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

March 8, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Mar-08 (PDF)

L147 - Tue 8 Mar 2016 / Mar 8 mar 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 March 2016 Mardi 8 mars 2016

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

George Ashe

Oral Questions

Climate change

Health care funding

Child care

Child care

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Sexual violence and harassment

Special-needs students

Domestic violence

International trade

Discrimination

Pay equity

Employment standards

Energy conservation

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Plan d’action contre la violence et le harcèlement sexuels (en soutien aux survivants et en opposition à la violence et au harcèlement sexuels)

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Kraft Hockeyville 2016

Southwestern Ontario

Refugees

Wind turbines

Bereavement leave

Community awards

Huron county economic development

Rae Luckock and Agnes Macphail

Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Jonathan’s Law (Employee Leave of Absence When Child Dies), 2016 / Loi Jonathan de 2016 sur le congé des employés en cas de décès d’un enfant

Maternal Mental Health Awareness Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à la santé mentale maternelle

Domestic and Sexual Violence Workplace Leave, Accommodation and Training Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le congé et les mesures d’accommodement pour les employés victimes de violence familiale ou sexuelle et la formation dans le lieu de travail

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Women’s Day / Journée internationale de la femme

Petitions

Health care funding

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Lung health

Special-needs students

Alzheimer’s disease

Lung health

Environmental protection

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Child custody

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Health care funding

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 173,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend various statutes, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 22, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Wednesday, March 23, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Thursday, March 24, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 173:

—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 1 p.m. on Thursday, March 17, 2016; and

—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first-come first-served basis; and

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation, followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

—That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2016; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Tuesday, March 29, 2016; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 6, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Thursday, April 7, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

On Thursday, April 7, 2016, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period, pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, April 11, 2016. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

The votes on second and third reading may be deferred, pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: A point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to congratulate the government House leader on the birth of his lovely daughter, Elliana, and welcome him back to the House.

I can see that Jim Bradley trained him well: First day back, time allocation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): That’s not a point of order; however, it’s a nice gesture on your part to recognize a new birth to our government House leader.

Mr. Naqvi has moved government notice of motion 63.

Interjection: Dispense.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Dispense.

Back to the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I do want to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for his kind remarks, and I want to thank all the members of the House for their kind wishes to myself and Christine on the birth of our daughter, Elliana Shirley Sanam Naqvi.

Elliana was born on February 19 at the Ottawa Civic Hospital in the great riding of Ottawa Centre at 1:17 p.m. She is, if you will indulge me in saying, absolutely gorgeous—I love my daughter. Elliana is doing great, and Christine is recovering very well, as well. Rafi, our almost four-year-old son is in love with his sister, Elli. There’s an incredible bond that is being developed between the two. It was an amazing two weeks to be home with the family—with Rafi, Elli and Christine. It was tough to leave the family at home this morning to be here with all of you, my good friends.

I do want to take a moment to speak on this important motion. I had the opportunity to view the budget from home on the parliamentary channel around 1 o’clock in the morning when I was looking after my daughter—that was a perfect time to watch the speech. I felt very strongly that the bill associated with the budget is an important piece of legislation. It really continues with the government’s plan to create jobs and grow our economy in Ontario.

As you know, we previously committed to investing more than $134 billion over 10 years in priority projects such as roads and bridges, public transit, hospitals and schools. We are building on this plan; we are building Ontario up with an additional $3-billion commitment, bringing the government’s total infrastructure investment to more than $137 billion over the next 10 years. That is an unprecedented investment in our communities in every single part of our province, to make sure we are building a province that is modern and ready for 21st-century challenges.

That kind of investment will result in about $160 billion over 12 years starting in 2014-15, which, as I said, is the largest-ever investment in public infrastructure in Ontario’s history. These planned investments will support, on average, more than 110,000 jobs each year, again benefiting people in all our respective communities across the province.

In the 2016 budget, our government is proposing to modernize student financial assistance to make post-secondary education more accessible and affordable. Speaker, this is an important element. I have the great honour of representing Carleton University, as part of Ottawa Centre, where I speak to students all the time, and I can tell you that following the budget, there has been wide support for this important initiative that was announced in the budget. Under the proposed system, average tuition will be free for students with financial need from families with incomes of $50,000 or lower.

These are just a few of the changes proposed in Bill 173, the Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act (Budget Measures), 2016. This bill continues the government’s plan to build Ontario up and deliver on its number one priority, which is growing the economy and creating jobs across the province. This bill ensures that we continue to build Ontario up by investing in our future. It is important that we move forward with Bill 173 and bring it before the committee. In the last Parliament, this Legislature was ground to a halt and was unable to move forward on a lot of important bills, such as budget bills.

Only 39% of government bills were passed in the last minority government; that’s compared to more than three quarters of bills that were passed going back to 1990.

Voters of Ontario have sent us a clear message in 2014: They want our government, the legislators, to get on with the business of governing in their best interests. It is time that we end second reading and refer the bill to the committee. In committee, stakeholders will present their views, members of the communities will have an opportunity to contribute further to the bill and we will be able to hear directly from the public on their thoughts about this important piece of legislation. In committee, members will also have an opportunity to move amendments to the bill, which is an important part of the process of our parliamentary democracy.

At the same time, this House can move to substantive debate on other important matters that are also before the House. There are a number of important pieces of legislation that have already been introduced which the government would like to debate in the House and move through the legislative process. I’ll give you three examples: Bill 100, Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act; Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act; and Bill 172, the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, another very important piece of legislation.

We would like to spend time debating some of these other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we cannot until Bill 173 is dealt with. Therefore, I very much urge all members in this House to support this motion and Bill 173 and help pass this bill as soon as possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Before I recognize the official opposition for further debate, I just want to make one point clear: The votes on second and third reading may be deferred, pursuant to standing order 28(h); and that, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Further debate?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this time allocation motion. This is something that we’ve seen, literally, time and time again from the Liberal government. They say one thing, but they really mean the exact opposite. They say they want to be open and transparent, but shutting off debate about this budget is exactly the opposite of that, so why would they want to do that? It’s because life just got more unaffordable for everybody in the province of Ontario, and this government wants to limit the amount of time that we here in the Legislature can talk about this.

That’s the purpose of what they’re doing; let’s make that very clear. They do not want us standing here, in the Legislature, to put a microscope on this budget and be able to talk about the things that have indeed made life more expensive here in Ontario.

The tax credits that had helped children, students, seniors and families are being eliminated. In fact, the vast majority of seniors will see the price of their prescription drugs double; 92% of seniors will see their prescription price double. That’s just a fact; it’s an indisputable fact.

Speaker, we also have very serious concerns about anything this government tells us. They have lost all credibility, and I’ll go through some of the reasons why that has happened. The budget has now confirmed that the government is indeed using one-time money from the sale of Hydro, as well as contingency funds, to make their deficit appear smaller. Only a couple of months ago, they were bragging that the deficit forecast went from $8.5 billion to $7.5 billion. But if you look at page 100 in the fall economic statement, it tells you how. They used sale of Hydro money and plunked that into revenue.

It’s one-time money; it’s not going to happen again and again and again. That tells us we have a structural deficit in the province. It means that our spending is higher than the money we take in. If you bring in one-time money to appear to balance, that solves the dilemma that day but not the issue that spending is higher than revenue.

In a couple of years, after this one-time revenue runs out—of course, a couple of years brings us just to the 2018 election, when the one-time revenue will run out—you are going to see an all-out assault on our budget, Speaker. You are going to see a deficit balloon all over again, because it has been masked. In fact, the Financial Accountability Officer referred to the Liberal budget as vague and uncertain. He went on to say, “Maintaining balanced budgets beyond 2017-18 will likely prove challenging.” Why? Again, they are using one-time money.

By that we mean from the sale of assets: the sale of Hydro One, the sale of LCBO headquarters and quite possibly the sale of 250 LCBO stores, unless we thwarted it yesterday, and the sale of the OPG headquarters across the street. Those are one-time assets that are going to be sold by this government.

Bank of Montreal BMO Capital Markets described it this way: “Asset sales of $5.7 billion ... are one-time in nature, and don’t address any underlying structural deficit.” Speaker, that sounds kind of familiar. We’ve been saying that on this side of the aisle for two years, and now we have not only the Financial Accountability Officer coming out and acknowledging that but we have BMO Capital Markets using almost the exact wording that we have been using here for two years.

Further, Speaker, Bryne Purchase, Ontario’s former chief economist and deputy minister at many ministries, stated, “The added revenue from cap-and-trade and the Hydro One sale helped to make the provincial numbers look better.” Everyone understands; we’ve all seen through this charade now. We understand what they’re doing: They’re taking one-time sales and propping up their revenue number. This is fake math; it’s voodoo math, and it’s a shell game with taxpayers’ money. That’s the biggest part of what they don’t want us standing here talking about. That’s why they’re time-allocating this: to get us out of here and not let us talk anymore about this budget and what it’s doing to families.

Let me take a few minutes, Speaker, and tell you what it’s doing to families, because life is getting more expensive for the people of Ontario, thanks to this 2016 budget. Of course you’ve got the obligatory sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco; they’re going up. Wine prices will increase by 4%, and there will be a minimum price put on alcoholic ciders. The government talks about increased availability of wine, but their plan won’t be fully implemented for nine years—except the price goes up today.

When we talk about cap-and-trade, that’s something they really don’t want to hear. I want to stop for a moment and commend our member from Huron–Bruce, who has done an exceptional job on this cap-and-trade file. She has shown us exactly what is going to happen to the pocketbooks of those in Ontario and what won’t be happening to the greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to this Liberal design of cap-and-trade. So I thank you very, very much.

Look, climate change is a very serious challenge; nobody is going to argue that. The government needs a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but you’ve also got to protect taxpayers and our economy. What we’ve seen now is that this government is taking advantage. They’re preying on the goodwill the people of Ontario have towards climate change. We want to see something done. This government is preying on that goodwill and using it as a tax grab. We’ve seen that from all of the financial services, who have said that this cap-and-trade is one time.

You would have heard the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change stand up and say, “No, no. It’s protected by law. That money must go into”—X projects. Well, if you look at the projects—and it’s interesting: They did exactly the same thing with Hydro One. They told us that the money had to go specifically into transit and infrastructure, and ostensibly, it did. It went into transit and infrastructure, but that money was already budgeted. So they took the already budgeted money out of the bottom end of that and used it to lower their deficit.

The transit and infrastructure fund did not change with that influx of money from Hydro One. It didn’t change the amount they spent. They just took that money and used it to artificially lower their deficit.

Now they’re doing exactly the same thing with the cap-and-trade money. They talk about how it must be used for the various projects. Transit is one of them. So here we go again. They’re going to put that cap-and-trade money—now, we’re talking big money here, Speaker. This is $1.9 billion annually. We’re talking about putting that money, yes, into transit. They’ll tie a green ribbon around every project you can imagine and say, “This was thanks to the cap-and-trade money.” But all that money that was already budgeted, they’ll be carving that out of the bottom and stuffing it into the deficit.

That’s exactly how they plan to lower the deficit, and it’s all imaginary, Speaker. There’s nothing new to be done about climate change with their budget. It’s a shame, and it’s a sham. I want that very, very clear.

This $1.9 billion will raise the price of gasoline 4.3 cents a litre, and that’s before tax, of course. You’ll be paying about $400 a year, Speaker, in new gasoline taxes at the pump. Natural gas: The experts tell us that in only a few years from now, this will add about $475 to the average family’s natural gas bill, once this program is up and running. This is already on top of the skyrocketing hydro bills that families we all hear from just cannot afford to pay.

Interjection.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: You’re right. It’s about a $1,000 hit, just on those items alone, from cap-and-trade.

The Premier, before the budget, said, “Oh, great news coming in the budget: We’re going to help you lower your hydro bills.” It was insulting to read just about the only line in that almost-400-page budget, the only line about the seniors and families who cannot afford their hydro bills. The only line was: “We’ve got something for you. From cap-and-trade, we’re going to give you $2 a month off your hydro bill.” Well, thank you very much, considering that in January alone your hydro bill went up $100. So thanks for the toonie, but you’re not solving the problem.

There are families in Ontario—and these members here on the Liberal side were with us as we sat in the pre-budget hearing in Ottawa last year, and we heard from Jennifer, who said that because her hydro bill is so high, she has to decide whether to heat or eat.

That is the Ontario that this Liberal Party has created. That is the Ontario that is seeing all aspects deteriorating, from businesses to the families who cannot afford to pay their bills. This budget is an assault on families, students, seniors and children.

Here’s an example: seniors’ drug costs. According to Kathleen Wynne, if you’re a wealthy senior who earns more than $19,300—if you’re that wealthy—you can now afford to have the cost of your drugs double. The ODB, the drug benefit, will go from $100 to $170 and for every prescription they get they have to pay an additional dollar. That’s double. That’s the assault that this government is putting on seniors.

If you participated in the home renovation tax credit—if you needed a wheelchair ramp, if you needed other things to help you in your home—that’s all gone now. They didn’t mention that in the budget speech. The budget speech was all aspiration but no operation.

This is what’s happening on the ground: Families are struggling. If you have kids, you would have used the children’s activity tax credit. That’s to help your kids with soccer, hockey, and all of the sports and activities. That was a great tax credit, which is gone today. This is an assault on children and their parents. This is an assault on students, an assault on seniors and it’s an assault on families.

If you wanted to enjoy hiking, camping, hunting or fishing, or decided to get a liquor licence, an event permit or a court application, every single one of those, despite what we’ve heard from the Minister of Natural Resources over and over, where he continues to either not understand his file or never to have read the budget—pages 190 and 191 are very clear. They tell us that service fees are going up, and they list all the fees, including hunting and fishing licences and parks. It’s very clear, and this minister and this government keep denying that that occurred.

Pages 190 and 191 appeared in my budget. I don’t know why they can’t see it in their budget. There’s something really wrong when the government not only does this to the taxpayers of Ontario—puts this punitive financial strain on them—but then denies it as well. That’s more heinous.

I want to have some fun with numbers. I like numbers; I enjoy that. I’ve said earlier, we have a structural deficit in Ontario and it’s masked by all of these one-time supplements. The government’s revenue projections for 2017-18 are $4 billion higher than the Financial Accountability Officer’s best-case scenario for Ontario. In the fall, he came out with a report and he said, “If all of our revenues magically hit this number here and our expenses magically are reduced to this number here, we’re still going to have a deficit of $3.5 billion in 2017-18.” That’s what he told this Legislature.

Yet somehow this government has propped up the revenues and made that deficit appear that it’s going to disappear.

I trust the Financial Accountability Officer and his staff; I trust their numbers. They’ve got a book they put out that shows how they got to that. The best-case scenario says we cannot balance. If everything goes perfectly, we cannot balance. Those are his numbers. Yet the government’s numbers—of course, when you just pluck numbers from thin air and you pluck in these revenue numbers that they’ve made up, that’s the problem. They’ve used these one-time revenues.

A couple of other things the government did this year to artificially reduce their deficit: They removed $850 million from the contingency fund. That’s always a great way to appear to balance. They applied—this is my favourite. Just think about it, Speaker. In the fall the government came out with a budget—remember, I said earlier that they dropped their deficit from an $8.5-billion forecast to $7.5 billion? Magically, only a couple of months later, they came in at $5.7 billion and patted themselves on the back.

What they failed to tell all of the people of Ontario is that they took a one-time—it’s called a departure tax that Hydro had to pay. It’s a grant or a payment in lieu of taxes. In the municipal world, the former mayor of Brockville and I would have called that PILT, payment in lieu of taxes.

So they had to come up with a payment because they are no longer going to be a tax-free government-owned agency; they’re going to be an independent corporation. They had to pay $2.6 billion. That’s a one-time fee. They’re never going to get that tomorrow, the next year or the year after that. They took $2.6 billion and dropped it into their revenue, into one-time revenue, which magically lowered their deficit forecast from $7.5 billion down to $5.7 billion. It is unbelievable, Speaker, that they would do that, that they would artificially reduce their deficit. That didn’t lower the spending.

The deficit is still there; it’s just artificially masked by this one-time payment. Of course, they also used, to get from $8.5 billion to $7.5 billion, the Hydro One sale.

The government says they’re on track to balance, but here are some of the things, again, that they forgot to tell you they’ve included in the budget:

—Crossing their fingers and maybe their toes, they are planning on getting an extra $1.8 billion from the federal government. That’s how they plan on balancing.

—Next year, they’re going to carve out $1.9 billion more in personal income tax. I didn’t hear the finance minister tell us, “By the way, I’m raising your taxes.” He didn’t tell us that in his budget, but it’s $1.9 billion in new income taxes. It’s in their budget. If you get into the back, past the aspirational stuff, and get into the real facts, you can see where it is.

—They’re also forecasting $500 million in sales tax increases.

—They are forecasting $700 million in corporate income tax revenue and, of course, a further $500 million more than their original forecast from the cr—cap-and-trade. I almost said the same thing as the Premier. Caught myself there.

The debt is projected to be $308 billion this year. That’s up from $296.1 billion. We are going to add $12 billion to our debt. Speaker, that means that we are the largest subnational debtor on the entire planet. That’s what we are number one in.

The member from Parry Sound and I are both a couple of northern guys. We like to remember back to the good old days when we were number one. We were the number one mining jurisdiction in the world. Today, we’ve fallen to number 23. Well, they have replaced it by being the number one debtor in all the world. That’s quite an accomplishment.

Debt is going to continue to grow. This budget projects that the debt will grow by $40 billion by 2018-19. Forty billion more dollars of debt will be added.

I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the spirit of what I’m speaking about, that this government doesn’t want us here talking about this budget, and that’s why they are time-allocating this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I have to say how disappointed I am at the government yet again utilizing time allocation.

There are not a lot of members that were here before the days of time allocation. I think there’s maybe about five of us that were here at the time, before time allocation was introduced. But governments for over 100 years introduced budgets into this House, introduced all kinds of bills, and didn’t need time allocation to move them through the process.

The parties would sit down and they would say, “Okay, which bill is it that I want to have more time on, or more committee time?” It was a bit of a back-and-forth between the House leaders to decide which bills were going to get more committee time and which bills were going to get more time in the House. Those that were non-contentious got through the House pretty quickly.

If you’ll notice this order paper that we currently have, there’s a bunch of bills that we’ve all agreed on: the bill in regard to sexual assault, the bill in regard to stress in the workplace. There are all kinds of bills that we, quite frankly, were quite okay with and that we would have been able to limit—not limit, but not have as much debate, in order to have a bit of time in committee. Those bills that were more weighty, more substantive, that really had some issues that we needed to deal with, would have had more time in the House, such as this budget bill, possibly, and certainly when it comes to hearings in committee.

But, no, the government has decided that it knows best. It’s going to time-allocate everything from now until the end of the session. It’s pretty clear, since we’ve been back in the spring session, that the government has moved time allocation on almost every bill for the last couple of weeks. I think that is, quite frankly, a disservice to the people of Ontario.

This Legislature is about a couple of things. Aside from the powers that we have as legislators to do what it is that we do, this Legislature is here for members, who were elected by the people to come to this House and express the views of themselves and the people they represent on issues at hand. That’s what debate is all about. But it’s also for government ministers to listen to that debate, to say, “Okay. Well, you know, that’s not a bad point. Maybe when the bill goes into committee, we’ll think about having an amendment along that line.”

But the big thing, and the most important thing, I think, that this House does is the committee process. That is to allow bills to go into committee, so that the public can have their shot at expressing themselves—either their favour or disfavour—as to any bill before this House. I would argue, up until the time before time allocation but even before the time of this government, the public had more of an opportunity to do so. Now the government has very much limited the amount of time we have at committee, using time allocation.

I will argue that even the Conservatives, when they used time allocation in the time that they were in government, allowed more time in committee than this government does.

The process by which committee was structured, as far as who can present, and when you had to apply and how we picked our people who were going to depute, was much more organized under the NDP and the Conservatives utilizing time allocation than this government.

For example, last week, under time allocation, the government brought—the stress one. What is it called again?

Mr. John Vanthof: The PTSD bill.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, the PTSD bill. The government had the PTSD bill. The bill was voted on in the morning, and you had to have applied to stand before the committee to present by 5 o’clock that afternoon. Well, how in heck does that give the opportunity for the public to have any say about what goes on in that bill?

There’s a bill where most people were in support, but quite frankly, people wanted to have amendments to the bill and wanted to explain the reasons why. But I think the secret in the way that the government wrote their time allocation motion—and that is related to this one—is that they really didn’t want to hear what the public had to say in any real way, because they weren’t about to amend the bill, based on what the public wanted.

So it was a bit of a sham, Speaker, that the government used time allocation in such a way that, first of all, it limited the ability for you to apply to get to committee to appear, and then really limited your ability to say something in committee that would have any meaningful outcome when it came to any amendments.

In this particular time allocation motion, the government says, “Oh, well, this thing will be voted on probably today,” depending if the government takes any time off the clock, “or tomorrow.” The government says, “Oh, well, look at this. You’re going to have until next Wednesday”—or Thursday; I think it’s Thursday—“next Thursday to be able to apply for application to appear before committee.”

The only reason they put next Thursday is that next week is a constituency break, and the committee doesn’t sit until the week after. So only by virtue of a constituency break does the public have an extra few days to apply to stand before committee and have their say on this budget, a budget that’s going to increase costs to seniors when it comes to drug care; a budget by which we’re shifting the way that we run student tuition to where, yes, we make it simple, and some people will benefit at the front end. But there are a lot of people who used to qualify for the tax credits who will no longer get them because they’re no longer existent, and they will be losers.

There are all kinds of user fees, as we know. There’s more privatization. There’s more austerity in this budget than Tim Hudak had in his last election. Let me say that again: Kathleen Wynne in this budget has more austerity than Tim Hudak proposed in the last election, if you really read through this budget.

The public should have the right to have their say. I’ve got to say, this is not a service to the people of Ontario. A government has to be able to listen to what the people have to say, and the best way to do that in our system of Parliament is to allow committees to sit and for people to be able to come before committee to present.

I propose that what the government should be doing is, first of all, not doing time allocation, but if they’re going to time-allocate, at least give the public a week or two—I would argue a couple of weeks—to be able to apply to stand before committee. Because here’s the thing: How many people are watching the television broadcast of this debate this morning? I would argue that the majority of Ontarians—I know you’ll be surprised, Mr. Speaker—aren’t watching this show. They’re doing something else. They’re probably watching the Republican primaries and the Democrat primaries on CNN or the Justin Trudeau show on the CBC.

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, I don’t know about that.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, that’s what they do.

In the end, the public is not watching, so they are not going to be aware that the budget’s in committee, and they’re certainly not going to be aware, the majority, that they have a right to be able to come before committee and be heard. So we’re very much limiting the ability of the public to have their say by having time allocation written in the way that it is.

I would argue that if the government is going to time-allocate, there should be at least a couple of weeks so that the public is able to see the advertising, look at it and say, “What’s that all about?”; that they’re able to figure out how to contact the Clerk and get themselves on a list. It takes a couple of weeks for that to happen.

I know the government House leader might find this a bit of a surprise, but Ontario is bigger than Toronto. I love Toronto. Toronto is a great city, a world-class city. But you know what? There are other places across this province that are going to be affected by this budget, and will be affected by all kinds of other bills that this government puts through. This government has an opposition to travelling government bills on committee to other communities in the province like no other government I’ve ever seen before.

When the New Democrats were in power, when David Peterson was in power and when Mike Harris was in power, we used to travel our bills—government bills—across the province in order to be able to hear what the public had to say so that it wasn’t just the view of one group of people in one region of the province. It was travelled to various parts of the province for a reason.

That’s the other thing that the government should be doing: allowing bills such as this sufficient time to be able to travel. It doesn’t mean to say that it’s a tactic to slow the bill down; it’s a tactic to give the bill greater hearing so that the government can hear what the public has to say and make any amendments necessary. For example, the government says that they don’t think they got the threshold right when it comes to the seniors’ drug program. You’d probably learn more listening to people around this province about what the threshold should be if you did travel this bill.

In the little bit of time that I have left, I just have to say that the government should (

a) allow more time for people to be able to apply to be on committee, to depute; and (

b) allow enough time in committee, more days, so that the public has its say and has the ability to travel to those committees.

The other thing that really needs to be addressed as well is the issue of how we get selected to be on committee. The government says, by way of all their time allocation motions now, first come, first served. You know what? On the surface, that sounds like a great idea. But what happens if the government has already got a list of people who they want to apply? They say we’ve got three days of hearings that equals so many spots. Theoretically, the government, or an opposition party, could flood the submissions to the Clerk’s office so that it’s a bit of a skewed presentation from the public.

What we used to do, even under time allocation with other parties, is say that everybody who wants to apply applies and gets on the list. They have until a certain date and then the list is closed.

Then what happens, if there are more people who apply than there are spots in the committee to appear, is that each of the parties gets an equal number of people they get to pick. That allows for a good cross-section of people who apply to be before the committee, because the government may know that a particular witness is hostile to a particular initiative in the bill and they don’t want that person to go in, and that’s why they flood the application process; it’s something that they can do.

At the very least, what we should be able to do is have a system where you apply, and if we don’t fill all the spots then everybody, from each of the caucuses, gets to pick an equal number of people. That way, we at least make who is presenting at the committee a little bit fairer.

Those are my comments. I know our other member from your House team wants to speak, so I’ll let them do so. But Mr. Speaker, we will vote against this time allocation motion. It’s a bad idea just generally, but if you read this time allocation motion, it is really about selling the public short on their ability to have their say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Kawartha Lakes–Brock—sorry, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: That’s pretty good, Mr. Speaker.

We’re speaking now on the time allocation for the 2016 Ontario budget. We wanted more time to speak about the budget because, in the biggest phrase and emphasis I can put: The Liberals just made life harder for the people in Ontario.

We can’t support the budget because we’re uncompetitive, it’s unsustainable and it’s unaffordable for Ontarians. We’ve had 13 years of reckless spending. The government is spending about $1 billion every month just on paying off the debt, a debt which has doubled since the Liberal government was first elected in 2003. In fact, the Premier, Kathleen Wynne, has the worst fiscal record of any sitting Premier. What does that debt mean? It’s $22,000 in debt for every person in Ontario. Even the House leader’s new baby girl, that we’re all congratulating him on, was just born into the world with a $22,000 debt already.

This is the third-largest budget item. It’s $11 billion a year just to pay the interest on that debt. That could have been money that was spent to support our health care system, our aging population; money that could be going to long-term care, hospice and palliative care. You know what? Our seniors—which is a growing number, and the Liberal government has seen that demographic coming: the number of seniors that are in the province of Ontario—are very vulnerable. They need a hand up, but they’re being left behind by this government.

We believed that this budget might be a chance for the government to show the people of Ontario that they were listening, but they didn’t listen to any of the consultations that went on. In fact, they had this written before they even had consultations. Just the sale of the LCBO stores that was uncovered yesterday by our critic for finance, the member from Nipissing—who has done an excellent job—brought that out.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: We’ll just see what your answers are today, because you had no answers yesterday when we asked that question.

Interjections.

Ms. Laurie Scott: You have no sincere interest in listening to what the people of Ontario, especially the rural people of Ontario, have been telling you. It’s an attack, no question, on the middle-class, for sure, and it’s doing nothing for health care and crumbling schools or seniors.

The third-largest budget item in this government—you have health care, education, and then you have paying the interest on the debt of $11 billion. It’s $1 billion a month. Ontario has the highest debt in Canada.

When the government always talks about its plans for infrastructure investments, having such a deficit and ballooning debt takes money away from what we actually need. We need to foster the right conditions in this province for our economy to succeed, but we are hampered by financial incompetence and mismanagement by this Liberal government. Our essential services are being stretched thin.

Whenever I highlight the underfunded areas for our probation officers and parole officers, especially in light of what happened in Renfrew county and the triple homicides, or the fact that the budget contains no new funding to effectively combat human trafficking, no credible plan to manage the rising energy costs, or more funding to build long-term-care beds—how can we support such a budget? Where is the money for those things that we so desperately need? It’s a blatant lack of compassion, and they’re not looking out for the best interests of Ontarians.

There are so many topics and so little time, Mr. Speaker. That’s why they brought in time allocation. I’ll try and get to some of what I’ve definitely heard in the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

The government has no credible plan to address Ontario’s unaffordable hydro rates and energy prices, which continue to rise and will hurt ratepayers right across the province. It continues to be the number one issue that my constituency office deals with.

The big picture is that Ontario has the highest energy rates in North America. Hydro rates have increased by more than $1,000 a year for the average family since 2003, and it’s only going to continue to rise.

Every time this Liberal government makes a decision for political reasons, Ontario families pay. What’s worse is that this government seems to be perfectly happy to continue with the sale of Hydro One, without any assurances that the sale will not result in even more hydro increases.

What were the polls? Over 80% of the people didn’t want Hydro One to be sold. Did the government listen? No. It’s a one-time sale, to try to balance their books. It’s a desperate move by the Liberal government. The people of Ontario were opposed to it. Municipal councils—all my municipal councils—were against the sale and wrote to the government on that, but they didn’t listen.

Hydro One is the tipping point for people who are on fixed income or in marginal categories in my riding. They have put them into poverty. I have said time and time again in this Legislature that I have more people in poverty than I did 13 years ago, when this government took power. It’s real. They tell me these stories. They’re being pushed out of their homes, if they had homes to stay in. They are trying to pay their hydro. But the cycle goes that you get them on a payment plan, but in reality, it’s so large that they eventually can’t make the payment plan. They don’t pay the property taxes. They go to the food banks.

In Haliburton county, at the chamber of commerce, there were three awards won by Fuel for Warmth, which is a fuel bank. That’s how desperate people are. There are actually fuel banks, because they can’t afford to heat their homes and feed themselves. That is a sign of the times.

I see more people hitchhiking on the side of the roads in my area, because they can’t afford the cars, the insurance, the hydro bills. The cost of everything is going up, and they can’t afford it. It is tragic to see.

We asked the government to bring forward a plan that’s affordable. Even if they just stopped signing those unaffordable, intrusive and, in my case, subsidized industrial wind turbines that are going up and being forced down the throats of all of us in rural Ontario—and the people and the councils that have fought against this government, to stop industrial wind turbines, are appealing. They’re raising money to appeal this ridiculous plan.

The industrial wind turbines in my area are predominantly in the Oak Ridges moraine, a supposedly protected environmental jewel in the province of Ontario. There is no reason that industrial wind turbines should be erected there. It’s a failed government policy. They overrode the municipal councils. They overrode the communities—bullying at its finest, actually. It’s just unacceptable.

I commend them for fighting these industrial wind turbines. For years, this fight has gone on. We hope that they’re never erected. I hope the government is listening and looking logically at the arguments against those industrial wind turbines there.

As I talk about hydro and energy, it’s important to acknowledge the importance of climate change. It’s real; it’s man-made. We need to take action. It’s a serious challenge that requires a credible plan.

The Liberal government’s plan of cap-and-trade is not the right way to go. It will start in January of next year. By 2017 and 2018, the revenue collected will be a staggering $1.9 billion. Look, even your former finance minister Greg Sorbara said it was a money grab and there’s no proof in the world that cap-and-trade would decrease emissions. So why don’t you listen to Greg Sorbara, if you won’t listen to me?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Because he’s wrong.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Is that why he got out of your party? He didn’t agree with you anymore?

Anyway, the cap-and-trade program is supposed to lower Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions, but the government really hasn’t outlined how the revenue will reduce emissions. They said the funds will go toward innovation, transit and clean technology, but we all know that it’s going to go to a Liberal slush fund. Come on. There’s no accountability—

Interjections.

Ms. Laurie Scott: No, no. There’s no accountability.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): First of all, I want to deal with the importance of—in debate, we address the Speaker, through the Speaker, so that we don’t get antagonism going across the floor.

Secondly, this is a time-allocated bill, which, to me, would imply it’s an important bill. Because it’s an important bill, I would ask that members in this Legislature pay attention to debate and show respect so that each side has the opportunity to voice their opinion. So I would ask that we maintain order in this House, listen carefully to the speaker, and I will ask all speakers to address through the Chair. Thank you very much.

I would ask that the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock continue with debate.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s always a compliment when you get the other side so riled up that the Speaker has to intercede. So thank you very much for that.

You have the price of gasoline that is—the Premier said that it’s going up 4.3 cents a litre with the cap-and-trade. The price of natural gas is going up a miniscule amount, they say. But in reality, the private sector analysts have actually crunched the numbers and, in the long-term, they say that gas will go up, on average, about $400 a year for the average family and home heating will be going up an average of $475 a year.

So how are senior citizen on fixed incomes—they’re already freezing to death in the middle of the day because they’re scared to turn the heat on, and that is reality, or they’re going to some place in a mall that has heat so they can walk around and save money by not turning the heat on. That is the problem. And the energy retrofits in this budget that the government has outlined only apply to natural gas. Of course, that’s going up too.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: No, it doesn’t.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Okay. Well, I hope that the—

Mr. Steve Clark: You do have time left.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes. I hope there’s some response, because what have they got against people in rural Ontario that can’t get natural gas? We only have oil and propane in rural Ontario. We’d like natural gas, but we don’t have natural gas.

The agricultural community has asked for dollars for more infrastructure for natural gas, because guess what? They can’t pay all the bills that it costs for electricity in the province of Ontario either. They’ve asked for that infrastructure; that was ignored in this budget. In fact, the agriculture budget was decreased by $28 million, and they gave no farm industrial rate for electricity at all.

I have an email from one of my constituents that says:

“As seniors, the recent Liberal government budget hurts us in so many ways ... higher cost for gas, more cost for home heat, more cost to drive, more cost for electricity, more cost for health care and drug costs ... the only thing I’m able to do is eat less and hope I don’t need more health care.

“The changes really hurt us. And we already have difficulties dealing with higher food costs and mandatory home expense increases!

“What can we do to stop this madness?” this lady said. Right on.

I want to talk a bit about health care. I don’t have much time left. If the government hadn’t mismanaged the province’s finances and taken away funding from essential services, our hospitals wouldn’t be in such dire straits. So the picture is, for the last four years, this government has frozen hospital budgets, which is actually a cut because their costs have gone up. So it’s been a cut, and they’re asking them to go into their fifth year. They’ve put a 1%, maybe, increase in this budget—not even close to meeting the demands that the hospitals have because of, mainly, our aging senior population. But, after four years, how much more can you cut? Let’s be real.

One of my hospitals, Ross Memorial Hospital, is facing basically a $3-million cut. They are doing an incredible job at managing the decrease in funding that this government has put them on, going into their fourth year. I know the member from Northumberland is in the same situation. Our mid-sized hospitals have a funding formula that just doesn’t work. We have gone to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to write a letter to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care about this glaring, striking, detrimental problem with mid-size hospital funding.

The hospital in Lindsay has done what they could with attrition, with trying to move services in the most cost-effective way. The hospital needs assistance. Is it getting some? We don’t know for sure because, again, we don’t know the details, but it’s not going to be enough. So I say to you, look at the mid-size hospital funding formula especially.

I want to talk about long-term care and I want to talk about my LHIN. I have the Central East LHIN; the member from Northumberland is also in that LHIN. We have the largest demand and the lowest capacity in the LHIN; I believe I’m saying that right. We have that not only for long-term-care beds, but we have one of the highest needs for mental health assistance programs and facilities in Ontario. That’s an Ontario comparison. The Central East Community Care Access Centre has given me the number of individuals waiting for long-term care in the Central East LHIN; it is 8,592.

You cannot address the long-term-care problem that we have in the province of Ontario without building new beds. The Central East LHIN goes from Scarborough, Haliburton county—it’s massive, to start with. But I want to highlight that it’s the lowest number of beds available, and the highest number of those in need are mental health and addictions; it’s the second-highest number of active mental health cases in the province of Ontario. Our CCACs now are going to be rolled into the LHINs. Whichever title you want to put on it, it is not sustainable. The government has to address the high-need demand in our areas.

They’ve got the doctors enraged, and you can bet your bottom dollar doctors are going to leave the province. You can’t get hip replacements in January, February and March for seniors because they’ve already gone through their budget, because they haven’t addressed the growing seniors population. They are laying off nurses. Pick a hospital, any hospital; they are laying off nurses.

The government has been irresponsible in managing the finances of the province of Ontario, and the people in Ontario are suffering. That’s why I’m voting against this budget.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, although I’m disappointed that I’m contributing it towards a time allocation debate, because I know myself and other members in this House really wanted to critique, offer suggestions and point out what is really in this budget. What we hear from the government side is all the great things that are in that budget. We have other opinions, and we need that time to debate this budget in order to communicate those opinions. But when you put a time allocation motion forward, that means each party has 40 minutes to debate this.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I want more.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, we’re asking for more time. This is probably—I mean, every bill that goes through this House is extremely important and affects people’s lives, but when it’s a budget motion, it’s far and wide and reaching. This is why a time allocation motion, especially in these circumstances, really defeats the purpose of a fulsome, productive, critiquing exchange of ideas. That’s what the debate should be about.

If you look at the title we have, Jobs for Today and Tomorrow, it’s tongue-in-cheek in a lot of ways. We’ve had three days of debate, and on our side, on the NDP side, we have had three speakers. One of those speakers is our finance critic. The finance critic, or any critic in the House, once a bill is presented, takes an hour lead of the time. So, Speaker, there have not been many contributions that we’ve been allowed to make.

Why I feel passionately about this specific time allocation motion that shouldn’t be in front of this House when it comes to this budget is because we haven’t had an opportunity to articulate the needs of our constituents. We haven’t had an opportunity to stress how seniors are going to be adversely affected when they have to pay more for the prescriptions deductible.

Speaker, I had seniors come into my office before this budget, talking about how hard it is to make that co-payment because of their income levels. I looked up some research, I’d say, about a year and a half ago on how that income level was not changed for 20 years. Then we get this budget piece for drug prescriptions, and it’s making it harder, not easier, for seniors to survive.

The member from the Conservative Party talked about the renovation tax credit that’s in this budget. It’s very vague. We believe that it’s only for people with natural gas. That’s what comes across in that budget. Read the budget book. That’s what it says; that’s what the message is.

On the other side, the Liberal Party, the Treasurer, the minister for treasury, she said, “No, that’s not right. It’s for all types of energy.” She has left the House—

Ms. Laurie Scott: She’s going to find out.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: She’s going to check it out. She’s not even quite sure—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d just like to remind the member that we cannot make reference to any members who are not present in the House. Okay? Thank you very much.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, that wasn’t to identify that she’s not here. That was to say that she’s actually going to check, so that we can be informed—oh.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I believe the point has been made. I’ll ask that you would continue along with your debate, but do not refer, whether it be intentional or unintentional, to anyone who may not be here in the Legislature. Thank you very much.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Okay. The point is, there needs to be clarification on this home renovation tax credit. People believe it’s only for natural gas. This is why it’s so wrong to time-allocate things. We are now pointing that out, and this is the first time that we have heard it’s not just for natural gas. I think most members here are surprised.

Speaker, when I became an MPP, one of the things that I really valued was actually standing up in this Legislature and bringing the thoughts, opinions, experiences and life examples of how legislation affects the people in London–Fanshawe. This time allocation doesn’t allow for us to express this in a wholesome way.

When we’re elected as members, we have a duty to speak to each of our constituents and to bring their voices to this Legislature, so that legislation can actually respond to their needs, so that we can let this government know what amendments are required.

I’ll give you an example, Speaker. Here’s another miscommunication, I think, in a lot of ways, when it came to legislation.

When I first got elected—it was a minority government—there was the home renovation tax credit for seniors who wanted to remain in their homes. If you had a renovation, like in a bathroom which was going to be accessible—ramps, all kinds of accessible devices that you might need, or construction you might need to do in your home—they were going to give you a tax credit. If you spent roughly $10,000, you’d get a $1,400 tax credit.

We sat in this House and we explained that this legislation, though it had a purpose, was not going to be effective and actually reach the market that this government was trying to capture, which would be a tax credit for seniors, to remain in their home. What has happened because of that legislation? That has been repealed. In the government’s own words, “There wasn’t enough uptake.”

Now we’re talking about seniors and a drug prescription costs increase. We’re letting you know this is the wrong decision. Seniors will not be filling their prescriptions. Seniors take an average of about eight medications a year. If you’re a senior who makes $19,500, and you’ve got to pay an extra $70, and an extra co-payment fee, are you going to put that $70 out? Can you afford to put that $70 out?

Speaker, seniors are going to go without medication. Their health is going to deteriorate. Their health is deteriorating under the fact that this government is increasing the cost of the prescription drugs deductible by $70.

This is a reality, Speaker. In the last election, in 2014, when I was knocking on doors, I had a home care worker tell me that when she goes out to see her clients in their homes—seniors specifically—do you know what their diet consisted of? She was very worried. Their diet consisted of tea with toast and marmalade. That’s what they had for dinner.

This is a reality that seniors are facing. They are struggling financially. They can’t afford this government’s $70 increase on prescription drugs. They can’t afford higher hydro rates.

The other part of that is, when they’re looking to downsize from their home, if they have to for financial reasons or perhaps health reasons—they can’t maintain the outside of their home—there is no affordable housing. There are not a lot of affordable apartments for seniors. I hear that a lot.

The other part of this budget consultation that happened—yes, they travelled the budget, Speaker, but this budget was written before we had an opportunity to actually consult with constituents and the committee. Our finance critic said that, and I believe her. I believe there is that speculation that this budget was written before consultations started. That’s a sad message that follows this government, that decisions are already made before consultation is put out there.

The Robarts school and the Amethyst Demonstration School, in my riding: The government is doing consultations. The parents are contacting me, Speaker—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please. I just again want to remind our members that there is a debate going on. I’m not discrediting the fact that you may have an important message or conversation going on, but that has a better place—perhaps not here at the time—and to have respect for the member. Again, I’d like to remind everyone.

I turn it back to the member for London–Fanshawe to continue with debate. Thank you.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. I know my colleagues here; there was no intention of disrupting my debate. I think they just get really passionate and talk about issues. They’re probably talking about this home tax credit for natural gas—

Ms. Laurie Scott: We were.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: —and how we need to make sure we communicate that to the public.

Mr. Steve Clark: We were. That’s what we were talking about.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I knew that. But I have to remember what I was going to discuss. Yes, actually, I do remember: the very important issue of the Robarts and Amethyst schools.

This government is out consulting with the schools. I have heard that they actually are sending letters to parents in the school to consult with, but not everybody is having that opportunity. The parents that have actually applied to Robarts and Amethyst for the coming session, for the coming school year, are not invited to speak. What has happened is, this government has suspended all new applications to the school, so these parents aren’t actually able to communicate the needs of their kids and how important it is that that school remains open. The other thing the government did was cap enrolment at 42 students. It has the capacity for 138 students.

Parents are telling me that they think this government’s decision has already been cast in stone. When the public feels that their voice isn’t heard—when this government is supposed to do their job and consult—that is a real problem.

Time allocation on this budget bill is the wrong thing to do. There are mixed messages in this budget. People don’t have a clear understanding of what it will do for them. What they do understand is that things are going up, and they can’t afford to pay for them. That’s what they are worried about.

I know I have limited time left to wrap up. I hope that this government will pay attention. I know we keep telling this government that there are some things that are fundamentally wrong that they need to correct. Time allocation on a budget bill is a fundamental thing they need to listen to and correct. If nothing else, what harm does it do to continue this debate? It’s actually a good thing for democracy. It’s actually a healthy thing. It promotes confidence outside of this House and inside our ridings.

Speaker, I just want to thank you for the opportunity to debate on this issue. I’m going to keep going until you let me know that the House is ready to adjourn. So I’m just going to wrap up—oh, I’ll let you do your job, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I gave you a chance to wrap up a moment ago. Then when you said, “I’d like another opportunity to wrap up,” I figured that would be my cue to state that it’s now 10:15.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I see a friend of mine, Kim Sytsma, who is a local beef farmer in the Athens area. I just want to welcome Kim to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Vanthof: I also see an old friend of mine, Bob Gordanier. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I have a few introductions. I hope you’ll indulge me.

First we have, from the city of Pickering, Mayor David Ryan and regional councillors Kevin Ashe and David Pickles. They’re here to pay tribute to Kevin’s late father, George Lyle Ashe, the former mayor of Pickering, MPP for Durham West, and minister in the Bill Davis and Frank Miller cabinets.

Secondly, I’d like to welcome the grade 5 students from St. Brendan Catholic School. They’re visiting the Legislature today with their teachers to learn about the Ontario Legislature.

Next, I’d like to welcome Melissa Kim who is in the gallery today. She’s my mentee from the CivicAction DiverseCity Fellows program. It’s particularly fitting Kim is able to join us here for International Women’s Day.

Last, but not least, we have our Roundtable on Violence Against Women co-chairs. I’d like to welcome Farrah Khan and Sly Castaldi. Thank you for being here in the Legislature.

Mr. Robert Bailey: In the west members’ gallery, I have constituents from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex: Malcolm McLean, Juel Howse, Catherine McLean, Morgan Tamminga and Claire Tamminga. They’re here to see their granddaughter and sister Micah Tamminga, who is the page captain today.

It also happens to be Micah’s 13th birthday today. Happy birthday, from the Legislature to Micah.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to introduce Christina Demeter. She’s an intern in my office, from Ryerson, sitting in the west gallery.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, OCUFA, who are here today for their lobby day. Please join me in welcoming them.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Bob Gordanier. He’s the past president of the Beef Farmers of Ontario, but most importantly, a proud resident of Dufferin–Caledon.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I met earlier today with some representatives from OCUFA. John Wilson is here from Western University and Ben Muller from King’s University College. Andrea Calver is up here—she’s on the staff—and my buddy Brian Brown from the University of Windsor. They have a reception later. They’re inviting everybody to join them. Thank you and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would like to welcome Dylan Atack and his dad Ritch Atack to the Legislature today. Dylan is a proud Hamilton resident and a number one Hamilton Ticats booster.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted that Smokey Thomas is with us today, the president of OPSEU. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to welcome Smokey Thomas from OPSEU and Clarke Eaton as well. They’re in the members’ gallery.

Hon. Jeff Leal: For one last time, in the members’ east gallery today, we have Bob Gordanier, the past president of the Beef Farmers of Ontario; director Kim Sytsma; and the manager of policies and issues, Richard Horne. We welcome them here today.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I understand that we have five guests from Durham region sitting in the gallery today: Rosemary Theriault, her husband Gerry Theriault, Ann Clement, Shirley Keelor and Bonnie Lee Davidson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It is a great pleasure to welcome Connie de Souza, the mother of page captain Laura de Souza.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Mr. Speaker, if you’ll indulge me, I have a few guests to introduce today. I want to introduce guests visiting us from Portugal on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Real Canadian Portuguese Historical Museum and the unveiling of a replica of the caravela portuguesa: Bruno Gonçalves Neves, first tenant, chief of investigation, at the marine museum of Portugal; Rui Bela, a filmmaker from Portugal; and José Rocha, from the Real Canadian Portuguese Historical Museum.

Bem-vindos to Queen’s Park.

Also, I wanted to introduce a very, very special guest to Queen’s Park today: my favourite 10-year-old niece, Jessica.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, and I’d like to introduce Rob Kristofferson from Wilfrid Laurier University, Ed Carter from the University of Guelph, and Sally Gunz from the University of Waterloo. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I also have some guests who came in from up north. This is William Osei from Algoma University; Gautam Das from Lakehead University; Brian Ross from NOSM, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine; Rhiannon Don from Nipissing University; as well as Mark Rosenfeld, executive director of OCUFA. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I, too, wish to welcome Smokey Thomas and Clarke Eaton who are here representing OPSEU.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to welcome Smokey Thomas.

This morning we have in the Speaker’s gallery some friends of mine who are guests for lunch: Mr. Ron Sage, Mr. Dave Piper and Mr. Gord Taylor. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you for being here with us.

I’m also sure that the members are going to be pleased to join me in welcoming the family and friends of the late George Lyle Ashe, the MPP for Durham West during the 31st, 32nd and 33rd Parliaments, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: his sons Steven and Kevin; Kevin’s wife, Karen; daughter Cheryl Hinzel and husband Erwin; grandchildren Anika, Eric, Matt, Krista, and Andrea and her husband Kevin; the mayor of Pickering, Dave Ryan; and Councillor Dave Pickles.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery: Mr. David Warner, the Speaker in the 35th Parliament; Mr. Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments, and also president of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians; and Mr. Douglas Moffatt, MPP during the 30th Parliament for Durham East. Welcome to our Legislature.

Applause.

George Ashe

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I call upon the government House leader for a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to George Lyle Ashe, former member for Durham West, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute to George Lyle Ashe, former member of Durham West. Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you, Speaker. It is always an honour to stand in this proud Legislature, and today it is my honour to stand to share on behalf of the family and friends joining us here today, and to pay tribute to George Lyle Ashe.

I am pleased to welcome George’s family today. George and his wife Margo raised four children, so welcome to his son Steve, daughter Cheryl and husband Erwin, and son Kevin and his spouse Karen. His son Brian couldn’t be here today, but he’s watching on the Internet from North Carolina. We also welcome granddaughter Andrea, her husband Kevin and their daughter, great-granddaughter Anika. Welcome to grandsons Eric and Matt, and granddaughter-in-law Krista.

I am also pleased to recognize and welcome Councillor David Pickles and Pickering’s Mayor Dave Ryan to Queen’s Park.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about a former member of this Legislature who dedicated his career to his community and to public service. George Ashe started his journey in Ottawa and served in the early 1960s as alderman for Nepean township. When he moved with his family to Pickering, he continued on his journey of service and was elected deputy reeve of Pickering.

Four years after that, George Ashe became the very first mayor of Pickering, when we went to regional government. It is interesting that there have only been three other Pickering mayors, and we are glad, as I mentioned, to have Mayor Ryan join us today.

George served as mayor until he was elected to this Legislature for the riding of Durham West in 1977. Back then, Durham West would have encompassed Pickering, Ajax and Whitby, but it was at a time when Durham region was just starting to grow and take shape.

He was a proud Conservative and was appointed in 1981 to Bill Davis’s cabinet as Minister of Revenue. He later served as Minister of Government Services. He served as Minister of Energy and Chair of the Management Board in Frank Miller’s cabinet.

George Ashe was not a politician who sought the limelight. He was hard-working and was a quiet type of guy. He didn’t hold the flashy cabinet portfolios, but he committed himself to them, recognizing how important they were to the efficient running of government.

George served as a member of a minority, then majority government and also as an opposition member. I understand that he preferred being on the government benches. George served the people of Durham West here in this Legislature until 1987, but his public service didn’t stop there. George served as a Catholic school trustee in Clarington and did that for a term.

George was a resident of Durham for almost 50 years and must have seen so much change, grow and develop in that time. He clearly also saw opportunities to be a part of that development through the various avenues of service he pursued.

Later in George’s life, he battled Parkinson’s disease, but even in that lengthy struggle he continued to contribute to the broader community. He and his wife, Margo, and daughter, Cheryl, became significant fundraisers for Parkinson research and participated annually in the Parkinson SuperWalk.

George Ashe didn’t only leave behind a lifetime of service and commitment; he evidently has left a clear legacy of work ethic and service. As many in public service know, it can be a tremendous sacrifice being away from home and family life. George’s commitment to his community was something that his children grew up with. He was always involved, and whether he meant to or not, he led by example. We all learn from our parents. Sometimes we learn what to do and sometimes we learn what not to do. But it is a testament to George’s commitment and convictions that he was not only a model for others to follow, he was a model that others have followed.

I was pleased to welcome George’s family earlier, but I would like to specifically point out that George’s son Steven is here, and we appreciate his service and involvement at the Ontario Regiment in Oshawa. Steve is a retired corporal with the Ontario Regiment reserves. Also, George’s son Kevin Ashe has chosen to serve and is a Pickering city and regional councillor, and was a trustee before that. I will say that perhaps the apples didn’t fall far from the tree.

Something pretty interesting, actually, is that back in 1974, George was the very first chairman of the finance committee at the new region, and Kevin serves on that same committee at the region now.

George Ashe was a proud Conservative, an avid Blue Jays fan and a remarkable husband, brother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather, or “Grumpy.” He leaves a lifetime and a legacy of public and community service. Durham region is a dynamic and wonderful region, and as it grows and strengthens, it does so on a community framework and foundation made stronger by George Ashe and his lifelong dedication to public service.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tribute?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m delighted to speak this morning in memory of George Ashe, who was elected on the same day as I was to the Legislature, and that is June 9, 1977, so we were together. This happens with all of us who are elected at the same time: It’s the class of that particular year, and so you have special memories of those people who joined the Legislature on the same date that you did.

George also recognized something very important. Although it’s not a necessity, there’s a great advantage to having served in municipal government before advanceing—if you can say “advancing,” because some people say municipal government is more important—before changing and coming to the provincial level of government. George recognized that. You can tell by his early days in politics, his service to his community and the separate school board and as a municipal councillor. He always had the community at heart. That’s exceedingly important.

I’m going to quote, in a couple of minutes, some of George’s own words, because they’re rather revealing. There was a great interview that took place with George where, in his words, he talks about his time in the Legislature. Things keep coming through my mind. He was not a person who suffered fools easily, and I remember—I’m not saying the person is a fool; please don’t get me wrong—that one of his own members one day mentioned something about the nuclear industry, which of course is very important to George’s part of the province, and I could hear him addressing the person at that particular time.

I was glad Hansard didn’t pick it up; it would have been unparliamentary language. But he did make certain reference to another member of his own party who had said something that didn’t fit with his constituency. It goes back to the theme that his constituency was most important to him. He, of course, had a private sector career in the insurance industry, so he met a lot of people through that and was involved in community organizations.

The portfolios he served in have been mentioned. They’re significant portfolios. It’s quite right to say that they’re not the glamorous or high-profile portfolios, but it’s exceedingly important in government to have those portfolios and to have a competent person there. You can say that George always knew where the bottom line was, and he was very careful about that, both at the municipal level and at the provincial level of government.

They asked him, “Politicians: Why do they do it?” An interesting answer: “One has to be a bit of a masochist.

“Of course, there’s that initial appeal of wanting to do something either because you feel you have something to contribute or you’re not happy with the way someone else is doing it. You know, it’s easy to be critical. But it’s quite another thing to say I can do better and actually do something about it.

“The masochism, though, I think that comes into it because so often you’re in a ‘no-win’ situation. If you do a good job there’s often not much in the way of gratitude or thank-yous. But if you’re perceived to have done wrong, you take a lot of flak for it. You become a problem solver for your constituents but you weigh all these things and they’re simply offset by the love of the job, the sense of involvement and the challenge of being here.”

I thought he really captured why he came to the Legislature.

He talked about majority government. Remember, there had been a minority government from 1977 to 1981, and they said, “Okay, we’re now coming into majority government.” “Certainly, too, I think we all have to avoid the impression that we’re the big ‘fat cat,’ unconcerned majority and that we’re not going to listen to anyone. We’re going to have to bend over backwards to make sure that impression’s not there.” So he recognized in the transition how important it was to be able to respond to the Legislature as a whole.

When he talks about constituency versus ministry—and this is exceedingly important, because it’s a difficult decision when you have a ministry. “My constituency work comes first, it’s as simple as that. I’ve conveyed this philosophy to my staff both here and in my riding and they know how strongly I feel about this. Obviously, if I don’t satisfy to some appreciable degree, the needs, expectations and desires of electorate of Durham West, I won’t be here later on.... That’s a reality no politician should ever forget.”

George never did forget that. He was an excellent constituency person—a person I grew to find very interesting and a likable person to deal with. He was a solid Conservative, I assure you of that, a solid Progressive Conservative, a partisan, as all of us are in the House, but he was more interested in getting things done and being practical.

The last thing I want to say to Kevin and the audience is that there was one headline that says—I’ve got to read this to you: “Liberals Fire Minister’s Son as Chauffeur.” Now, that wasn’t really the case, of course, and Kevin took it, as he always does, with the greatest of laughter and a good sense of humour. But when there’s a transition of government, he recognized—and he had been an excellent person travelling with ministers he had served with. You know that those people tend to be rather close. They hear the conversations going on.

By the way, there were no telephones in the car in the early days, so there was not those kinds of conversations, but you certainly had an insight. I think Kevin recognized that when the government changed hands, they would probably be looking for somebody else, but that didn’t keep him down. It’s in the tradition. The family has followed the tradition of George Ashe. Kevin, who I know very well out of the members of the family, knew that and has remained, in fact, a friend of all of ours.

There’s a certain print of Queen’s Park that was in George’s office. Tracy MacCharles, the present member now, wanted to note—and I think it’s most appropriate—that that was given to her by Kevin Ashe and it is now in her constituency office. George may no longer be with us, but evidence of his service at Queen’s Park is here. We thank his family for sharing him with us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tributes?

Mr. Lorne Coe: It’s my privilege and honour to acknowledge the life of George Ashe, the member of provincial Parliament for Durham West.

I’m pleased to recognize many members of George’s family and some friends who have joined us in the gallery: Steven, his son; Cheryl Hinzel and Erwin Hinzel; my good friend Kevin Ashe, with whom I served on regional council, and his partner, Karen O’Brien; Andrea Arkell and Kevin Arkell; Anika Arkell; Eric Hinzel and Matt Hinzel; Krista Barnsley; His Worship Mayor Dave Ryan from the city of Pickering; my colleague from regional council David Pickles; and George’s son Brian is watching from his home in North Carolina.

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge Doug Moffatt, who was a former member of Parliament here as well.

As Kevin has told me, his father was not an ostentatious man. He was very conservative in nature, a man of dedication and purpose, an extremely hard worker, as my colleague indicated earlier in her comments, whose roles in the Legislature reflected the character of the man. George was always very comfortable as he participated in the business of the Legislature, but he never felt it necessary to seek the limelight.

I read an interview George gave in 1981 after his appointment as the Minister of Revenue. He was so proud of that appointment because he had served as a parliamentary assistant for three previous ministers. It really paralleled what Kevin had told me about his dad. George said that an effective politician “is a good listener, an excellent listener, that’s the main thing.” Isn’t that true? “And then of prime importance too, the best politicians must never be afraid to admit they don’t know everything. They must tell the person this and get out there and find the right answers.”

George Ashe was a very decent man and never tried to be something that he wasn’t. He played to his strengths. He said, “I’ve always been known as a hard worker. I put in a lot of time and effort and I think this has been well recognized.” And it was, in his riding and other parts of Durham region. “As well, I’ve always tried to be available and to assist my associates wherever and whenever possible....”

Predeceased by his wife, Margo, who was a key partner in what George accomplished, George passed away peacefully at the Village of Taunton Mills in Whitby on August 3, 2014.

Mr. Speaker, many of us here could learn a great deal from the character of George Ashe. He believed in helping people who could not help themselves or who have suffered misfortune. He especially believed in a hand up for those who need it but only lacked an opportunity, all part of his deep humanity and decency. He gave his all to serve his riding and the province that he loved.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to thank all the members for their kind and heartfelt comments to the family.

To the family: As is the tradition, we will have copies of Hansard and a DVD of the tributes delivered to the family with our love and affection. Thank you for the gift of your father.

Oral Questions

Climate change

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked a serious public policy question and the environment minister responded by answering and pulling a number out of thin air, out of his hat. The number wasn’t real. The number that is real is $1.9 billion. That’s the size of the next Liberal slush fund—a fund collected under the guise of fighting climate change. It is disheartening that you would make families and businesses pay so much more for this government’s pet projects.

Mr. Speaker, I didn’t get an answer yesterday. Will the Premier of Ontario—will this government—commit to giving every single cent collected back to the families of Ontario, yes or no?

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. While the clock is stopped, I’m going to remind all members that I’m the Chair.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First, I want to begin by wishing everyone a very happy International Women’s Day.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I think it’s terrific that he has now decided that he supports carbon pricing. I think that’s a very good thing. It speaks to the realization across the country and, in fact, around the globe that climate change is not a distant threat; climate change is something that we have to deal with right now.

One of the things we have to do is invest in the technologies and we have to invest in the community to make sure that we reduce our carbon footprint. All the money that comes in through the cap-and-trade system will be reinvested in green projects in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, grow the economy and help our economy to be that cutting edge—

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock. Be seated, please. First and foremost, I’m just going to give some advice. The ovation wars that are going on, if they would stop, we’d be able to get to questions.

Number two, it’s hard for me to decide on who’s heckling who when members of the government side are—the Premier’s giving the answer and I’m hearing heckling from that side, and also heckling on this side that basically just wants to repeat names over and over again. Let’s just calm it down. That’s your last time and then I’ll move into individuals and warnings if I have to.

Leader?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: I didn’t get an answer on whether it would simply be another Liberal slush fund. Let me say this: Ontario’s former Environmental Commissioner, Gord Miller, said, “Other provinces did the right thing because the provinces also lowered income taxes at the same time.” Mr. Miller said, “It’s a matter of being fair with people and making it very visible.”

He was referring to a revenue-neutral model, with full independent oversight. Why won’t this government do the right thing? Why won’t this government commit to an open, transparent and visible revenue-neutral model? Will you do that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As the Premier pointed out—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As the Premier pointed out, we’re very glad in this House that the other side has seen the light and that the Leader of the Opposition has flip-flopped to a more reasonable position on this. Now the PC leader says he agrees that climate change is a major threat—that was Mr. Brown on August 27, 2015. But when he ran for the leadership, he said that he would not bring his plan forward, a cap-and-trade system, for a carbon tax—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: I would appreciate a direct answer, rather than government spin, diversion and misdirection.

A 2015 Financial Post

article said it was very clear that the revenue-neutral model worked. Revenue neutrality is key. Don’t take my word for it. People from all around Ontario have been speaking out.

Let me share with you a quote from a notable Ontarian: “I have to be a little bit sceptical about the whole scheme, other than it’s going to be a lot of new money into government.” Who said that? Former finance minister Greg Sorbara.

Mr. Speaker, if Greg Sorbara sees this is a cash grab, if Greg Sorbara sees this as another tool for the government to simply take more from Ontario families, will the Premier admit to the province of Ontario that this is nothing more than a cash grab that the Liberal Party is doing, once again, on the backs of Ontarians?

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Be seated, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You won’t know when I’m going to pounce.

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Then again, the PC leader said that there has to be a price on carbon on March 10, 2016. But then again, he ran against the federal plan to cut pollution by putting a price on carbon. Again, another flip-flop.

Then the PC leader said there was practically universal support in his caucus for carbon pricing, Mr. Speaker, flipping again. But again, just last week, my critic said, “Will you heed the advice of the PC Party of Ontario and commit to not implementing a carbon tax?”

Now, the PC leader said that the majority of his members agree on this, just on March 7. But then, the poor president of his party called the carbon pricing “the Liberal vision of Canada...a Liberal carbon tax on everything” in November.

Mr. Speaker, this member has taken so many positions daily on this, from week to week, that we never know what his position’s going to be—

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

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Be seated, please.

Start the clock. New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, a government that can’t defend their own plan chooses to attack. Since I can’t get an answer on revenue neutrality, my question—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Who is the question for?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Since I can’t get an answer on revenue neutrality or whether this is simply another Liberal slush fund, let’s talk about health care. This budget promised that there would be support for health care. But what we’re seeing is the opposite: more cuts, cuts and cuts.

Toronto General and Toronto Western had to cut 51 RN positions; 59 were cut at Mount Sinai; 61 RN positions were lost at St. Joseph’s Health Care Centre in Hamilton. When will this stop? I thought we heard a commitment to health care in this budget. Instead, it’s more cuts on nurses. When will the government stop cutting nurses in this province?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Leader of the Opposition will know if he looks closely at the budget, spending for health care will increase by a billion dollars, as a result of this budget. We are very aware, Mr. Speaker, of the importance of continuing to invest in health care, specifically on hospitals. We’re increasing funding to hospitals by $345 million.

So the reality is that funding for health care continues to go up, Mr. Speaker. Additional funding for home and community care: $75 million in community-based hospice and palliative care; $85 million for community health services. So across the sectors within health care, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to invest. We are continuing to increase budgets, and that means more personnel, more services for people in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: This past week in Ottawa, I heard story after story about the impact of the government’s cuts to physician services. Two graduating dermatology residents were forced to relocate. One family doctor was forced to fire two staff, impacting 2,500 patients. Four family doctors had to close their offices one day a week, impacting 5,000 patients. Thirteen family doctors had to limit their flu shot clinics, which impacted 17,000 patients. Those were just a few stories that I heard in Ottawa this weekend.

There is nothing in this budget that is going to help family doctors serve their patients. Will you support Ontario’s doctors? Mr. Speaker, will the Premier support Ontario’s physicians and support patient care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are actually investing in more patient care. The individual decisions of particular practitioners—the member opposite will have to talk to those practitioners. But there is nothing in our government’s policy, there is nothing in our investments that would—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Talk to the doctors, not the pandas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the Leader of the Opposition is taking a position that somehow we should put all our resources into increasing the compensation for the highest-paid physicians in the country—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —then I would challenge him to say, in fact, we need to support health care workers across—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We need to help support personal support workers. We need to make sure that we have the nurses in our hospitals that are necessary. We need to make sure that hospitals have the budgets that they need. That’s why investing $345 million more in hospitals, and $1 billion more in health care, is exactly what should happen at this juncture.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: I appreciate the government’s talking points, but I am sharing real stories, real stories of patients that we hear outside of this Queen’s Park bubble. Let me share a few more stories.

We know that the postpartum depression clinic for mental health at Ontario Shores is only able to open one day a week because of this government’s cuts. Cuts are threatening the obstetrics unit at Georgian Bay General Hospital. The government still hasn’t committed to hiring a new doctor for obstetrics and gynecology at the unit in Leamington.

Mr. Speaker, today is International Women’s Day. I have outlined examples of how maternal health is being cut. Will the government—will the Premier—commit to stopping the cuts to maternal health in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The leader of the official opposition can try to spin this any way that he wants to. It’s interesting that he brought up the maternal unit, the obstetrics unit, at Leamington hospital, because in fact, just a couple of weeks ago, we announced an additional $1.3 million, which will allow for the hiring of three new obstetricians at Leamington hospital, to make sure that that clinic, that birthing unit, that obstetrical unit stays open.

Frankly, I have to give some credit to the backbencher from Chatham–Kent–Essex for working co-operatively with me, with the community, with the local leadership to find a solution that will actually maintain the ability of women from the Leamington area to deliver in the province. So that’s a bad example.

It’s a good example of how, if we do co-operate—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Even if the comments are directed to the Chair, I am going to ask that any of the gestures to inflame come to me.

New question.

Child care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to begin, on behalf of New Democrats, by wishing every woman in this legislative precinct, across the OPS, and women and girls across Ontario a happy International Women’s Day.

My question is to the Premier. On International Women’s Day, let’s recognize and celebrate the many great accomplishments of Ontario women, yet we also have to recognize that Ontario has the most expensive child care in Canada. The 2016-17 budget doesn’t do anything for child care in Ontario. It doesn’t add a single dollar for new child care spaces in the entire province—just announcements and re-announcements. Just last year, the Premier actually campaigned against a $15-per-day national child care program.

Can this Premier explain why moms and dads in Ontario are paying the highest child care costs in Canada and this budget doesn’t add any new funding for child care spaces for Ontario families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to acknowledge how important it is that when women are at work and need the support of child care, we have those services in place.

Everyone in this Legislature and families across Ontario know that full-day kindergarten for every four- and five-year-old in this province has changed the landscape in terms of early childhood education in the province, Mr. Speaker, and it has changed the dynamics around child care. There’s absolutely no doubt about that.

There is a regulation right now that is out for consultation. We continue to put more money into child care and create more spaces, recognizing that with four- and five-year-olds—and some three-year-olds, if they have a late birthday—in full-day kindergarten, the kids who are in child care are of a different age and we need to adapt to that new reality. We’re in a transition on that front.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No matter how many times the Liberals say it, full-day kindergarten is not child care in the province of Ontario. It is not child care.

It’s not just New Democrats saying that this budget fails families and leaves families in the lurch. The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care says, “Families that believed Ontario would prioritize work on a national early learning and child care plan will be bitterly disappointed by this reversal.” Parents across Ontario took the government at its word that it would deliver. Instead, less than a quarter of Ontario children can access regulated child care spaces, and for another year parents will have to be paying child care that they can barely afford or have to put their careers on hold.

This Premier has already admitted that her budget is full of mistakes. Will she admit it was a mistake not to invest in child care in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Education is going to want to comment on the last question, Mr. Speaker.

I just need to be clear that since 2003, child care funding in this province has doubled, from $532 million to over $1 billion. The number of child care spaces in Ontario has grown to nearly 351,000; that’s an increase of 87% since 2003. In 2016, we’re providing $1.05 billion to 47 municipalities; that’s an increase in overall funding of $16.3 million over last year.

The reality is that thousands of families across this province have the ability now to send their kids to full-day kindergarten. I know perfectly well that full-day kindergarten is not child care. That’s why we continue to invest in child care in addition to full-day kindergarten. They’re two different things—

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s shameful that this Premier, even in her response, tried to muddy the waters around the difference between child care and all-day learning. It’s a disgrace.

Every dollar invested in child care, Speaker, brings $1.50 in economic returns. That’s because when parents can find affordable child care it means more moms and dads, but more often moms, can get back to work. It’s a smart investment; I would have thought that this Premier would have believed that. It’s one of the basics that people expect their government to get right.

This budget has a lot of reannouncements and even some re-reannouncements, but what it doesn’t have is more affordable, quality, licensed child care for moms, dads and their children across Ontario. The Premier has acknowledged she got her budget wrong already. Will she fix it and invest in affordable, licensed child care for families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to point out that the figures that the Premier just quoted are, in fact, child care figures, quite distinct from full-day kindergarten figures.

In addition to the figures that the Premier has mentioned, which have to do with increasing capital spending and increasing operating spending, we’re also increasing the wage subsidy for our workers in licensed child care this year. For our ECEs in licensed child care—our front-line child care workers—the subsidy is going up from $1 an hour to $2 an hour in this year’s budget. For people who work in licensed home child care, the subsidy is going up from $10 a day to $20 a day. That’s in this year’s budget.

In addition, there’s additional capital this year for new child care spaces. Over three years we’re building 4,000 new child care spaces.

Child care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. It’s shameful that after 12 years in office there is still such a patchwork of child care in this province that there isn’t enough licensed, affordable, quality child care for families in Ontario.

Parents in Ontario should be able to expect the highest quality in child care, and no parent should have to worry that their kids’ safety is being put at risk. Parents across Ontario are worried about the changes to child care regulations that would mean more children with fewer adults.

The Coalition for Better Child Care says that the Premier’s new rules will not improve quality and safety in child care. Martha Friendly from the Child Care Resource and Research Unit says, “If they bring this in, Ontario will be leading the race to the bottom.”

Why is this Premier leading the race to the bottom in child care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I very much appreciate the input from advocates like Martha Friendly and the work that they have done for years to promote early years education. Part of the promotion of early years education has been to support our government as we implement full-day kindergarten, because that was seen in early years education as a very, very important step forward, and we’ve taken that step.

What that means is that we have to continue to invest in child care, because of course full-day kindergarten is not the same thing as child care. They are different things, and so as we have implemented full-day kindergarten, we have continued to work with the child care sector to transform that sector.

The fact is that it is important that we modernize the child care sector. That’s why the regulation is out for consultation, and we appreciate input from everyone who’s close to the issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Pascal report was a road map for better child care and early child care education, but instead of following the road map, this Premier has veered off the road. Instead of expanding and making sure we have better integrated child care, we’re seeing fragmented care here. Mums and dads are struggling to piece together the care that their kids need.

Now the government’s plan will mean more kids with fewer adults. It’s going to mean lower-quality child care in Ontario. I don’t think that’s what Mr. Pascal was talking about when he put together his report.

The question is a simple one, and I haven’t heard an answer yet: Why is this Premier leading the race to the bottom on child care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: One of the things that we’ve been doing actually is taking a bit of advice from Mr. Pascal, which was that we should look at the child care ratio issues which had been there for about 20 years. We’ve been working with a committee of advisors. We concluded, when we looked at what’s happened in that 20 years since we last adjusted the ratios, that there were two significant things. Yes, we did introduce full-day kindergarten, and that means that what parents need for their four- and five-year-olds in terms of child care has changed, so we need to change.

The other thing we’ve discovered is that over the last 20 years, maternity leave rules have changed. In fact, with a combination of maternity and paternity leaves, most parents are looking for child care at 12 months now because they’re returning to work at 12 months. We are addressing that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have met with parents across Ontario who have seen their municipal child care centres closing. Those were fantastic centres that kids loved and that parents depended on. Now the experts are ringing the alarm bells that the quality of child care in Ontario is going to get even worse. Ontarians know we should be moving forward. Parents should be seeing more affordable care and quality should never be compromised.

Will this Premier actually start moving forward and not backward on quality and affordability for child care in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: What we are actually doing is we’re adjusting the ratios so that there will be more spaces available for the 12-to-24-month group, which is where parents are really struggling to enter the system and find spaces. But we’re not putting more kids; we’re actually doing the opposite. We’re decreasing the ratios. For infants—in the old zero-to-18-month category, it used to be 3 to 10, a maximum size of 10—we’re reducing that so that it will be 1 to 3, a maximum size of nine, and you now have to have two qualified ECEs in the room.

Similarly, with the toddler age group: Yes, we’re changing the age group to 12-to-24 months, but we’re actually changing the ratio so it’s only 1 to 4, and two qualified ECEs will have to be in the room. We’re actually going to create the opportunity for more spaces for 12-to-24-month-olds, which is what parents tell us they need.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, we provided details of the LCBO document that states, "The LCBO’s main intention is to sell properties." The government’s response was nothing short of a Keystone Cops episode: The Premier said, “We’re only selling as needed.” The finance minister told the media, “We’re selling, but leasing back.” The infrastructure minister said, “We’re not selling. Full stop.” But all three contradict what’s in the exact document.

Let’s face it, Speaker: They got caught again.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Because your question is ridiculous.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: This government is in complete disarray. Why should Ontarians trust them to do anything when they can’t get their story straight?

My question, Speaker, is this: Which one wants to do the backpedalling today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Inspector Clouseau lives in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I’ll read the response from the LCBO; I think it will clarify it completely. “LCBO confirms earlier statements today by Minister Charles Sousa”—that would be me, Mr. Speaker—“that it has no plans to reduce the size of its 654-store network through the sale of LCBO-owned locations. In fact, LCBO is investing in expanding both the size and scope of its retail network to further improve customer service.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Let me read more from the document that contradicts all the public statements that they made yesterday. These are direct quotes from the document.

The realtor would “determine the”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Come to order.

Mr. Steve Clark: They’re doing the backstroke over there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is not helpful at all when I’m trying to defend your own member.

Please finish.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: A direct quote: The realtor would “determine the highest and best use of the properties; perform credit checks on potential tenants; and coordinate all related activity with the tenant including move-in.”

Speaker, they can say all they want about their plans now, and we’ve heard a few versions, as you’ve seen, but this document proves what they were planning to do.

Will the Premier admit today that her government got caught, again, trying to sell LCBO stores to bring one-time cash to make the deficit look smaller in advance of the next election?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I’m shocked that the member opposite, who prides himself on being a businessman, who takes pride in being a critic of finance, doesn’t have a concept or a clue about the way business operates.

That’s what this is all about. We’re putting an RFP for brokerage services so that we can provide greater efficiencies in the service delivery of all of the real estate transactions, leases, rentals and buy-and-sell agreements. That is part of normal operations of the LCBO’s 654-store network. That will continue. An RFP is put out there for public use; it’s nothing private—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: You got caught.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And so did the member from Nipissing. Come to order.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Keystone Cops, right over there, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. This kind of to and fro that I just heard, because I heard it from the other side—regrettably, when I was ready to admonish one, I have to admonish the other. That’s not helpful to the debate.

New question.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I was in Kitchener and Brantford, listening to seniors who are worried about the Liberals’ plan to nearly double the cost of prescription drugs. Most of the seniors I met were women. Many of them dedicated their lives to raising their families, and now they live on very limited fixed incomes. In fact, the median income for single elderly women in Ontario is $4,000 less than it is for male seniors. The research shows that elderly women also need more prescriptions each year. But the Liberals want to force these elderly women to pay more for every prescription they need, starting this August.

Everyone but the Premier can see that it’s the wrong thing to do. These women feel vulnerable, but they are more than willing to fight; that’s what they said to me yesterday. Will the minister admit that the Premier’s plan to nearly double the cost of prescriptions won’t just hurt seniors, but will discriminate against elderly women in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, I’m actually very pleased to get this question because the very individuals that the member opposite is referencing—single women, seniors in this province, who are having the most difficulty getting by—are precisely those that this budget will help, by bringing in 173,000 more of them who currently pay $100 deductible for their drug plan each year. They will pay zero deductible. We’re saving them a considerable amount of money.

But there’s more that we’re offering to actually acknowledge the difficulty that those poorest seniors face. In fact, this will apply to all our seniors. Previously, a pharmacist could bill for a prescription, including the co-payment, on a monthly basis. if they chose to do that. You might get a prescription for three months but they would fill it only for one month, so you might be forced to pay 12 times over the course of the year. We’re changing that. I’m happy to talk about that more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Today is International Women’s Day, and the Minister of Finance should actually recognize what higher drug costs will mean for elderly women. Our mothers, our grandmothers and the older women in our lives live on less money and they take more medications. An elderly woman living on $20,000 or $30,000 a year is not a rich senior. Already, she struggles every month and she simply cannot afford to pay more. This Liberal government wants to nearly double the cost of her prescription drugs and force many elderly women to cut back wherever they can.

Yesterday, we heard this will impact a food budget for seniors, and it’s on every prescription, just for them to stay healthy. This is a really serious issue, and I don’t think this government is addressing it. You needed to consult before you brought in this change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Through the Chair, please.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Will the minister admit that the Premier’s plan to nearly double the cost of prescriptions will hurt elderly women across the province of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: A lot of seniors were frustrated. They would get a prescription for three months from their doctor, they would go to the pharmacist, and the pharmacist would only give them a one-month supply but charge them the full co-payment of $6.11. We’ve already made that change, where pharmacists now can only bill the province on a quarterly basis, even if they give out the medicine monthly. There’s no incentive to do that anymore. So we’ve reduced, in many cases, by 75% the costs to a senior or to, quite frankly, any individual in this province.

We have the most generous drug program for seniors in the country. In fact, the closest province in terms of out-of-pocket costs for seniors is twice what Ontario is. Ontario’s average out-of-pocket costs for seniors are $277 annually. The next closest is $600.

I didn’t get a chance to reference some of the provinces. In fact, out east in PEI, it’s $957 each year that a senior is expected to pay out of pocket. We have the most generous program in the whole country. We’re going to keep it that way.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. Today marks International Women’s Day. I’m so proud of my two daughters, Kelly and Stacey, and my beautiful granddaughter, Carling, who is finishing her third year at Queen’s University right now.

I’m also very proud to be a member of a government that takes women’s issues so seriously. The minister responsible for women’s issues plays an important role in our cabinet. She brings a gender lens to cabinet decision-making. She has exhibited remarkable leadership in the government’s efforts to address gender-based violence and to improve women’s economic independence and security.

Can the minister please update the House on her progress on these initiatives since the last International Women’s Day?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to thank the member from Barrie for this question. I also want to wish everyone in this Legislature, an everyone in Ontario, a happy International Women’s Day.

We’ve had a fantastic year, Speaker, at the Ontario Women’s Directorate. We’ve done that work with many government ministries. We introduced our sexual violence and harassment action plan to change attitudes, improve supports for survivors who come forward about abuse, and make workplaces and campuses safer. We launched a public education campaign that’s reached over 84 million people, and market research shows us that this is having a positive impact on people’s attitudes.

This Legislature has debated the sexual violence and harassment action plan legislation, Bill 132, and I’m very excited about this bill being voted on after question period today. And we have a round table chaired by two wonderful women here on violence against women.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to thank the minister for her answer and for her work on the sexual violence and harassment action plan over the last year. I’d also like to recognize the work of the violence against women round table and its co-chairs since its establishment last March.

I know the minister has also been working with other members of cabinet on a number of initiatives that will make Ontario a safer and more inclusive province. These collaborations across ministries are important to ensuring that—

Mr. Paul Miller: Is this a question or a statement? I’m not sure. It sounds like a pre-cast statement. When’s the question coming?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: —that issues that affect women are treated with the seriousness they deserve—in spite of the heckling across the hall.

Can the minister please describe some of her work across government to address these important issues?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you again to the member from Barrie for the question. She’s absolutely right: We work with many ministries on this important file. To highlight a few: We partner with the Ministry of Labour to establish a steering committee to address the persistent and unacceptable issue of the gender wage gap. We’ve worked with the Ministry of Finance to establish the comply-or-explain amendments required for TSX-listed companies to report publicly on their approach to increasing the number of women on their boards.

The women’s directorate is currently co-leading the development of a human trafficking strategy with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. And just a few weeks ago, I joined with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and our Premier to announced the $100-million strategy to end violence against indigenous women.

These partnerships are critical to our success, and we are committed to moving the women’s agenda