done. We balanced the budget. We have a $600-million surplus, and going—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Final supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If the finance minister were still at the bank, he’d be fired for what he just said.

This government is intent on hiding the truth from Ontario taxpayers. When the real deficit—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to accept that. Withdraw, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m not attacking our valued public servants. I’m not attacking outside auditors who don’t have the full picture that the Auditor General has. I am attacking this government for withholding the facts from the Ontario taxpayers by suggesting that it’s a $6.7-billion deficit when in fact it is double, and they’re going to continue to double it over the next three years. They’ve not “slayed” the deficit; they’ve grown the deficit, and that’s going to hurt future generations, including your kids, including your grandkids, including my daughter.

Where is the secret ledger? Why won’t you provide it to this Legislature today?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: President of the Treasury Board.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The member from Nepean–Carleton has done something she knows I don’t like. It won’t happen again.

President.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that on days like today, when tensions can be high in the House, things can be said, but I want to join the Minister of Finance in outlining the fact that the member opposite has just cast aspersions on our professional public service. I take great exception to that. These are people who work hard. They are among the best public servants in the country. They are also working incredibly diligently with the Auditor General. That’s what we know. That’s what we expect. The member opposite should actually be taking those comments back.

I will say this: The Auditor General has said that our books are prepared in an accordance of prudence and cautious assumptions—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I stand; members sit.

New question.

Taxation

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. The Liberal government underfunded our hospitals because they said that there was not money to fund our hospitals and our community health sector. Is that fair?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, it’s not the case. The fact is that we have increased funding to hospitals in every budget. We recognize that there’s a need for an increase. Last year, we put in place 500 million more dollars for hospitals; this year, $822 million. We have opened nurse practitioner-led clinics around the province.

We have continually increased funding and will continue to increase funding across the system, including to home care, including to mental health, including to pharmacare. Those are all parts of the health care system, and we are continuing to increase funding and support the needs of the population in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: While the Liberal government was cutting funding to our health care system and our hospitals, there was something else that they were cutting: They were cutting corporate tax rates, to the point where they were lower than the state of Alabama, to the point where we’re talking five percentage points lower than Mike Harris’s last day as Premier of this province.

Why did the Premier choose to create a crisis in our health care system instead of asking the richest people and the most profitable corporations to pay their fair share?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This question from the member of the third party really is reflective of a fundamental difference between a Liberal philosophy and the NDP. That is that we believe that industry, that corporations, that the business world have a role to play in creating wealth in this province. The NDP will tell you that the government can do everything and we can just denigrate the private sector over and over again. We don’t believe that. We believe that we need to be competitive.

I’ve spent days talking to governors in the United States, to congresspeople, to make sure that we have a NAFTA that works for Ontario and works for Canada. But that party doesn’t think the private sector has a role to play. They’re wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Final supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Under the Liberals, just like under the Conservatives, the wealthy few got a whole lot, while many people throughout Ontario were admitted into overcrowded hospitals. We have reached a point where our hospitals are full, where their hallways are full, where people are being admitted anywhere that isn’t a door or an exit.

Why does the Premier think that it is more important to have a tax rate lower than what Mike Harris had settled for than it is to end the overcrowding crisis in our hospitals?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Which is exactly what the NDP says they think should be done. We’ve already done it. We increased taxes on the highest income earners in this province. But having a competitive business sector, having businesses that can thrive and compete with other jurisdictions around the world—we think that’s important.

When I travel to China or India—and businesses are looking at increasing their footprint here, creating more jobs, bringing that wealth to the province. They’re looking for a competitive environment. We’ve created that, and we think that’s important for economic growth in this province.

Taxation

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. People in business count on our health care system. Medicare is one of our greatest competitive advantages, but the Premier has refused at every turn to ask the wealthy few to pay their fair share to ensure that we have a health care system that functions the way we know it can.

Why is the Premier more interested in helping her rich connections than in ending hallway medicine?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Children and Youth Services is warned.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Man.

Let me just go over what I said earlier. We increased taxes on the highest income earners in this province. We have already done that.

Let’s look at what has happened as a result of the competitiveness of Ontario business. We have created, in this province, in partnership with the private sector, 820,000 new jobs since the recession, and 400,000 of those have been created since I was the Premier. That has led to the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years in this province.

You know what? That is very good for those businesses. That is very good for the people who have those jobs. But it’s also good for the health care system because that means we can invest in the health care system. Yes, it is a huge advantage and it’s one of the reasons people come here, businesses come here, and those jobs have been created.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I know the Premier got into politics because of Mike Harris’s cuts, but she has had 15 years to undo that damage. Actions speak louder than words. The Premier’s actions would lead us to believe that she got into politics to make life better for the wealthiest few and to cut more into our health care system that all of us depend on. Who knew?

The NDP believes in fixing our health care system and asking the richest people and the wealthiest corporations to pay their fair share so that it can be done. Why is the Premier more interested in corporate giveaways to the wealthy few than in ending hallway medicine for the many?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I became the Premier, I said to the people of this province that I would work to get better retirement security for them. I said that we would invest in education and health care. I said that we would build infrastructure around this province. We have done every single one of those things, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that I’m in politics because I believe government exists to do the things that people can’t do by themselves. I don’t come from a wealthy background. I don’t know where the NDP gets that idea. I don’t know where they get that notion. I know they want to play that up; it’s not true. I can bring out all my mortgage payments and all of the pictures of my small semi-detached house in north Toronto. We can play that game. But the fact is, I’m in politics because I believe people need the support of government. They need pharmacare. They need health care. They need free tuition, and that’s what we’ve been working on—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Final supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Mr. Speaker, we could have an Ontario where the richest people pay their fair share, where the most profitable corporations pay their fair share and where corporate tax rates are still below the national average. We can end hallway medicine. We can add 2,000 new beds to our hospital system.

Can the Premier explain to everyone who has been treated in a hallway, a bathroom, a TV room or a patient lounge why it’s more important that she helps the few at the top rather than giving people the dignity and the care they deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we need people to be able to find jobs in this province. We need people to be able to look after themselves and their families. Having a decent job is a really important part of that.

Of course there are things that government has to do. We recognize that, which is why we have stepped up year after year to put those supports in place. We know that there’s more that we have to do. But the fact is, government has to do more than one thing at a time. We have to invest in our health care system, which we are doing, and we have to have a competitive business environment.

Our unemployment rate has dropped to 5.5%. It’s the lowest level in two decades, Mr. Speaker. For the past three years, Ontario has led all G7 nations when it comes to economic growth. That’s a good thing. The NDP may not think that’s a good thing; they may think that’s a bad thing. The fact is, that’s jobs, that’s a high quality of life for people of this province, and that’s services that we can deliver because of that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

Government accounting practices

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. This government had been warned for well over a year that what they were doing with our finances was not right. The Financial Accountability Office warned that, because of the hydro scheme, MPPs should obtain assurance from the auditor that the province’s accounting meets the public sector accounting standards. They were that worried, Speaker.

The FAO also stated that, beyond this year, expect a “significant increase in the budget deficit due to ... the growing ... impact from the fair hydro plan.” They knew, Speaker. The government knew that they were jeopardizing Ontario’s fiscal position. They were told over and over.

Speaker, why does this Premier and this government think they’re above the rules?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite makes reference again to the principles of accounting, which all lead to the accountants: Deloitte, KPMG, E and Y, all of whom had prepared and provided for the structure that we have before us—and affirmed by them.

The member opposite talks about the concerns that would happen with the investment community. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was they who were actually proposing and investing in these very issues. Furthermore, DBRS, a rating agency, just confirmed our AA rating as stable, Mr. Speaker, in light of all of these situations as well.

We’re moving forward with the appropriate accounting principles that are approved by world-renowned accounting firms.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: The government didn’t listen to the Financial Accountability Office, and now they won’t listen to the Auditor General. This is from the auditor: “It is clear ... the government’s intention in creating” their “accounting ... to handle the costs of the electricity rate reduction was to avoid affecting its fiscal plan.” She’s onto them. “The intention was to avoid showing a deficit in the province’s budgets and consolidated financial statements ... and to likewise show no increase in the provincial ... debt.” And the way they finance it could cost Ontarians $4 billion more in interest costs.

Speaker, why is this Premier and this government putting the province’s finances in jeopardy just to cling to power?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: At the core of this issue—and again, we thank the Auditor General for her report, Speaker—is an issue about accounting differences of opinion. The IESO is a rate-regulated agency and thus uses rate-regulated accounting.

The change in the IESO’s accounting practice has done a couple of really important things, Speaker, and I’ll get to those in a quick second—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Before I get to that, Speaker, I just want to remind the member opposite of a couple of important things. Number one, we took $1.5 billion off the tax base and we put it onto the rate base, which we saw as a very important issue regarding fairness.

The IESO accounting practice that we adopted has eliminated a second set of books, has brought greater transparency to $17 billion worth of transactions and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Government accounting practices

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier.

First of all, I’d like to thank the Auditor General for her work on behalf of the people of Ontario. Today, she reported that the government’s pre-election report is “not a reasonable presentation of Ontario’s finances.” That’s partly because the government is using a complicated private financing scheme to keep billions of dollars of hydro debt off the government’s books. Not only does this scheme waste $4 billion for no other purpose than to hide this debt; it clearly violates public accounting standards, as the government knew it would.

Why is the Premier hiding the truth about what its $40-billion hydro borrowing scheme will cost—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve ruled on this; I’m not accepting it. The member will withdraw.

Mr. John Vanthof: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. You may finish your question.

Mr. John Vanthof: Why is the Premier involved in this $40-billion hydro scheme which will cost the public even more money?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you very much to the honourable member for his question. I think it’s important, Speaker, to just remind that this pre-election report really is an important opportunity for the Auditor General to give us some very important advice.

The accounting practices that the member opposite talks about have done some really important things for our economy and for ratepayers, because this change in the IESO’s accounting practice has eliminated a second set of books that was previously kept, has brought greater transparency to $17 billion worth of transactions and, furthermore, is consistent with the accounting practices of IESO’s predecessor, the OPA.

We respectfully disagree with the Auditor General on this, Speaker. We made a significant policy decision to lower the cost of energy for Ontarians, and that is the decision that will stand.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Premier: The Premier’s $40-billion hydro borrowing scheme does not permanently lower bills for Ontarians. Over the long run, it will add $40 billion in hydro debt and interest onto bills, which will have to be repaid, once again, by the people who use hydro. The government is needlessly wasting $4 billion on a private financing scheme whose sole purpose is to keep that debt off the government’s books. Instead of violating public sector accounting standards, why won’t the Premier just tell the Ontario public the truth: that their hydro bills have not really gone down but will, over the long run, skyrocket higher than ever before?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I want to go back to the premise of this report and remind the member opposite that the Auditor General actually, in issuing her report today, underscored the fact that our government has prepared our books with a degree of prudence that she underscores as being extremely important. That’s an important piece of context.

Speaker, when the public accounting standards, as Deloitte pointed out, “are silent on the question of how to account for the impacts of rate regulation,” then “it is appropriate for a public sector entity”—and this is their opinion, Speaker—“to select accounting policies that would result in the recognition of the impacts of rate regulation.”

This, again, is an area of disagreement with the Auditor General. We have another area of disagreement with her as well, on pensions. We are pleased to have her report today. We respect her opinion and we again underscore the fact that this is

an act of transparency on our part to publish this pre-election report, something that Ontarians previously didn’t have.

Wood frame construction

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, Ontario’s building code establishes standards for construction in the province. One of the things the building code speaks to is the construction of buildings with wood frames and materials.

Building with engineered wood products is structurally comparable to concrete and steel buildings in strength. It stores carbon and lessens the impact of climate change; it lowers greenhouse gas emissions by not using energy-intensive materials; and it could lower building costs with cost-effective materials and shorter construction time. Mass-timber structural framing systems have high strength-to-weight ratios and are dimensionally stable, and are quickly becoming the systems of choice for sustainably minded designers.

I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been advocating for wood construction for a number of years. Minister, could you please tell us a bit about the work that you and your ministry and the government have done on wood-based construction?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Thanks to the member for the question. In 2012, I did introduce a private member’s bill to allow for six-storey wood frame construction in Ontario. My goal was to increase the use of wood in Ontario’s construction industry by requiring its use in provincially funded buildings. The goal was achieved in January 2015, when the building code was updated to support the construction of mid-rise wood frame buildings up to six storeys. I should also mention that mass timber buildings over seven storeys could also be built under our current building code; however, projects were not being brought forward.

In an effort to further support the use of wood in building construction, last year we released the tall wood reference, which will assist architects, engineers, building and fire officials and developers in the development of safe alternative solutions for taller wood projects. We also co-funded, with the federal government, to test the performance of mass timber building systems.

Speaker, the research and tests that support tall wood buildings is funded through the Climate Change Action Plan, funding which the leader of the party opposite has promised to cut. These projects will provide valuable transferable knowledge that can be used in future tall wood construction projects.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Fraser: We all know how important the forestry sector is here in Ontario. Forestry is a way of life for hard-working Ontarians across the province, with $15 billion in revenue and 172,000 direct jobs relying on the sector.

Wood products use less energy than steel or concrete and produce fewer emissions. Wood products also function as carbon storage units, storing carbon that would otherwise be emitted into our atmosphere. I also know that tall wood buildings are an effective, efficient and sustainable way to build communities and to help support Ontario’s important forestry sector.

Minister, how does the Mass Timber Program benefit Ontarians?

Hon. Bill Mauro: The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: I want to thank the member for Ottawa South for his great question.

I’m very happy to talk about the Mass Timber Program, which promotes the use of mass timber in construction and helps reduce the effects of climate change. This program offers direct benefits to the people of Ontario, particularly people from the north, because it includes the creation of new jobs in forestry and also in construction. Also, it advances low-carbon building science, which is important for innovation in the sector.

I’m very pleased to stand here and talk about four tall wood projects that have been funded through our cap-and-trade program, a program that the party opposite wants to eliminate. These four programs are the academic tower at the University of Toronto, an academic tower at George Brown College, an office space in Toronto and condominiums in North Bay.

Ce sont tous des projets innovateurs, qui démontrent bien—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

Provincial debt

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question goes back to the finance minister. Just like at Enron, the secret hidden ledger was finally revealed, and when it was, the real deficit and the deficit figures are now accounted for. The net debt per Ontario resident is $23,670 per person. Let me bring you back to 2003, when they were brought into office. Then, it was only $11,324. That figure is going to rise by $24,950 per person next year, and $26,240 per person the year after that.

This government is leaving my daughter and the next generation with an unsustainable amount of debt that is going to hurt our very core and valued public services. I want to know: Why is this government, including that Premier, content with leaving our children over $26,000 worth of debt because of their mismanagement?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’ve got three kids of my own, and I want to leave them with opportunity in the future.

Let me be clear: The member opposite is talking about one side of the ledger. There’s something else that’s extremely important here, extremely worth noting, and that is that Ontario is indeed one of the largest subnational economies in the world: over $800 billion, and we’re going to be up to $1 trillion soon.

It’s that strength of our economy, that worth, that is also important in that calculation. If you take into account the degree of debt as a percentage of that overall value, the people of Ontario have a huge net worth of close to $40,000 each. My children are going to benefit because of the investments we make in transit, in schools, in hospitals and in economic growth. They’ll have opportunity. They’re denying them that right. We’ll continue to invest in—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: What we really are is the largest subnational debtor in the world, Speaker. That minister over there may have $78,000 kicking around to pay for his kids’ share, but most Ontario families—the people of Ontario—don’t have an extra $80,000 kicking around to pay for their mismanagement. A child born under the Liberal government immediately will owe $26,000, thanks to that minister.

I care about the future. I care about my daughter. I care about the kids on our hockey team. I care about the pages. But they are putting all of that at risk with unsustainable and reckless spending.

I want to know from the minister: Is he okay with saddling every single child born in 2018 with $26,000 of additional debt? Because I can tell you, me, Vic Fedeli and Doug Ford certainly aren’t.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, in 40 years, there have been only eight balanced budgets: three of them by the Conservatives, the rest by us. The largest deficit in Canadian history was over $15 billion—by the Conservative government, not by anybody else.

Furthermore, this is all about choice. The member opposite is talking about what they choose to do. We have no idea, because they have no plan, but we know what they are going to do: They’re going to cut. We want to support child care for people, mental health and addictions care. We want more supports for hospitals, more supports for our seniors, more supports for our children and our students to put them at their best going forward into the future.

We’re investing in those programs; they are going to cut those programs. They’re putting at risk the future of Ontario. We’re fiscally strong and we’re going to continue to be strong because the people of Ontario deserve that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you. New question.

Child care

Ms. Catherine Fife: This question is to the Acting Premier. After 15 years of neglect and empty promises on child care investments from Liberal governments, it is clear for families in Waterloo region that change for the better can’t come soon enough.

This week I spoke to Bonnie Zehr, who is the executive director of Emmanuel at Brighton Child Care Centre, and she told me the story of one family new to Waterloo, whose parents—both parents—have finally found work, but they can’t find child care. They cannot find affordable, accessible child care in a not-for-profit setting anywhere in Waterloo region, like 80% of the families in this province.

The only thing that they can find are wait-lists. They’ve been on Emmanuel’s growing wait-list for three months. There are 600 families on that list, and staff must tell families that the wait-list is two years long. This family has no support network in the region, and their professional success and quality of life are directly affected and connected to finding affordable child care.

Does the Premier understand how stressful and how challenging it is to find quality child care in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Minister of Education and minister responsible for early years and child care.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I actually want to thank the member opposite for asking this very important question, because absolutely we recognize that we need affordable, accessible child care in this province. That’s why the Premier tasked me to make sure that we are on track.

Here’s what we are doing: We have been working diligently and tirelessly over the last year and a half to make sure we’re building the foundation, creating more affordable spaces, and ensuring that we are on track towards free preschool child care for families of children.

Speaker, let me just tell you about some of the things that we’ve been doing. We’re planning on investing $2.2 billion over three years to ensure that there will be free child care for preschoolers. That will save families an estimated $17,000 per child. That’s in addition to what they’ll be saving in full-day kindergarten, which is $6,500 per child.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: After 15 years, after too many photo ops in too many child care centres across the province, why should families believe that this Liberal government will—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please.

I believe there are some members on this side who have been warned. We can add to that list. After a warning is a naming.

Finish, please.

Ms. Catherine Fife: We hit a nerve.

Why should families believe that Liberals will take action to deliver on child care? Families who are excited to finally qualify for subsidies are only disappointed again when they learn that there are no child care spaces to access. We are the child care wait-list wonder of Canada. Congratulations.

Speaker, we have a plan that invests in ECEs who are on the front line. We have a plan that ensures that families will have high-quality spaces because we are committed to not-for-profit care. We have a plan that invests in creating spaces because you can’t build a system without capital funding. Our plan will make child care free for those who need it most because that’s where the return on investment is.

Why has your government still not created a plan based on needs of the families in the province of Ontario after 15 years?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, let me just give you a quick

summary of some of the things that we’re doing. We’re investing in child care: $1.4 billion in operational funding; $1.6 billion in capital funding. What does that mean? We’re creating spaces. We committed to create 100,000 spaces over five years. We’re actually not just on track, but we’re ahead of it.

What have we created so far? We’re on track to create 31,000 more spaces. Those are the photo ops that the member opposite is talking about. We’re actually going out there and announcing the spaces. And 60% of the spaces that we’re creating now are subsidized, so we’re actually increasing the number of spaces that are subsidized. But that’s not all. We’re also building towards the future, and that’s where free preschool child care comes in. As of 2020, families will be getting free preschool child care.

The NDP plan sounds good, but apparently Gordon Cleveland says it’s “completely unrealistic.” They’re not building the foundation. We’re building that solid foundation, recognizing the workforce—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

New question.

Cycling policies

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. It’s safe to say that the way people move around our communities is constantly changing. I know that one change that has caught my attention is the growing interest in, and demand for, active forms of transportation. This demand for improved cycling infrastructure, in particular, is significant, and I consistently hear from my constituents in Guelph who are looking to government to make investments that will make cycling a safer, more convenient way to get around. I also hear it first-hand from my daughter, Allison, who just happens to own a bike shop in Bracebridge.

Speaker, I know that this month marked the annual Bike Summit. Can the minister please share the update that was provided at the Bike Summit on the steps our government is taking to support cycling around the province?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I want to thank the member from Guelph and also welcome her daughter, Allison, from Ecclestone cycling shop in the members’ gallery today.

I was very pleased to join Ontario’s cycling community a few weeks ago to celebrate the progress that we’ve made towards creating a more bicycle-friendly Ontario, but also to look at the significant work that remains ahead.

After releasing our first #CycleON Action Plan, we didn’t slow down. In my time as the PA to the Minister of Transportation, I was actively involved in the cycling file, and now, as minister, I see we’ve made remarkable progress. Much of this work has culminated into the #CycleON Action Plan 2.0, which I was so pleased to present at the Bike Summit.

The updated action plan includes 37 proposed action items and five key strategic directions, including designing healthy, active and prosperous communities; improving cycling infrastructure; making highways and streets safer; promoting cycling awareness and creating behavioural change; and increasing cycling tourism.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I want to thank the minister for her answer.

It’s clear that we are taking an active approach to meet the needs of the cycling community here in Ontario. I was very pleased to announce recently that our government’s new Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program is providing Guelph with nearly $1.2 million to support local commuter cycling projects. I can’t wait to see the new bike lanes that will happen in Guelph, but of course, I know that if the Conservatives are elected, there won’t be any more of this because it’s funded by our carbon program on climate change.

Minister, would you tell us some more about your important initiatives, like the new #CycleON Action Plan? The new plan is sure to build on our government’s ongoing collaboration with cycling advocates. If you could elaborate on what that action plan contains, we would definitely appreciate the details.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I want to again thank the member from Guelph for her ongoing support of the cycling community.

Our action plan includes 37 unique action items, including our commitment to a province-wide cycling network. The fact is that our government has and continues to be a strong partner for the cycling community. With advocates like the President of the Treasury Board at the table, this shouldn’t come as any surprise.

We’ve made consistent investments, including bike rooms at GO stations, bike lockers at carpool lots and introducing a safe cycling education fund. While our Liberal government remains committed, we know that the Conservatives would scrap the cap-and-trade program, which this year alone is supporting commuter cycling projects in nearly 120 municipalities across the province.

This is a party with a leader who as councillor consistently spoke out against cycling projects in the city of Toronto. Unlike the party opposite, we know that investing in cycling is the right move. It supports our environment—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question?

Doctor shortage

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Today, an advocacy group of medical students, #SpotsForDocs, is protesting at Queen’s Park. They’re protesting the state of physician services planning, specifically the low ratio of medical graduates to residency spots.

Mr. Speaker, 800,000 Ontarians are without a family doctor, while many medical school graduates are unable to practise medicine. In 2015, this government drastically cut residency positions. Ontario taxpayers invest $200,000 for each student, yet they are blocked from finishing their training. Instead of creating permanent residency positions, the Ministry of Health announced temporary residency spots, which only help presently unmatched medical graduates.

Will the minister please explain why she’s turning her back on future medical school graduates?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course our government recognizes how important it is to match the physician supply to the need across Ontario. As a physician, a former medical student, I still remember the stresses not only of medical school, but of the matching process that I went through many years ago. So we fully understand the issue.

We do know that between 2003 and 2016, we had a large supply of physicians practising in Ontario, some additional 38%. But we do understand that there are challenges for new medical graduates, and this is why our government is funding more residency positions for medical school graduates who have completed their undergraduate training at an Ontario medical school.

This is a pan-Canadian problem, so we’re working with our medical schools to create more specialized residency spots. Obviously, this upcoming school year, everyone will find a spot. Everyone who is not matched will be offered a residency position—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Gila Martow: Again to the minister: This government’s plan is a band-aid solution that only addresses the issue in the short term—a desperate attempt by a desperate government to quickly deal with a crisis of their own making.

What is needed is a long-term, comprehensive strategy to plan for all medical resources across Ontario. The hundreds of students who are right now protesting in the rain took time away from their study and clinic work to advocate for better health care for all Ontarians.

Will the minister commit today to supporting the recommendations of Bill 18, the Careers in Medicine Advisory Committee Act, and strike a panel of medical experts to take the first step toward a comprehensive plan for medical resource planning in Ontario?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Speaker, the issue that I think is really important in terms of what we have announced this year is that we will be requiring these new residents in these new additional positions to provide a return of service to underserviced communities across the province. We will be specifically targeting those areas where we know we need more specialized service, such as emergency medicine, pediatrics and psychiatry. This investment will also ensure a stable supply of physicians in communities across the province.

Of course, we’re going to continue to work across the country with our medical schools to ensure that the matching process is enhanced as we go forward. Certainly, we’re going to be reviewing the outcomes of this particular year’s matching process and work with relevant stakeholders and ensure that we have every success on the part of the graduating physicians and on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Academic testing

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, a report was released recommending that large-scale EQAO testing continue for every Ontario student in grades 6 and 10. Speaker, 67% of Ontarians agree with New Democrats that EQAO census testing is not working for students. People for Education points out that 20 years of EQAO results have done nothing to close the education equity gap. Instead, EQAO allows schools to be ranked against one another, creating winners and losers and primarily benefitting real estate agents, at a cost of millions of dollars that could be used in the classroom.

Will the Acting Premier listen to parents, educators, students, trustees, education experts and others? Instead of making changes to EQAO, will she commit to eliminating EQAO altogether?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Education and minister responsible for early years and child care.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I am pleased to answer this question. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the party opposite is so interested in education now, when actually in their 2014 platform they had no mention of education. I just want them to know that on this side of the House, we have been making investments in our education system for many years. These investments are ones that I’m proud of.

Our world is rapidly changing, and our classrooms need to keep up with that change. Absolutely, we need to make informed decisions, and we need to ensure that where there are gaps and challenges in the system, we are on top of them so that we can give our system, our educators and our students the supports that they need. That is why we commissioned an independent review of Ontario’s student assessment and reporting led by the highly respected Dr. Carol Campbell and her five advisers. The review’s recommendations suggest that the status quo is no longer working well enough. I’m happy to explain more in the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, ask any parent and they will tell you: They look to report cards and teacher feedback to let them know how well their child is doing, not EQAO results. Parents understand that teaching to narrow tests in literacy and numeracy takes up too much teacher focus, creates undue stress on students and diverts resources away from student learning.

Speaker, this Liberal government has had 15 years to address long-standing concerns about EQAO. They have had 15 years to replace EQAO with an effective random-sample testing model that will provide a true check on the Ontario curriculum while helping to identify the supports that students need. Is this government’s newfound interest in changing EQAO another last-ditch attempt to try to win back support before the June election?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to remind the member opposite that we’re actually the ones that embarked on this review. It is a comprehensive review. I also want to ensure that the member opposite has actually read what the recommendations were. If she had, she would know, actually, that the advisers and Dr. Carol Campbell actually talked about—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: She actually made a real distinction between what was happening in the classroom and also EQAO. In fact, she said that what was happening in the classroom was extremely important and was actually a very good way forward in terms of assessing, and actually recommended that we strengthen classroom assessment and reporting and that we do further consultations on EQAO.

Seniors

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Seniors Affairs. I’m sure the minister is aware of the good news that seniors like myself are living longer and in better health than ever before. With this comes new challenges for how our government can provide the necessary care and support for this rapidly growing demographic.

One of those challenges is social isolation, which can affect the mental and physical well-being of those without the opportunities to engage in their community. Among the many wide-ranging initiatives and program commitments that were announced in last year’s Aging with Confidence action plan was our commitment to expand the successful Seniors Community Grant Program. With a focus on community-oriented solutions to keep seniors active and engaged, this program has already supported over 1,600 projects. Speaker, would the minister tell this House about the expansion of the Seniors Community Grant Program?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to thank the member from Barrie for the question and wish her many, many years of aging with confidence here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, along with the member from Ottawa Centre, I was at the Good Companions centre in Ottawa, where I had the pleasure of announcing this year’s successful project applicants for the Seniors Community Grant. Our government is investing $4.1 million to support nearly 250 projects.

One project in particular that I’m very excited about is something we call “seniors without walls.” It’s going to allow us to create virtual seniors community centres across Ontario to ensure that our seniors are not socially isolated and have a place to make friends regardless of geography.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister, for telling this House about our commitment to investing in programs and initiatives aimed at reducing social isolation. I’m glad that our government is providing resources and supports to foster existing innovative programs across this province, allowing them to benefit even more seniors across Ontario.

However, that’s not all, Speaker, as I believe that just last week our government announced yet another way it is reducing social isolation and keeping our seniors engaged and socially connected with their communities. Last week, the Minister of Seniors Affairs and the member from Brampton West were at Villa Polonia in Brampton, where they announced 40 new seniors active living centres. Can the Minister of Seniors Affairs please inform this House about this expansion?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: You can see that our government is continuing to invest in seniors. Every week, we have something to announce for our seniors. Yes, the member from Barrie is correct. Last week I did have the pleasure of announcing 40 more seniors active living centres. That brings the total to 303.

Interjections.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Thank you.

This means we have 40 more centres with thousands of seniors across Ontario who have a place to come together to meet friends, make new friends, learn new skills and continue to lead lives of purpose. I’m really proud of this announcement.

Opioid abuse

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Recently, Niagara regional associate medical officer of health Dr. Andrea Fe