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

February 27, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Feb-27 (PDF)

L071 - Wed 27 Feb 2019 / Mer 27 fév 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 February 2019 Mercredi 27 février 2019

Orders of the Day

Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario

Notice of reasoned amendment

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Health care

Health care

Autism treatment

Health care

Government accountability

International trade

Ontario Provincial Police

Fundraising

Health care

Autism treatment

Ontario economy

Autism treatment / Traitement de l’autisme

Road safety

Ambulance services

Executive compensation

Sexual assault crisis centres

Private members’ public business

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Indigenous programs and services

Waterloo Region Advocacy Day

Indigenous affairs

Health care

Josephine Mandamin

Events in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell / Événements divers à Glengarry–Prescott–Russell

Ontario Parasport Games

Sports and recreation infrastructure

International Women’s Day

Family violence

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Anti-bullying initiatives / Prévention de l’intimidation

Petitions

Child care workers

Child care workers

Arts and cultural funding

Child care workers

Injured workers

Child care workers

Indigenous affairs

Arts and cultural funding

Child care workers

Child care workers

Orders of the Day

Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la refonte complète des services de police de l’Ontario

Adjournment Debate

Indigenous health care

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 26, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to restore Ontario’s competitiveness by amending or repealing certain Acts / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate. I recognize the member for Barrie–Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Top of the morning, Mr. Speaker. It’s a true pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, introduced by the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, eight months ago, the citizens of our province made a definitive statement with their vote, bringing hope back to the province of Ontario. The requests of our citizens are reasonable: to bring the kind of common-sense changes that will help, even if a little, to make life more affordable on a day-to-day basis. Because this is a government for the people, and this government has listened to the needs of the people of Ontario.

Our government has, over the course of the last eight months, started to deliver responsible changes needed to make life more affordable for all Ontarians, not just the privileged elite. How have we started, Mr. Speaker? We have seen definitive changes in the course through changes like eliminating the ineffective cap-and-trade carbon tax that sapped money from all Ontarians to line the pockets of the privileged few. Indeed, we are seeing the positive effects already in the reduction of the cost of gas by five cents a litre. Does this step alone solve all the problems of Ontarians?

No, but it is a step in the right direction. What it does is offer a measured and a reasonable step forward to making life more affordable for all Ontarians.

Each new measure brought, each wasteful provision revoked, helps lessen the burden being placed by the previous administration. It is a pleasure to speak to the next steps that our government is taking to raise the burden placed on Ontarians and eliminate it for good. We’re doing this through the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act.

We see first-hand the burdens of the 380,000 regulations that businesses in our province have to adhere to—380,000, Mr. Speaker. How can businesses thrive on 380,000 regulations? The truth is, they can’t, and we’ve heard that loud and clear. I’ve heard it first-hand from my constituency.

Having visited many businesses and from my time at Queen’s Park, I have heard first-hand from municipalities and from job creators who say they are overburdened by the excessive regulations, taking years—years—to navigate the overcomplicated approval process. Did you know in Ontario it takes over three years for a project to be approved? That is a drastic difference from our neighbours, like New York state, where it takes less than six months. We are trying to be competitive, and with the current regulatory climate, we just can’t compete and we are the complete opposite.

Job creators are taking their businesses elsewhere because there is too much red tape and it simply takes too long to get things done. This needs to change.

I just want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, who has also heard first-hand from her constituents the burdens of all the 380,000 regulations and the impact on her local businesses.

That is why our government is putting an end to this. Right now, Ontario is one of the most regulated provinces in the entire country. These barriers make it impossible to expand businesses and create jobs. It is why our government is working hard to make it easier in more than a dozen sectors—like farming, manufacturing, construction—and making it easier for many businesses in Barrie–Innisfil to operate in Ontario.

When I was first elected to office with the government, I was fortunate to be able to host a small business round table at the Barrie Chamber of Commerce with my colleague from Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte and the minister—

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Great colleague. We were also joined by the minister’s parliamentary secretary for the economic development and trade portfolio. We heard first-hand over and over again that there was too much red tape for these small businesses. They were consistently held back when they wanted to push forward. And that’s our job, Mr. Speaker: to stand behind small businesses and push them forward rather than get in their way.

I would like to read something from Richard Brooks, who is a constituent of mine in Barrie–Innisfil. He has read the bill and seen the terrible effects of what the previous administration—and the burdens they created—have burdened Barrie–Innisfil residents with. He says:

“I am pleased to see the steps that the provincial government is taking to foster a vibrant and economically sustainable region by opening Ontario up for business and enhancing the province’s competitiveness globally.”

He goes on to say, “Many of our members have expressed confidence in Ontario’s outlook for 2019 and I am optimistic that the provincial government will continue to champion economic growth and quality of life” for businesses.

He finishes by saying, “Some businesses that were considering shutting down or moving to other regions” where the cost was less of a burden have now “a good reason to reconsider those plans.

“I am encouraged by the direction the government is taking.”

With the introduction of Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, it’s just one more step on how our government is making Ontario open for business. These changes need to be made to regain our competitive advantage on a global scale. After all, we do live in a global economy. This includes being able to track new economic investments in places like Barrie–Innisfil and all of Ontario.

We are working to cut red tape and duplication of federal requirements so that things can be done faster but without compromising the integrity of the system. That’s one of the things we’ve noticed: that there’s so much duplication between the different levels of government, so that’s why we’re cutting red tape. It just doesn’t make sense. We’re going to make Ontario the economic engine again so it can thrive and communities like Barrie–Innisfil can thrive all across Ontario. We can grow and we can expand as a province. We can prosper and can strive for a better quality of life.

However, since the introduction of Bill 66, I, along with many colleagues, have heard from residents who have expressed concerns with the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act. My constituents in Barrie–Innisfil have expressed concerns that the planning tools have a potential to impact our environmental health and safety protections, especially pertaining to Lake Simcoe.

Let me be clear: Our government would never—we would never—sacrifice the integrity of our environment for our economic prosperity. Our commitment in ensuring Ontario has the highest health and safety and environmental protections stands. I believe that we can find the right balance between a healthy economy and a healthy environment, and our government does, as well. In fact, I stood beside the environment minister, Rod Phillips, as we announced the made-in-Ontario plan where we committed to the people of Ontario that we will protect our air, land and water.

This includes protecting Lake Simcoe, continuing to restore its natural areas and features. I, along with our government, remain committed to doing so.

Our government remains committed to reducing red tape, as well, in ways that protect workers, that protect the environment and eliminate waste. We will make sure that the legislation does exactly that.

The Premier has said and will always say, “We are here to listen.” And we are listening. It’s refreshing to finally have a leader who’s driving this province, and not just driving it without listening, but is listening. If there’s a government that’s in touch with reality, it’s certainly ours. Our government values the constructive feedback that we receive from local communities on matters that will directly impact their everyday lives. We are going to restore accountability back to Ontario and restore trust back to Ontario.

With Bill 66, one of the concerns I’ve heard time and time again included the protection and preservation of Lake Simcoe. Let me take some time to speak about that.

In Ontario, we have an abundance of water such as lakes and rivers, many of which are a source of our drinking supply. These waters are protected by strong government legislation, and our government has no—no—intention of loosening these protections. We know that clean, reliable sources of water play an essential role in the good quality of life that is central to our strong, vibrant communities. The—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. I know that when you came in this morning, you were expecting to speak for 20 minutes, and you’re going to share your time with the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. But we are into 10-minute rotations. Your 10 minutes is up. We’re going to do questions and comments, but during questions and comments from the other side or from this side—or later, for Eglinton–Lawrence—you may wish to get in two minutes of what you had intended to say before you shared your time. So your time is up on your 10-minute rotation.

We’re going to do questions and comments. I recognize the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ça me fait plaisir aujourd’hui de me lever pour parler du projet de loi 66.

J’ai eu plusieurs appels concernant le projet déjà, surtout concernant les heures de travail. C’est caché dans le projet de loi, si je peux utiliser le terme. Ils disent, « Guy, pourquoi attaquer ça? » Je peux vous dire que beaucoup de travailleurs sont concernés. Pour les familles qui ont de la difficulté à mettre les deux bouts ensemble, veux, veux pas, ça prend beaucoup de place dans la vie. Travailler, avec les enfants et le train de vie d’aujourd’hui, c’est très difficile.

Puis, d’une journée à l’autre, que ton employeur puisse te dire, « Guy, à matin aujourd’hui, tu vas travailler plus longtemps » et que tu sais obligé de rester pour travailler, je pense que c’est injuste pour les travailleurs.

Je pense que la loi qui était là protégeait les travailleurs. Je pense que c’est une erreur d’enlever ça, et aussi d’enlever juste le fait de mettre sur le mur les droits des travailleurs, les droits de santé et de sécurité, ce à quoi les travailleurs ont droit. Dire à l’employeur qu’il n’est plus obligé de mettre ça, je pense que c’est une erreur grave. Je pense que, comme travailleurs, on a au moins ce minimum de droits, de voir les lois qui nous protègent et ce à quoi on a droit être affiché là, puis de dire à son employeur, « Regarde-là. Prends le temps de le lire. Tu n’as pas le droit de faire ça. »

Je pense que c’est le minimum. Qu’on mette ça dans le projet de loi pour enlever ce droit-là, je pense que c’est chercher loin.

Puis aussi, enlever le droit aux conventions collectives d’avoir des contracteurs, je pense que c’est un autre problème qu’on a. Les travailleurs des contracteurs devraient avoir le même salaire—quand ils ne veulent pas venir dans les unités syndicales, ils peuvent être payés moins.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: I’d like to speak to some of the points that were raised so eloquently by the member from Barrie–Innisfil, concerns that, as the parliamentary assistant to job creation, economic development and trade, I have heard hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times from people, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of stakeholders, right across this province.

Regardless of the region, regardless of the sector, stakeholders are telling me that there are simply too many regulations that are strangling their efforts to create more jobs, to grow their business. That’s one of the big issues that we’re dealing with in this bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as we have raised many times in this House, this province is struggling under 380,000 regulations. The closest province is British Columbia, and they have 200,000 regulations. We have been told time and again that many of these regulations are simply burdensome. They are duplicative regulations that already exist either at the federal level or at the municipal level. What we are proposing is to identify a minimum of 25% of these burdensome, unnecessary regulations and simply say we don’t need them.

We are in no way going to jeopardize the health of anyone in this province. We are in no way going to jeopardize the safety of our workers or of constituents. But what we are going to do is create an environment where businesses can thrive, an environment where we can create more jobs, an environment where businesses can work with their government instead of a government working against them.

When we say, Mr. Speaker, that we are open for business, we are also open for jobs, and Bill 66 will accomplish that.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate, and happy that I’ll have 10 minutes to speak on this, just following the round here.

There’s so much here. I hear time and time again the demonization of our regulatory regime here in the province of Ontario. They use the number 380,000. In fact, in this bill, I think they only attack 11 regulations in total. Why such a low effort on the part of the government? If you really believe that 380,000 regulations that are on the books are affecting the growth and economic prosperity of this province, why are you doing such a terrible job at addressing them? I think the answer is that they truly know that regulations are there to protect the public. They are laws. They are rules. They are important aspects of civil society. I wonder where they get the data.

We see some aspects from just in the Pawnbrokers Act here that they did not consult with police services during the construction of that act. There has been minimal consultation around these regulations and the changes to these regulations.

Specifically, I’ll talk about the one around the early years and education act. They’re increasing the number of kids that can be in private care. New Democrats believe that, of course, private care providers do the best they can, and certainly their paramount concern is the safety and well-being of those kids.

We also believe that the airline industry has that same mantra. They are safety-oriented. But we still regulate how many seats you can have in a certain airplane. We don’t let them fly on the wings to make more money.

This is the thing, Speaker: These guys are taking arbitrary numbers around what they believe will enhance economic activity in the province, and throwing it against the wall and seeing what sticks. That’s not the way to create good, cohesive regulation and support a civil society.

Case in point: If all of these regulations and the cancellation of the cap-and-trade system really worked, we’d still have General Motors in Oshawa. They’ve done nothing on that case at all.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments? The member for Scarborough—Mississauga—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I have it written down. Don’t worry. I’ll take my time. I’ll look at it. You caught me off guard. I was looking in the wrong direction this morning.

This would be Markham–Thornhill.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Good morning, Speaker. It’s great to stand up and talk about Bill 66.

I could talk about my own story. As a former councillor, I dealt with a lot of developments—small developments, small renovations. Bureaucracy and red tape is hurting our jobs and hurting a lot of small employers to become employers.

I’ll tell you my own experiences. My wife is a medical doctor. She wanted to expand her family clinic, a family doctor’s office. It took three years to finish the completion of her small office before she could move in—procurement by the planning department, the building departments and the bylaws. She went through a small renovation.

Bureaucracy and red tape is a big hurdle to our businesses. It’s not only the province; it’s all levels of government in Ontario. So, Mr. Speaker, that’s why I stand up proudly and I’m supporting Bill 66. We saw 300,000 manufacturing jobs leave our province under their watch. That’s why our government is committed to creating an environment where business can grow, thrive and create good jobs right here in Ontario.

The businesses in Ontario face the highest cost to comply with the regulations of any province, for example, $33,000 per company. That is much higher than the $25,000 to $27,000 in most other provinces. Small businesses are hit the hardest, facing the highest cost on a per-employee basis. This is why we are committed to cutting red tape affecting businesses by 25%. We are targeting the red tape that is unnecessary.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you, and I apologize to the member for Markham–Thornhill for not having the name of your riding at my fingertips this morning.

We’ll now return to the member for Barrie–Innisfil for her two-minute summation.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I applaud the members for their comments. We heard from the member for Markham–Thornhill. He spoke to it very clearly: We’re going to lose jobs if we don’t take action now. The manufacturing jobs that he said have been lost, why are they moving elsewhere? Because other places make it a little easier to do business. These are our competitors, Mr. Speaker. If it takes New York state six months and it takes us years, no one’s going to be coming here. And what does that mean? That means there are no jobs to go to at the end of the day.

So this is a government that’s showing that we can eliminate red tape without affecting the integrity of the process, without affecting the integrity of our safety and our environment. We’ve made it clear that we want to make sure Ontario is open for business so we can thrive again and people have jobs to wake up to in the morning. Because what is the point, Mr. Speaker, if people don’t have a way to be with their families and provide for their families and have hope and prosperity again in the economic engine that was Ontario?

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Again, I’m pleased to join the debate today. It’s an important issue. We are duty bound to review the regulatory regime that exists on the books and to ensure that it is streamlined and that it is competitive. These are things that, on the surface, should be pretty non-partisan. If it makes sense, if there is duplication and redundancy around regulation and if it doesn’t jeopardize public safety, these are things that New Democrats certainly can work with any government around.

But we hear, unfortunately, a lot of vague, empty rhetoric from the government. I point again to that 380,000 figure that they pin on the amount of regulations that exist currently. It’s funny, because as a sort of longer-standing member in this House, I remember three PC leaders ago, Tim Hudak—was Tim three ago? I forget. The number escapes me, Speaker, there have been so many over the last five years.

But I certainly remember that Tim Hudak, somebody I respected quite a lot in this House, somebody who was an eloquent and forceful orator in this House, would ream on the Liberal government for the 600,000 regulations that were on the books. I’m sure we could check Hansard. I urge somebody to do that, because he used that figure. It’s a shocking number, 600,000 regulations. You wonder, how many years did it take us to get to 600,000 individual regulations? In fact, if that was the case back when Tim said it first, then now we’re down to 380,000, so somebody has been chopping away at the regulatory tree.

Hon. Greg Rickford: We have.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Well, you really haven’t. You really haven’t, because this is their first effort. I haven’t seen them—

Interjections.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The minister is quite apt to give himself a pat on the back, and that’s okay. That’s his forte. But I haven’t seen them take a big swing at it, especially in the context of this bill. I believe there are only 11 regulations that are addressed in this bill. So they’re underperforming by any fiscal conservative standard, and I think I know why. I think they know how important regulation is in this province.

I think that under this narrative that they put out there, under this generalization around regulation that is so pervasive in their talking points, they truly understand that sometimes regulation is of benefit to business. Actually, sometimes businesses and stakeholders and industry groups ask for regulation. They need regulation to protect themselves from outside jurisdictions that don’t have the same quality and the standards that we would expect and consumers deserve.

Case in point, Speaker: I think that some of these Conservatives over here met with folks from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario yesterday. Maybe they did. I saw a lot of Conservatives walking around with cheese curds yesterday, so I expect that they actually met with some of them. And guess what they’re asking for? They’re asking for government intervention. They’re asking for protection. They’re asking for regulations that stop foreign imports that don’t match the same safety and quality concerns that we have here in Ontario. They’re asking for protection. Yes, protectionist—they want protection from their government.

What is the answer? When I met with them yesterday, I asked them: “What was the response to your request from the government?” They said, “They’re on board. They support the dairy farmers.” The Minister of Agriculture is giving me the thumbs-up. Absolutely, we know that he supports the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, and he knows that that requires a hearty, thorough regulatory regime to protect standards.

Or you can deregulate, you can open the doors, open the floodgates to low-quality imports, diafiltered milk that we know comes in, skirting regulatory regimes, take a hatchet job to oversight and enforcement and just open the floodgates. That’s capitalism at its best, right? That’s what you’re all about. But you’re not going to do that because you understand the importance of regulation. So I’m calling you out on this. I’m calling the government out on this, because it is such a basic talking point that doesn’t have any merit in fact.

Again, New Democrats certainly are willing to work with you on antiquated regulations, stuff that just doesn’t make sense in our modern economy, stuff that doesn’t incorporate security provisions—I mean, the possibilities are endless. They could address so many other regulations that certainly would help make us more competitive, would keep jobs like General Motors had here in Canada.

In fact, I woke up this morning and read the Windsor Star: Guess where Chrysler Canada is investing? A big, $4-billion investment—that’s a lot of money—and 4,600 jobs: Detroit. They’re going to Detroit. Despite all the bluster and rhetoric, even despite the gigantic “Open for Business” signs that are right facing the headquarters of General Motors across from Windsor—that hasn’t worked. So your empty rhetoric isn’t working.

What we need is a comprehensive plan, and I would submit and urge this government to get to work on a policy, a provincial automotive and manufacturing strategy that highlights and outlines and streamlines those regulations and supports for our manufacturing sector and levels the playing field. And that’s going to mean, probably, some regulation.

But they’re not willing to do that, Speaker. They’re willing to go for some of the lower-hanging fruit that they can spin into a palatable talking point. One of the things is the ratios. How many folks in the House have worked in a skilled trade, raise your hand? One. And I would assume that that skilled trade had a ratio of journeymen to apprentices. Myself included—I was a labourer prior to being elected to this House. Our ratio in the labourers’—

Interjection.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: You’re not calling labourers skilled trades? Okay, we’ll make sure that that’s on the record for our friends at LIUNA who do the heavy work and build the infrastructure that this province relies on across the country. If you want to stand up and reiterate that point, Minister, that would be great to hear right from your mouth.

We had a 2-to-1 ratio. What that means is, for every apprentice you took out of the hall—because we were a hiring hall—out of the list, there had to be two journeypeople to one apprentice. What did that mean? It meant that, on a composite crew, you had two—

Interjection.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: There’s not a shortage of workers; there’s a shortage of employers willing to pay a good wage. That’s what you’re appeasing. You’re trying to diminish this trade and get to the lowest value.

What it does also is, it jeopardizes safety on a job. Hey, pick up a hammer and a shovel and go pour a form. Then you can talk to me about what it’s like to work on a job site. But until you’ve worked on a job site and you’ve seen the inherent dangers that exist on an active job site and you’re relying on the institutional knowledge of those journeypersons who have 30 years in the field, who can point stuff out before it even happens, who can make sure that you’re not going to get hurt at work and that the productivity is there, don’t talk to me about what ratios mean to you. You have no clue. You have absolutely no idea.

What it does mean is that those jobs are performed safely and efficiently and that they’re cost-effective too. But they don’t get that, Speaker. What they see is cheap labour—pandering to the CLACs of the world and pandering to those so-called unions that have been clamouring for cheap labour in this province since the Liberals came in. The Liberals pandered to them too. The Liberals acquiesced. I remember Steven Del Duca—my goodness; this guy was the best friend of those entities, the CLACs of the world. They bent over backwards to help them.

We know that workers in this province—average, everyday, blue-collar workers—know that they are better off on a job site that has experience and that has safety at the forefront. Not only are you going to deregulate that, or loosen the regulatory regime on that; you’re looking at all measures: safety measures, enforcement. This is something that is inherent in your DNA, as Conservatives. We get it; I understand it. But it doesn’t make for an economy that works and provides the effectiveness and efficiency that we should be known for. We can do better. You can strive for better.

Again, despite all of the rhetoric coming out of this government, despite all of their best efforts, what province in this country is leading the way in economic development, job growth and sustainability? It’s British Columbia—a New Democratic government. Those guys are absolutely leading the way on progressive policy. They can provide this government a road map, should they so choose, to actually see how you create a good, civil, cohesive society that is safe for everyone.

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

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Our government is committed to opening Ontario for business. Red tape causes businesses to struggle. What we are trying to do is very simple: Listen to businesses and hear what is causing them to struggle. We ask a simple question: How can we help you get ahead? How can we help you to expand? How can we help you to create new jobs? We are reducing the burden on small businesses.

Under the past Liberal government, we lost more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs which left Ontario for other locations because Ontario became too hard to do business with. We are trying to get those businesses back and to create an environment friendly for business. We want Ontario to be open again for business and be the destination for investment, for new businesses to come to Ontario and create new jobs.

When businesses leave Ontario, like we’ve seen with GM, the only people who suffer are Ontario people. Removing red tape is making it easier for businesses to start and thrive and create prosperity for Ontarians.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Essex for his comments. It was refreshing to hear his perspective as a skilled labourer. We see a government that is averse to consultation. I would be a little bit careful, though; I’d hate to think that they’ll go and tick a box now and say that they have been consulted by somebody who has actually worked in a skilled trade.

I also think that behind every slogan and behind all this rhetoric there needs to be substance. Behind every bumper sticker, there should be a vehicle—and hopefully, not a souped-up personal pleasure wagon.

We don’t disagree, over on this side, that when there’s reduplication and redundancy, that does need to be eliminated, but applying this 25% arbitrary number serves no one. It makes absolutely no sense. It is simply grabbing some number out of the air in order to sound good.

Regulations are important, but when we look at Bill 66, it is a hodgepodge. It’s a mess. Never in one bill would you think that they’d be removing regulations on stuffed articles, mattresses, clothing with down, as well as child care caps. I just can’t believe that we are sitting here reading this. It’s almost like this government is like the Wild West. They’re simply throwing out everything they can without any real thought.

When we think of the concept of child care, we know that children are the most precious commodity in society, and we need to make sure that they are well cared for and well looked after. By removing this cap, it will not provide any sort of safety. It will not make anything better.

When we look at this bill, we see that this is pandering to insider friends of this government.

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

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I’m very happy to speak to this piece of legislation because it underscores what our government has been doing and what our government committed to doing when we were elected and during the campaign, and that is opening Ontario for business.

Let’s take a look at the past 15 years. We had a government that didn’t care about job creation. We saw a government that ended up losing over 300,000 jobs. One of the main reasons for that is the regulation, the red tape that they introduced—over 380,000 regulations in this province. Thankfully, we have a Premier who understands that when businesses grow, communities will grow, and that we need, as a province, to make sure that people have good-paying jobs, high-paying jobs. That’s exactly what our government should be doing.

Businesses shouldn’t be spending all their time filling out pieces of paper and doing all this work on regulation; they should be growing their businesses, because that’s going to benefit all of Ontario.

Our government is going to make sure that we make life more affordable for all Ontarians, and that’s exactly what we started doing by making sure we removed the cap-and-trade and making sure we reduced fuel costs for the people of Ontario, saving them so much money over the course of a year. Now we’re going to make sure that they have good-paying jobs.

I’m very happy to stand here with this government and support this piece of legislation that will ensure that Ontario continues to be open for business under this Premier.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch.

Remarks in Oji-Cree.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I know with this bill, when we talk about Ontario’s competitiveness act—the cost of doing business, the cost of providing programs, the cost of travel in the north is very different from Toronto or Sudbury. Everybody talks about subways, trains; I talk about airlines, airports.

I know

schedule 10 talks about housing and talks about water. I have a community in my riding that’s had 25 years of a boil-water advisory. I have a community that declared an emergency due to housing, due to black mould. But when Ontario is a signatory to the treaty, the way the government responds is, “It’s a federal responsibility.”

First Nations communities and the people of Kiiwetinoong, we are human beings too. The system that’s there right now, where we pass the buck, does not work. When we talk about these changes, about competitiveness, we need to consider the First Nations aspect of it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We’ll return to the member from Essex for his two-minute summation.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thanks to the members from Mississauga–Erin Mills, Brampton Centre, London North Centre and my good friend from Kiiwetinoong, who absolutely puts the emphasis on what the debate should be in this House today.

I’m trying to tell myself—and I’m being educated and supported by my friend because, when he speaks on behalf of his community, he actually speaks on behalf of all Ontarians, who see the issues, who understand that in this province—not only with this government but with successive previous governments, and I would also include whatever NDP governments ever existed: If we can’t ensure that there is safe, clean drinking water for every resident in this province from one end to the other, if we cannot do that simple task in this day and age, in the 21st century, with the technology at hand in one of the richest developed jurisdictions on this planet—if we can’t do that as a government, we are abject failures.

This issue of safe, clean drinking water should be the number one issue, ahead of any changes that you make to stuffed mattresses or stuffed toys that are built into this bill. It’s ridiculous. If you don’t see that, if that doesn’t penetrate your heart and whatever ideology you have, then you should change your focus. You should do a little reflection.

I’m trying to do it, Speaker, because it’s easy to get caught up in the cut and thrust of this place, but I urge the government to implement the changes that this community and other communities like that need in this province. If you start from that point, then everything should be easy. That should be easy. We can do that, and you’ll have my commitment to work with you on a non-partisan basis—I know it’s hard for me to say. But I urge this government to make it a priority.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act. I’m lucky enough to have the privilege of representing the residents of Eglinton–Lawrence and to have the opportunity to hear from them on a regular basis about their priorities, their concerns and the challenges that they face on a daily basis.

Access to and availability of child care is one of the most frequent concerns raised by my constituents. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I received an email from one of my constituents, which I will quote to you now. My constituent wrote, “Our youngest son who is 18 months old is not yet enrolled in any daycare program as we cannot find a daycare in the area with availability for toddlers.

“Everywhere we go, we are told to fill up our information and hope that somebody will take their son out, so ours can get accepted.

“There are daycare centres that have lists with up to 25 to 30 toddlers on their waiting list while their capacity is 20 to 25 toddlers and they already have this number enrolled.

“To have our son enrolled would mean that all 25 enrolled children” would have “to leave so the 25 on the waiting lists” could “be admitted.

“Clearly there is no way we will be able to put him in a daycare.”

This is not the first time I have heard a story like this. Indeed, I hear of similar challenges from families in my riding far too often. The most upsetting stories I have heard, even while going door to door during the election, were from families with multiple children who had children in daycare before and after the previous Liberal government’s changes in 2014.

Many of these families had found safe, reliable and dependable daycare for their children prior to the changes, but suddenly found themselves unable to send their younger children to the same child care facilities due to arbitrary caps placed on the enrolment of infants and toddlers in them. Some of these child care providers, and most notably home-based providers, already facing challenges in adjusting to the introduction of full-day kindergarten, had to withdraw from providing much-needed child care spaces altogether because they were unable to make the economics work.

If the implementation of full-day kindergarten did not shut them down, these regulations finished the job.

The sad result is that today only 3% of licensed child care spaces in Ontario are currently available for infants. That means that choice for parents, when they can find a space at all, is extremely limited.

The changes made by the Liberals made it harder for parents to find child care spots, not easier. That’s why I am so pleased to see our government is taking action to help parents by helping child care providers, as well as recreational and skill-based programs for children across the province, by increasing the availability of places for children.

To be specific, the changes proposed in Bill 66 will:

—allow children under the age of six to enrol in some recreational and after-school programs;

—increase from two to three the number of children under two years of age that home-based providers can have in their care;

—require home-based providers to count their own children in the maximum allowable number of children in care under the age of four, down from the current legislation, which is under the age of six; and

—remove the restriction requiring a parent to receive financial assistance before in-home child care can be offered to them.

But I want to emphasize that none of these changes come at the expense of the safety of children in child care in the province of Ontario. As the Minister of Education said when she spoke on this bill a few days ago, the proposed changes are in line with our provincial counterparts across the country. Rigorous standards and enforcement will continue to apply to the child care sector in Ontario, and any operators who contravene the Child Care and Early Years Act will be subject to the very same enforcement measures that currently exist.

This includes a wide range of enforcement tools at the disposal of the Ministry of Education to ensure strong compliance and oversight of both licensed and unlicensed child care.

There will also continue to be an online searchable registry of violations and an established and dedicated enforcement unit within the ministry’s child care quality assurance and licensing branch that proactively conducts inspections of child care facilities.

The Minister of Education has also assured this House that her ministry will continue to follow up on each and every complaint against both licensed and unlicensed child care providers to ensure that they are meeting requirements under the law. And when licensed and unlicensed providers do not follow the rules, the ministry can take clear enforcement action, including compliance orders, administrative monetary penalties and protection orders. Child care providers not following the rules may also be subject to restraining orders or charges under existing legislation.

And the biggest disincentive of all to violations of these strict rules: Anyone who is found guilty of an offence is prohibited from ever providing child care in the future, because even one child harmed is one child too many.

I am obviously very happy to see the changes proposed for child care in this legislation, because I know that they will help many of my constituents find child care more easily and, therefore, get back to work, if that’s what they want to do. But I would be remiss if I didn’t also address some of the other proposed changes in this legislation.

After all, this legislation touches on reducing red tape and restoring Ontario’s competitiveness across all aspects of government, and there are many common-sense reforms in this legislation: some to remove regulations which have outlived their usefulness, some to align Ontario to existing federal regulations in the same fields and some to ensure that Ontario is open for business and, therefore, open for jobs.

In the time I have left, Speaker, I want to briefly touch on one other proposal in the legislation: the proposed changes to the Long-Term Care Homes Act. Our government was elected on a commitment to build 15,000 long-term-care beds in five years, and 30,000 over 10 years. Fulfilling this promise is a critical step toward addressing the broader challenge of hallway health care, and as part of our efforts to get new capacity online, we need to identify and streamline administration without negatively impacting on patient care.

As one of two parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, I know my counterpart, the member for Oakville North–Burlington, has been working very hard to move this promise forward, meeting and consulting with long-term-care providers across our province. But the red tape reduction efforts proposed in Bill 66 are also an important step.

My riding is home to a variety of businesses—small, medium and large. Under the previous Liberal government, the cost of doing business was oppressive, with businesses of all sizes facing unprecedented regulatory burdens and red tape. It is clear that we need to make changes to regain our competitive advantage, and that is why I am proud to support Bill 66, which simplifies the regulatory environment and makes Ontario open for business and, therefore, open for jobs. I hope all of the members of this Legislature will join me in supporting this important bill as an important first step to making that a reality.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I was pleased to hear the member from Eglinton–Lawrence mention the issue of child care, as well as child care spaces. To my mind, when we take a look at the child care issue, that is an equity issue. The inability to find appropriate and adequate child care is a barrier for many women seeking to enter the workforce.

She talks about the lack of spaces. Well, then, the onus should be on the government to create those spaces. We take a look at the example of Quebec, which has publicly funded child care in place, and has for many years. The studies are clear that it has helped drive their economy. It allows more people to enter the workforce, thus contributing to the tax base and, really, it creates a better society and more fulfillment. When someone is forced to stay at home and provide care for their own child, while that might be something some choose, it isn’t always to the benefit of that individual.

The member from Eglinton–Lawrence also mentioned arbitrary caps, and on that issue, we have to be very careful about that sort of empty rhetoric because we know that the caps on the ages of the children in care are based on safety. It is based on making sure that those children have the best attention and making sure that they are looked after.

Right now, according to this legislation, when it is enacted, one provider will have the opportunity to have three children under the age of two, for a total of six. So they could ostensibly have three children under the age of two, as well as three three-year-olds. I don’t know any individual who would be able to provide meaningful, adequate care to six infants in a safe and proper way. I urge the government to invest in publicly funded daycare and open up the economy for everyone.

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Good morning. As we have heard today, and so passionately from our member from Eglinton–Lawrence, we have a strong need to encourage businesses to open, to grow and to hire more people here in Ontario. It is our responsibility as a government to help create that environment and that’s what we are doing. By bringing forward the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, we are telling the whole world that Ontario is the place to do business. It is where you want to be to live, to work and to raise your family.

I would like to touch on home-based child care. As a mother of children, I remember, before returning to work in a business that I ran—I had no maternity leave—I had such difficulty finding quality child care. It was very difficult for me. What we are doing is, we’re opening those spaces and allowing good, quality home-based child care. I faced finding it so difficult at that time.

I do urge all the members of this House to support this bill. By doing this, by supporting Bill 66, you are supporting parents. You are supporting parents so that they can have good, quality, safe and accessible daycare.

What we are trying to do in our government is to help stop so much duplication. There are many, many regulations at the federal level that we are duplicating here in the province, which is completely unnecessary. It adds so much burden to our businesses that it’s delaying processes, it’s delaying them hiring people, it’s delaying them growing. That’s what we want to do as a government. We are listening. We are listening to the businesses, we are listening to the people, and what we want to do is to make sure we have good quality all around.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The last round was centred on the

schedule 3 provisions of the bill, which involve child care—in-home child care, privately delivered—and I just want to put on the record here for the sake of the members in the House and for the sake of those who are tuning in this morning, if they take a look at this bill—and I urge them to do that; it’s Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act.

Speaker, I urge them to take a look, and I urge them to take a look at

schedule 3, because amendments 1 through 3 loosen the restrictions that were put in place. These are regulations that were put in place five years ago after a number of deaths of children and babies who died while in care. That was the impetus for these regulations five years ago. We heard about those deaths. They were incredibly tragic. We believe in hindsight that they were preventable with the proper oversight and regulatory framework. I think in this House there was a call to do everything that we could, and I believe at that time the Conservative Party also believed that we should and committed to doing everything we could.

It’s funny how, five years later, they see this and they’ve disregarded the lessons of the past. They’re not honouring that tragedy by maintaining that level of regulation and oversight, and in fact they’re not even enhancing the enforcement regime. They talk about loosening this up, they talk about maintaining some parameters on the regulations, but there’s nothing that makes any more enforcement available in this bill. That’s a real red flag and I hope that those who are concerned about this issue take a real close look at this.

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

Mr. Vincent Ke: It is my honour to stand up and speak to Bill 66,

An Act to restore Ontario’s competitiveness by amending or repealing certain Acts. Mr. Speaker, I was elected last June on a mandate from the residents of Don Valley North, letting people know that Ontario is open for business.

Bill 66 will review excess regulations and make changes to regulations for 12 government ministries, including health; training, colleges and universities; and transportation, to name a few.

The previous government passed numerous regulations and laws which made it hard for business to operate. In January, I had a small business round table in my riding. One of my manufacturer owners told me that they planned to move out of the province because the cost of doing business in Ontario under the previous Liberal government was too expensive. This is why our government for the people introduced Bill 66, in order to eliminate unnecessary regulations and reduce red tape to allow businesses to operate and succeed.

We want good-paying jobs to stay in Ontario. We want a prosperous economy here. When I moved to Canada from Germany in 1998, I chose to land in Ontario because Ontario was the economic engine of the country at that time. We want Ontario to once again be Canada’s economic engine. Passing Bill 66 will be one step towards that goal.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We’ll return to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for her two-minute summation.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to all of the members—from Don Valley North, from Essex, from Mississauga–Streetsville and from London North Centre—for your comments.

I honestly believe that we are—and I think I went through this in great detail in my talking points about this—how much we are keeping so much of the regulations that were put in to prevent unnecessary deaths of children. We kept all of the enforcement. We kept all of the oversight. We’re making a small change, but it’s nonetheless going to be an important change for parents. So I think we are honouring the tragedy that was mentioned and referred to by maintaining oversight and by maintaining all of those safety features.

We’re making one small change which will allow these home care providers to be able to provide more spaces for the children and for the parents who are looking for those opportunities.

The member from London North Centre mentioned equity issues and the fact that women need to get back to work. This is going to help more women get back to work, if that’s what they choose to do. That is the very reason that we’re doing it.

The other equity issue, frankly, is that there are a lot of diverse communities, especially in my riding and many of the ridings in Toronto and other big cities in Ontario. Those diverse communities have home care providers that are particular for their community. That is also an equity issue. They’ve been closed down, and people want providers that are culturally familiar to them. I think if we’re looking at equity, that is at least as important a consideration.

I just want to conclude by saying that I agree with the member from Mississauga–Streetsville that if you support this bill, you are supporting parents who are looking for child care for their children. So I ask for your support.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s a pleasure to stand in the House today and contribute to Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act. I want to welcome everyone in the public galleries who are here to listen to the debates on very important issues that affect their lives every day. I’m so encouraged when we see the public come into their House to find out what we’re doing as representatives for them to make life better in Ontario.

I have to say, some of—

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: No, they’re not protesters. They’re very thoughtful, quiet people here, listening to what’s going on. It’s discouraging sometimes when you hear people who are already in this House for a very short time be so cynical about public participation, about public involvement, about public engagement.

I have to say, that’s one of the concerns I have with this government, that they already have, I think, agendas already made up. Then they produce legislation and they claim that they’ve had fulsome consultation, but they really haven’t. What they’ve done is—and there’s a lot of history, when it goes behind legislation, the process of how you get there—they’ve consulted the people they want to hear from, and then they can default to say, “Yes, we’ve consulted.” Well, you know, that’s not good enough, and the people of Ontario are calling this government out all the time.

We have that example with legislation that they proposed on autism. There are very strong families that have children who have special needs, and they want to make sure that they get looked after. This government, in this case, hasn’t listened to families and children with autism and what their needs are.

Getting back to this Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, one of the things that they also have put in this legislation is that the government has described regulatory changes that don’t require legislative changes and so aren’t included in Bill 66. So there could be further regulatory changes that happen that we don’t have an opportunity to debate in the Legislature. That’s very concerning, because unless you read the Ontario Gazette, you don’t know what regulations have been changed, and not everybody gets the Ontario Gazette. I know I’ve skimmed through it, and sometimes I have found regulations in it that I was surprised had been changed.

Now, there are many things in Bill 66, and there are many important topics that it addresses. In some ways, there are subjects in here that I think should have been bills separate on their own, because they are so important. And instead of this bill and this government making legislation that helps everyone, sometimes they’re narrow-minded and they have to backtrack on things. They’ve gone from bad to worse in some ways, in some instances, where they’ve had to actually pay attention to what people are telling them.

I don’t know if they’re doing that intentionally, if they’re just throwing out legislation really fast and hoping that no one pays attention, that no one says anything, and then, “Yes, we’ve got the backroom agreements that we were making with people and now it’s going to pass.”

But that hasn’t been the case. You’ve been called out on many pieces of legislation, one of them being recently the changes to post-secondary education, where you have student union fees and ancillary fees that you’re allowing students to opt into. Well, they’re stepping up and talking about it, and that decision they expressed to you—I don’t know if this government plays like they don’t understand, but they were changing it so that you opt into ancillary fees and they didn’t understand, apparently—which I find hard to believe—that transit was part of the ancillary fees that were subsidized for students. Then they had to pull that back.

When you have legislation like this, that’s really important. I want to touch on—there are so many things to touch on, but I want to touch on the child care piece that has been discussed quite extensively here. Speaker, I too am a mother of two children, and I recall—and this was years ago—that when you first got mat leave, you were able to collect four months at home, and then you had to find someone to look after your child. The second time I had a child, it was a six-month mat leave, and you had a six-month window to find child care. Now it’s up to a year.

It’s very difficult, as the parent, to make sure that you screen and scope out a child care space for your child, because you’re going to leave that baby with someone. In some cases, it could be someone you’ve never met before, a stranger that you’ve found an ad for or you’ve maybe talked to them once or twice, and then you’re leaving that precious package with someone. That is something I struggled with as a mother, trying to find a real safe place for my children.

I bumped into an ex-police chief a few weeks ago in London. His daughter is a police chief and so is his son-in-law. She’s going back to work shortly, but she took up to 11 months to find a child care space.

When this government is opening up child care spaces, I don’t think this is the best approach. I think what they should be focusing on are spaces that are not-for-profit; regulated, supervised and transparent spaces. You can still have multicultural—one of the members talked about equity being culturally sensitive, with someone to look after their children in a cultural connection. You can still have that, and it’s all-inclusive.

If I had had that opportunity to have affordable, not-for-profit daycare—my husband and I, at the time, were struggling. We were just starting out. We couldn’t afford daycare other than private daycare, and that, again, left me feeling uneasy about it. But if you can have not-for-profit affordable daycare where you know, when you put that little innocent face in the hands of someone else—that you’re going to go to work and you feel good.

So I hope this government looks to this child care adjustment piece and understands that when you change a regulation, something else results from it. I don’t know if they’ve gone that far. I used that example because they haven’t even—the post-secondary education example. They decided to make ancillary fees opt-in, but they didn’t go far enough and understand that those ancillary fees benefited students, like the transit subsidy, and then they had to put that back.

I want you to understand that, you’re making this regulation and opening up more children under two to be looked after by a care provider: What does that look like? How does that affect something else? You haven’t gone that far, and there’s a danger to that.

Speaker, I am a proud grandmother of a seven-year-old and twins. Those twins are going to be 24 months on April 27. When I have the precious opportunity, the time that I’m able to spend with them, it’s hard. You have two kids the same age demanding your attention. And just because they’re identical twins doesn’t mean they’re exactly the same. They’re quite the opposite. One wants more attention; one is more independent. And what do I do? Do I separate my time and worry about the one that wants more attention and let the independent one be independent? They need guidance as well.

I can’t imagine these home care providers having to stretch their time with more children. It is difficult. When we’re making those rules—we’re loosening up those rules—we’re not paying attention to what is happening because of that. What is the ripple effect? We know that this rule was put in place for the reason that there were people, private care providers, who weren’t paying attention and weren’t abiding by the law, and a horrible tragic death happened as a result of that. Those things can’t continue.

So that’s why I say that this bill is a very important bill. I understand the language around opening it up for competitiveness, but what are the effects of what you’re doing to public safety? There are many examples in this bill that we could talk about. I took 10 minutes just on the child care bill, and I have so much more I want to add because I think it’s important that we do bring a personal perspective so people understand that we are not just legislators, but we should also be part of how we understand how it affects other people and how it affects our lives.

When you can actually put yourself in the place of the legislation you’re creating, that’s when you make good legislation. I think that is what’s missing in this child care bill, Speaker. I think they’re taking it too quickly, and they need to take more time and address it properly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I want to thank the member for London–Fanshawe for her comments this morning. Unfortunately, we won’t have enough time for questions and comments.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Seeing that it’s almost 10:15, we will stand in recess until question period at 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the member for Timmins has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 74,

An Act concerning the provision of health care, continuing Ontario Health and making consequential and related amendments and repeals. The order for second reading of Bill 74 may therefore not be called today.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to inform the House we have a former member of provincial Parliament here with us today in the House, Kathryn McGarry, who served in the 41st Parliament and is now the mayor of Cambridge. Welcome, Kathryn. It’s great to have you back.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It is my pleasure to welcome a contingent from the region of Waterloo here to Queen’s Park today. We have Mayor Dave Jaworsky, mayor of Waterloo; Adam Lauder, who is the EO to the CAO of city of Waterloo; Paul Grivicic from the city of Kitchener; Dan Chapman from the city of Kitchener; and Berry Vrbanovic, mayor of Kitchener.

We have Sandy Shantz, mayor of the township of Woolwich; David Brenneman, township of Woolwich; Sue Foxton, mayor of the township of North Dumfries; Andrew McNeely, township of North Dumfries; Karen Redman, first female chair of the region of Waterloo; Mike Murray, CAO, region of Waterloo; Stevie Natolochny, EA to the chair of the region of Waterloo; Kathryn McGarry has already been introduced; Hardy Bromberg, deputy city manager, city of Cambridge; Brooke Lambert, city of Cambridge; Les Armstrong, mayor of the township of Wilmot; Grant Whittington, township of Wilmot; Joe Nowak, township of Wellesley mayor; and Tony LaMantia, president and CEO of the Waterloo Region Economic Development Corp.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Kitchener Wilmot.

Mr. Mike Harris: Kitchener–Conestoga, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Mike Harris: Just to echo off the sentiments of the member from Waterloo, I would also like to welcome the regional contingent we have here today: Karen Redman, the regional chair, who I believe is still delayed due to the weather; Berry Vrbanovic, who is of course the mayor of Kitchener; Les Armstrong, the mayor of the township of Wilmot; Sandy Shantz, the mayor of Woolwich township; Sue Foxton, the mayor of North Dumfries; Kathryn McGarry, of course, former member of provincial Parliament and the new mayor of Cambridge; and, of course, Dave Jaworsky, who is the mayor of Waterloo. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have a proud resident of my riding here today, my first legislative page, Evan Tanovich. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: It’s my pleasure to also introduce the two women I work very closely with in my riding of Cambridge, Mayor Kathryn McGarry, mayor of Cambridge, and Mayor Sue Foxton, mayor of North Dumfries. Also, I’d like to welcome CAO Andrew McNeely from North Dumfries. Thank you for coming here. I look forward to meeting with you later.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Today I would like to welcome student leaders and community leaders: Shadya Yasin who is with York Youth Coalition in my riding of York South–Weston; Evan Tanovich, a student from the University of Toronto; Safia Abdala, who is also a student at the University of Toronto; Maryama Ahmed, a student at the University of Toronto; William Webb, Canadian Intern Association; Eddy Avila and Shannon Kelly of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance; Entisar Yusuf, Black Graduate Students Association; and Kiara Osborne-Pimentel of York University. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure for me to introduce a former page here in the Ontario Legislature, from a few years ago, from the great riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington: Emma Vandermeer. Emma, welcome.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I, too, would like to welcome our model Parliament to the House today. Specifically, I’d like to recognize and welcome Sarah Sollors from Huron–Bruce. She’s a student at Saugeen secondary.

Mr. Roman Baber: It’s my pleasure to recognize and welcome my former campaign manager and former riding president, Mr. Isaac Apter.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I want to introduce, from Callender, Ontario, the mayor of Callender, Hector Lavigne.

Mr. Doug Downey: I want to introduce Hale Mahon, who is here from my riding with the model Parliament, and who was very engaged in my campaign. Welcome, Hale.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I, too, wish to welcome some special guests. We have with us in the public galleries today 103 students from across the province participating in the sixth annual Legislative Assembly of Ontario model Parliament. Please join me in warmly welcoming our future parliamentarians to the Legislature today.

Oral Questions

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question is to the Premier. During the last Conservative government, the Premier of the day, Mike Harris, announced big plans for Ontario’s public health system. Over the next few years, 6,000 nurses lost their jobs, 28 hospitals were shuttered, 7,000 hospital beds were closed.

As the Tories roll out yet another plan to transform our health care, families are wondering this time how many people will lose their jobs, how many hospitals and community services will be shut down, and how many hospital beds we will lose.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, when we travelled around the province and I went from hospital to hospital, there were four-, five-hour wait times. We were elected to end hallway health care.

I am so fortunate and blessed; I have the best health minister, the best Deputy Premier in the entire world right beside me.

Mr. Speaker, I get a lot of calls every day. The overwhelming amount of calls I had from front-line health care workers, from nurses, from doctors across this province said, “Thank goodness you got rid of the LHINs.” That’s all I heard about, is getting rid of the LHINs.

The minister is getting rid of the LHINs, making sure we end hallway health care and getting rid of the 1,200 people who line up in the hallway every single day in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Patients in Ontario have seen big plans before under Conservative and Liberal governments, and they’ve seen the same plans lead to cuts, closures and creeping privatization.

The Premier has brought back many of the same Conservative operators from the Mike Harris era and is even paying his personal friend and former PC Party president $350,000 a year to serve as his health czar.

Why should families believe the government when they claim that this time things are going to be different?

Hon. Doug Ford: To my great Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, things are going to be different. The reason why we are going through this transformative change is for patients. It’s for patients, families and their caregivers, to make sure they get the coordinated care that they need.

They’re not getting that now. Our system is fragmented. Providers are being paid out of different funding envelopes. They have different purposes. They have different goals. What we are bringing forward through The People’s Health Care Act is a way to connect the providers so that they can provide that integrated care to Ontario’s patients. That is what they deserve and expect. We promised them that we would deliver that, and that is what we are going to do.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government’s new health bill includes plans to collapse world-renowned agencies like Cancer Care Ontario into one new mega-bureaucracy. Internal documents from the ministry warned of potential service disruptions, when agencies like Cancer Care Ontario are already doing a stellar job.

Why would we do that to patients? Why is the government scrapping an agency that already works for people?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, that is incorrect. The agencies are not being collapsed. Cancer Care Ontario is going to continue to do the great work it does—and I would agree with you that they are world-class in managing cancer care and renal indications.

But we can learn from that. We can learn from that and use that model for other chronic disease management strategies. We need to do that for diabetes, for example, and in mental health and addictions, it’s arguable that there isn’t any structure right now. We can use that model to create those chronic disease management strategies that we need across the board.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier of the province. During the last election campaign, the Premier said he would “leave no stone unturned” when it came to privatizing public services. The new health bill will open the door to unprecedented levels of new private, for-profit health delivery.

My question, Speaker: How many new private, for-profit services will the Premier accept under this new plan?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: What I would say to the leader of the official opposition is that that is absolutely incorrect. If you take a look at The People’s Health Care Act, there is no indication of privatization. We are not moving in that direction. We are not bringing things open for private health care delivery in our public system. What we are doing is making sure that we strengthen our public health care system.

As the members opposite should know, you indicate in a bill what you are going to do. You don’t talk about all the other things that you aren’t going to do. We are not moving forward with privatization. We are strengthening our public health care system. I think the people of Ontario need to know that.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While the Ford government insists that this is a completely different bill from the version that leaked weeks ago, it contains the same concerning provisions encouraging more for-profit providers into our health system. The one change is a new

preamble that actually references public funding, but makes no mention whatsoever of the principle, straight from the Canada Health Act, of public delivery of health services.

Why is there no commitment to not-for-profit public health care delivery in this bill?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I’ve got to ask the government side. I have to be able to hear the person asking the question. I ask them to come to order.

Start the clock. Response, Minister?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the legislation entirely talks about the public delivery of health care, strengthening our public system.

With respect, I would say that what the leader of the official opposition is doing is fearmongering and scaring people about something that doesn’t actually exist. We are strengthening our public system of health care, plain and simple. The end.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Oh, Speaker, it will be the end, all right, if our health care system becomes like Kathleen Wynne’s Hydro One system. It will be the end for that government, is what it will be the end for.

Ontario families want to know that they can get quality health care when they need it and without having to pad the pockets of for-profit companies. That’s what people value in this province. They don’t want their public health dollars padding the pockets of for-profit health delivery companies. Yet this government seems to be following the exact same path we’ve seen before, laying the groundwork for cuts, closures and creeping privatization.

Why should families believe that this time it’s going to be any different?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, again, through you: I would say that the leader of the official opposition doesn’t want to accept what is obvious. We are strengthening our public health care system. I want to say to the people of Ontario, because they need to hear it from me directly, that you will continue to pay for your health care services using your OHIP card. That will not change. That is what we’re going to do. What we are going to do is make the patient experience better.

If I can give you an example of what’s happening now: If people are being discharged from hospital following surgery but they require home care, right now, they often don’t know who’s going to provide the care, they don’t know what kind of care is going to be delivered or when they’re going to receive it. When the home care provider arrives at their home whenever, they often don’t know anything about the patient’s condition.

Well, that has to change and that is going to change under our new system. By the time patients leave—

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

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier of the province. After weeks of dodging and delaying, the Ford government finally released details of their plan for children with autism and their families, and it confirms what families had feared, Speaker. Two parents, each earning minimum wage, will make too much money to qualify for full support under the Premier’s autism plan. A family earning an average household income could be expected to cover as much as $76,000 a year in therapy costs for their child.

How does the Premier expect a family earning $90,000 a year to pay for $76,000 worth of treatment?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to rise today to talk about Ontario’s new autism program. Our government for the people is committed to eliminating the 23,000-long wait-list for families of children with autism seeking support through the OAP. Unfortunately, the NDP doesn’t want to see those children get off that wait-list, and that is actually quite despicable.

Our goal is to clear the wait-list in 18 months and improve access to service for those 23,000 children. A sliding scale has been developed using gradual increments of approximately 1.5%. In year 1, the government will be using family net income budgets from families’ notices of assessment to calculate childhood budgets, to provide family support as soon as possible. For example, if a household income of the child entering the program of two is $80,000, the maximum childhood budget available would be 86.5% of the $140,000, which equals to $121,000, which is $121,000 more than they get today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Waterloo will come to order. The government side will come to order.

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this plan is a betrayal of children and parents who need support. They were promised it by this government, and they know they’ve been betrayed. Instead of providing the help that these families need, the government has threatened professional groups, they’ve frozen waiting lists while denying that that freeze actually existed and they’ve claimed endorsements from parents who actually hate their plan.

At what point will the Premier fire this minister and start on a new plan that actually works for children and families?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: As I mentioned, our motivation is to clear the wait-list of 23,000 children who are not receiving support in the province of Ontario. That’s three out of every four children. That’s why we’re investing a record investment of $321 million to clear the wait-list by doubling the diagnostic hubs and by ensuring that we can provide direct support financially to parents.

I have a quote that came out in December of 2007 and I want to read it: “When is this government going to actually deliver on funding to clear the waiting list for those children and the families that need autism services in the province of Ontario?”

Do you know where that came from? The leader of the official opposition. Today we’re clearing the wait-list. She should be standing up there applauding. The question that she asked was in 2007, of the government that she supported 98% of the time, the Liberals, but this time, when we’re clearing the wait-list, it’s not good enough for her. Why isn’t it good enough for her?

Health care

Mrs. Amy Fee: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Our government committed to the people of Ontario during the election campaign that we would fix our public health care system. Ontarians across this province have been waiting far too long for improvements to our health care system. That is why, yesterday, I was so excited to hear the Minister of Health deliver our government’s long-term plan to fix and strengthen our public health care system, by focusing directly on the needs of Ontarian patients and families.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please update the members of this Legislature on how our plan will benefit patients in Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to thank the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for her question and for her great work on many, many fronts. Thank you.

This is an important issue. As we all know, our health care system is facing many problems. Patients and families are lost in our health care system, falling through the cracks and waiting too long for care. This has a negative impact on the health and well-being of patients and their loved ones both physically and mentally.

Right now, care is fragmented, particularly at transition points, for example from hospital to home care. Patients, families and caregivers experience frequent gaps in care and have to reiterate their health care concerns over and over and over again because of a lack of digital tools and care continuity.

It is clear that the value of our health care system is locked away in silos. Most frustratingly, Ontario is home to some of the best doctors, nurses and care providers in the world, but they haven’t been given the tools to do their jobs properly—

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

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you, Minister, for that response and all the work that you’re doing. I am so proud to support your plan that strengthens, again, our public health care system. My constituents in Kitchener South–Hespeler are certainly going to benefit from patient-centred care going forward.

Speaker, to me it is unacceptable that 1,000 patients every day across this province are accessing health care in hallways. I know that strengthening our publicly funded health care system will benefit both patients in Ontario and health care providers.

Could the minister explain why else it is critical that we move forward with this plan to strengthen Ontario’s public health care system?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you again to the member for the question. I do want to make it crystal clear to the people of Ontario that our government is 100% committed to strengthening our public health care system.

That’s why throughout our government’s process of developing our vision for our health care system, I want to say directly and very clearly to every legislator in this House and to the people of Ontario, our primary objective has always been and will always be strengthening our publicly funded health care system and making our system better for patients, families and their caregivers; that means, for the people of Ontario, continuing to use your OHIP card for services, as you have always done. That will continue.

I’m pleased to say that, if the legislation is passed, we will finally be able to build a coordinated public health care system around the needs of the patients of this great province.

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. My question is about the Premier’s personal pleasure wagon and his lack of respect for taxpayers in general.

Yesterday, the government House leader made an extraordinary claim: He told reporters that the Premier asked the OPP to secretly spend over $100,000 on a souped-up man cave on wheels. Why, Speaker? Because—get this—he wanted to save money for the public.

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the Premier already has a fleet of full-sized SUVs at his disposal 24 hours a day. So can the Premier explain how equipping a van with a mini fridge, a 32-inch television with a Blu-ray player and a leather power-reclining sofa is a cost-cutting measure for the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I know it’s important to the opposition to talk about a van, but let me tell you something about that. Mr. Speaker, I requested a used van that is one third the cost of the regular suburban. I’m the only Premier in history that refuses to use the Premier’s plane, the King Air, that costs the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I prefer to drive around and talk to the people about things that matter: about creating jobs, lowering taxes, making sure we’re lowering the heating costs, lowering gas prices, creating more jobs out there than we can even—employers need more people. We don’t have enough people for all the jobs we’ve created. We created the environment for 43,000 jobs last month.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take their seats. Order. Government side, come to order.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The fact is that the Premier knows that the people of Ontario shouldn’t be paying for the electric reclining couch in his van. That’s why he asked that the costs be moved off the books, that’s why his staff were using personal emails instead of government accounts, and that’s why Brad Blair, the acting commissioner of the OPP, said no way, not on his watch—which might explain why the Premier’s preferred candidate for OPP commissioner, Ron Taverner, was in the news for this story defending the Premier’s choice of a personal pleasure wagon.

When the Premier said he wanted new leadership at the OPP, is that what he meant?

Interjections.

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

I recognize the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the question last time he asked me. But, again, do you know what the people of this province care about, including people from Essex? People from Essex don’t realize their MPP voted to increase taxes, increase gas prices, making sure it puts more of a burden on the backs of the taxpayers.

Our government is for the people, Mr. Speaker. We’re reducing costs. We’re taking the burden off families. We’re making sure that they can get from point A to point B at a lower cost, because we got rid of the cap-and-trade carbon tax to lower gas prices. Everyone that received a heating bill in this province saw a lower cost on their heating bill because of our government. The people that are getting their cheques every single week are seeing less being taken off from the government.

International trade

Mr. David Piccini: My question is for the Premier. Last week, I know the Premier had the opportunity to travel to Washington to bring our open-for-business message to our largest trading partner. I know that during the trip the Premier had the opportunity to share the work our government is doing to make Ontario open for business and open for jobs.

Since we were elected, this Premier, this government, has been laser-focused on the regulatory burdens affecting business, on lowering taxes and on scrapping the Liberals’ disastrous cap-and-trade carbon tax. Could the Premier please outline for the House the important work that is being done to let our largest trading partner and to let the world know that after a “closed” sign on the border, after a disastrous 15 years, Ontario is once again open for business and open for jobs?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, we had a fabulous trip to Washington. We went down and told the world and our largest trading partner that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs. When I talked to the numerous governors and ambassadors, they were just so thankful. We also met with a group of Fortune 500 companies that have investment in Ontario, and every single one of them said, “Thank God your government got elected, because now we get to expand in Ontario and create more jobs.”

Our biggest issue here in Ontario: We have created so many new jobs, we don’t have enough people to fill these jobs. That’s the problem. And we’re going to continue creating prosperity, growth and wealth in this province, the likes of which this province has never seen before.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you to the Premier for that response. It’s refreshing to members—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Mr. David Piccini: It’s refreshing that after 15 years, we have a Premier that understands business. I know that the during the trip, the Premier, along with the Premiers of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, called for an end to American steel and aluminum tariffs. These tariffs have been hurting Ontario workers and Ontario businesses, and they are also hurting American workers and American businesses. In fact, over 16,000 people work in the steel and aluminum industries, including workers in that nagging member’s riding, and they want an end to these tariffs.

Could the Premier please outline for this House what our government is doing to get these disastrous tariffs lifted?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, we had a great meeting with Ambassador Lighthizer, who is controlling the trade deal. What a positive, positive meeting. He wants to sign the deal. I’m confident that he’ll sign the deal with our federal government. We’ll get rid of these tariffs.

But what I told the Americans down there, our largest trading partner: We’re the number-one customer to 19 states. We do more trade with 19 states than any other region in the world. We’re number two to nine other states. If we were a standalone country, we would be the US’s third-largest trading partner, with $350 billion—a two-way trade.

I had great conversations with the Michigan governor, Governor Whitmer. We just hit it off. Together, we will create tens of thousands of jobs, right across all sectors, because Ontario is open for business.

Mr. Paul Miller: Come down to Hamilton. I’ll give you a tour.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member for Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, come to order. We’re not even halfway through question period.

Start the clock. Next question.

Ontario Provincial Police

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker. through you to the Premier: The Premier’s OPP security detail are highly trained professionals, trained literally to take a bullet for the Premier, yet court documents show that the Premier berated these officers, demanded special treatment and control over this detail, saying “It feels like I’m getting” effed “around by the OPP, and I’m getting more pissed off.”

Can the Premier tell us what it was—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Withdraw, Speaker. “It feels like I’m getting” bleeped “around by the OPP, and I’m getting more and more” bleeped “off,” if that makes any sense.

Speaker, can the Premier tell us what it was that he didn’t like about his highly trained OPP officers, trained to literally protect his life?

Hon. Doug Ford: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have the best OPP detail in the world. I love my detail. I love the police. Unlike the opposition that runs around with signs bleeping the police, the police, no matter where they are in Ontario, know that this government supports the police, supports the OPP.

You know, my friend from Essex should be apologizing to my detail that I’ve worked with for seven, eight months. They’re part of the family. I love them, and I’m sure they feel the same way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, we know that the Premier would love to relive the glory days of operating out of the back of a van, but the OPP have better things to do than take verbal abuse and hide the cost of his personal pleasure wagon.

Court documents also reveal that the Premier didn’t even know the name of the OPP commissioner, and he only bothered to learn it because he felt his personal needs weren’t being met. Evidently the new Premier’s top priority in his first meeting with the OPP commissioner wasn’t public safety, and it wasn’t supporting our front-line commissioners and officers; it was looking out for number one. It was meeting the personal needs of Doug Ford. Speaker, is this the Premier’s vision for policing in our province?

Interjections.

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

I’ll remind all members that we refer to each other by our riding name or by our ministerial name, if applicable.

Premier, respond.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Do you know something? I’m going out on a limb. I’m speaking for my detail. They’re disgusted right now. They’re disgusted. If they could run in here right now, each and every one of them would be standing shoulder to shoulder with me. I think they’re incredible. They do an incredible job, and I appreciate the work they do.

My friends, what people want—and I’ll tell you what the OPP want, because they have heating bills. They have gas bills that they have to pay. They love this government. The police love this government. They love Bill 175, that we’re getting through, to actually stand up for the police. I look forward to the opposition voting with us when it comes to police issues, police matters. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? They voted against everything when it comes to the police. They don’t like the police. They hate the police.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I’m going to ask the Premier to withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. I’m going to ask the Premier to withdraw.

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Start the clock. Next question.

Fundraising

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. Three years ago, when the Liberal cash-for-access story broke, Conservative MPPs hammered the government of the day. Ultimately, all parties supported fundraising reform. But tonight, the Ford government is bringing back cash-for-access. Media reports allege the government is pressuring lobbyists to sell $1,250 tickets to the Premier’s swanky dinner or lose access.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier: Will the government agree to close the loopholes they opened last year that allowed deep-pocketed insiders to buy access to events with the Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question is being put to the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Actually, we have done more spaghetti dinners at $25 around this province. We’re coming to a location close to you out in Guelph to talk to the people over a $25 spaghetti dinner.

I’m going up to Muskoka on Friday for a $25 spaghetti dinner to talk to the real people. I encourage everyone to come out Friday to listen to the great things that this government has done for the common folk.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid the government has forgotten what they said in opposition. Cash-for-access is bad for democracy. A $25 spaghetti dinner is not the same as a $1,250 cash-for-access event.

Having to strong-arm lobbyists to sell tickets is wrong. We can’t allow big money to have a bigger voice in our government than, let’s say, children with autism or endangered species or others who can’t afford to write a $1,250 cheque.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier: Will the government work with all parties in this House to fix the fundraising rules so we can have $25 spaghetti dinners but not have $1,250 cash-for-access events?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, we have a lot of people here from Kitchener-Waterloo. I know recently the Premier was in Waterloo region and had one of those famous spaghetti dinners for 25 bucks. Over 200 people showed up; they couldn’t get them all in the building. He’s a very popular Premier, if people are going to come.

We changed the fundraising rules. As you may remember, the previous Liberal government was doing $10,000-a-plate corporate donations. Guess who got the wind turbine projects? Guess who got the solar projects? The companies that gave big money to the Liberal government.

These are personal donations that these people are going to be making to come to our event tonight. I know they’re going to enjoy hearing from the Premier.

Tune in on the livestream, member from Guelph, and you’ll enjoy it too. It’s a great message for Ontario: We’re open for business. We’re open for jobs.

Health care

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for—and let me echo our Premier—the great Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Mr. Speaker, our government for the people was left with a health care system on life support. That is why, on behalf of the moms, the dads, the aunts, the uncles, the young people, the teens and the seniors in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I am proud to support our government’s plan to strengthen Ontario’s health care system. Fixing the broken health care system the former Liberal government left us with was a core campaign promise, which our government is delivering on.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please inform the members of this House how our plan will finally create a health care system that works for the people?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would like to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her question and for her support.

Yesterday, I was proud to announce our plan to strengthen and fix our public health care system. As the member stated, our promise to fix our system is a commitment we do take very seriously. We have to do more to ensure that high-quality care is there for Ontarians when they need it and where they need it. We know that too much time and attention is spent on maintaining a siloed and fragmented system. Far too many people believe it is the patients’ or the families’ job to navigate through a very complicated system during a very emotional and difficult time in their lives.

That’s why we are building a public health care system centred around the patient and redirecting money to front-line services, where it belongs, to improve the patient experience and provide better and more connected care.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I thank the minister for her response. Public health care has, for many decades, been a cornerstone of health care in Canada and in Ontario. Knocking on doors, people in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore have made it clear that public health care is important to them. I’m glad to hear that we are acting on a key campaign promise to end hallway health care in Ontario and that strengthening our broken health care system remains a top priority for this minister and this government. Mr. Speaker, could the minister please confirm the government’s commitment to the public health care system in Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you again to the member. Throughout many years, I have seen the need to strengthen and fix our public health care system: during my years as health critic for the official opposition, as Ontario’s first patient Ombudsman, and now in my role as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I have heard from literally thousands of Ontarians—patients, families and caregivers and our dedicated health care providers.

From these thousands of hours of conversations, I have heard your collective refrain: Our system is in need of transformational change. We are past the point of simply tinkering around the edges of our health care system. We need to make this change for the people. That’s why The People’s Health Care Act has been introduced, and, if passed, that will allow us to strengthen and fix our public health care system.

Autism treatment

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Education what plans she has put in place to support children with autism spectrum disorder in schools when funding for autism services expires on April 1, and she couldn’t answer.

Premier, I have a letter here from the Halton District School Board chair, who is calling on the government to provide them with a plan and funding to ensure that proper supports are in place for their classrooms. This letter speaks of the rising needs and says that changes to the Ontario Autism Program will make this situation, their situation at the board and others, absolutely untenable.

When will the Premier direct his minister to stop ignoring the impacts of her government’s failed autism policy, listen to school boards, educators and parents, and show us a plan that gives students with autism the supports they deserve?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased today to stand and remind the member opposite exactly what I said yesterday, because it’s a fulsome, sincere answer. We started months ago addressing what kind of supports students need to ensure that their learning environment is safe and supportive. As I said, going back to July last summer, I was appalled at the manner in which there was disparity amongst school boards. Not one school board had the same policy when it came to companion dogs. Do you know what?

As our Bill 48 works its way through the system, I’m pleased to say that in the region of Waterloo, a child with autism went to school for the first time yesterday with his companion dog. That’s what we’re doing in Ontario. That’s what we are taking very seriously. We have to make sure that our children with autism feel supported, and our government stands with them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Again to the Premier: All of those things that the minister has spoken about until now are programs that were developed under the previous government. Nothing new exists today. And I’m sorry, but with the greatest of respect, we can’t ensure that every child with autism is going to have a companion dog with them when they go to school after April 1. That is not an answer.

Speaker, in a letter to the minister, the chair of the Halton District School Board said, “We fear that the short notice of program change, coupled with the lack of an implementation plan from the ministry (with associated new funding), will not allow for the ‘safe and supportive classrooms’ that you have stated you are committed to.”

She goes on to note that the Halton board already spends $20 million more than they get for special education supports, and that as of February 25, the staff at the school board have received no plans, no funds and no direction from the ministry.

Mr. Premier, time is running out. When will your minister act?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I think it might be appropriate to remind all members to make their comments through the Chair.

Minister, response.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I have to remind the member opposite that yesterday I shared in this House that we have given school boards across this province $3 billion for special education needs—$3 billion. In addition to that, we have extended our pilot project where we’re working with 19 school boards dealing with children with autism—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: We can learn from the people in the classroom. That extension of the pilot project was very, very important.

Over and above that, we are working very diligently with our school boards and with our ministry to make sure, again, that students feel safe and supported.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Davenport, once again, come to order.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: There are going to be so many more details coming in the weeks to come.

Ontario economy

Mr. Stephen Lecce: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. This government is pro-manufacturing, pro-energy sector and firmly pro-pipelines. Yesterday, the minister represented our economic interests and fought to defend the livelihood of thousands of workers across this province by speaking against Bill C-69, the federal Liberal anti-energy, anti-pipeline bill at the Senate.

In Canada, and especially in Ontario, energy infrastructure and mining play a huge role in the daily lives of so many of our communities. They are massive employment centres in our economy, especially the manufacturing sector, which produces pipelines right here in Ontario and creates jobs for our young people, our skilled trades and our Indigenous people.

Can the minister outline how he is standing up for energy workers in this province by opposing the federal Liberals’ job-killing legislation?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I had an incredible opportunity to speak to a packed room, one of the largest rooms in a Senate committee in a very, very long time, and took a firm stand and sent a clear message that Ontario is open for business.

You know, that catchy tourist phrase on our old signs that said “More to Discover,” after a decade and a half of darkness, meant more taxes to discover, more red tape to discover, more government to discover, Mr. Speaker. So how could it be that we would stand idly by and watch Bill C-69, which represents a significant intrusion by the federal government on our ability to move major pipeline projects forward, open new mines and our ability to develop, refurbish, enhance and expand our nuclear assets?

We’re not having anything to do with that, Mr. Speaker. Industry leaders were there. Provincial leaders were there. Ministers from across the country are poised to send a clear message that Ontario is not fine with Bill C-69.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stephen Lecce: The minister and our government recognize the interconnected reality that prosperity and economic growth in the west means jobs and growth here in the east. I know that the minister is concerned that Bill C-69 will undermine pipeline expansion, nuclear development and new mining operations in this province and manufacturing jobs across the GTA and across this province.

The minister explained how interprovincial energy infrastructure projects like pipelines are essential for Canada to compete in the global marketplace. Between Prime Minister Trudeau’s carbon tax and Bill C-69, Liberals are making it virtually impossible to build new and replace existing pipelines, to expand mining operations from the north to manufacturing here in the south.

I am proud that our government is fighting for a stronger Ontario economy within a strong and prosperous Canada. Minister, can you affirm today that you’ll continue to stand up against Justin Trudeau’s job-killing agenda?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I appreciate the question. I also spoke, in addition, against Bill C-69, the implementation of clean fuel standards and the carbon tax—I called it the triple layer cake—which represents some of the most significant energy costs that we have seen a very long time.

To sit there at that committee and get grilled by members of the Senate and complimented by an Indigenous Senator, who applauded Ontario’s recent efforts to have Indigenous communities take leadership on environmental assessment projects, on major resource projects and the legacy infrastructure to support them—an independent senator who recognized that Ontario was mobilizing quickly to move forward with building resource projects.

Mr. Speaker, the integrity and safety of our nuclear assets are on the line with Bill C-69. We ask the New Democratic protesters to join Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec. Get with the times and fight—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Autism treatment / Traitement de l’autisme

Mr. Jamie West: My question is to the Premier.

I’d like to tell the House about my young constituent Manon from Sudbury. Manon is just five years old and has been on the wait-list to receive IBI therapy for two years. Manon will require between 20 and 40 hours of therapy per week, costing approximately $55,000 to $75,000 a year. Manon’s mother, Josée, is not tempted by a $5,000 cheque. She would rather wait for a program that adequately and equitably supports her daughter’s individual needs. Monsieur le Président, elle préfère attendre.

Premier, why won’t this government provide Manon and her family the support they desperately need?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to respond. As you know, my parliamentary assistant, Amy Fee, and I travelled across this entire province talking to families who were struggling on the wait-list and who were in the program. It appears that in Manon’s case, Manon would probably be on the wait-list for a very, very long time without changes to this program—which is what our motivation is: to clear the wait-list in 18 months of the 23,000 children who were being denied service by their Ontario government.

That’s why we’re putting forward a plan that will double the investment into the diagnostic hubs and that will ensure that there is a direct responsibility and a direct fund to mothers and fathers so that they can get the services that they believe their children need, whether that’s behavioural support, technological aids, caregiver training or respite.

Speaker, let me be very clear: Manon is on our mind, and that’s why we’re making the changes to this plan, so Manon can finally get service—

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

Mr. Jamie West: Manon needs $55,000, not $5,000, so thoughts and prayers won’t cut it.

Back to the Premier, who supports autistic families 1,000%: Tous les enfants atteints d’autisme méritent d’avoir accès à des services qui répondent à leurs besoins thérapeutiques dans la langue officielle de leur choix.

But this government’s changes to the Ontario Autism Program, which cut the direct-service option for families, means that for children like Manon—it will be incredibly difficult to get the therapy she needs in French. Manon’s parents kept Manon on the wait-list, hoping to get her IBI therapy from a French-language service provider, but this government’s plan has ripped away all hope of that.

Mr. Premier, why is the government penalizing francophone families?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: That’s not the case at all. I understand that there has been a lot of misinformation on the other side, and it has been perpetuated by the official opposition, and I believe it’s irresponsible. What would they have me do? Continue—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the minister to withdraw.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I withdraw.

What would the opposition have me do? Continue for the next four years to ignore the three out of four children who are denied service? What would they expect me to do? To allow the bankrupt system I inherited to go insolvent? What would they have me do?

They’ve not come out with a credible plan themselves of what would they do, with the exception of yelling over me, heckling, and providing false and misleading hope to the parents of the people of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the minister to withdraw.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Withdraw.

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

Road safety

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Our government for the people’s number one priority is keeping the people of Ontario safe, whether it be at home, at work or during their commute. This is why we’re committed to ensuring that the people of Ontario have a safe and efficient highway network.

However, we all have to remember that we have to work together to keep our highways among the safest in North America. My riding of Brampton West has many trucking companies that travel our roads and highways daily, weekly and year-round. It is important to these employers, employees, friends, families and all Ontarians that we continue to lead the way on truck safety standards and enforcement.

Can the Minister of Transportation inform the House on some of the recent measures our government for the people is taking to keep our roads and highways safe?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to thank the member from Brampton West for this question and his continued advocacy for his constituents and for Ontario as a whole.

Our government is committed to continually growing our economy and creating jobs across Ontario. Just recently, the government announced the red tape reduction bill. We took action because too many Ontarians were battling the regulatory requirements that were inefficient, inflexible and out of date.

Recently, I announced two new plans to cut red tape for commercial carriers by using technology for both pre-clearance and pre-screening. Pre-clearance technology will allow a driver to use an app that transmits data from the truck. When approaching inspection stations, information is now cross-checked against the Ministry of Transportation’s databases. Then this app will let the driver know whether to bypass the station or to go in. It saves time and it saves money.

We’re introducing this technology right across the province. This new technology will allow drivers to get information visually and audibly in a way that’s consistent with our distracted driving laws.

I’m going to have more in the supplemental.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, through you, thank you to the Minister of Transportation for the great response. I’m pleased to hear that our government for the people is finding better and smarter ways to enhance truck safety across Ontario and continue to keep our roads and highways among the safest in North America. I know my community of Brampton West will be very pleased with this announcement.

With the red tape reduction measures, this government is getting out of the way of Ontario’s job creators. We’re lowering business costs and making Ontario more competitive. That’s an important part of our plan to grow the economy, help small business expand and ultimately create jobs. We’re removing obstacles to investment, growth and job creation in over a dozen sectors, including the trucking industry, tech, the auto sector, manufacturing, construction, agriculture and food processing.

Can the minister tell us more about his recent announcements to enhance truck safety in Ontario?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks again to the member from Brampton West for that question. Our government recently announced that we’ll be improving road safety by allowing enforcement officers to focus their efforts on higher risk or unknown vehicles. We’re going to use technology for pre-screening to speed up inspections. Data can be collected automatically with readers, sensors and imaging to help enforcement officers to identify potential issues more quickly.

As well, we recently proposed changes to the Highway Traffic Act to give commercial drivers the option of using an electronic cab card. This makes it easier to confirm driver credentials and reduce paperwork.

All of these efforts will keep safe trucks on the road, helping carriers save time, money and fuel costs. Ontario is a leader in truck safety standards and enforcement. I encourage all carriers to sign up for the pre-clearance program so they can take advantage of its cost-saving benefits, and saving time.

We want to let the trucking industry know, we want to let the opposition know, that Ontario is open for business, and we’re going to carry trucking along.

Ambulance services

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Health. In early December, your ministry suddenly moved the Cambridge ambulance communication centre to Hamilton due to staffing shortages, but this staffing problem wasn’t new. In June, managers were told by your ministry staff that Cambridge was headed toward a staffing crisis. To the front-line workers, it appeared that nothing was being done. Workers continued to leave because of stress.

The relocation was supposed to help. Instead, it made things worse. Hamilton dispatch was not equipped with auto-locate technology, and an ambulance was sent to the wrong location. First responders lost precious minutes before they arrived to provide care for a patient without vital signs.

Why did the ministry make this matter worse by moving Cambridge dispatch to Hamilton and not providing the necessary tools to prevent this crisis?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member opposite for the question. It is something that we are certainly aware of. I have been made aware of this, as the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The situation was very unfortunate, but we are working to modernize and strengthen our system, and changes are going to be coming forward shortly to make sure that patients don’t fall between the cracks. We want to make sure that people are safe in transportation, safe in their health care and safe at every step along their health care journey. Thank you for raising that; I assure you that we are continuing to work on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, health care ultimately is about people. Since this crisis, the ministry has done almost nothing to address the underlying issue of staff retention. In fact, it took this ministry six weeks to even post for the new positions, and there appear to be no plans to address the wage gap between dispatchers, which leads to high staff turnover.

Minister, front-line workers deserve so much better than this. The region of Waterloo, which is here today, has stepped up and is ready to do just that. They have said that they have the dedicated space and they have the dispatch experience.

Minister, will you accept the region’s offer of taking over operational control of the Cambridge ambulance communication centre, because it is in the best interest of our community as a whole?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to thank the member for the question. She is correct: Ultimately, this is about people. It’s about patients, it’s about providers and it’s about providing the best possible quality service to them—and safety. Safety is the first and foremost issue for me as minister, and is something that we are looking at seriously.

We are looking at the appropriate health mix across all of the stages in our health care system: in hospitals, in long-term-care homes, in home care settings, in ambulance situations and with paramedics—all of the people who provide health care in Ontario. We are looking to modernize our system and bring it up to date, to bring our technology into the 21st century. That is what we are trying to do with The People’s Health Care Act. That is our priority. If passed, we will move into the 21st century with our technology, with our communications, with our digital tools and with the people in the system. That is what this is all about.

Executive compensation

Mrs. Daisy Wai: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. The people of Ontario elected our government because we promised to clean up the hydro mess left behind by the Liberals. We promised that we will restore accountability to our electricity system after 15 years of ideologically driven policies. These policies led to higher hydro rates for families and businesses, while insiders in the energy sector got rich.

This is completely not acceptable for our government, Mr. Speaker. This is why during the election, our government promised to address and renew the governance structure at Hydro One.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House what steps our government took to restore transparency and accountability at Hydro One?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member for Richmond Hill for her great work on behalf of her constituents, and the work that she has been doing with all of our caucus colleagues in cleaning up the Hydro One mess that we inherited. We endeavoured to deal with an inflated, distorted salary and compensation framework for both the CEO and the board.

We did this through the passage of the Hydro One Accountability Act. It required the board of directors at Hydro One to establish a new compensation framework for the board, the CEO and other executives, a framework that would g