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

May 16, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-May-16 (PDF)

L108 - Thu 16 May 2019 / Jeu 16 mai 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 16 May 2019 Jeudi 16 mai 2019

Orders of the Day

Getting Ontario Moving Act (Transportation Statute Law Amendment), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour un Ontario en mouvement (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport)

Protecting What Matters Most Act (Budget Measures), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour protéger l’essentiel (mesures budgétaires)

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Oral Questions

Health care

Government fiscal policies

Hospital funding

Job creation

Education funding

Infrastructure funding

Education funding

Social assistance

Public health

Anti-Semitism

Paramedic services

Housing

Skilled trades

Public health

Correction of record

Visitor

Legislative pages

Deferred Votes

Getting Ontario Moving Act (Transportation Statute Law Amendment), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour un Ontario en mouvement (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport)

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Public health

AboutFace

Homelessness

Celiac disease

Hiatus House

Mental health and addiction services

Traffic fatality / Murray Thomson

Credit River bridge

Life Sciences Ontario Scholarship Program

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Toronto Newcomer Day / International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

Fitzroy Gordon

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

Fitzroy Gordon

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

Fitzroy Gordon

Petitions

Toronto Transit Commission

Tuition

Accident benefits

School facilities

Campus radio stations

Library services

Legal aid

Long-term care

Legal aid

Legal aid

Waste reduction

Arts and cultural funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act (Social Assistance Research Commission), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires (Commission de recherche sur l’aide sociale)

Mandatory Police Training Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la formation obligatoire de la police

Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Semaine de sensibilisation au génocide des Tamouls

Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act (Social Assistance Research Commission), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires (Commission de recherche sur l’aide sociale)

Mandatory Police Training Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la formation obligatoire de la police

Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Semaine de sensibilisation au génocide des Tamouls

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly / Standing Committee on Public Accounts

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayer/Prières.

Orders of the Day

Getting Ontario Moving Act (Transportation Statute Law Amendment), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour un Ontario en mouvement (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 13, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters / Projet de loi 107, Loi modifiant le Code de la route et diverses autres lois à l’égard de questions relatives au transport.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 15, 2019, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Yurek has moved second reading of Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Second reading vote deferred.

Protecting What Matters Most Act (Budget Measures), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour protéger l’essentiel (mesures budgétaires)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 15, 2019, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes / Projet de loi 100, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter, à modifier ou à abroger diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member for Etobicoke Centre.

Miss Kinga Surma: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Often when we rise in this House, we say how proud and honoured we are to speak to a bill, but this is an especially important day and especially important to me as a new member in this House. It’s incredibly exciting to participate in a budgetary process and contribute to the work, to be part of the team and propose our first budget bill.

I want to thank, of course, the Minister of Finance, his staff, the Premier, and all of cabinet and our colleagues who worked so tremendously hard on this bill.

Of course, I will start with my favourite subject, which I think has become very clear to the members in this House, and that is transportation. It’s a very long history with transportation in the city of Toronto. As a member representing a Toronto riding—the members opposite have brought up the fact that there have been many plans in the past. They have been very dissatisfied with our proposal, which I think is one of the greatest proposals that Toronto and the region have ever seen, that we’ve worked tremendously hard on for the last 10 months with all of our colleagues and with the Premier and the Minister of Transportation.

But do you know what the biggest problem was, Mr. Speaker? There was never any shortage of plans, but the problem was that nobody wanted to take action, move forward and actually build something in this city and build something in this region. I know that many of my colleagues feel the same because we’ve all watched it on the news. There have been plans back and forth in a council term and changes of plans during every single city council election, and do you know what? It led to frustration. It led to people thinking that public transit was never going to be built in this city.

I remember when I was campaigning and I spoke to a young man, a young boy, 17 years old, and he asked me what the things were that I’m most passionate about. So I told him that I would like to help improve public transit in this city because it’s something that I’ve endured myself as a resident. He looked at me and he said, “Well, you know what? It feels like nothing will ever be done,” and he asked me why. I said, “Unfortunately, in most cases, it’s actually politics.

Politics gets in the way.” That is why I am so incredibly proud to have contributed to the transportation plan, to work closely with my minister and my colleagues to make sure that we take concrete steps moving forward to actually build something in this city.

Transportation affects everybody. It affects moms and dads who go to work. It affects young people who want to get around their neighbourhood. It affects young people who want to enjoy the excitement of the city, tourists who want to come visit and see different aspects of the city, and it affects the quality of day-to-day life. That has been missing, and I am just so excited to move forward.

We have been working with the city of Toronto. We’ve proposed a letter of reference. We’ve indicated our intentions. The Premier has been very clear that transportation—being a resident of this great city—is one of the most important things to him as Premier, improving it from a regional perspective and also in the city. We are now amending the Metrolinx Act, which will give us great leadership on the file. I am very excited to move forward.

What I’m most excited about, of course, is how it will impact my riding, the riding of Etobicoke Centre. My constituents have fought for three years. They have gone to community meetings. They have participated in working groups. They were very vocal during the election that they did not want to see Eglinton ripped up. That’s not an unreasonable ask, because Eglinton is the busiest road in my riding, next to Martin Grove—the busiest road.

The congestion—a year and a half ago, part of Eglinton was repaved, and I can tell you, just by blocking off a single lane it took me 45 minutes to get from one end of Eglinton in my riding to my home, which is on the west side. And to think that that was the proposal that my opponent, Mr. Baker, was encouraging is just incredibly frustrating.

So I am extremely proud that we made the right choice, that the minister, the Premier and our people listened to the concerns of my residents and that we are proposing the best option—a fast option, a reliable option—that will not add to the congestion in my riding. So I just want to thank the team again for being so supportive. It was incredibly important to me to be able to fulfill that campaign commitment, and it was truly one of the proudest days of my life. I am sure I will always remember it.

I just want to tell my constituents that, should there be construction, please do not be mad at me, because it is unfortunately a part of the process, but we will make sure we don’t disrupt and disturb the residents as much as possible.

I will be splitting my time with the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills. My apologies, Madam Speaker.

In the last few months we’ve had many, many transportation announcements and improvements, such as increased GO train service to the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, as well as—

Mr. Jamie West: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Sorry. I recognize the member on a point of order.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you, Speaker. I apologize to the member from Etobicoke Centre. I just want clarification if we’re debating Bill 100, the budget, or Bill 107, which is transportation, because all the comments so far have been about transportation—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member’s point of order. It would seem that she is speaking to

schedule 54.

Mr. Jamie West: I apologize.

Miss Kinga Surma: To the member opposite, this is only the beginning of my remarks. I will be addressing other things included in the budget bill, just to be clear about that.

The second issue that I would like to speak to, which truly has come up very frequently in my riding at the doors, most recently now but certainly during the election campaign and even before then, is safety. Community safety is a big issue in my riding. Like I said before, I am a Toronto riding. There have been very tragic incidents in my riding over the last few months, as there have been many tragic incidents in the city of Toronto, and that has raised concerns.

I have a large population of seniors who want to feel safe in their communities and I have a lot of young families that are looking forward to raising their children and want to make sure that their neighbourhoods and their communities are safe, as well as established families that truly enjoy living in Etobicoke, in a safe community where they don’t have to worry about having their children go outside to play hockey on the street or go see their friends and neighbours down the street.

Now that has become an issue in my riding. It’s very unfortunate, because I always felt that Etobicoke was one of the safest places to live in the city of Toronto—and it is safe. But there have been tragic incidents in the city, and I think it has affected everyone’s lifestyle. People are more concerned, and I think everyone worries about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am very pleased with the Solicitor General for taking action on this, and right away, as a government, by investing $25 million to fight guns and gangs in the city of Toronto, as well as introducing the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act to restore respect for police officers so that they can better do their jobs and so that we restore faith in our police services in our cities. I know my constituents were very pleased with that investment and I am very grateful for her work on this.

Another item which I think we have taken very concrete steps in improving is health care. Hallway health care has become the most discussed topic in this province, I think. Everyone, whether it’s a family member or a friend or even yourself when you’ve been sick and have gone to the hospital, has seen over the years that the quality of care has gone down. And you know what?

The previous government claimed all of these investments and spent all this money, but they never looked at other solutions, such as reforming health care, using technology, innovation or new processes that can ensure that the moment a patient goes to a hospital and then needs further care, they get that care at home. Like I said before, I have a lot of seniors who are very active in the community, very engaged, love Etobicoke and are still very mobile. But they are very disappointed, and for those who don’t have spouses any more or family members who live close by, they feel completely alone.

Most of the time they have no idea how to access the care they need. They can’t navigate the system. They don’t know who to call for help. If their family lives a distance away, it’s usually very troublesome for them to get the care they need. I am very proud of the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, the fact that she had the courage to admit that we have failed our health care system, we have failed our seniors, we have failed the residents of Ontario, because the quality of care has gone down significantly.

I’m very blessed, Madam Speaker. I don’t have any major health issues, but members of my family have, and I know that many members of my community rely on and need to have that good patient care which has been missing.

I just want to reiterate some of the investments we have made. We’re providing 128 hospitals with funding to upgrade and maintain their facilities. We’re adding 200 hospital beds in the greater Toronto area. We’ve announced additional long-term-care projects that will add 1,157 new beds across the province.

Do you know what’s concerning? We are taking these steps, and the reason why this is so important to us is because we do have an aging population. We have an aging population that will need that access, that will be going to hospitals more and more. If we can’t sustain the population and the needs now, then what are we going to do when an aging population needs that care?

I want to thank the minister. I think it is incredibly important that we take action. This will take some time to improve the care. But we had the courage to face the problem up front, to propose solutions, and we are going to move forward with that.

The most, I think, critical issue that came up during the election was, of course, affordability. As a Toronto riding, affordability comes up all the time, whether you’re a young person and are doing everything you can to save for a home, a senior on a fixed income or a family trying to be fiscally responsible so they can invest in their future. That’s why I am incredibly proud of introducing the new Low-income Individuals and Families Tax—LIFT—Credit, which will eliminate or reduce Ontario personal income tax for low-income Ontario taxpayers.

As well, reducing tuition rates: Madam Speaker, I was so shocked to find out how high tuition was in this province. I can say that had it been me paying the cost of tuition today, I’m not sure my family would have been able to sustain me going to school. I don’t ever want a young person who has dreams, who works hard, who appreciates education and wants to make something of themselves, to not be able to go to school because tuition rates are too high. It’s absolutely shameful that the previous government allowed this to happen, because I love young people. They are the future of the province. If they want to learn, they should have every right to do so.

I know I have only a few minutes left, but there is one thing in the budget that a few people don’t realize that we did. It’s something I shared with my riding on my Mother’s Day breakfast on Saturday, and people really appreciated it: the introduction of requiring the Premier and the Minister of Finance to pay a penalty of 10% of Premier and ministerial salaries for each missed public reporting deadline. I am so incredibly proud of that policy that we put forward and included in the budget. Do you know why, Madam Speaker? Because we are showing that we are accountable and transparent and that if we make a mistake, we will be held accountable and we will pay the cost for it.

Thank you very much for your indulgence, Madam Speaker and members. Have a very good day.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today and support Bill 100, the Ontario budget.

Bill 100 is best explained in its name: the Protecting What Matters Most Act. We have gone out of our way to ensure that the core systems of Ontario are upheld and are preserved for future generations.

The debt accumulated over the last 15 years is very disturbing. The province compiling a debt of such a magnitude in such a short period of time is truly astonishing and a testament to the lack of responsibility of the previous Liberal government. They thought in the short term. They thought governance was about the next election cycle. By spending $40 million more each day than what they brought in, the Liberals were digging our province into a hole, with no plan on how to get us out.

If we had come into governance with a simple slash-and-burn approach, we would have been thinking in the short term as well. That’s why our great Premier and cabinet have taken a long-term approach. They know we have to put the real, lived experience of Ontarians at the centre of our decision-making. By showing Ontarians that we are responsible, we will restore their trust in the government of this great province.

I’ll be talking today in greater detail about the segments of the budget I believe to be especially relevant to my riding of Mississauga–Erin Mills: estate tax, auto insurance, and changes to employment services for skilled workers.

Firstly, estate tax is a practice which has always seemed to me an overreach. When we live and we work, we are asked to contribute a portion of our earnings to the community for the mutual benefit of the whole. What we have left after we have paid our share is for us and our families to build our lives. Yet, when we pass away, the taxman comes back around and takes a portion of what we had after the first round of taxes. This act of government overreach needed to be scaled back. The kin of someone who passes should not have the government breathing down their necks for a quick buck.

I was very happy to see that the 2019 budget took action and, as of January 1, 2020, the estate tax will be eliminated for estates of $50,000 or less. We will also be reviewing the estate tax on estates with larger assets, providing approximately a 20% reduction. There’s a misconception that estate tax reductions are really only for the wealthy, but this is conception is unfounded. Our relief will benefit those with smaller estates, who get hurt the most.

Having discussed death and taxes, I should move on to something almost as unavoidable in modern life: auto insurance. For Ontarians who live in the 905 and suburbs more broadly, commuting by car to and from work is nearly a necessity. Congestion, which I proudly note our government is now working to tackle, is stressful enough with the high cost of insurance, lack of consumer choice and lack of competition in the market. The budget lays out a multi-year strategy, one I am happy to endorse, which keeps drivers first and makes the auto insurance system more accessible, affordable and convenient.

In my professional life, I worked for various different tech firms, managing different networks. In the private sector, we were always on the front line of innovation, understanding the reality that our customers were hungry for a more convenient way to go about the unavoidable parts of our lives. Bill 100 puts forth electronic proof of insurance and innovative options and intends to meet the specific needs of drivers. We are furthering the ability of insurance firms to offer more discounts and a wider variety of plans. Claims will become easier to navigate, and strong anti-fraud measures will be introduced.

This increase in choices and the ability to access products that meet specific needs are going to give drivers more control over how they spend their hard-earned money.

The Driver Care Plan doesn’t only address the cost related to aspects of driver’s insurance, but it’s important to the care of those who are hurt in auto accidents. We will be streamlining access to care by making the claims process easier to navigate and providing improvement—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It’s a pleasure for me to rise today and put some comments on the record regarding Bill 100. I would like to thank the member from Etobicoke Centre as well as the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills for their comments. Etobicoke Centre mentioned some very important goals, which is to help improve public transit. It has to do with the quality of day-to-day life for so many people. It’s an equity issue, whether it includes seniors, people who are economically challenged, students, people who have disabilities, or environmental advocates.

The

section I would like to take a look at today is

section 17. With any legislation, we need to think about being responsible, being accountable and being transparent—all goals that this government claims to have. We hear the government using those words, but we don’t see that in this legislation. In fact, we see the direct opposite of it.

Section 17 is an attack on the ability to hold governments accountable. Governments cannot nor should not be above the law. In

section 17, if a government-funded agency or a government-hired contractor makes mistakes, you can’t add the crown to the lawsuit. Why is the government trying to immunize itself from responsibility, from accountability, from transparency?

Speaker, if you take a look at this, let’s say that the government hires a friend of the Premier—I know; that’s shocking. We would never see that happen. But let’s say it happens, just for the sake of argument, and the contractor is terrible and messes everything up. Then you can sue the contractor but not the government that’s responsible for that hiring. That undermines all responsibility of the government and all the accountability of the government, and it is not transparent.

This is an abuse of power. This is an affront to the rule of law. Quite frankly, it is the centralization and consolidation of power, and something that we cannot support.

Speaker, I urge the government to take

section 17 out of this legislation.

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

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to thank the member from Etobicoke Centre and the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills for their speeches on this.

I think, really, when we’re talking about the budget, we’re talking about some of the best things for Ontario.

I’m going to address something specifically, though, that the member from London North Centre said. He said that we’re not being transparent or accountable. Yet our finance minister and our Premier will take a financial hit of 10% of their salary if we don’t meet the milestones that we’ve set in there. That is absolutely the definition of being transparent and accountable. They are personally accountable for what we’re going to be doing in Ontario.

I’d like to talk about what we’re doing in Ontario. There was an awful lot of discussion from the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills about transportation, and the question that you have to ask is, why? Why would you be talking so much about transportation? Our economy is driven by moving product to consumers, or moving consumers to product. If you can’t do that, you don’t see the economy growing. We’re investing in transportation for that reason, because we know that a strong economy in Ontario means that everything else in Ontario is strong.

As the economy rises, as there is more money that’s being spent, the tax revenue on the retail side goes up, and money is being re-filtered through the system that way. It means that we’re able to provide more services that matter the most to the people of Ontario.

We’ve got a financially sound budget here. We’re trying to reduce the deficit that the Liberals left us with. It’s insane that we’re spending almost $1 billion a month on interest. How much could we have in services if we didn’t have to do that?

We’re getting back to a balanced budget in a responsible way. It will take us five years to do it, but it will be responsible. We’re not taking away from anything that matters—

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

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the member for her remarks. I want to thank my colleagues who offered their remarks.

I’m going to take a little bit of a different angle on the government’s budget bill because, as the critic for seniors, I’ve been paying a great deal of attention to the program that the government has put forward for dental care for low-income seniors.

Here’s the thing: Wonderful idea, my friends, but far, far, far short of the ambition we need. This is a problem I’ve had with many of my Conservative friends: They identify a problem and they lowball the means by which to address it.

The dental care program introduced by my friends here will impact seniors who make under $19,300 a year pre-tax. That is about 100,000 seniors, according to their estimates—a little bit more, according to my own—but that is a pittance. When you think of the need in seniors’ homes; when you think of the need of people that I’ve talked with at the door, seniors who can’t sleep at night for days because of abscesses in their teeth—is this how we want to treat anybody who helped build this country up? It’s a pitiful investment.

What worried me even more, when the minister responsible made an announcement about this program in Scarborough at a public health facility, which is the community health centre where these services are supposed to be delivered, the public health facility reported to the media that they had not been consulted on the rollout of this plan and how it would work in July. I can confirm that all the community health centres in the city of Ottawa have not been consulted.

So, when we talk about accountability and transparency, I want the government to imagine a way in which that works for seniors that is beyond a 10% reduction in the Premier’s or the finance minister’s pay.

We have seniors up at night, right now, who can’t sleep because of abscesses in their teeth. So we either pay now or we pay later. What costs more—a proper investment to make sure every senior has the dental care they need, or seniors in emergency rooms because they haven’t slept for four days? This is a massive underinvestment, and I demand that our friends do better.

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

Mr. Michael Parsa: I want to first acknowledge the great speech that my colleague gave. She laid out some very, very important points that are all covered in the budget.

I want to start off with talking about the title of the budget and why it’s so important: Protecting What Matters Most. It’s very, very important because that set the tone of how responsible our government is going to be and the path that we’re going to take to be able to serve Ontarians. It’s very important to say that we are increasing in areas that matter most to Ontarians. That’s what we were elected for. We’re increasing education; we’re increasing health care. Transportation: I know that my colleague spent some time talking about transportation. It’s absolutely vital to spend more on transportation.

Ontarians expect it. It takes longer to be able to get from point A to point B now than it did a few years ago, so, yes, absolutely we need to invest there.

We’re taking care of seniors through the dental program. We are removing those who are earning minimum wage from the income tax bracket because they need it. That’s the assistance that needs to be provided for them.

It’s just that when you look at this budget, Madam Speaker—I’m proud to support this budget because it’s well thought out; it helps people from all walks. But it’s important also to remember that we inherited a fiscal mess from the previous government; it’s very important. Ontario had the title of having the most debt of any sub-sovereign nation in the world. It’s really bad, when you look at the previous government and the way they governed and put us in that mess. We absolutely had to take some measures, but that was going to be done in a responsible manner. We are going to do it while we look after the people, and we will get to a balanced budget—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. I return to the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills for his follow-up comments.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to take the next two minutes to talk about the third element—I am proud to be part of a government that brought in this budget—which is development for the skilled trades. As a college professor, I believe that Bill 100 is crucial for the development of skilled trades professions in the future. Apprenticeships were made increasingly difficult to access over the past 15 years—the burden of red tape holding back many would-be young professionals from starting their careers.

Our government is focusing our efforts on helping businesses that are looking to hire and matching them with workers who are actively seeking opportunities. This approach isn’t revolutionary; it’s common sense, and the existing employment service system is anything but. It is overly complex and not focused on delivering results to employers and jobseekers. We are working to close this skills gap—something effectively ignored by the previous government for many years.

These are the reasons why I am very happy, Madam Speaker, to fully support Bill 100, the Ontario 2019 budget, Protecting What Matters Most.

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

Mr. Jamie West: Before I begin, I want to apologize again for interrupting the member for Etobicoke Centre. I realize that transportation is also in the budget bill. It’s just that I was scheduled to speak for 20 minutes and I thought I had the wrong notes. I thought maybe I had the wrong House sheet. It was more about confirming it and that I was ready; it wasn’t about trying to throw her off or interrupt her on it.

I also wanted to comment on the member from Peterborough–Kawartha, and also the member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, who talked about transportation and how important it is to get goods and services moving. I hope I have your support on getting the rest of Highway 69 four-laned, because we only have 68 kilometres to go. It’s essential to the northern economy that we get that done.

Speaker, it’s always a pleasure and an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Sudbury. As their elected representative, I’m always proud to bring their perspective to the Legislature. I’m proud to talk about what matters most to Sudbury and also what matters most to the metropolis of Copper Cliff, which is also in my riding.

What I can tell you, Speaker, is that the budget doesn’t reflect the priorities of the people of Sudbury and Copper Cliff. The budget is taking things away from people living in rural and northern Ontario. The budget is going to hurt our seniors. It’s going to hurt our most vulnerable. The Conservative government, when they speak about this, are being very selective about the parts of the budget that they want to talk about. That makes me interested in what we’re not talking about, because the reality is that this budget contains cruel cuts that will hurt families in Ontario.

Some $1 billion is being cut from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. That’s the ministry that is supposed to protect our most vulnerable populations.

Education and health care are being funded less than inflation. According to the CCPA’s Behind the Numbers report, the government would have had to increase program spending by 3.5% every year just to maintain the same services. Instead, the government’s 2019 budget increases program spending by only an average of about 0.8% a year. I know they love talking about math, so 0.8% is much smaller than 3.5%. Let’s do a math equation: If little Johnny requires a 3.5% increase just to maintain the same quality of services and the Conservatives only give him a 0.8% increase, how underfunded will little Johnny be?

So, 3.5% minus 0.8% gives you 2.7%, which is nearly 3%. In that math problem, little Johnny, in case you didn’t know, was actually the things we care about most: It was health care. It was education.

If people were unhappy with hallway medicine—and they were. The reason that the former government, the Liberals, are now an independent group and have such a small group was because people were fed up with hallway medicine. They were fed up with hydro and a bunch of things, but, really, hallway medicine was a hot-ticket item. How upset will Ontarians be now when they realize that we’re not even funding enough to keep the lousy service they were fed up with before?

Frankly, the Conservative government’s cuts are dragging Ontario backwards. Ontarians deserve to know all of the details of the budget, with an accurate reflection of how it will impact their lives. I want to use my time today to shed some more light on parts of the budget that are not being talked about but are equally important.

Let’s talk about dental care for seniors. My colleague from Ottawa Centre mentioned this earlier. In the budget, the PC government announced that they’re creating a new dental program for low-income seniors. I’m surprised they didn’t stand and cheer, because any time you say anything, they stand and cheer.

The part they’re not sharing, though: It’s only for seniors with incomes of $19,300 or less. That’s a small portion.

Earlier, the members opposite talked about how the finance minister and the Premier are going to pay a penalty of 10% of their wages if they don’t hit targets in the budget. Again, I love doing math: The Premier’s salary is $208,974. A 10% penalty would be $1,597.40 more than these seniors who qualify make every year.

Getting back to the seniors with incomes of $19,300 or less, that means that out of the three million seniors in Ontario, who, from hearing just a portion of their argument, believe they’re going to have free dental care, 95% of them won’t be covered under this new plan.

But let’s say that you’re one of the lucky 5% of seniors who might be eligible. It’s still about 150,000 people.

Interjection.

Mr. Jamie West: My colleague said “just over 100,000.” I’m an optimist—150,000 people. That’s great for those people; 150,000 people is better than nothing. It’s not so great for the 2,850,000 seniors who don’t qualify. But you can’t please everybody—except, this is a program that’s being administered through public health units, through community health centres and Aboriginal health access centres. I’m curious, Speaker, what happens to this service when the government slashes the number of public health units in Ontario from 35 to 10, because that’s what we’re doing.

We have 35, which I think is maybe too small of a number; I’m not an expert in health care. But the government, in the budget, is going to be slashing these from 35 to 10. As you know, I love math, and 35 minus 10 is 25 fewer.

What happens is, those 150,000 seniors—that lucky 5% out of the three million seniors—who only earn $19,300 or less are going to have to make it to one of those 10 public health units. If they don’t live in one of those 10 lucky cities that still have a public health unit, those 150,000 lucky seniors are going to have to buy a bus ticket or get on Handi-Transit. They’re going to travel hours to get the Conservatives’ free dental care.

This is what’s known as a “plastic carrot.” It sounds good, but when you get it, it’s no good to you, because if you have to travel hours to get free dental care, you’re not getting free anything. If you’re on a budget and you have to be under $19,300, you are not really being successful.

Meanwhile, we know that in Ontario, every three minutes someone visits a doctor’s office or an emergency room to get emergency care for a dental problem. We know that poor oral health care can even lead to heart disease. New Democrats, on our side, believe that nobody should have to live in pain. We believe that we need to do more to support our seniors. New Democrats believe that dental care must be accessible for every Ontarian, including seniors who don’t have retiree benefits and every family living on social assistance. We believe in helping everybody. New Democrats are committed to providing fully funded dental care for seniors.

Speaker, I’m missing some of my notes so I’m just going to go from memory on it. The other cuts we’re having or things we’re not talking about in the budget have to do with a crisis near and dear to my heart in Sudbury: the opioid crisis. We’re having many, many deaths across Ontario in every city, but northern Ontario is leading in the number of deaths due to opioid overdoses. Sudbury is third on that list. I believe the number from last year, in the first six months of last year, was 600 deaths. I could be corrected, but it’s in the hundreds. I have in my head 600; perhaps it’s 300, but still it’s hundreds.

In 1982, for those of you who remember this, there was someone going around poisoning Tylenol capsules. That’s why, when you get Tylenol now, it has a safety seal; it has the aluminum foil over top of it. It’s to prevent tampering with it so someone can’t open it and poison it. Eight people were killed in 1982, Speaker, with poisoned Tylenol—eight of them—and the world froze. It was the top story in every news outlet. It’s all we talked about across North America. It was happening in the States, but even in Canada we stopped and we were worried about it.

The response to this, to these eight deaths, was amazing, the way everyone focused on it, the way the news focused on it. Johnson and Johnson, who make Tylenol, even today are applauded for their response, about raising the flag, about warning people about the deaths, about bringing action to it. If you take a course in public relations, they will talk about Johnson and Johnson’s response to the Tylenol deaths. Eight people were killed.

We had more than eight people killed in February from opioid overdoses in Sudbury—in one month. As I said earlier, we’ve had 300 in Ontario. We’re not doing anything about it. We’re not focused on it. We’re not talking about it. And we should be. This is important. It’s important to all of us. It has gone from the point where you can’t just say, “It’s those people, who need to quit or go to jail.” It has moved beyond that, because these people are struggling to quit. What we don’t have in the budget and what we’re not talking about is the safe consumption sites that people want, the help that people want.

The rehab beds, the access to services so people can get help with their addiction, the resources to find out if the illegal drugs they’re taking are clean and won’t kill them: They don’t exist, and they are not in the budget. The cost of killing people, the cost of sending people to emergency rooms, the effort to our police services who have to respond to this with naloxone, the cost to our community as people with addictions are begging on the streets or stealing because they’re desperate, because they’re addicted, is insurmountable. But we’re not doing anything about this.

Eight people from Tylenol; 300 people to opioid deaths.

The government, as we’ll see during question period, love to stand and applaud. I’m always amazed at how they can stand and applaud and sit on their hands at the same time.

I want to talk about universities and post-secondary schools. This is near and dear to my heart as well, in Sudbury. I’m proud, in Sudbury, to be a graduate of both Cambrian College and Laurentian University. I’m proud that my oldest son is a graduate of Collège Boréal. I think it’s important that you recognize the strength and the opportunity that post-secondary school gives to people.

I’ve talked before in this House about growing up in poverty. I was raised by a single mom who worked full-time. She worked full-time, and I say that specifically for the government side, because the government likes to say that the best pathway out of poverty is a job. My mom worked full-time, and we didn’t make enough money to pay for our rent, so I lived in socialized housing, which also isn’t talked about in the budget.

I went to post-secondary school. I went to Cambrian College, and when I got out, what I found was an economic situation that was created by the government of the day where people should be happy to even have a job, let alone a career, and with short-term contracts and low, low wages. I had tuition to pay for. I went to university because I thought maybe I had it wrong and that I should go to university instead of college. I graduated, and it was the same situation with these short-term contracts.

Tuition every year has been climbing and climbing, and the amount of grants have gone down, and you have students now, millennials, one of the most educated generations we’ve ever had, with these massive debts. In Ontario, post-secondary schools are the lowest-funded provincially, in Ontario, and across Canada. People have been desperate for lower tuition rates.

Like my colleague from Ottawa Centre said, the government aimed low. I think it’s great that they’re lowering tuition by 10%, I sincerely do, because tuition has gone up year after year after year, and you’re going to exclude people living in poverty from being able to access it. Lowering tuition is great; I’d like to see it even lower. But lowering it by just telling the post-secondary institutions, “You make up the shortfall,” is not what government’s role is. Government’s role is to help people be successful.

When you tell a university or a college, “You’re now getting 10% less of your funding, so find it somewhere else,” they cut services, and they cut access, they cut professors. You have more and more sessional professors. I would be surprised if you were to go to a college or university in this province and the sessional, part-time, precarious workers—they’re at post-secondary institutions, these precarious workers, where we send our children to get careers—I would be surprised if you could find less than 40% who are part-time, precarious employees in institutions where we’re selling the dream of careers and a brighter future.

When you cut 10% from that, you raise that number, because the university has to function somehow. You cut services. You create situations where students don’t have access to their professors, situations where the students can’t meet with them because they teach at different schools or they have other jobs, to make ends meet. They can’t get advice. They can’t find them year to year. They can’t get recommendations for work afterwards.

I want to talk about work afterwards, because another thing we’re doing in the budget when it comes to post-secondary is, there used to be a grace period when you graduated where your interest didn’t accumulate. We got rid of that, and I don’t know why. I don’t believe the government feels that struggling students have it too good, but for some reason, we got rid of this grace period. So now, the minute you graduate, the clock starts ticking and your debt piles up. The minute you graduate, you start paying, and collecting interest on your debt.

I was at Laurentian University. I have a few colleagues who are professors there, and I was talking to Professor Eger. She was telling me that even her students, her brightest students—and she has many of them. They run the CROSH program for research in occupational safety and health, doing cutting-edge stuff—it’s amazing. But even those students with these bright futures, who are head-hunted, who have jobs that are starting: Many of them are not starting the day they graduate. They’re starting at a point in the future.

So, even under the best of circumstances, even the students who have worked the hardest, who have excelled the best, who have put everything into it, are being punished, because they’re going to start collecting debt, more debt than they had, with these high rates and these high loans.

Students today who are coming in to university are going to have less services. The government is offering an opt-out program where you can opt out of certain services. I’ll tell you, as somebody who lived in poverty, who went to school in poverty, every single nickel, every single penny was important. We still had pennies back then. Every single penny was important, and if there was an opportunity to opt out, I don’t care what I needed to do; I would opt out.

When I went to school, we didn’t have a bus pass integrated into tuition fees, so I walked to school. It sounds like one of those stories where it was in the winter and uphill both ways, but honestly, it was longer than you would want to walk to school, but I couldn’t afford a bus pass. So I would opt out if it was available, but I would need a bus pass.

When you opt out of these optional services, what happens is—our post-secondary schools have food banks. Students don’t have enough food and are going to school, and they’ll opt out of that. Some will opt out because they don’t need it; others who need it will opt out because they can’t afford it. They won’t say, “I’m opting out of food banks,” but, “I’m just opting out of paying this additional fee.” And the food banks will close.

Our support for the LGBTQ community in schools—the gay-straight alliances will lose funding and they’ll close.

At Laurentian University they have community radio called CKLU. It’s been around for about 35 years. Some 85% of the funding for CKLU comes from student fees, optional fees. This is a format where it’s driven by volunteers, where community artists have the opportunity to perform and to share their records. They don’t have to rely on labels or iTunes or any other expenses. People with different tastes in music and variety are able to play the music they like and share it with the community.

They talk about the community and they don’t have to worry about advertising; they don’t have to worry about influence from the outside; they get to be community-funded. What happens to a university or college radio station when the optional funding dries up and goes away? Because they won’t get it from the university. The university, as I said earlier, has 10% less of their funding to deal with in the first place. There is nothing left. Their cupboards are bare.

This is a precarious situation. We’re pretending that it’s good, but it’s not. Like I said earlier, Speaker, it’s a plastic carrot we’re dangling in front of people.

About a minute and a half to go: I want to talk about something else that we haven’t talked about when it comes to post-secondary school and I think is equally important. I was visiting CROSH, the Centre for Research in Occupational Safety and Health, and I was talking to one of their students, a master’s student. She said that when she applied for OSAP for loans, her family had made too much money. They’re struggling to make ends meet, but that’s the reality of the system. All of us know this from our constituency offices, that sometimes the system goes like this and people don’t fit.

In order to get her undergrad, she had to work two part-time jobs and get her grades high enough to get into a master’s program. She was successful at it, but there is no way you can do a master’s program and work two or three jobs. You just can’t do it. And she told me, “Frankly, I wouldn’t be in a master’s program.”

Her brother is entering second-year university. He also wants to do a master’s program—same family. He won’t qualify for OSAP. And now that they’ve extended it beyond four years, that same format, he won’t qualify when he enters his master’s program. So her brother now, she is telling me, also might not do his master’s degree, and if he’s not going to do his master’s degree, what’s the point of going to university?

This is the choice the government is making with this budget. We are dangling plastic carrots and we’re telling people it’s great—a 10% tuition fee cut. We’re not telling them we’re taking it out of the schools and out of the students’ pockets. We’re not telling them they’re getting less resources. We’re not telling them the whole story about dental care for seniors: that it’s only seniors who make $19,300 or less and only if you can get to one of those 10 public health units.

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

Mr. Vincent Ke: It is my honour to stand up and speak again in support of Bill 100, the Protecting What Matters Most Act.

Speaker, this bill outlines our government’s plan to balance the budget in five years, by 2023-24, with no new tax increases. Our budget will restore sustainability, transparency and accountability to our financial house. As well, this budget also protects what matters most.

Speaker, I would like to highlight the investment that our government is investing in health care. We are putting patients first by ending hallway health care. Hospitals will receive an additional $384 million this fiscal year to maintain capacity and services. This budget includes $17 billion in capital grants over the next decade to build and renew our hospitals—

Interjections.

Mr. Vincent Ke: Thank you.

The introduction of an investment of a new dental program for low-income seniors—$174 million will be provided to support mental health and addiction services, and we will commit $1.75 billion over five years to create 15,000 new long-term-care beds.

By passing Bill 100, we will be protecting health care for the people who need the services the most.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Sudbury for his comments and for sharing his personal story. It’s also important to recognize that he’s an excellent advocate for his community, talking about the needs of Highway 69—the remaining 68 kilometres to be expanded.

I’d like to discuss the comments he made about the deep cuts to the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services of $1 billion a year. It has just come to the news recently that there was an internal report from the government entitled “High Sensitivity—Confidential Advice to Cabinet,” which talked about the deep cuts that this government was proposing, in particular to the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services.

In that report, it says that the reckless and inhumane cuts to this ministry would result in “danger to life for children and youth at risk or in need of protection.” Many families “will be at higher risk of going into crises.” That’s not “crisis,” singular; that’s “crises,” government.

The government entitles this budget Protecting What Matters Most. But it’s abundantly clear that vulnerable children do not matter to this government. Developmental services do not matter to this government, and children with special needs do not matter to this government. Otherwise, there would not be this report, which is exposing that these deep cuts, projected to be $11 billion, would undermine the life and the safety and the health of so many people across this province.

I’m so glad that the government pulled back, but quite frankly $1 billion a year out of the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services is reprehensible. It is hideous. It is going to destroy lives.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments? I recognize the member for Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Good morning, Madam Speaker. I listened intently to the member from Sudbury and how he spoke about seniors’ dental care. I do work and currently spend a lot of time with many seniors’ groups in the GTA who are hailing this as finally where a government is listening to them. I’ve received numerous emails. I’ve had many phone calls and many visits from seniors who believe that this is a great first step and thank our government for acknowledging and implementing this program—of course, if Bill 100 passes. I know that the opposition agrees with providing dental care for seniors, which is one of the reasons that they should support this budget.

Our government is protecting what matters most to Ontarians, which is why we are investing in health care and hospitals and we’re providing $17 billion over the next 10 years to modernize and increase capacity, hoping to end hallway health care. We’re listening to the great people of this province, who told us that we had to tackle the overcrowding in hospitals, which is why we’re allocating funds to build 15,000 new long-term-care beds to move those people out of the hospitals and into that alternative level of care, which they desperately need.

I believe what is most important is to assist our constituents and help create the environment to make Ontario the best place to open a business, to expand and to hire. We are well on our way, here and all over the world, to tell the business community that this is the place to be.

Now, I have just a few moments, but I do want to talk about how the member from Sudbury spoke about being raised by a single mom. My father passed away when I was only eight years old, leaving my mom to raise six children by herself. She worked very hard—not only full-time; she actually opened a business. So I saw first-hand the difficulty in how it is for a single parent to raise children. That’s why I think it gives us and our caucus a great reason to be here and to help raise all Ontarians out of poverty.

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I would like to thank the member from Sudbury. He’s very passionate and caring for the residents throughout Ontario, and bringing the decency to bring forward the reality that’s going to happen to our seniors and their dental care, and making sure that we bring the point across and making sure that it’s a fact that people know that we’re going from 35 units to 10 across Ontario.

In this bill, it’s just an unnecessary long list of amendments and policies. Not all of the amendments and enactments are bad—I think most of them are—however, this government once again is trying to reduce government accountability and attack unionized workers and small business owners, and it’s through these policies that we, as the opposition, will oppose Bill 100.

One aspect that concerns me—again, mentioned by my other colleague here from London—is

schedule 17, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. It’s within this clause that the government releases themselves and the crown of being liable in lawsuits. They are stripping themselves, our ministries and our ministers’ officials from essentially owning up to their own wrongdoings, whether that’s presently or historically.

It’s truly sad that this government would implement a new act which could end up being detrimental to vulnerable populations such as our First Nations people: for example, class-action lawsuits brought forth by survivors of residential schools or lawsuits brought forth over issues concerning land ownership etc. This move proves that Premier Ford’s government is out to abuse their powers. The Premier’s own words were quite clear saying—

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

I return to the member from Sudbury for his comments.

Mr. Jamie West: I want to thank the member from St. Catharines for her comments, and also the member opposite—sorry, I wrote your name down instead of your riding—who talked about seniors and dental care and talked about her mom raising her and five of her siblings by herself. Understanding the struggle and hard work of people that are doing that is important to me.

When it comes to seniors’ dental care, dental care is something that is important to me. As someone who grew up in poverty, we couldn’t afford dental care. The first time I went to the dentist, I was eight years old; I had seven fillings. The second time I went to the dentist, I had a tooth pulled out of the side of my mouth. You can’t see it on the camera, but if you’re close enough you can see it on the left side of my mouth.

For the past 17 years, before the election, I was in a unionized company and we could afford dental care, and I could have it fixed; I could have a crown—I make a decent wage, especially here; we make good wages—but I don’t, because I believe in dental care for all of us or none of us. When I’m concentrating, when I’m thinking about stuff, my tongue goes into that spot where my tooth used to be, and it reminds me there are inequities in this province. It reminds me that we need to think about people who can’t afford that, people who, when they’re in their twenties, get to have a tooth yanked out of their mouth because they can’t afford the repairs that are needed.

I want to thank the member from London North Centre for his comments as well. I think that’s the closest I’ll get to be called an all-star, so thank you.

The member opposite from Don Valley North, who talked about what matters most—I think that’s where we are divided. In the budget, we talk about rebranding; we talk about licence plates and logos. What matters most to me is shelter and taking care of the homeless. The Salvation Army men’s shelter is closed. Genevra House hasn’t had a raise for years. They protect women in vulnerable situations. What matters most to me is funding for autism and the size of our classrooms.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I’m pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of my constituents of Scarborough–Guildwood to speak to Bill 100. I will be sharing my time with the member from Ottawa–Vanier.

Madam Speaker, in 2018, Ontario’s real GDP is projected to increase by a moderate 2.2%, following four years of stronger-than-average growth. Over the past four years, real GDP has averaged 2.5%, the fastest pace of growth since the mid-2000s and leading the G7.

The Ford government inherited a strong economy. Ontarians need to know that the $15-billion deficit never existed and that the Ford government will continue to use it as a club to drive down spending and justify deep cuts to services that the people of Ontario depend on.

The governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, noted last month that the government of Ontario’s spending cuts will drag down Canada’s overall economy. The Ford Conservative budget leads to a decline in Canada’s financial outlook by 0.2%. Fiscal spending at the federal and in some provincial levels has actually increased during this time, but the aggressive austerity here in Ontario is enough to offset all of those increases.

What this government is doing is hurting our economy, it’s hurting our province and it is dragging down Canada’s economy. Governments are meant to support individuals and create an economy in which they are able to flourish. By cutting spending to a level that fails to provide a lot of the basic services that governments are responsible for providing, you’re trying to balance the books on the backs of people, and those people who need it the most.

Cuts hurt, and cuts are going to hurt more with the most vulnerable: those communities in the north, those priority communities, those places where vulnerable people reside. This government’s inaction in areas to provide protection for vulnerable people will have dire consequences.

Campaign 2000 measures the rates of child poverty by riding across the country. Sadly, in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood and, in fact, in four of the Scarborough ridings, we make the top 30 in all of Canada for rates of child poverty. Even with those stark numbers, this government’s cuts to services like public health will hurt people. It puts breakfast programs and meal programs at risk.

In spite of Ontario’s per capita provincial spending already being lower than the rest of Canada—20% lower—the Ford government is determined to widen that gap. As predicted, this government will be making substantial cuts in government services, using that manufactured $15 billion as a deficit club to justify their needless cuts to programs and services that people rely on.

As the Financial Accountability Officer revealed recently, Ontario invests less in public services than any other province and is falling further and further behind. In fact, this budget takes us even further. The FAO’s report in February compared Ontario’s spending to the rest of Canada and shows the truth: that we are not in the dire situation that the Ford government is repeating. In fact, this is fearmongering to everyday Ontarians.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga will come to order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: At $9,829, Ontario spends about $2,000 less per person on provincial programs than the average of other provinces. In 2017, Ontario collected $10,415 per person when it comes to collection of revenue. That’s the lowest in the country. So this government must understand that we’re spending the lowest per person on programs and services, we’re collecting the least amount in revenues from taxes, and that impacts the level of services on people. So there is no justification for these deep, callous cuts.

Health spending will increase by 1.6%, according to this budget, but that’s well below the rate of inflation. So, really, our health spending is seeing a cut. In addition, the Ford government has committed to cutting public health by $200 million per year, downloading its responsibility onto the backs of municipalities. We only have one taxpayer, Madam Speaker, and if services are to be provided, where is this resource going to be coming from? Where is this resource going to be coming from? Is this an additional Ford tax?

Some of our municipalities are actually threatening to reopen their budgets and add this Ford tax to cover those services that they are required to provide but that are experiencing cuts from this government.

Public health units are often on the front lines of both prevention and treatment, and keep stress out of hospitals and their emergency rooms. It makes it more manageable. Without these public health units, people will be left behind to scramble and find alternative means of support in the health care system. I’ve talked in this House about how northern communities feel these cuts the most. They go deeper, considering their vast geography.

Education will also see cuts. I know that in the budget, we see perhaps a slight increase, but what comprises that increase? Is it simply accounting changes as it relates to the recognition of pensions? When we look at the specific numbers of what we’re spending on a per-pupil basis, we see that that has gone down from $12,300 per pupil to $12,246. Madam Speaker, when you see this decline, behind that decline, it means less teachers, less support staff, less caretakers, less EAs, less support in our classrooms. These cuts will hurt students. Ontario’s 5,000 schools and two million students and their families deserve better. Deprioritizing our education hurts our future, frankly.

Let’s look at post-secondary education and training. That’s going to be cut by over $700 million in this budget—talk about deprioritizing the skills and the talents of our future. How will we prepare for responses for the next generation? How will we grow our economy?

Children and social services spending will decline by an average of 2.1% per year, and the estimates confirm this cut. Ontario’s children, community, and social services ministry will receive roughly $1 billion in cuts—$1 billion, Madam Speaker—cuts to the Family Responsibility Office, to the financial and employment supports that people rely on, the most vulnerable in our community, children and youth at risk, women’s issues, language training and settlement supports. No wonder the Premier was booed recently at the Special Olympics opening ceremonies.

These are some of the casualties from this government’s rampage on social services. Why are they attacking the most vulnerable in our communities? With these cuts, and the estimates confirming them, we know that this will have a devastating impact on the most vulnerable Ontarians.

I cannot close my remarks, Madam Speaker, without talking about the cuts to Indigenous affairs. This ministry will see a reduction by almost half in supports. This just shows and confirms the lack of respect for truth and reconciliation and Indigenous peoples in terms of the supports that are required.

Let’s look at justice—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I apologize for interrupting the member. She will have more time in the next round of debate.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30 today.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to begin by welcoming some guests who are with us in the Speaker’s gallery this morning: Julie Colehour and Bryan Cohen from Seattle, Washington, and Ciro Dias dos Reis from Sao Paolo, Brazil; with their Canadian Public Relations Organisation International partners Howard Brown and Kim Cohen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery are representatives from the Canadian Celiac Association, and they are Melissa Secord, Jessica Danford, David Congram, Janet Bolton and Dr. Maria Ines Pinto Sanchez. They are joining us this morning as part of Celiac Awareness Day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: Once again, I’d like to welcome back to the Legislature Amy Moledzki, Michau van Speyk, Kowthar Dore, Faith Munoz and her son, Jeremy Changoo. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I also want to mention that we have some members of the Canadian Celiac Association here. Everybody should have a green button to raise awareness of celiac disease. There’s also a photo on the grand staircase right after the vote after question period. I hope to see many of you there.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I proudly would like to introduce Sue Milling, the executive director of ACTRA Toronto; David Sparrow, national president of ACTRA; and Deb McGrath, general council member. I’m looking forward to meeting with them today.

I’d also like to welcome Gwyn Chapman, who has brought 66 Black youth to the Legislature once again to inspire our youth in politics. Thank you, and welcome to your House.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to introduce to the Legislature this morning the regional director of Ontario for Cystic Fibrosis Canada, Patricia McLaughlin; a parent from the Brantford-Hamilton area, Danielle Weil; and, from my great riding of Chatham-Kent, I would also like to introduce Ann Pharazyn.

I’d like to remind all members that there is a cystic fibrosis luncheon in room 228 immediately following question period.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce, in the west gallery, John Landreville and his wife, Janet Lee; as well as Allison Knudsen and her wife, Shauna Budden; and Anne Marie Canning. They were here for a press conference. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’m thrilled to welcome to Queen’s Park Nicholas Canade and his mother, Mary. As assistant captain to the Mississauga Steelheads, Nic is a leader on the ice and in the community. He raised $6,000 for the Canadian Cancer Society and was recognized as the OHL’s Humanitarian of the Year and winner of the Hazel McCallion Community Service Award. Welcome.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I just want to introduce my constituent, Julie Dale, who is here, I’m sure, in support of her page, Cameron Dale.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to welcome Kevin Dahi, the president and founder of White Distillery, a proud Ontarian entrepreneur who is here today to discuss red tape issues and share some of his advice to help open Ontario for business.

Mr. Aris Babikian: I would like to welcome Ciprian Nastase, a resident of Scarborough–Agincourt and the father of page captain Maria Nastase. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to introduce Caitlin Burkholder, who is a former team member in my constituency office and an intern now at Queen’s Park. Welcome, Caitlin.

Mr. Paul Miller: Joining us today is ACTRA Toronto. They are here en masse, and I’m going to introduce some of the members of the actors guild. We have Amanda Joy, Angelica Alejandro, Ayla Lukic-Roman, Chandra Galasso, David Fox, David Gale, Debra McGrath, Emily Nixon, Joey Klein, Ron Lea and Samora Smallwood. Welcome.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I’m excited to introduce Dr. Oleh Waler and Markian Waler, the brother and father of Laryssa Waler. They are great Canadians hailing from St. Catharines. Welcome to the people’s Legislature.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to introduce my friends from China: Chen Qingwei, Ding Gounan and Ding Yue Feng. They have come to Canada for a business trip, and they just arrived at the airport last night. Welcome to the Queen’s Park.

Ms. Doly Begum: I would like to introduce my good friend, Lele Truong, in the House today. Welcome.

Hon. Doug Ford: I’d like to wish a happy birthday to two of my all-star team members, Jessica Lippert, director of legislative affairs, and Andrew Koolsbergen, my director of issues management.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I am honoured to welcome the parents and family members of Caleah Burke, our page who is here today: her mother, Jana Burke, and father Stephen Burke, as well as her uncles and aunts Timothy Burke, Kathryn Mooij and Nicola Keene. Welcome.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I have a couple of introductions. I’d like to welcome students who will be visiting Queen’s Park today from Crawford Adventist Academy, grades 5 and 6.

I’d also like to welcome Jeremy, from George B. Little Public School in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood.

I noticed that in the media gallery we have Kerry Lee Crawford from G98.7, Steps After Dark. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, not to outdo the Premier but we had four birthdays this week: Jill Andrew, Gilles Bisson, Gurratan Singh and Rima Berns-McGown. To everybody who is celebrating their birthday this week, congratulations.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let’s keep this mood going for the next hour and a bit.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m pleased to introduce Clara Pistocia, who is here in the Ontario Legislature. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stan Cho: It’s my privilege to introduce Richelle Nemeth and her son, Reese. Reese served as my canvassing chair during my campaign. It’s exciting to see him continue to make his family proud by being here at Queen’s Park for the summer as part of the PC caucus intern program. A big welcome to Reese and Richelle.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Before I welcome my guests today I want to say to all the pages, since this is your last day here, that I’m very proud of all the accomplishments and the amazing things that I have seen. I’ve seen you grow over the last few weeks here since your first orientation day. My daughter Sarah is with you this time. I would like to welcome my husband and her father, Craig Fee, to the Legislature.

Hon. Todd Smith: I just wanted to introduce my good friend Gwyn Chapman. She’s coming into the Legislature very shortly here. She’s trying to get a great group of sharp-dressed students from Crawford Seventh-day Adventist school into the Legislature for question period. They’re participating in the Inspiring and Empowering Youth and Canadian Black Caucus inspiring youth politically event. Here they are right there. I told you they were sharply dressed, Mr. Speaker. Don’t they look great?

Applause.

Hon. Todd Smith: A couple other of Gwyn’s friends are here: Carol Shirtliff-Hinds and Kerry-Lee Crawford has already been introduced, and Brenda Foreman as well.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Thornhill.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to make a point of order. I believe we have unanimous consent to wear pins to commemorate that May is Celiac Awareness Month. I know it’s an issue that was near and dear to your heart when you were just a lowly MPP like us.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Thornhill is seeking unanimous consent of the House to wear pins in recognition of Celiac Awareness Month. Agreed? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Ford government has repeatedly claimed that no Ontarian will have to pay out of pocket for essential health services, and that OHIP coverage will be there for people with serious medical needs. Does the Premier stand by this commitment?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Of course we will be there to cover essential medical needs, but of course you understand what we inherited from the previous government, a $15-billion deficit.

We are here to protect what matters most. We have undertaken a line-by-line review of everything in our government, and we are focusing on the things that matter most to people, the things that are going to provide the best value to people. We need to modernize our health system to make sure it responds to the needs of people now and into the future. That’s what we’re concentrating on.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, Allison Knudsen and John Landreville are joining us today in the Legislature. They’re in the opposition gallery. They both live with kidney failure and need regular dialysis treatments to stay healthy. On October 1, the Premier is planning to eliminate out-of-country health care coverage from OHIP, which will include coverage for dialysis. People like Allison and John can’t get private travel insurance for dialysis treatments because insurance companies will not provide that coverage. So they will not be able to get private insurance.

Does the Premier feel they should never be allowed to leave the province, or that they should go in debt to do so?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The Out-of-Country Travellers Program spends a third of its funding on administration alone and has not historically provided Ontarians with meaningful travel coverage. People have been led to believe that they have greater coverage than they actually do, and I think it’s important to tell Ontarians the truth so that they can provide for their own coverage when they’re out of country.

Now, that said, I understand there are certain people we’ve discovered through our consultations, people who are on dialysis, who have difficulty obtaining private coverage. We look forward to working with you and with your guests today to work that out, to make sure they are able to travel and they are able to receive the coverage they need.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this is exactly what happens when you cut before you consult, exactly the kind of problem that this government is creating all across our province. I can guarantee the Premier of this province that the thing that matters the most to Allison and to John is their health and their ability to get dialysis and live the kind of life they want to live.

Ontarians who need these life-saving treatments deserve the same opportunities as everyone else. That’s why our public health care system is supposed to provide exactly that. With these cuts to OHIP, the Premier is effectively blocking people like Allison and John from leaving the province to visit their families, to go to school and to advance their careers. Will the Premier listen to Allison, John and those living with kidney failure across Ontario and reverse their reckless cuts to health care?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Speaker, through you, I would say to the leader of the official opposition that, again, a third of the expenses related to the out-of-country travellers program were being spent on administration. That is not providing good value to Ontario taxpayers. We want to make sure that we put the money directly into front-line services.

We do understand that there may be special circumstances, people who are on dialysis programs who find it very difficult to obtain private coverage. We want to work with them to make sure they can receive the coverage they need so that they are able to travel.

We would also urge all Ontarians, when they are travelling, to please purchase private insurance. For most people it is not expensive and is easily obtained, but there are special circumstances and we look forward to working with you to resolve those issues.

Government fiscal policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier, but I think the Minister of Health just acknowledged that people are going to have to pay out of pocket for health care, which is something the people of Ontario don’t want. They don’t want to have to pay out of pocket for health care, because only the people who can afford it will be able to do so, Speaker.

Today’s Toronto Star reveals disturbing details of internal documents warning the Ford government that their plans for deep budget cuts would put families “at higher risk of going into crises” and pose “a danger to life for children and youth at risk or in need of protection.”

Did the Premier read that document, Speaker? And if so, why did he cut $1 billion from children, community and social services?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Once again, I reject the premise of the leader of the official opposition’s question. She knows full well that $1 billion was not taken from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. In fact, the budget this year has increased by almost $300 million.

We have made historic investments in combatting violence against women. We have doubled the funding for autism services in the province of Ontario to over $600 million. But we were elected to get this province back on track after 15 years of reckless spending, waste and mismanagement so that we could protect what matters most, and that is children and youth, community and social services, poverty reduction, immigrants, newcomers, veterans. That’s who we’re standing up for, Speaker, and that is why we considered a number of different options that were provided to us and why we rejected those that hurt the most vulnerable.

This is a government that will continue to protect what matters most, and I will have no part of listening to the fearmongering of the member opposite.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary question?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government can spin all they want, Speaker, but the estimates are clear and the budget was clear. In last month’s budget, the government ignored warnings and made very deep cuts to Ontario’s most vulnerable people, and they’ve made it clear that there are more cuts on the way.

How much more pain, how much more suffering, Speaker, can families in need expect from this Premier and his government?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, again, the leader of the official opposition is going down this path of fearmongering, scaring people and trying to rile up Ontario’s most vulnerable people. We were elected with a mandate to protect what matters most. We left no stone unturned. We looked at all of the options; we rejected most of those options.

But, Speaker, this is what this ministry has done: Since taking office, we have brought in a 1.5% increase in social assistance right across the board. This is a government that invested a historic $174.5 million to combat violence against women. Our investments into autism services in the province of Ontario are well over $600 million. We’re doing that because we recognize that our health care system, our education system and our social service system are what people rely on right across this province. If the member opposite wants to engage in reckless rhetoric, she can continue to do that, but at every turn she’d better understand one thing: I will call her out and I will make sure—

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I would respectfully submit that it is the government of Ontario, the Conservative government, that has already instilled fear in the people in our province who are the most vulnerable, and it is their reckless cuts that have done so. It is clear now exactly where the Ford government wants to take this province and the people of Ontario, especially the most vulnerable. Those people are the ones who are going to pay the highest price.

This government has been warned that their cuts will put people’s lives at risk including children’s lives, devastate families, and will result in increased costs in health care, increased costs in policing, and increased costs in corrections, just to name a few.

When will this Premier stop bellowing and start listening?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The member opposite engages in baseless rhetoric. She understands full well from the

article that that was a draft document that was circulated in November, a full several months before the budget was tabled on April 11, which is the fiscal plan moving forward—which is what is protecting what matters most within the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, with historic investments into autism services, investing in children’s treatment centres, ensuring that we can have a sustainable social assistance program, with the ministerial wraparound throughout the rest of government.

But let me be perfectly clear: She can talk about a draft, unsigned document all she wants. I’ll talk about our budget, which was tabled on April 11, and the estimates, where I look forward to actually engaging with the members opposite on what the truth is about the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, and this government for the people.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier, but I can assure the government that $1 billion cut from children, community and social services—there’s nothing “draft” about it. It is real and it is hurting people today.

For over a week now, the Sudbury hospital, Health Sciences North, has been struggling with a serious overcrowding situation. Last weekend, the hospital cancelled six surgeries and took the step of warning the public to expect longer-than-normal wait times and to receive care in hallways, closets and bathrooms. They now say that they’re on the verge of declaring something called a code orange. A code orange is usually called to deal with community disasters such as large-scale accidents and occurrences with mass casualties. But the only large-scale disaster that’s hitting Sudbury is the Ford government’s disastrous health cuts.

Can the Premier tell us why he’s making hallway medicine worse instead of better?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are certainly aware that Health Sciences North has faced financial problems over the last several years, and that they are working through it with the Ministry of Health officials. We are provided frequent reports about what’s going on, but I think it is important to note that we are working on the front lines of health care, and are investing an extra $384 million for Ontario’s hospitals for next year.

We’re certainly aware that many of Ontario’s hospitals are overcapacity right now, that they are struggling with placing people in hallways and storage rooms and other inappropriate places. We’ve promised the people of Ontario that we would end hallway health care. We are putting that money into hospital operations this year, which should help to ease many of the situations Ontario hospitals are facing, including Health Sciences North.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the government’s hospital funding barely keeps pace with inflation, much less the needs of a growing and aging population. But that’s matched with funding cuts to eHealth, to public health and to health research, all of which mean less coordination, less disease prevention and more patients heading to emergency rooms already struggling with hallway medicine. That’s what this government is bringing to Ontarians.

The Ford government promised investments to handle hallway medicine, but families are seeing nothing but cuts, cuts and more cuts, hospitals in crisis, front-line workers getting layoff notices, and more Ontarians in hallways.

Why is this what the government is offering Ontarians when they promised so much, much more?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Speaker: I think I need to remind the Leader of the Opposition of what we inherited last June—a $15-billion deficit that we have to work through. We have to make choices. We went line by line—all of us went line by line—through our various budgets, and we are committed to protecting what matters most: health care and education.

In fact, in our budget, we committed to spending $1.2 billion more in public health care. That is to help ease hallway health care, to help promote mental health and addictions plans, to modernize our health care system that we’ve spoken about many times here in the Legislature, and to make sure that we can respond to the needs of people now and into the future.

We are bringing forward digital health. We are bringing forward a mental health and addictions plan. We are supporting hospitals. We are supporting front-line care. That’s what people care about. That’s what we committed to doing. We are being responsible stewards of public money, and that is what we’re going to make sure that we do for the people of Ontario, because that’s what’s most important to them.

Job creation

Miss Kinga Surma: This question is for the Premier. Fifteen years of Liberal governance in our province has made life harder for Ontarians. The cost of hydro rates skyrocketed under a government that refused to listen to the people. The former Liberal government led Ontario down an unsustainable path. Endless taxes and unprecedented hydro rates burdened hard-working families and our most vulnerable.

Ontario voted for change last year. Our PC government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, is bringing relief to the province while restoring accountability and trust in our elected officials. Speaker, can the Premier please highlight the policies our government has introduced to provide relief for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our all-star MPP from Etobicoke Centre—absolute champion.

Mr. Speaker, after spending numerous years—actually decades—creating jobs here in Canada, creating jobs in the US, I understand what it takes to create jobs. We’re making this atmosphere a lot easier for job creators to put money back into their business, to invest in equipment, to invest in people, to get the province going.

Mr. Speaker, under the previous government under the Liberals, we saw 300,000 jobs exit this province with the help of the NDP. They voted with the Liberals 98% of the time. They were connected at the hip. They destroyed this province and jacked up hydro rates. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? We’re turning the province around. Just last month alone, we created 30,000 jobs for young people and a total of—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary question.

Miss Kinga Surma: What’s absolutely clear is that this is a government that is for the people. We have committed to making life more affordable today and for years to come. While the federal government continues to make life more expensive through their senseless carbon tax, our government remains steadfast in delivering on our promises to the people of Ontario. We are standing up for seniors, students, front-line workers and everyone in between. Our accomplishments so far demonstrate that.

Could the Premier please tell us more about this government and how he is standing up for the people of this province?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the MPP from Etobicoke Centre for her question.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, just last month alone, in April, we created 30,000 jobs for young people, 47,000 in total in April. This is unprecedented in Ontario: In 10 months, we created 170,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, and it sure wasn’t from the help of the NDP, who get up there and all they want to do is raise taxes, tax the people to death. They’re constantly having their hands in their pockets, along with their buddies the Liberals.

It’s all about tax and spend with the opposition; we took a different approach. We got elected to straighten out the fiscal disaster. We inherited a bankrupt province, Mr. Speaker. We inherited a $15-billion deficit, the largest subsovereign debt in the entire world, created by them. They destroyed the province. We’re turning it around—

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Next question.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the member for Brantford–Brant took to Twitter, apparently shocked and confused by stories of cancelled courses at schools in his riding, and he pleaded with constituents to tell him if they have had courses cancelled so he could “see what’s going on.”

Speaker, I can help explain what’s going on. The Grand Erie District School Board has already told 21 elementary teachers and 84 secondary teachers they won’t have jobs this fall. Students in every community will be directly impacted, no matter which side of this House their MPP sits on. So far, the Premier has refused to take responsibility for these painful cuts. Will he listen to his own members?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the MPP from Brantford is an absolute champion. I’ve been out there. The people love him. He has created thousands of jobs in his riding. He’s listening to the people. He’s instrumental in turning this province around. He’s a true leader in our caucus.

I just want to remind the opposition that we increased education by $700 million. It’s simple. Anyone can figure two plus two out. Maybe the opposition can’t figure out what two plus two is. We’re creating more spots for education, putting money back into the classroom.

It’s very simple. You add up the teachers. All the teachers in the province is roughly 200,000 of them. Guess how many students there are? There’s two million. Do the math, Mr. Speaker. That’s one in 10—one in 10.

We’re putting money back into the classrooms, not all the layers of bureaucracy, not all the school boards that sit there—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I think the Premier needs to go back and learn how to read a budget, because we are seeing the impact of these devastating cuts in our classrooms today, and it’s only getting worse.

Every single day, the devastating impact of these cuts—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member for Davenport for having to interrupt her. I will ask the government members once again to come to order.

Start the clock. The member for Davenport.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I appreciate that it’s difficult news for the government, but every day, the devastating impact of these cuts is more apparent, and every day, this Premier and his Minister of Education deny and deflect and delay.

Next week, as the members opposite head back to their ridings, they’ll have to answer to their own constituents about why they want to shortchange our kids: cutting courses, cutting supports, reducing one-on-one time with teachers. Will the Premier use next week to rethink this disastrous plan and come back with one that will strengthen our public education system and put students first?

Hon. Doug Ford: You know, the member and the opposition keep saying “cuts.” What cuts? They can’t name any because there haven’t been any.

We’ve increased $700 million. I’m going to send them to a math class, each and every one of them, because they can’t add. It’s $700 million we’re putting back into education. But that’s not it: We’re putting $1.6 billion more in education, protecting every teacher’s job. I can’t wait till September so all the rhetoric and nonsense that we’ve heard from the opposition, all the rhetoric we’ve heard from the teachers’ unions, which don’t have the teachers’ best interests—you know, Mr. Speaker, in September, we’re going to say, “We told you so. There weren’t any cuts.”

We’re putting more money into education, more money into the classroom. That’s what it’s about. We’re in this shape because they spent $15 billion.

Infrastructure funding

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: My question is for the minister who builds up success, the Minister of Infrastructure. Last week I was in Red Rock for an exciting announcement. Our government for the people marked the start of a new Red Rock waste water treatment plant.

Water quality, as you know, is fundamental to healthy and sustainable communities. This new investment supports quality infrastructure that people need. Red Rock’s new water treatment facility will keep citizens healthy, protect the environment and allow more people to enjoy Nipigon Bay. This critical project is especially important because Nipigon Bay is identified as an area of concern under the Canada-US Great Lakes water treatment agreement.

Can the minister please tell us about this great project and how this investment will not just grow the economy but help the environment?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to the member from Barrie–Innisfil for that excellent question. The new waste water treatment project in Red Rock that the parliamentary assistant announced on behalf of our government will benefit people and the environment. Our government is contributing two thirds of the total cost of this project, Mr. Speaker, more than $17 million. This plant will improve water quality in the region, to ensure economic prosperity for area residents and protect waterways and fish habitats.

Infrastructure truly matters. With this critical investment, we are ensuring quality water for the community while following through on our environmental commitment through our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan.

This is yet another way we’re highlighting our commitment to helping the environment without the need of Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax. With the right infrastructure investments, we’re protecting what matters most and putting people at the centre of everything that we do.

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you for that wonderful answer, Minister. My follow-up question is to see the encouraging benefits of this project that will bring benefits to the members of Red Rock and to Nipigon Bay. It’s another example of how our made-in-Ontario plan for the environment is working. And it’s an environment plan—it’s not a tax plan—that will not only help our environment, but protect our economy and enable economic development in places like Thunder Bay, Red Rock and Nipigon Bay.

As you’ve seen, 15 years of fiscal mismanagement by the NDP-Liberal coalition left many vulnerable communities in a state where they need a lot of help. But there is hope, Mr. Speaker, hope again, that our government is now keeping our promise to bring the province back on track for fiscal responsibility.

My follow-up question to the minister is: Can he tell this House why it’s so important to protect what matters most and to balance the books in Ontario, to bring us back to prosperity?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you again to the member for that great question. Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t agree more. Putting this province back on track means getting our fiscal house in order. We are turning this province around. We’re building smart infrastructure investments at the right time and in the right place.

Ontario’s 2019 budget lays out a comprehensive five-year path to balance while protecting what matters most to the people of this province. This $17-million investment means economic development in the region, making it attractive for businesses and good jobs. It’s the right investment that will directly improve water quality on Nipigon Bay.

Northern Ontario is truly now open for jobs. We’re helping communities with their critical infrastructure needs and fulfilling our commitment to helping the environment, all while creating jobs, helping families and protecting what matters most.

Education funding

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Premier. On March 26, the Peel District School Board sent a letter to the Minister of Education outlining serious concerns with this government’s cuts to education. Because the minister failed to respond, yesterday the school board sent another letter, highlighting the impact that the government’s cuts and larger class sizes will have on students in Brampton and the Peel region.

I can appreciate that the minister maybe gets a lot of emails, so I’m happy, if a page is willing to come over, to send this letter over to the minister so that she can review it, and there is a copy here for the Premier as well.

In this letter, they warn that schools will be left with limited or no elective courses, which will have “significant, negative impact on some subject areas.”

Does the Premier believe that cutting all elective courses will improve learning outcomes for students in Brampton and across the Peel region?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, it’s another day and another opportunity to talk about how we need to get this province back on track. The fact of the matter is, we’re spending $36 million a day in interest on the debt and deficit that we inherited from a failed Liberal government, so we all have to do our part.

When I’m consulting across this province, I’m hearing from teachers, “Look to the boards,” to see what they can do to find some savings. Really, we’re standing with teachers, we’re standing with students and we’re standing with parents when we say: “School boards, stop the fearmongering.” Opposition party, stop the fearmongering. The fact of the matter is, they are able to look within and find the appropriate savings.

Let’s focus on what matters most and protect what matters most. That’s the learning environment in the classroom. School boards have—

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

Supplementary question?

Ms. Sara Singh: Students across the Peel region have spoken out about the cuts to their education. Whether it’s cancelling courses, cutting jobs or increasing class sizes, people across this province are concerned, concerned about the cancelled elective courses. The Peel District School Board says, “For certain students, these types of courses are key to their ongoing engagement in school, as they are disciplines that inspire and motivate learners. The elimination or reduction of these courses can decrease student engagement, which is directly linked to student achievement, credit acquisition and, ultimately,” these students’ “ability to graduate.”

So I’ll ask again: Why is this Premier making it so hard for students in this province to complete the courses they need to graduate and earn their high school diplomas?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, what we just heard from the member opposite is absolutely a positive proof point of why we need to have a board governance review. That nonsense that’s coming from that board is absolutely mean-spirited. They’re purposely creating anxiety for students and parents and teachers alike.

We look forward to making sure that school boards pull up their socks, because they can look from within to find savings to make sure we have the best learning—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition has to come to order. The opposition caucus has to come to order so as to allow the Minister of Education to respond.

Minister?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, I am very, very pointed when I say it’s not an accident that people across this province have asked us to do a board governance review, because they are sick and tired of the mismanagement at the board level. Absolutely, the rhetoric that comes from that board is unacceptable, because we need to make sure that our school boards are a responsible administration. They can look within to find savings as opposed to fearmongering with students and teachers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The next question: the member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. OBIO came to Queen’s Park this week to talk about the importance—

Interjections.

Mr. Doug Downey: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There are no points of order during question period.

I’ve been advised that the member for Guelph has asked a question in this round and is not eligible to ask a question at this time.

Next question.

Social assistance

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Our government’s plan for social assistance is about a more effective, sustainable approach to helping people prepare to return to work and achieve better outcomes.

The minister has often said that the best social safety net is a compassionate society, and the best social program in the province of Ontario is a job. Our government has created 170,000 new jobs since June 2018. Can the minister outline how our government’s social assistance reforms will allow the province’s most vulnerable to lift themselves out of poverty?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I think that was a very important question, and I’m glad to be able to answer it. As we all know, social assistance in the province of Ontario costs Ontario about $10 billion. We have about a million people who are on social assistance, yet still, one in seven people live or are trapped in the cycle of poverty. We need to change that.

Over the past 15 years, the number of Ontarians forced to go on social assistance has skyrocketed by a whopping 55%, yet at the same time we know we have 200,000 jobs that remain unfilled in the province of Ontario. In the last several months, after taking office, Premier Ford and our finance minister and our team have been able to grow the economy by another 170,000 jobs, which we’re very proud of.

We believe there are hundreds of thousands of people on social assistance who are employable, who deserve the dignity and respect of a job. That’s why we’re creating wraparound supports with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities so that we can train people for the jobs that are out there, so that they can actually have a paycheque from a company and they can ensure that they are looking after themselves and their families. We believe the best social—

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

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you to the minister for the work she is doing to support the province’s most vulnerable.

Almost one million Ontarians are on some form of social assistance. Under the previous Liberal government, these individuals were met with a system of disjointed and patchwork supports that trapped our neighbours in a cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape.

I was disappointed to learn that, as a result, only 1% of people on social assistance re-enter the workforce in a given month.

Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on how our government’s social assistance reforms will help Ontario’s most vulnerable get themselves back on a path towards self-reliance?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I think that it’s important that we have strong families, safer streets and self-reliance in the province of Ontario. That is what we aim to do in the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. That’s why we’re working with the other ministries in the humanities so that we can best approach the wraparound supports that are needed by those who are on social assistance, so they can get back into the workforce, they can get the mental health support that they need, they can get the child care that they desperately require, and ensure that they don’t pay as much tax, which is why we brought in the LIFT tax credit.

This is a government that’s doing things differently. We’re working together. We’re leveraging the whole-of-government approach, which is something I’m quite proud of.

And as I mentioned at the beginning of the question, we’re working with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to get people employment-ready so they can get back into the workforce, they can have the dignity and respect of a job, and they can contribute to our great and wonderful society here in the province of Ontario.

But, Speaker, as we continue the reforms in social assistance, I must say that we want to continue to protect what matters most. What matters most is a compassionate society in the province of Ontario, which is what we’re continuing to build.

Public health

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Last Friday, we got word in the region of Waterloo that their public health unit was to be merged with Peel and Halton regions, as well as Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph. This new public health unit will serve nearly three million people with very different needs over a large geographic area.

Couple this with millions of dollars in cuts, and people and medical officers are justifiably worried. Why? Because there will be less money to serve more people, and there is no evidence to suggest that the government understands the consequences of their cuts and of this move.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government not thinking before they act?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are modernizing our public health system so that it’s going to be able to respond to the needs of Ontarians now and into the future.

The document that the member was referring to is a consultation document. No boundaries have been decided upon yet. That is subject to consultations with the local health units as well as with the municipalities, just for purposes of discussion, to understand what the appropriate boundaries should be.

There is nothing carved in stone as yet. I think that will become clearer as we have those discussions and as we speak with municipalities and the public health units. There is no need to push the panic button.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: And yet the Peterborough medical officer says that there was no consultation about the proposed boundaries of the new public health agencies. She said, “We’ve not even been given any rationale for why the regions look the way they do.”

Mr. Speaker, public health works because it prevents the spread of disease and other negative health outcomes. For every $1 spent on immunizations there are $45 worth of savings to the health care system. These are smart investments in the health care system.

At a time when hospitals are overcrowded, we have a record number of people dying from opioid overdoses and measles cases have been reported in Toronto, these public health cuts are frankly irresponsible. Public health officers and medical experts are telling the government this. Why are you not listening?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I remind the members to make their comments through the Chair. I recognize the minister again to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Speaker.

While, in fact, consultations are happening through technical tables that have been established, there will be consultation with the local health units. There will be consultation with municipalities about the appropriate boundaries, to make sure that the needs of Ontarians are going to be met.

I am confident that, with the monies that the local health units and the broader, bigger health units, as they’re established, are going to receive, they will be able to meet the public health needs of their communities, making sure that people receive the vaccinations that they need, making sure that the children’s and other breakfast and lunch programs are continued, making sure that the needs of people with special needs are being met. All of those things can and will be accomplished if people set their minds to the priorities of what public health units are set up for.

We were established to be financial stewards of public funds provincially. We take that seriously, and we know that the public health units will do the same, to make sure that those priorities are covered.

Anti-Semitism

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. Parliamentarians of all political stripes have a duty to stand up in the defence of tolerance, inclusion and freedom. Disturbingly, in 2019, in this pluralistic liberal democracy, we are seeing a troubling escalation of hate crimes targeting people of all faiths, including against Jews in this country—anti-Semitic acts perpetrated to divide, to intimidate and to inflict violence.

It is incumbent on all members of this Legislature to denounce this hate and to name it and to shame it. In communities like my own, in Vaughan, and across this province and the globe, we’ve seen the highest number of hate crimes ever recorded targeting our Jewish neighbours. Most recently, a more perverse, new anti-Semitism is emerging that demonizes Israel and her citizens, the homeland of the Jewish people.

To the Solicitor General: Will you commit to an unrelenting campaign, a whole-of-government effort, to combat anti-Semitism and all forms of hate in communities across this province?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from King–Vaughan for raising this important issue today. It deserves the attention of every single member, as he mentioned.

I want to start by stating that our government has absolutely zero tolerance for hate, racism, discrimination or violence in all its forms. This is not a partisan issue. I know that members and colleagues from both sides will, at every opportunity, join me in denouncing racial discrimination.

Let me be clear: Ontario is one of the safest and most accepting jurisdictions in the entire world in which to be a minority. But sadly, hate persists on the margins, promoted by a destructive few who seek to sow divisions within our communities.

We know that racism, in its many forms, is a threat here in Ontario. Some people in Ontario, including in the Black, Indigenous, Jewish and Muslim communities, deal with systemic racism and bias on a regular basis.

As Solicitor General and the minister responsible for the Anti-Racism Directorate, I can firmly say that we won’t stand idle and allow these acts to continue.

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

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Back to the minister: Learned members of this House will take note of Sir Winston Churchill’s comments. He said, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

Every member of this House has a moral duty to stand up against acts of violence and racism targeting minority faith communities in this country. We live in a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the globe, from Toronto to Paris to Buenos Aires. Here at home, we expect all levels of government to denounce violence and division within the province.

With the proliferation of hatred targeting Jews around world, now more than ever it is incumbent on our federal government to advance a principled foreign policy that promotes the values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

To the Solicitor General: Can you outline the steps this government is taking to keep people safe, to stand up for victims, and to get tough on those who target Canadians simply because of their faith?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member for taking a leadership role on these important issues. Government also has a leading role to play in eliminating anti-Semitism and all forms of hate across our province. We’re working with our partners and the people of Ontario to address these threats to the safety of our communities and everyone who calls Ontario home.

As a government, we’ve promised to give our police the tools, resources and support they need to do their job. That includes fighting hate crimes.

But building a more inclusive society doesn’t just fall to government. It is on us, as citizens, to learn about hatred in all of its forms; to learn about history so that it doesn’t repeat itself; and to recognize our own biases.

Most importantly, it’s up to each and every one of us to call out racism and hatred when we witness it. That takes courage to do sometimes, Speaker, but we absolutely must do it. Together we can ensure that the rights and freedoms of everyone in Ontario are respected, and we can work together to combat the threat of racial discrimination in the places where we work, where we go to school and the communities where we live, for the future of our children.

Paramedic services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this month, the government told the Middlesex-London Paramedic Service that their budget would be frozen for this year. This week, the Middlesex-London Paramedic Service released their projections on what that funding freeze will mean to paramedic services in the London area, and it’s not good. They are projecting a $750,000 hole in their budget, which will be made up by possible increases to Londoners’ property tax bills so that services don’t need to be cut.

Why is the Premier forcing London to contemplate raising property taxes so they can properly fund life-saving paramedic services?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Paramedic services are extremely important both in terms of their traditional role and some less traditional roles that they are fulfilling, but we are consistently sticking with a stable funding for paramedics to make sure that they can continue to do the work that they’re doing.

We also want to make sure that we can upgrade their technology so that they can have faster-access dispatch and sending people out so that by the time the paramedics arrive on the scene, they understand what the specific circumstances are that they need to deal with and they can provide those life-saving services faster, because time is of the essence, as you know. We want to make sure that people can get the treatment they need, whether en route to hospital or maybe even being directly provided by paramedics.

So we support them, we appreciate the great work that they’re doing, and we are supplying them with stable funding.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: According to the warden of Middlesex county, the paramedic services budget is “the lowest possible it can be. With the cuts now we can only look at reopening the budget, but realistically there isn’t much to shave off.” The government’s funding freeze will put the people of London and Middlesex county at risk. When people have a medical emergency, they call 911, and they know that the emergency medical services will be there to help save their lives. Why is the Premier freezing funding that paramedic services need to save lives?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Municipalities received a 5.8% increase in ambulance service funding in 2017 and a 5.3% increase in funding in 2018. Our government is providing stable funding this year to provide the paramedics and the services they provide with the revenue that they need. Again, I need to remind the member that we inherited a $15-billion deficit, the largest subsovereign debt in the world. We have to balance that against the needs of people, to provide people with a quality education and the health services that they need.

I am confident, with the increases that they’ve had over the past years and with the stable funding that they’re receiving this year, our paramedics will be able to continue to do the great work that they do in communities across Ontario.

Housing

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Most of us in this House have likely rented at least once in their lifetime. For some, it was when you left your parents’ home for the first time. For others, it was when moving to a new city. And some could be renting now.

However, Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find rentals in Mississauga and across Ontario. There are record low vacancy rates, and it is clear that there are not enough homes for the people of Ontario, which in turn drives up costs. When rent control was expanded in 2017, there were reports of planned purpose-built rental units being cancelled. That is unacceptable.

Can the minister please inform the House of what actions our government has taken to help make rentals more affordable and accessible across Ontario?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Mississauga East–Cooksville for that great question and also for his advocacy on the housing file in his riding.

Interjections.

Hon. Steve Clark: Yes, you should give him a hand.

Speaker, as I’ve said many times in this House, we have a supply problem. As the member notes, we were seeing record vacancy shortages in many communities across Ontario. We’re putting forward a number of measures to increase the housing supply in Ontario, especially purpose-built rentals that our province needs so desperately.

Last fall, as part of our fall economic statement, we exempted new rental units from rent controls, while protecting existing tenants. This exemption creates a positive investment environment. Again, we hope it will spur on new purpose-built rentals.

Through this change and many others—and I’ll get to some of those other changes in our supplementary—we are providing more homes and more choice