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

November 28, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Nov-28 (PDF)

L127 - Tue 28 Nov 2017 / Mar 28 nov 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 November 2017 Mardi 28 novembre 2017

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Oral Questions

Taxation

Taxation

Health care

Energy policies

Taxation

Mercury poisoning

Ontario film and television industry

Mental health services

School facilities

Correctional services

Tree planting

Infectious disease control

International trade

Court facility

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

One Laptop per Child

Health care

Post-secondary education

Orvil Hammond

Workplace safety

Physician assistants

Bush planes

Robert McColeman

Community newspapers

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

Fairness in Petroleum Products Pricing Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité en matière d’établissement du prix des produits pétroliers

Petitions

Injured workers

Long-term care

Animal protection

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Elevator maintenance

Landfill

Gasoline prices

Injured workers

Hydro rates

Shingles vaccine

Sexual violence and harassment

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Safer Ontario Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour plus de sécurité en Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 177,

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

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, December 7, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the notice of public hearings; and

That the deadline for requests to appear be 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2017; and

That if not all requests can be scheduled, that the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee and their designates with the list of requests to appear by 11 a.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2017; and

That the members of the subcommittee and/or their designates prioritize and return the list to the Clerk of the Committee by 1 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2017; and

That the Clerk of the Committee distribute a draft copy of the agenda to the committee members and their designates by Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, December 6, 2017, at 11:30 a.m.; and

That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by nine minutes for questions, split evenly amongst the three recognized parties; and

That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2017; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 10 a.m. on Friday, December 8, 2017; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Monday, December 11, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. to 10 p.m., for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

On Monday, December 11, 2017, at 4:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, December 12, 2017. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

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

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Madame Lalonde has moved government notice of motion number 43.

Back to Madame Lalonde.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I believe the parliamentary assistant will be making our remarks later in the debate.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, Speaker, and good morning. Well, here we go again. It seems the most time that the opposition gets to speak about any bill is on closure. We’re stopping debate of yet another bill. I have to say, I might as well just pull out the speech I gave twice last week, because two times they invoked closure and just stopped us from allowing debate of important bills.

I can’t say this bill is more important than any other bill. Everything we look at here deserves proper attention. But this is the fall economic statement. It’s quite interesting that if you actually had a copy of the finance minister’s speech when he rose in this Legislature to give the fall economic statement, or if you actually had the book, published with the details of the fall economic statement in it, you would find that very, very, very little of that—all the talk—is actually in the bill. What’s in the bill, on the other hand, was never in the speech for the most part.

We have 46 schedules in this bill. That’s why we call it an omnibus bill. That means it’s all-encompassing. It has got everything but the kitchen sink inside this bill, so it’s a very important opportunity. This, along with bills such as the budget and other bills, truly deserves proper debate. And yet, here on our side in the opposition, we’ve only had a couple of members who were able to stand and speak about this.

Speaker, 46 individual schedules here. Virtually none of them have anything to do with the fall economic statement or with economics of any sort or with the finances of the province in any way, shape or form. Yet it’s a bill brought under the fall economic statement.

The schedules that they’re bringing are very important—don’t get me wrong—and we support many of them. Please, let’s make no mistake about that. Our party fully supports, for instance, three schedules that have to do with the Building Code Act. It’s all about Elliot Lake. It’s all about bringing forth the recommendations that were made from the investigation into that terrible catastrophe in Elliot Lake.

There are three schedules that are sprinkled throughout this document. Those are the kinds of schedules that, of course, are truly important to the people of Ontario and that we fully support.

There are other funnier aspects of this.

Schedule 1 may be one of my favourites. It’s called the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014. I like to just call it the St. Joseph’s Health Centre act. If you remember, I stood in this Legislature and talked about the CEO of St. Joseph’s Health Centre, who earns $720,000 as the CEO but also has a part-time job down the street, here in Toronto, where he earns $357,000 a year serving on a board, and where he earned $1.5 million in stock as well. There are several other boards that he’s on, but I picked on this particular one, the $357,000-a-year one.

Finally, the Liberals have realized the error of their ways and now have the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, where “a minister”—in this particular case, it’s really all about the health minister, and I’m reading out of the

schedule now—“to make a particular specified decision” related to executive compensation. That means the minister can now intervene when somebody is earning $720,000 a year and has a part-time job at $357,000. It goes on to say “... that, in the opinion of the minister, is appropriate....”

So the minister can now set the pay for CEOs of a hospital. That’s really what this is all about: that any minister here can be involved in the compensation of any CEO or any “designated executives” of the broader public sector.

That is in here. You didn’t hear about that in the speech; you don’t read about it in the book. But, certainly, it was a way for them to slip this in. Speaker, that’s one of my favourites in here. As I say, I call it the St. Joseph’s Health Centre act.

There is another one here that’s a real dilly, and this is why they’re invoking closure. They do not want us standing here talking about how heinous it is that they have dumped 46 schedules into the fall economic statement that, for the most part, have nothing to do with the fall economic statement, or don’t have anything to do with economics or finance.

Here’s another one. Speaker, this one really gets me. This is

schedule 13. It’s called the Election Finances Act.

If you remember, Speaker, when the Liberals got caught in their election financing scandal—this is the cash-for-access and the quid pro quo, and the “I’ll pass a bill and you hold a fundraiser for me,” one of those things. They got caught. We understand that. They got caught. They decided to have this sweeping set of changes in election finances that swung the pendulum far over to the other side and banned MPPs from going to a $10 spaghetti dinner at the Davedi Club in North Bay if it’s a fundraiser—those types of things. They rushed it. They got caught one day and rushed in a bill, and it was horribly designed.

They brought their own amendments to it because it was so poorly done. They passed it in a hurry. They invoked closure—we can’t even talk about it—and rammed it through without any real thoughts, without really consulting with people such as the elections officer here in Ontario.

Anyway, we’ve got this bill rammed through. Weeks later, they’re bringing in an historic bill to create two new ridings in northern Ontario. Here we are, with a chance to make history. I’ve spoken in this Legislature before about how they bungled that by disrespecting the Mushkegowuk Council, who asked for that name not to be used, but that’s another story for another day; I’ve spoken for hours on that.

But in that bill, they slammed in election finances changes. This is only weeks after their bill got through, the one that they rushed through. They have jammed in what I like to call the Caroline Mulroney act, because the dates that they put in this, restricting the Election Finances Act, would prohibit Caroline Mulroney, our PC candidate—

Mr. Steve Clark: Star candidate.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —thank you—from fundraising. That’s why I called it that. They specifically picked the dates to affect her.

All of a sudden, now, in the fall economic statement,

schedule 13 is yet another Election Finances Act change. They changed the start date yet again, Speaker, back to when the nomination meeting is called. But not only are they ramming in election finances, their third round of changes now—I can’t quite figure out yet who this is going to nail, but it goes back; it’s retroactive to July 1, 2017. They figured out that one of our candidates has an opportunity to continue fundraising under the rules, so they have gone ahead and they are trying to retroactively, now, change it.

This is why we have closure, Speaker. They do not want us here speaking about the mess that they got themselves into, the fact that they got caught again doing something untoward. They got caught in a campaign finance scandal where they passed laws, had people involved and had fundraisers to the benefit only of the Liberal Party. They got caught doing that and, now, here we are again. They are ramming something else through. We are not really sure who this is going to hurt but it’s going to hurt somebody and it will be on this side, that’s for sure. We saw that a couple of weeks ago when they made sweeping changes.

This is why we’re here today, Speaker. They do not want us to have any more opportunity to talk about this scheme of theirs, but they are up to something and it’s happening so fast that we just can’t quite nail why they need that retroactive to July 1 and who it will affect. That’s the kind of thing that they are ramming in here.

This goes on and on and on, Speaker. Again, there are very, very good changes that they are making. It’s inappropriate to have them in a fall economic statement, of course, with nothing to do with the fall economic statement whatsoever, but nonetheless it’s some very important legislation that we support.

Speaker, I can tell you there are things like the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that are going to be changed. There are things in the City of Toronto Act that are going to be changed. There are things in the Education Act that are very important—nothing whatsoever to do with the fall economic statement, nothing to do with the finances of Ontario. Nonetheless,

schedule 12 is an example: It is a very, very important

schedule that we would support. There’s a demonstration school known as the Centre Jules-Léger, and that is going to give them a new, not-for-profit called the Centre Jules-Léger Consortium. That is an important piece of legislation. It should be a stand-alone, Speaker. It should be all on its own.

That is why they are invoking closure. They do not want us to have any opportunity to speak about their failings at Grassy Narrows. They do not want to have these as separate bills. They have rammed all of these things together. It defies any logic whatsoever.

Speaker, on that note, I would say to you that I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice to split Bill 177, and I have tabled this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Fedeli has brought forward a unanimous consent motion. Is it the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I heard a no.

Further debate: back to Mr. Fedeli.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Sadly, Speaker, this goes to my point. We want to divide this bill so that we can actually speak at length about all of these various pieces.

So here’s another one: the Green Energy Act of 2009. Believe it or not, Speaker, they have slipped two sections of energy into this fall economic statement. Here we go again. Why? Because this has been a disaster in Ontario. We have professional organizations such as the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers coming out and illustrating to the Liberals as well as the people of Ontario that because of the flaws in the Green Energy Act—it’s the way this government pushed it onto the people of Ontario.

They took something as important as green energy and bungled that so badly that it cost us over 300,000 manufacturing jobs across Ontario, because they’ve created amongst the highest energy rates in all of North America. So they don’t want us standing here talking about that. They would rather us not have an opportunity to debate

schedule 17 on the Green Energy Act.

We have the Auditor General, who tells us about the billions of dollars that have been wasted on their version of the Green Energy Act and why the way they did it bungled it. If I recall, Speaker, when I first got elected in 2011, only a month later, the former Auditor General had a press conference downstairs. I went and sat in there—I was energy critic at the time—and he shocked the people of Ontario with several facts. First of all, he talked about why the Green Energy Act, the way it is, was hurting the people of Ontario so badly, and he talked about how damaging it was going to be in the future.

He was so accurate, it’s uncanny. If you go back and look at his speech and his press conference of 2011 and look at six years later, November, you will find that he was eerily close on the dollars that he warned Ontario it was going to cost.

He told us why. He told us that they passed the Green Energy Act with no business plan, and the way they forced wind and solar on the people of Ontario was going to harm us. He told us that back then. That’s why they have slipped these changes into the energy file, because they don’t want us here today talking about this.

They also have another part of this,

schedule 33, that will cap the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund, the PBGF. I have a letter here to read into the record from Bob Farmer of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, and he’s talking about the announced changes to the Pension Benefits Act.

He says, “Pensioners will be hurt unless the government makes sure that the guarantee fund will cover any unfunded liabilities of any defined benefit pension plan when it winds up involuntarily. The PBGF coverage cap should be eliminated. This can be done at no cost to taxpayers, while still giving big savings to employers.”

Now, I recall, Speaker, only a few weeks ago when the Canadian Federation of Pensioners came to Queen’s Park and explained this to many MPPs. I hope they explained their strategy to the Liberal Party as well, because he continues on to say, “Surely all parties can agree that helping employers, and at the same time assuring pensioners that the pensions they have earned are finally protected in Ontario, makes sense.”

Bob Farmer continues by saying, “Thank you again for your interest in this, and for trying to help bring security to Ontario’s defined benefit pensioners.”

Well, Bob and others, sadly, that is not what the province of Ontario’s government, the Liberal government, wants to do. They are set on ramming this bill through. They’ve invoked closure. That means we don’t get to talk about it here any longer. We don’t get to talk about those pension benefits.

We don’t get to talk about the Green Energy Act and OSPE, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, who just told us, on November 22, six days ago, “Ontario lost between $732 million and $1.25 billion over the past two years selling surplus clean electricity outside the province.”

You see, that’s why they slipped this in. They don’t want us to have a chance to talk about this. They want to just let it slide through.

They’ve slipped in the high-occupancy toll lanes again. This continues the Liberal government’s war on the car, and the opportunity that, wherever they can get a buck, they’ll go after it. They no longer call people “drivers”; they call them “revenue tools.” That’s what we really are to the Liberal government.

Think about the taxes that have gone up under this government, whether it’s the HST or the employee health tax. Drivers’ licences and registration fees have gone up $503 million in four years. That’s what this government is all about. They treat the people as revenue tools. They don’t treat the people of Ontario with respect. That’s why they’ve invoked closure, and that translates into not allowing us any opportunity to have a meaningful debate on the fall economic statement or these 46 schedules.

I thank you for the opportunity to stand in this Legislature and speak to that.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of Windsor West. I was hoping to speak to Bill 177, the Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act, also known as budget measures, but as the member before me pointed out, this is the second time in seven days that I am standing here talking about the fact that the government doesn’t want to talk about a bill they brought forward.

You’ve got to wonder—I know my constituents wonder—about the validity of the legislation the government is bringing forward when the government doesn’t even want to talk about it. If they’re bringing proposed legislation forward and they really feel that it’s good legislation, it’s strong legislation and it’s really going to help the people of this province, you would think they would want to talk about it as much as they possibly can. We all know they go out and trumpet what they see as successes, but when it comes to talking about something like Bill 177, they don’t want to talk about it.

They don’t want to debate it. They don’t want to hear from the members on this side of the House. They don’t even want to hear from their own members and the constituents they represent.

When they move to time-allocate and shut down debate, clearly they’re saying to their own constituents, to the government’s constituents, “We don’t want to hear from you.” And that’s really unfortunate, because what they could be doing is bringing forward legislation that has some really good pieces in it that are actually going to help the people of Ontario. But instead, they chose to bring forward a bill that isn’t about what it says it’s about, and then shut down debate.

I want to point out that Bill 177 addresses 46 schedules and that 16 agencies are affected. But as my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo pointed out in debate last week, almost half of the 46 schedules have almost nothing to do with the province’s financial systems—nothing. Yet they call it the Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures). Bill 177 is a budget measures act. It should be dealing primarily with budgetary items, but it doesn’t, which is probably why the government doesn’t want to talk about it.

In fact, there are some aspects of this bill that have nothing to do with budgetary measures, like recognizing the city of Ottawa as having two official languages. What does that have to do with the financial situation in the province of Ontario? What does that actually have to do with the finances or the budget of the province of Ontario? It’s great that Ottawa has two official languages. That’s something one of their members could have got up and mentioned in a member’s statement. It doesn’t have to be worked into a budget bill.

There are also some strange provisions in

schedule 38, which deals with the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act. I have to tell you, Speaker, at first I was thrilled to hear that the government had actually worked something for people with developmental or intellectual disabilities into a financial bill, into a budget bill. Then I saw that one of the three provisions in

schedule 38 was simply correcting a mistake in the French-language

section of the bill, and I’m still wondering what that has to do with the budgetary policy.

It’s just, frankly, another omnibus bill. They’ve pulled in everything but the kitchen sink—although, who knows, the kitchen sink may be in here. They’ve thrown it all into one bill, and they’re trying to push it through and tell the people of the province that it’s all about the finances and the budget of the province when, really, it has nothing to do with it.

Speaker, going back to the fact that at least they mentioned the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, it sparks another conversation. We are talking about a budgetary bill, and yet we have a province, we have a government, that has not increased the base funding for agencies that actually support persons with developmental disabilities. They haven’t increased funding in almost a decade. They’ve brought forward bills since then, talking about labour reform.

They’ve listened to New Democrats and the push to make sure that people are making a decent minimum wage. Yet they have done nothing to actually support these agencies in a financial manner to make sure that they are still able to service people with developmental disabilities.

There is nothing in this bill that will see more funding flow to these organizations so that they can continue to provide the supports and services that they do. There’s nothing in this bill for the thousands of people who are on a wait-list for supportive housing—nothing. There’s nothing in this bill that puts more money into the system—a system, again, that has not seen base funding increases. Nothing has gone into this bill to talk about the thousands of people languishing on a wait-list to receive Passport funding so they can actually go out and get services to help those with developmental or intellectual disabilities.

I probably have more notes than I needed for the time that I have, but I want to go over their

schedule for committee. Last week, when I was speaking to time allocation, or a closure motion, a member from the government side had said that it needs to go to committee, and I talked about the farce that committee is. It’s a farce because the Liberal government gives people very little notice to get their names in to be able to present to committee. They often only do committee here in Toronto, which can be a burden for people who live down my way, down in the far south of Ontario. It can be a burden for the people up north to get here in the timelines that the government has prescribed.

I want to read out what their plans are for committee, just to make that point. I should point out that people usually have five minutes to present, so if you’re someone coming from the north and you have to take multiple modes of transportation to get here—sometimes it can take 15 hours and sometimes the weather isn’t the greatest—you’re going to have five minutes to talk to the committee, and each representative from each party is going to have about three minutes to ask you a question, and then your time is done. The government doesn’t want to travel the committee, though, to talk to people.

Late last night, the government shared with us the timeline for the legislation. The government has allocated one day of hearings and one day of clause-by-clause study. We have 46 schedules impacting 16 agencies, and the government is only giving the committee and stakeholders two days to hammer out all the details. Then they decided on one hour of debate at third reading—one hour of debate. They’re shutting down debate right now on the bill, because they don’t want to talk about it. Then they’re rushing through committee, and when it comes back to third reading, they want to give it only one hour for debate.

It’s very clear they don’t want to hear from the opposition members. They don’t want to hear from our constituents; they don’t even want to hear from their own constituents. They have constituents who have concerns about this as well. They have constituents who want to be heard, and yet they don’t want to give them the opportunity to do that. It’s completely unacceptable, and it completely undermines our democracy.

We in this House, 107 of us—think about that: Out of all of the people in the province, there are 107 people as of right now—next election, that number will go up a bit—who have the opportunity and, frankly, the honour to do what we do, to come into this place to represent our constituents and bring forward the voices of those people we represent.

The government is very clear in their stance that they don’t want to hear from my constituents. They don’t want to hear from the constituents from Oshawa. They don’t want to hear from any of the constituents represented by the Conservative members, and even more shameful, the people who voted to send the Liberal members here—those members don’t want to hear from their constituents, either. They don’t want to actually bring their voices to the Legislature. They just want to toe the party line and do what they’re told to do over there. They don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to bring forward the voices of their constituents, and that is shameful.

Again, it is an incredible honour to be one of 107 people who have the opportunity to do what we do here. They are wasting that opportunity on the other side of the House by not engaging in a fulsome debate and by not giving the people that they represent the opportunity to come to committee and actually have an opportunity to be heard.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a sad day again in the Legislature, where we’re here on a Tuesday morning to deal with yet another closure motion by this government—a very anti-democratic motion.

As some of the other speakers have said this morning, this is a very comprehensive bill. Bill 177 is pretty thick. I don’t know that I’d look at a young person today and say it was the size of a phone book, because a young person might not know what a phone book is.

I actually had to go to the table and say, “Which omnibus bill can I get a copy of this morning?” Because I don’t know if you can see it, but when you do the wide shot today, you will see a stack of these huge bills on the Clerks’ table.

As people have said this morning, it’s a huge bill. We’ve referred to it as an omnibus bill: 46 schedules and a number of bill consolidations.

Like the member for Nipissing, my seatmate, talked about this morning, many of the things that were discussed in the fall economic statement are not included here, and there are many, many things that are new. This is something that this government loves to do; they love to throw a number of unrelated items—Speaker, you recall that just a week ago we were here debating another closure motion, on the cannabis bill, where we had school bus safety included in that bill. It’s pretty rich for a government to do this.

I know that my colleague Mr. Fedeli did this this morning, and I think it’s only prudent: The bill should be split. I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice to split Bill 177.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): This is the second time that this unanimous consent motion has been brought forward. The House has already decided on it.

Further debate?

Mr. Steve Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think you’re familiar with standing orders 100 to 107 dealing with Committee of the Whole House. I would ask unanimous consent for us to revert to Committee of the Whole House so we can deal with this bill and split Bill 177.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Clark is seeking unanimous consent for the House to revert back to Committee of the Whole.

I heard a no. Further debate.

Mr. Steve Clark: You know, it’s pretty rich. Speaker, this government is afraid to talk about this bill. It’s afraid to even talk about this closure motion. This is how this government operates. People can go today to Facebook; they can go on Facebook today and look at a purchased ad for the fall economic statement. This government is willing to spend taxpayers’ dollars to promote the fall economic statement, but they’re too gutless—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: We’re proud of it.

Mr. Steve Clark: You may be proud of it, but you’re pretty damned gutless to not be able to stand up today and defend it. I’m sick of your—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Steve Clark: Withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Continue, please.

Mr. Steve Clark: You know what? I’m going to give the Liberals a little history lesson, and I’m going to quote the dean of the Legislature, the member for St. Catharines, Jim Bradley.

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: You can heckle all you want. I’m going to quote Jim Bradley, December 11, 2001. This is a quote from Jim Bradley:

“This is indeed an interesting bill, but what’s even more interesting right now is the time allocation motion that faces us. For the people who are watching this perhaps on their television sets at home, I should clarify that. That is the choking off of debate, the ending of debate or the government allocating how much time there shall be for the debate on a piece of legislation.”

His quote goes on: “We are operating in this Legislative Assembly at this time almost exclusively on what are called time allocation motions. That’s most unfortunate, because it’s what you would call anti-democratic. Is this the first government that ever used a time allocation motion or a closure motion? No. But this government has consistently used these motions to pass legislation through this House even after this government imposed upon the Legislature drastic changes to the procedural rules of this House to grease the skids for legislation that it deems appropriate for the province.”

Listen again to this quote from Jim Bradley: “The best way to deal with legislation”—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I’d just like to remind the member and all members that we don’t refer to members by name. We refer to them by their riding.

Please continue.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for acknowledging that point.

I’ll do another quote from the member for St. Catharines, the chief government whip: “The best way to deal with legislation is to have the government sitting most of the year so that it can receive careful analysis and debate in this House and in committees and, in fact, in committees that travel across the province to get meaningful input. We do not have that.”

That’s a quote. You know what? We sure don’t have that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We could put today’s date on that.

Mr. Steve Clark: We sure don’t have that. You’re absolutely correct, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

As was discussed earlier by the member from Windsor West—

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: If the member for Barrie would like to join in the debate, you’ve got 40 minutes. You can easily stand up and give your comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They don’t want to debate.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: They love to heckle but they don’t want to debate.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Really?

Mr. Steve Clark: Yes, really.

The member for Windsor West did talk about how undemocratic this government is when it comes to this closure motion. In fact, in the motion, government motion 43, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs is only authorized to meet on Thursday, December 7, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 and from 1:30 to 6 p.m. for the purposes of public hearings on the bill. You’ve got one day for an omnibus bill that deals with 46 different schedules, that is about an inch, an inch and a half thick, that has many items in that bill that should not be in that bill. They should be stand-alone bills that get their own careful analysis and debate in this government.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They’re out spending money on advertising.

Mr. Steve Clark: You know what? That’s right. The Facebook ads are running now, the government ads are running now, to promote this bill, yet this government is silent. They don’t want to debate it. They don’t want it in committee. They don’t want to hear from people.

You know what, Speaker? My party loves to hear from people. We’ve been talking to people for months. We’ve had hundreds of volunteers, thousands of ideas. And you know what? If this government doesn’t want to listen to people, I’ll give them a guarantee. I’ll give them, actually, the People’s Guarantee, because we will listen to them, and we will ensure that those Ontarians are being listened to.

We are looking at a government that is for the insiders and not the people. You know what, Speaker? That’s going to change.

Again, I’m going to ask for unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice to split this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d just like to remind the member that unanimous consent has already been dealt with and it was declined. I heard a no.

Again, back to the member for further debate.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, I’m going to quote Jim Bradley again—the member for St. Catharines. Sorry.

November 24, 1993: “I’m concerned about the closure motions because I think they limit legitimate debate. I recognize that a government ultimately might have the opportunity to close down a debate that’s been going on a very long period of time. But as I’ve indicated to the House in days gone by, the purpose of these debates is to canvass public opinion, to make the public aware of what is happening.”

The member goes on to say, “All of us have experienced the situation where we have encountered our constituents and they’ve said, ‘What is this particular bill all about?’ or ‘How did this bill get passed and I didn’t know anything about it?’ They are legitimate questions. One of the reasons is that the bills tend to get passed very rapidly in this House.”

Speaker, you’ve shut me down. This bill should not be an omnibus bill. It should be a separate bill. We should have legitimate debate in this House, and we should have a government that actually listens to people, not the insiders.

I think we’re going to have to wait six months for that government, because this government has laid their path forward. They’re going to have closure debate. They’re going to stifle public opinion. They’re going to shut down all opposing voices. They’re going to rack up a lot of Facebook ads and a lot of television ads to try to promote themselves. People have seen through that. They’ve seen enough of this movie. They want it to end.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill 177, Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017.

Speaker, when we have a bill that has 46 schedules, affecting 16 agencies, with all sorts of nuggets of good, and poison pills, and all sorts of stuff in there, how come my first chance to get up and speak to this is in time allocation? That’s something that I find hard to explain to my community members, friends and family when they watch the Legislature, to explain that debate isn’t really debate; it’s whatever the government wants it to be. It’s a race. It’s a race to do the most damage they possibly can with the least amount of consultation, full stop.

Here we are, with the opportunity again to debate this bill, but it’s not really debate. I only have 10 minutes. It’s time allocation. It is “ram it through.” With time allocation, that is not just about limiting the amount of time we discuss it in the House, and how limited debate is. Also, Speaker—and this won’t come as a surprise to you, because this is not your first rodeo—it’s a chance for the government to shut down the time at committee.

Interjections.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I would invite the members of the House to stop talking so that I can hear myself. Thanks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

Interjection.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: This is debate.

Speaker, the government has already limited debate, and now he’s going to talk through my chance. If the member opposite has something riveting to say, I encourage him to stand up during his rotation. And if I could remember his riding—oh, Northumberland–Quinte West—I’d call him out. There; I did.

Anyway, as I was saying, it isn’t just a chance for the government to limit debate; it’s also a chance for them to shut down the time in committee.

Mr. Michael Mantha: That’s what you call a zinger.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: If I have to call out one of my own members, I will.

Interjections.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Shh. No, I’m telling you.

The time in committee they have so limited that it’s December 7 from 9 until 10:15 a.m.—that’s a whole hour and a quarter—and then again from 1:30 to 6 p.m., and that’s for the purpose of public hearings. That’s it. That’s it for a 46-schedule bill affecting 16 agencies—the budget measures act. Then, flash forward—you’ve got such limited time: five minutes per presentation.

By the way, to the folks of Ontario who won’t be able to get in on the in-person consultation: The deadline for written submissions is 6 o’clock on Thursday, December 7, so feel free to let the Clerks know. Feel free to let the government know that you have thoughts on this bill, even though they don’t want you to and even though they certainly aren’t going to invite it.

Then, once we get to third reading, when we’re back here to again have that fulsome debate—just kidding—we have one hour, one hour in total to debate this bill. This is stuff and nonsense. That’s what this is. This government is such a sham; it really is. Debate—no, it’s not. It’s pathetic.

However, we are here. I have a bit of time, and I’m not just going to give them heck, although Lord knows it feels cathartic.

Speaker, in my previous role, I was critic for pensions, and I really appreciated that role. I got to spend a lot of time in this Legislature, especially because the ORPP was on the table and on the horizon. We had a lot of time in this Legislature to talk about the importance of retirement security, and that’s a conversation that I’m awfully glad that we had. I just wish that the government had paid attention. We had hours and hours and hours to talk about the ORPP and PRPPs, and to talk about the importance of retirement security, and this government—it’s like it never happened.

Of the 46 schedules, I’m just going to pick one. I’m going to focus on

section 33, which amends the Pension Benefits Act. This is the act that regulates the Ontario pension system, and it’s supposed to protect the retirement security of all Ontarians with a pension. However, pensioners are still at risk, as we know, in this province. Nortel, Algoma steel and now Sears are all-too-real examples of why we need strong pension regulations that protect pensioners but put pensioners first.

You would think that this is something we could all agree on, Mr. Speaker, and it should be something that transcends partisanship with supports across this chamber, but alas, it is not. We should be doing everything in our power to fight for pensioners. We should be making it harder to underfund pension plans and run them in solvency positions, but this bill is doing the opposite. It actually makes it easier for pension plans to fall into deficit positions.

I’m going to basically explain what I mean by that, for the folks at home. Right now, plans are required to be funded at 100% solvency rate. In the event of a pension plan being wound up, at the end of that journey, they’re supposed to be funded at 100%, so that pensioners are covered. But now the government is like, “Oh, 100%—that’s a lot,” and it turns out that a lot of our pension plans are not actually reaching that level of funding. The average is about—I don’t know—80% or 85%, I think the Canadian Federation of Pensioners told me.

So they’re not meeting 100% solvency. Right now, many of them are achieving about 85%. The government is like, “Well, guys, we’re going to move the goal line. We’re going to tell companies that now they only need to fund plans to 85% of solvency.” They’re dropping that maximum goal line. It was 100%, and now it’s going to be 85%. So what is going to happen? Are you now going to have plans that say, “Oh, 85%—that’s really high. Let’s just go with 70%”? Is that what’s going to happen? Is that the average, or are some of these companies able to get away with 70% funding? What happens to the pensioners? They’re that much further unprotected.

This government is so excited. They are probably saying, “We’ve given ourselves some wiggle room so that we’ll be able to stand up and say, ’100% of our pensions are funded to the new low.’” Good for you. Could you imagine that on the outside of an envelope that they’re going to mail to folks? Sorry. I’m still a little sore about all their hydro advertising that they pretend isn’t advertising, but anyway.

So they’re moving the goal line to 85% of solvency. There are already too many plans that are underfunded when the target is 100%, so if you’re going to give them another 15% of wiggle room—it’s so irresponsible of them. This is a government that stands up and talks about retirement security and that they’re onside, they’re on board. Malarkey. Am I allowed to say “malarkey” or is that unparliamentary?

Interjection: Yes.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay. I withdraw if it’s unparliamentary. But anyway—stuff and nonsense.

This is going to lead to more plans being underfunded. It’s increasing the liability on pensioners, and it means that when a company goes under and when a plan is wound up, it will be exponentially more likely that the plan is funded at a lower rate and that the pensioners end up taking a bigger haircut. It’s unbelievable that this government thinks it’s a good idea, although nothing surprises me with them anymore—so irresponsible. Nothing surprises me.

Pensioners are terrified. They absolutely should be. Our pensioners deserve so much better, across all of our communities. It’s our job to ensure that they’re protected. This government is trying to put them 15% more at risk, which is absurd.

Speaker, how on earth am I already out of time? I get going. Okay.

Another piece of it was my motion last year. I don’t know if you remember, Speaker, but it passed unanimously in the House. It was a private member’s motion which called on the federal government to prioritize pensioners during bankruptcy proceedings. It was a federal initiative but a provincial motion. We said that we as a Legislature, a proud Legislative Assembly of Ontario, call on the feds to do this. They were onside. Then we’ve watched this play out over the last year, and we see that now Sears—originally, we had seen what happened to employees at Nortel when the company collapsed in 2009.

We have been watching it happen before our eyes with the employees of US Steel, and now, unfortunately, we’re seeing it happen with Sears employees and Sears pensioners. You know what, Speaker? Had this government put their money where their mouth is a year ago when they said, “Yes, we support this motion; yes, we are going to call on the feds”—had they done that, we might not be here. Well, we would be here, but the Sears employees, the Sears pensioners, might not be facing the uncertain future that they now are. Again, shame on this government. But that is, again, par for the course.

The PBGF, which is the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund—first of all, I’d like to say that the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund is something that not everyone is eligible for. The Unifor workers in Oshawa, the GM workers in Oshawa, don’t qualify for this. The thing is, the government could have used

schedule 33 to talk about incentivizing employers to bring their plans, bring their employees, under this protection, but they didn’t because they don’t really care. They just like to talk. But we have been calling for the PBGF to be enhanced for years. Unfortunately, it’s not to the level that we would like to see. It doesn’t cover everyone. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough.

I’m getting distracted—because here’s the thing, Mr. Speaker: I’ve got three letters from folks in my community that I wanted to read into the record. That would take me another 20 minutes, and I’m not going to do that to any of us. But I’ll give you the gist of them.

Malcolm Muldowney says, “Ms. French, I hope I can count on you to help secure the pension livelihood of almost two million Ontario citizens and their families by supporting the CFP pension proposal?” The proposal “would cost the government nothing and would not increase or require any new taxes. It is actually a win, win, win....”

He says—I’ll just read the beginning: “I am one of the almost two million Ontario citizens who depend on a privately funded defined benefit pension plan.

“I am extremely concerned about the proposed pension changes proposed by the Ontario finance minister, Mr. Sousa.” So am I, Mr. Speaker, so am I. But I digress. “His proposed changes are formalized in Bill 177,

schedule 33. The proposal will unjustly benefit the pension plan sponsor at the cost of my family’s livelihood.

“My pension is de facto deferred earned wages as part of my contract with my former employer. I have already earned it. My pension was freely offered by my employer and in fact was a mandatory part of my employment contract.

“I realize the government needs to address certain business concerns with this bill. In that respect, I fully support the proposal by the Canadian Federation of Pensioners (CFP), which is based on actuarial studies and would improve the existing Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund.”

Speaker, this is a group—folks are writing in and they’re getting into the nitty-gritty of it. They’re talking about it being based on actuarial studies. I wish the government could defend their policies and say that their ideas were based on actuarial studies. I wish this government understood what due diligence meant and that they took it seriously that they have a responsibility to Ontarians, to all Ontarians: to pensioners, to workers in the province, to families. Instead of just talking the talk, I wish that they would actually take that responsibility seriously.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to wrap it up. Shame on this government. I want so much more from them for the people of Ontario, and I wish that they would sit up and bother to do their job.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Time allocation is a very selective thing this government decides to do, when they impose it on—I have to say that with almost every bill that comes before this House, we anticipate that they will bring forward a time allocation motion. How is that really part of the democratic process, when you limit the time that people are allowed to discuss a bill and to bring forward the views of their constituents in a very meaningful and thoughtful way? You are told a couple of days before, or the morning of, that you have now been time-allocated and you have been shut down and your voice, your constituents’ voice, is not important.

We’re going to rush this bill through. As one of the members has said, it’s one day of committee, one day for stakeholders, workers, health care providers and insurance brokers. I alluded to that last week, that there are a couple of schedules here for RIBO, for insurance brokers.

Everything under the sun is in this bill, yet they are only given the opportunity—they’re time-allocating committee. They are time-allocating the public, and the contributions the public have on this bill. One day in committee: How on earth can any government—a responsible government, a proactive government, a government that has operationalized a bill—understand that that is enough public contributions in order to make decisions to amend and create legislation that will actually work for people?

This government doesn’t even get it. It is a bunch of malarkey that we go through this process over and over again. As one of my colleagues said, it’s a pile of malarkey. The malarkey just has layers upon layers of malarkey. We can’t even dig through that malarkey to make this government understand that time-allocating every piece of legislation is wrong.

Perhaps in some cases, there may be a way of looking at it, because on this side of the House—sometimes, when you have legislation, it isn’t written in stone. When you are debating it, that’s when you have the opportunity to open your mind to different concepts, to open your mind to amendments, to open your mind to suggestions and to stories that you have heard from your constituents—and I’m sure that these members have heard stories.

I go back to the time allocation piece. When we talk about democracy, the college strike and the legislation that was brought forward—“Unanimous consent; let’s just check off the box, and we don’t need debate on this. Let’s get the teachers back to work. Let’s make sure students are in class.” Everybody wanted that. That’s the piece that is confusing here. Everybody wanted that, absolutely. I think every member wanted that to happen, but when you start a process of unanimous consent, and you bring it to this House and you ask people to sign off carte blanche without reading legislation, that is egregious. That is not democracy.

We need to debate bills coming to this House. And—

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s right.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Exactly. And then, the spin on this was, “The NDP is blocking legislation.” Come on. At least be upfront with the process and say, “The NDP doesn’t agree with unanimous consent. They want to debate the bill, and we’re going to have to go through the process. We’re going to actually allow democracy to unfold. We’re going to allow people to have contributions to what we are proposing.”

I’ll tell you what happened in my riding. On Friday I decided to go to Fanshawe College. It’s a wonderful facility. There are great teachers there, great faculty, and the students in London highly regard the programs that are developed there. I decided to go visit the college and talk to the students and find out how they are really feeling about coming back to school, about the process of what happened—five weeks being off and what they did with their lives. The outcome of those talks was that students are so resilient. They were, for the most part, optimistic, but cautiously apprehensive. I’ll explain what that means.

They were optimistic because when they came back on the Tuesday, they said that the faculty and the teachers were supportive. They were providing accommodations. They had a plan for how to get these students through this compressed semester, so the students felt relieved. They were working together with teachers to come up with a solution that would have outcomes that are positive for them.

Also, what they felt was that they need to see it unfold. How is that going to help, the support and accommodations? Are they able to make those things work for them? You can have all the support in the world sometimes, and you can’t get to that end goal because it’s unrealistic. I’ve committed to go back to the college and hear students out and find out what’s happening just before their exams—the last day of school is on the 22nd of December—just to find out what’s going on and how those things translated practically, those supports and accommodations. Did they work for students?

Here we are: We’ve passed legislation; we think the problem is solved. Everybody is back to work, students are in class; we wash our hands of this. But no, Speaker, it is a process. We are responsible. We are responsible for having this legislation. The Liberals are responsible for having this legislation. Putting teachers back in class is forcing them back to work. But what’s their responsibility to make sure that what the legislation has accomplished is actually going to work for the people that they said it’s going to work for, which is students? They need to be accountable for that. I hope every one of their members is going back and talking to students and getting feedback.

Students weren’t upset with teachers. They understood what the teachers were standing up for. I think people were confused about why this Liberal government wouldn’t step in earlier and do something—the last midnight hour.

I see some members are nodding their heads, so I’m really appreciative that they are paying attention to what I’m saying. I hope that they’ll contribute to this debate.

Getting back to time allocation—time allocation is not a way to get to where you need. A carrot and a stick: Time allocation is a stick. If you want something from someone, I think you should offer them a carrot and they’re probably going to get better results. It’s kind of like the college strike: Teachers went back, and what did they do? They’re offering carrots. They’re coming up with supportive ideas. They’re coming up with accommodations.

When this government brings a bill, that’s what they should be doing. They should be working with this side of the House in order to make things better for Ontarians, and they are not. Because when you have time allocation over and over again, what you’re doing is you’re saying, “We’re not going to listen to you. You don’t have any good ideas.” Even when we have really productive ideas that are going to revolutionize some legislation, at committee they gang up together, because they have a majority, and they vote it down. They vote it down.

I have to say, some of the shenanigans and the malarkey that happens in this House have really sometimes surprised me, and still surprise me. I’m here, in good faith, wanting to make a difference and debate legislation to the fullest extent that we have an opportunity to. You don’t need to debate ongoing—if things have been said and ideas have been brought forward, because that’s when the committee process really can actually enhance what we talk about. But when you shut down debate, bill after bill—I said to my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin, “Would you like to speak on this time allocation bill?” He said, “I’ve already spoken to it.” I said, “Oh, no, no, no. You are getting confused.”

We’re all getting confused, because every time we turn around, it’s another time allocation. You can’t speak to time allocation twice. He spoke to time allocation just last week—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Different bill.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: —on a different bill, and he’s like, “I already spoke to it.”

This is how bad it is when you think everything you’re speaking to is time allocation and you can’t talk to a new bill. That’s how wrong this whole process is when you talk about time allocation. There might be times when you want to pull that lever when there is time allocation required, but this is not one of these times. Bill 177 is not one of these times.

I have Len, from London, who is asking me about

schedule 30, because it’s under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. He’s concerned about the powers in there with respect to inspectors and employers having to report hazards in the workplace. One of the pieces in there says—and I have to refer to my BlackBerry. Can I do that, Speaker? Can I ask permission? No, I can’t. Okay.

But there’s a piece in there that he is very concerned about, and it needs to be debated in this House, not just for 40 minutes, but it needs to be debated by each individual to understand what’s going on in that inspection piece. It doesn’t apply if an employer owns the workplace, this particular provision in here. So he is concerned about that.

Len has emailed me and said, “Teresa, what’s happening with this?” I can’t tell him. I can’t say, “You know what? I can’t hold the government accountable because I’m talking about time allocation and nobody is speaking to it.” Nobody is speaking to it on this side of the House.

How ridiculous. You call time allocation. How arrogant, actually. You call time allocation and you don’t even have the nerve, the responsibility—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Or the capacity.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The guts.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: —the capacity, the guts, I’m hearing in the background, to stand up and speak to time allocation. They just sit there, silent. It’s really distasteful, I’ll be honest, to have interactions with other human beings you work with like that.

Speaker, I know that the government has an agenda. They want to push everything through and look like they’re working so hard. But we can do that hard work together. We can do that hard work where people aren’t suing this government for every piece of legislation that comes forward. There are many, many things that they have put through that affect people adversely, and not everybody has the means to take this government to task. They were sued for the privatization of Hydro One. Now there’s another lawsuit coming up for the college strike legislation.

Goodness gracious, do you not think that maybe if you debated these things, you might get a perspective where you could close the loophole of lawsuits?

Maybe we can come up with legislation on this side of the House closing loopholes for this government where it protects them from lawsuits. Maybe that’s the legislation we need to debate.

Mr. Michael Mantha: They’d still find a way to mess that one up.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: They’d still find a way to mess that one up.

My time is running out. I do appreciate being allowed to speak in this House. I hope this government and their leaders who determine the agenda for this Legislature will, in the future, take a second look at this, because really, it’s not working. You’re not getting a good response when you keep holding up that stick.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is now 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It is absolutely my pleasure to welcome to the House the chair of the Ontario dairy farmers, Ralph Dietrich. He’s from the amazing riding of Huron–Bruce; specifically, Mildmay, Ontario.

Hon. Jeff Leal: This morning I’d like to welcome members from both Ontario Pork and the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. I’d like to take the time to thank these groups for their continued advocacy, hard work and dedication to grow Ontario’s prosperous dairy and pork sectors.

I’d also like to welcome members of the House to join in the receptions this evening. Ontario Pork will be hosting a reception from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in room 228; Dairy Farmers of Ontario will be hosting a reception from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the legislative dining room.

From the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, I’d like to welcome a director from the great riding of Peterborough, Will Vanderhorst.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Today is Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs lobby day. Hopefully people are making time to speak with some of them. It’s kind of an umbrella for many organizations.

Barbara Bank is here, vice-chair, CIJA Toronto council; Jonathan Bradshaw is here; Kim Coulter, president and CEO, JVS Toronto; Viola Dessanti, community capacity building from UJA; Jay Fallis the LA for Paul Miller; Shelly Feld, CIJA Toronto; Arnold Foss, director of Holocaust survivor services funds and community relations; Rachel Friedman, CIJA; Gary Gladstone from my riding of Thornhill from Reena; Karen Goldenberg, CIJA Toronto council; Gail Gould, executive director, Bernard Betel Centre; Roslyn Harris, Circle of Care; Lia Kisel, JIAS Toronto; Adir Krafman, CIJA; Maria Lindgren, Bernard Betel; Sharon List, Jewish Family and Child; Madi Murariu, associate director and Ontario government relations from CIJA; Berl Nadler, chair at CIJA; Cindy Osheroff, CIJA; Josh Otis, project director, collective impact initiatives—just a few more, Mr.

Speaker; I don’t want to leave anybody out—Sandi Pelly, director, capacity building for social services; Brian Prousky from Jewish Family and Child; Sarah Scriven from CIJA; Noah Shack, interim vice-president; Nancy Singer, executive director at Kehilla; Donna Starkman Shiff from CIJA; Allison Steinberg, director of development, JVS; Carole Sterling, CIJA; and one last person, Judit Schönwal from my volunteer team. Thanks for being here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was my first filibuster of introductions.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome our page captain for today from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Zunairah Gangat, and the family: aunt Zakiyya Gangat; uncle Azhar Gangat; brother Muhammed Gangat; and cousins Zakiyya and Amenah Gangat. They’re in the public gallery with us this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It’s my pleasure to introduce Peter Apostolopoulos, a board member of the Ontario Film Authority, and his executive assistant, Melanie Loiselle, here for FilmOntario’s lobby day.

I want to welcome everyone who’s here for FilmOntario lobby day.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. I want to introduce to you and through you to members of the Legislative Assembly a constituent and friend from my riding of Leeds–Grenville who’s here with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. I’d like to welcome our local director Henry Oosterhof. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the NDP, I’d like to welcome Ontario Pork here today and my former colleagues from Dairy Farmers of Ontario. You’re very welcome and thanks for supporting our province.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Today is a Hunter day. I would like to welcome my big brother Maurice Hunter and my niece, Jayda Hunter, who is a star volleyball player with Durham Attack. Later this morning, my nephew, Isaac Hunter, will be here with his teacher, Ms. Mathur from Rowntree Public School’s grade 5. Please welcome them.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Ontario to Queen’s Park, particularly Murray Sherk from the great riding of Oxford. I appreciated that you came in today to meet with me early this morning to tell me all the good work the dairy farmers are doing for the province of Ontario. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Soo Wong: I want all of us in the chamber to welcome a very special guest: Arun Vengadaramanan, a nine-year-old published author and poet. No one else in this chamber can say that. Arun, welcome to Queen’s Park. He’s here with his parents, Kengatharaiyer and Kokila Vengadaramanan, and his younger brother, Athavan.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I wish to welcome Ontario Pork, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and my constituent Albert Fledderus.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome Sandi Blancher, Sara Labelle and Joel Usher as well as the members of the Ontario Health Coalition who are here in the gallery and making their way in. They are here to protest

section 9 of Bill 160. Welcome to Queen’s Park, ladies.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Please join me in welcoming my good friend Gary Gladstone, sitting in the member’s gallery, as well as Dr. Monika Yazdanian, the director of the McMaster University campus linked accelerator, and Dr. Ehsan Mirdamadi.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I wish to welcome Ian Harrop, who has been an outstanding leader on the board of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario for the last 12 years and continues to advise me. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome four members of FilmOntario who are here to lobby today: Hilary Goldstein, Wayne Goodchild, Sue Milling and Michaela Sanielevici. I met with them this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Grant Crack: It’s my pleasure to rise today in order to introduce Mr. Bart Rijke from the great riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. He’s here today with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. He was first elected to the board in 2016 and represents the Ottawa-Carleton area as well, including my county. Also, a warm welcome to Graham Lloyd, GM and CEO, and to all members of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario who are here. As the minister mentioned, at 5 p.m. tonight in the dining room, a Dairy Farmers of Ontario reception—welcome.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine, Paul Vis, who is a board member of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my honour to acknowledge and recognize members of Grassy Narrows First Nation who are here with us today: Chief Simon Fobister, Bill Fobister Sr., Alana Pahpasay, Peter Luce, Adrienne Telford, David Sone and Judy Da Silva.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome Sid Atkinson from Roseneath in the beautiful riding of Northumberland. He’s with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. Welcome.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I had a great meeting this morning with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario: Patrice Dubé, Bart Rijke, Will Vanderhorst and, of course, from the great riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Nick Thurler. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I also want to welcome all the members and my friends from FilmOntario, especially Neishaw Ali, who’s the president of Spin VFX, a special effects company, and a constituent. Welcome to our world.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Henry Wydeven, who is a constituent from Perth–Wellington and is on the Dairy Farmers of Ontario board.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to introduce grade 5s and 6s from my great riding of Davenport visiting here from St. Nicholas of Bari Catholic School with their teacher, Rose Aiello. Welcome to Queen’s Park, St. Nicholas of Bari.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Last call for introductions.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon on a point of order.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I seek unanimous consent to fly the heritage and freedom flag at the courtesy flagpole at the Ontario Legislature while senior government officials are in Vietnam.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon is seeking unanimous consent to fly this particular flag. Do we agree? I heard a no.

I do want to remind members that there was a discussion with the House leaders on the protocol and the process that we were going to apply for flying flags that are not national, that are not country flags, and I hope that the House leaders will see to that issue and ensure that the House is not used, if it can at all help it. I appreciate your co-operation on that issue.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Status of Women on a point of order.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that members be permitted to wear rose pins to recognize 16 days of activism against violence against women.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister is seeking unanimous consent for the members to wear the rose pins in recognition of 16 days of activism against violence against women. Do we agree to wear the pins? Agreed. Carried.

Oral Questions

Taxation

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the finance minister.

Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown was in Scarborough this morning. He was talking to middle-class families. He was telling them about the People’s Guarantee, the guarantee that a PC government will cut taxes for the middle class by 22.5% and reduce taxes for the first income tax bracket by 10%, giving a break to those who need it most.

A PC government will cut taxes and make life more affordable for middle-class families. Why won’t this Liberal government?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Not one single Ontarian will receive the tax cuts that this member is advocating for or advertising. Even before the election has started, they are making promises that they can’t keep. I would argue: Step down now.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Minister of Finance. The People’s Guarantee offers a reasonable response to years of government mismanagement. Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, had this to say: “The fiscal estimates underlying the Ontario PC platform have been deemed reasonable by the non-partisan Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, University of Ottawa.” Kevin Milligan, professor of economics at the Vancouver School of Economics, says, “In my view, a government with firm attention to cost management can achieve savings in the range proposed” in the PC platform.

Which one of these esteemed, respected Canadian economists does the Liberal government disagree with today?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, that Kevin Page was there to keep an eye on these folks and use notes at the end of their glossy magazine to tell the truth. The truth is that there’s $12 billion in cuts under their plan. The truth is that the effective marginal tax rate that they’re proposing is not true. It can’t happen. Kevin Page insisted upon that in order to provide his name.

I would ask the member opposite: What is it that you’re going to cut and how much is the carbon tax that’s triple that of cap-and-trade going to cost families on their gas bills?

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister. I must say the Liberal spin is embarrassing. John Michael McGrath pointed out the facts: The Liberals are lying about a hidden—

Interjections.

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

The member will withdraw.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If it happens again, I’m going to warn the person who chooses to use that language.

Finish.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we will also increase the Ontario sales tax credit by $100 per adult and $100 per child in order to bring real relief to Ontario’s low-income residents. That’s money back in their pockets and that’s money that will combat the unaffordable policies created by this government. The people who need it most will get it.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that lower- and middle-income families finally deserve a break?

Hon. Charles Sousa: All right, let’s be clear: Kevin Page illustrated for the rest of the public to acknowledge that the 22.5% that you’re proposing is false. It’s completely untrue and cannot be achieved for the people of Ontario, based on what they’ve said.

The member opposite has just cited our fiscal plan, and he’s building his proposals and his assumptions on our fiscal plan.

Furthermore, what they’ve done just does not add up. They’re cutting revenues, they’re cutting expenses, but they’re increasing the carbon tax substantively. They cannot be trusted. They’re making guarantees that they cannot fulfill. Step down, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’re telling the Speaker to step down?

Hon. Charles Sousa: You know what I meant. I’ll correct my record.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You are talking to me.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Can I correct my record now, Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No.

With an honest attempt to try to see if the members could take care of themselves in decorum—one round is finished—you cannot. We are in warnings, and I will use them immediately. You’ve had your fun for one round. It’s over.

New question.

Taxation

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Toronto Star editorial headline read that the People’s Guarantee “Deserves a Serious Look from Voters.” That’s because it offers real solutions to make life affordable for middle-class families. It deserves a look because the People’s Guarantee offers real, much-needed and much-deserved tax cuts: 22.5% for middle-class families.

But instead of giving it a serious look, instead of acknowledging that this is the path Ontario needs to bring real relief to families, Liberal members choose to repeat nonsense. They know it’s nonsense, and I hope they quickly realize how foolish they actually sound.

Families deserve a lot better from you.

Mr. Speaker, why won’t the Liberals support tax cuts to middle-class families?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Well, let’s quote a few other things, Mr. Speaker, using the numbers presented in that glossy magazine, reaffirmed by Kevin Page as incoherent—and, frankly, false, because they’re not going to be able to achieve 22% tax cuts.

Furthermore, the Globe and Mail states this: “The problem with the ‘People’s Guarantee’ is that it’s a bit too clever, fiscally risky and economically incoherent.” They are not delivering a tax cut to the people of Ontario. In fact, they’re going to deliver a net tax increase with the carbon tax that they’re providing, which is twice as much as what we are incurring today. The tax cut—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey is warned.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The question is, what are you cutting, in what amounts? What hospitals are you cutting? Are you going to cut pharmacare for people under 25? Are you going to cut tuition for those who are getting it free? Are you cutting health care and education—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Etobicoke North is warned.

You have one wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Their plan is all about cuts and deficits, Mr. Speaker. This member has fought for balanced budgets—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: I can tell the minister that what we’ll be cutting are Liberal MPPs. That’s what our—

Interjections.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Steve Paikin, one of the most respected journalists, has this to say about Kevin Page’s review: “One Little Sentence Sets the Progressive Conservative Platform Apart.... It’s a thumbs-up from one of the most respected economic analysts in the country.”

Under the PC plan, middle- and lower-income families benefit the most. Only our party will put money back in their pockets. That’s money to combat the unaffordable policies created by this government—money for people who need the help most.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government attacking our numbers? Is it because they don’t want to bring tax cuts to middle-class families?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, this is the same party that is not supporting Ontario families, the same party that is rolling back the minimum wage, the same party that didn’t support our plan to provide for more hospitals, nurses and education. It’s the same family that voted against free university tuition, the same family that voted against free prescriptions for those under 25. It’s the same family that—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Same family? Same family?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s the same party that—

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’re a party. We are a family, Charles.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Kevin Page, in his notes, made it clear that their proposal, their plan, doesn’t add up, that they can’t be trusted because what they’re proposing is a tax that will not be achieved by any Ontarian. They’re misleading the province. They should—

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Charles Sousa: A finance critic should take every precaution to be fiscally prudent and build contingencies into their plan. They have none in this plan, and their guarantee will illustrate the fact that they should step down.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Obviously the minister is reading a different book, because Kevin Page calls our plan “reasonable.” That’s something he could never call their plan.

Our People’s Guarantee offers a 22.5% tax cut to middle-class families. Our plan offers an increase to the Ontario Sales Tax Credit of $100. Meanwhile, the Liberal government demands higher taxes and higher fees. That’s the way it always is, Speaker. They can’t afford to pay their Liberal insiders any other way. But we think it’s time to put the people first, not the insiders.

Mr. Speaker, I ask one more time: Why won’t this government support tax cuts for middle-class families?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have taken steps to support middle-class families. That party voted against every one of those very measures, and instead, they’re pretending—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I can do this all day because I feel fit. The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: They’re pretending to provide tax cuts when in fact they’re not. In fact, their plan is both a social and fiscal deficit to the province of Ontario. There is no prudence. They’re going into deficit. They’re putting in assumptions for $12 billion that they’re not able to achieve. It’s reckless, irresponsible—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’ll do this all day long. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is warned.

New question.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Members of the Ontario Health Coalition are joining us today in the galleries, and I want to thank them for being here.

Year after year, we’ve seen this Liberal government, and the Conservatives before them, cutting public hospitals and pushing health care services into private clinics. Now this Liberal government wants to open the doors even wider and roll out the red carpet for even more for-profit private clinics. Buried deep inside Bill 160, the Premier’s Harper-style health omnibus bill, is

schedule 9, a plan to clear the way for new, private clinics and make it harder for ordinary families to get the health care they need.

Why is this government, like the Conservatives before them, intent on privatizing even more of our health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I welcome the members of the Ontario Health Coalition who are here today.

We’ve been, over the past number of days, working closely with the Ontario Health Coalition and other stakeholders for a common agenda and a common goal. One of the things that this act, if passed, will actually provide, through

schedule 9, is that it will prevent any further private hospitals in this province. We currently have six private hospitals that were grandfathered into legislation from 1931 by a previous government, not our own. What this legislation does is that it requires that those six entities transition out into a new regulatory and oversight regime, and no further private hospitals will be allowed in this province.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important measure. I want to thank the Ontario Health Coalition for proposing additional language for amendments that we’re going to introduce to make that crystal clear to—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The truth is that the Ontario Health Coalition says, “This new act is essentially a new private hospitals and clinics act.” And do you know what? More privatization is absolutely the last thing we need in our health care system in the province of Ontario.

Thanks to the Liberals and the Conservatives, there are over 1,000 for-profit private clinics in Ontario today taking scarce health care dollars out of our public system and handing that money right over to private corporate profits. The Premier’s health care privatization bill allows private clinics to apply to open their doors at any time they wish, and by repealing the Private Hospitals Act, this omnibus bill actually removes the 44-year-old ban on future private hospitals in Ontario.

Why is this government opening its arms to more private clinics when private clinics only make it harder for Ontario families to get the health care they need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, under this government, and hopefully all future governments, there will be no more private hospitals in this province. There are six that exist, which were grandfathered into legislation many, many decades ago, as the leader of the third party rightly points out.

We are making it crystal clear that we are not going to allow any further private hospitals. We’ve got legislation that will require that. We’re repealing

an act that allows for private hospitals. We’re requiring all of the existing six to transition into, say, long-term care or others, but with enhanced oversight, accountability and transparency that they currently don’t have. We’re working with the Ontario Health Coalition and other stakeholders to add additional language to make it crystal clear to all of us that we not only share the same goal, but that we’re going to attain that goal of no more private hospitals.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The first thing this government did after getting elected last election was to turn around and privatize Hydro One without a mandate. Now, on their way out of office, with no mandate, they’re trying to privatize more of our public hospital services. Speaker, we will not let them get away with it.

The National Union of Public and General Employees says this bill will “make it easier for private hospitals and clinics to expand, and more difficult for the minister to stop them.” It allows anyone to apply to open a private clinic at any time. It changes the name of private clinics to “community health facilities,” which would be laughable if it wasn’t so offensive to not-for-profit community health care. And despite what the minister says, the health privatization bill that they’ve introduced removes the 44-year-old ban on future private hospitals in Ontario.

Why is this government doing exactly what we expect from the Conservatives and privatizing the health care people rely on?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Once again, the leader of the third party has it completely wrong. There are six private hospitals in this province. I was surprised to learn that when I became health minister. It was grandfathered in by a government not our own, many decades ago.

We’re taking measures. The current regime through the Private Hospitals Act is almost 100 years old. It doesn’t provide for the requisite accountability, transparency and oversight that we would expect of all our health care facilities in this province, so we’re adding that oversight and that transparency and that accountability. We’re making it crystal clear that this government will not tolerate or allow any additional or future private hospitals. It will be crystal clear.

Again, I want to thank the Ontario Health Coalition and other partners, because over the past days—perhaps the NDP hasn’t been listening—we’ve been working together to make that crystal clear that that will be the case.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. While the Liberals are acting like Conservatives when it comes to opening the door to private hospitals, the Conservatives announced this weekend that their platform is going to be acting like Liberals when it comes to hydro policy. Conservatives are going to keep the $40-billion Liberal hydro borrowing scheme that will see people’s hydro bills skyrocket after the election. This plan is no good for anyone except bankers. Clearly, the Conservatives and the Liberals see eye to eye when it comes to forcing Ontario families and businesses to pay for their pre-election political schemes.

Why won’t this Liberal government, once and for all, admit that hydro should be a public good, controlled by the people of Ontario, for the benefit of every single family and every single business in this province, and reverse the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased to rise and once again talk about Hydro One and what it’s been doing to actually help its customers, and the work we have done as a government to ensure that we have reduced rates for Hydro One customers by between 40% and 50%.

That’s something that these families in northern and rural communities are seeing, day in and day out, off of their bills, and that’s because of this government acting. The opposition voted against that. They voted against helping families see a reduction of 40% to 50% on their bills. They voted against helping First Nations individuals living on-reserve see their delivery charge removed. They voted against the Ontario Electricity Support Program and the enhancements to help low-income individuals.

We’ve ensured that we’ve helped families and businesses right across the province. They have cleaner air to breathe. They have a better system to work at, and now, thanks to this government, a more affordable system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The privatized Hydro One has already applied for numerous rate increases. They’ve invested in foreign coal-burning companies instead of Ontario families. Now they want the ability to force people who are struggling with their bills to install prepay meters. In short, the company is looking out for its own profits, not Ontario families or Ontario businesses.

In fact, in Hydro One’s proposal to install these prepay meters, they say people who are at high risk for non-payment are going to be the targets. Clearly, the plan is to make money from families who are struggling and use it to line the pockets of already wealthy shareholders.

Can the Acting Premier explain to Ontarians why the privatized Hydro One’s priority is boosting its profits and not helping families and businesses keep the lights on?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Hydro One has come forward with the voluntary winter reconnection program to make sure they can help families who were struggling. They then work with those families to make sure they can be reconnected and come up with a payment plan. They’re working hard on being a better company for families.

When it comes to prepaid meters, since last week everyone is well aware that this is an opt-in program, if it is even allowed by the OEB. The Ontario Energy Board is the entity that is quasi-judicial, will review the program, will review the application and then make a decision based off of its review.

The OEB, in the past, has turned down rate applications, has turned down other types of applications like this, because they have the best interests of ratepayers at heart. That is their mandate. We’re going to continue to allow the OEB to do what they need to do when it comes to ensuring they protect ratepayers. On this side of the House, this government will continue to act to protect ratepayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister continues to call this plan “voluntary” or “opt-in.” Nowhere in the Hydro One proposal to install prepay meters can you find the word “voluntary.” What you will find is this exact quote, Speaker: “With a prepaid meter, electricity is paid up front. Once the prepaid amount is used up, power is cut off until the customer is able to load the meter with more credits.”

Right there, in black and white, the privatized Hydro One says it plans to use prepay meters to get around the rule in Ontario banning wintertime hydro disconnections. Instead of working with people who are struggling, Hydro One will let their meters simply run out.

Can the Acting Premier explain again why she thinks a privatized Hydro One is in the best interests of Ontarians?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: There are a lot of assumptions being made by the third party when it comes to two paragraphs in a 2,000-page document, when the company has even—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The company is on the record saying that this is not the intention of those two paragraphs. The intention is to give people choice, something that that party has never done when it comes to the electricity sector. Even their pie-in-the-sky plan doesn’t offer choice and even excluded looking at helping low-income individuals.

But not us. We made sure we brought forward the OESP, which actually helps low-income individuals. We brought forward a 25% reduction for all families right across the province. The Hydro One R1 and R2 reduction, according to the fair hydro plan, can see a 40% to 50% reduction. That is action helping people.

Taxation

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, my leader, Patrick Brown, joined me in Nepean. He was there to stress our People’s Guarantee. I introduced him to a 12-year-old girl, Anna, and her family. Her family works hard as new Canadians, but because of Liberal policies, they pay more and they are consistently getting less. That’s why the People’s Guarantee will help them and why they endorsed it. It will help families like Anna’s by reducing middle-class income taxes by 22.5%, it will help middle-class families by refunding up to 75% of their child care expenses, and it will help hockey players like Anna by restoring the fitness tax credit.

After 14 years of Liberal taxes, families like Anna’s deserve a break. They deserve a break to get ahead. Mr. Speaker, why has the Liberal government for 14 years forgotten families like Anna’s?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we’ve been hearing a lot about this 22.5% tax cut for middle-income Ontarians. It’s their number one promise. The only problem is, if you’re promising people a 22.5% cut, you think you’re going to get a 22.5% cut.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You mean a 25% hydro reduction?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, not one single person in the province of Ontario will get a 22.5% income tax cut—not one single person.

You’re telling the public one thing and you’re actually doing something entirely different. It’s time for your party to take a good, long look at this. It’s simply inaccurate. It is wrong. I’m not going to use the words the Speaker won’t let me use—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I stand, you sit.

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: What’s inaccurate and full of baloney is that answer that that minister just provided for this government.

You don’t have to take our word for it; you can take Kevin Page’s word for it. It’s on the back of that document.

You can also take Kevin Milligan, professor of economics at the Vancouver School of Economics. He had this to say—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell is warned. The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is warned.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That’s all right, Speaker. I know why they’re nervous: I was at the Grey Cup on Sunday with Patrick Brown. People were coming up to tell us how much they loved our platform. We were at hockey rinks all across Ottawa. They loved the People’s Guarantee.

But let’s go back to Kevin Milligan. He said, “This proposal has two main advantages. First, it delivers the largest benefit”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wouldn’t risk it.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I guess this platform cuts really deep, Speaker. But let’s try to get back to what Kevin Milligan has said—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. There are two sides to this issue. When the member says things that she knows will inflame, I wouldn’t go there.

Finish your question, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m just trying to ask a question.

“First, it delivers the largest benefit to”—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not happy with that. That almost challenges the Chair.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I wasn’t trying to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not asking for any comments. That’s it. It’s over.

Please ask your question.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: “First, it delivers the largest benefit to lower- and middle-income families who most need help with child care expenses. Second, it supports flexibility for those families who need part-time care, shift work or irregular care arrangements.” He goes on to say, “The Ontario PC child care proposal offers improved, flexible benefits for all Ontario families.”

Why won’t you endorse our plan?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think I know the answer, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay is warned.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can assure you, the members opposite and the people of Ontario that we will never endorse a plan that contains $12 billion in cuts, and we will never endorse a plan that pretends to be something that it isn’t.

Let me repeat: Not one single person in this province—

Mr. Lorne Coe: Call the election.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Like I said, I can do this all day. The member from Whitby–Oshawa is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Not one single person will see a 22.5% decrease in their income taxes. What the PCs are talking about and what they’re actually proposing to do are two totally different things.

Mercury poisoning

Last September, ministers in the Liberal government were informed that mercury contamination continued on the site even though the Premier continued to say that any cleanup would cause more risk to the population. As many as 90% of the people in these communities show signs of mercury contamination and have been abandoned to their fate.

Will the Premier today commit to making funds available for the establishment and operation of a mercury care health facility in this community now?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for that question.

We are deeply concerned about the challenges faced by Grassy Narrows and, indeed, Whitedog nation in that area.

I can tell you that I have had, along with my federal counterparts, various ministers and technical people, two meetings with my federal colleagues involving the chiefs. I can tell you that tomorrow we are having a meeting here in Toronto. I am meeting with my federal counterpart, Minister Philpott, and with the chief of Grassy Narrows and with the chief of Whitedog. On the agenda tomorrow is this issue of what to do about Grassy Narrows. I have received the request for the treatment facility. This is a matter that will be discussed tomorrow between the province, the federal government and the First Nations concerned.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Acting Premier: Pain is a constant reality for people with mercury poisoning. Lack of muscle control, tunnel vision and other symptoms make life very difficult. The Japanese long ago provided special health care for mercury-poisoned people in the city of Minamata.

Does the Acting Premier feel no sense of responsibility for dragging out this problem? What does the Acting Premier have to say to the generations, the young people, the elders and the leaders of the Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong people left with the painful and debilitating legacy of mercury poisoning of their river and lands?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. David Zimmer: As I said in my first answer, we are deeply concerned about this issue. That is why this meeting has been arranged tomorrow with the provincial government and the federal government; the federal cabinet minister is coming down, Minister Philpott, who is responsible for the operations side of the federal ministry. I know that this subject matter that the member opposite has raised is on the agenda tomorrow.

We will consider what we hear from the federal government, the First Nations and the province. But we are working towards a solution for this.

In the meantime, I should say that we have provided $5.2 million for some remediation workup preliminary to tackling the actual problem. We’ve also set aside $85 million. That’s in a fund that is co-managed by the province and the First Nation to address these issues.

Ontario film and television industry

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour la ministre du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport. Speaker, as you will know, Ontario is a leader in film and television production across North America. Last year, in fact, was the third straight record-breaking year for film and TV production in Ontario. Our government, of course, understands how strong the competition is across North America to attract film shoots, both foreign and domestic, and to provide an attractive location for local productions. That’s why we’re budgeting $481 million this year for tax credits related to this.

Ontario also has many other advantages as a great place to make films and TV, including innovative technology such as IMAX, as well as world-class creative talent and infrastructure.

My question is this: est-ce que la ministre peut élaborer sur le travail et les mesures que notre gouvernement fait?

L’hon. Eleanor McMahon: Je tiens à remercier le député d’Etobicoke-Nord pour sa question.

I’d like to welcome the members of FilmOntario to the House for their inaugural Queen’s Park day and thank them for the work they do to build up our province’s film and television industry.

On this side of the House, we know that Ontario’s screen-based industries showcase our province to the world and are true economic drivers. Investments in film and TV production support over 35,000 jobs and contribute $1.7 billion to our economy.

A great recent example: The production of It hired over 1,200 cast and crew in communities across Ontario and spent over $28 million in just 60 days of filming at local businesses, hotels, caterers, restaurants, and lumber and construction suppliers.

That’s just one of the reasons it makes me so proud to work with our film and TV industry to support these productions that are garnering attention from around the world and bringing jobs and investment right here to Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister. It’s clear that the Canadian film and TV industry has never been in better shape. It’s flourishing.

It’s important for people in northern Ontario as well to know that this government, under the leadership of Premier Wynne and Minister McMahon, is making investments that help grow the economy and create jobs. This government is committed to supporting and growing the film and television industry in northern Ontario as well. Flagship productions such as the critically acclaimed hit TV series Letterkenny, shot in Sudbury, have been made possible by grant increases approved by our government.

Can the minister please explain how specific programs that our government champions are working to help the television and film industry in the north and what this means for people in northern Ontario?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Our commitment to investing in stability in terms of our film and TV tax credits is just one of the reasons why northern Ontario is soaring. I’d like to thank the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for his tremendous leadership in building up our sector in the north. I know that the sector is especially important to the economy in northern Ontario, which this year invested nearly $23 million in film and TV production in northern Ontario alone. Since 2014, NOHFC has invested $76 million supporting 136 film and TV projects in northern Ontario. And of course, as the member mentioned, Letterkenny is just one of the successful shows.

We’re committed to creating jobs in the north and giving our young people a diversified economy where they can have the choice to remain at home. That’s just part of our plan to build Ontario up.

Mental health services

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Ontario has a gap in its health care system. Too many people are slipping through the cracks and not receiving the mental health treatment they deserve. There is a mental health crisis in Ontario, and that is why Patrick Brown and the Ontario PC Party committed $1.9 billion over 10 years to support mental health services. This will be the largest mental health commitment in Canadian provincial history.

Rob Jamieson, president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, reacted to our People’s Guarantee, saying, “Great to see such a commitment to mental health. We need to invest more for those in crisis and those requiring support.”

Will the Liberal government match the PC Party commitment to mental health services?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I’m absolutely amazed at this change of heart, because it was only six or seven months ago that the PC Party as a whole voted against our investments in mental health—investments that created Canada’s first-ever program for cognitive behavioural therapy, which provides amazing outcomes for individuals with mood disorders like anxiety and depression. They voted against us creating up to 10 new wellness centres for youth across this province.

I’m still trying to figure out, with their $12 billion in cuts that are explicitly referenced on page 76 of their “People Magazine”—I’m wondering what cuts they’re going to make to health care, what cuts they’re going to make to education and how many nurses they’re going to fire, because we know when they were last in government, they closed 10,000 hospital beds and fired thousands of nurses.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: We will never vote for a Liberal budget. The minister is trying to change history—10 years ago, the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. For far too long, people are sitting on waiting lists without the mental health care that they need, when they need it.

Our plan is going to make a real difference for individuals dealing with mental health illnesses across Ontario. But don’t take it from me. Kimberly Moran, the CEO of Children’s Mental Health Ontario, said, “So pleased to see topping up elementary and secondary school supports for services targeted at improving mental health and well-being, including funding awareness campaigns as part of #peoplesguarantee.”

Will the Liberal government agree to match the PC Party’s historic commitment to mental health in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, they voted against our investments in behavioural supports in long-term care. They voted against our $100-million dementia strategy to provide support for families and individuals with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

We saw a five-point plan from the PCs before. We saw it in 1995 from Mike Harris. He didn’t even have cuts as draconian as expressed in their “People Magazine,” $12-billion cuts. Harris said he wouldn’t negatively impact classroom education—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: You don’t want to talk about the future, so you’re talking about the past.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Then he created an education crisis. He said that he would not close down hospitals. He closed down dozens of hospitals, fired thousands of nurses and closed 10,000 hospital beds.

This is the future under a PC government. We have to remember the past, particularly when they explicitly reference $12 billion in cuts in their “People Magazine.”

School facilities

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier. Years of neglect under the Liberals and Conservatives have resulted in a school repair backlog of over $15 million, with serious consequences for the health and well-being of children. In the past two years, drinking water at more than 640 schools and child care centres has failed lead tests.

Under this Liberal government, school maintenance budgets are barely enough to keep schools from deteriorating further and there is no funding to proactively fix the backlog. We know that Patrick Brown and the PCs do not have a plan to fix Ontario’s schools. Their platform is silent on school maintenance and repairs.

Speaker, other than flushing and testing, what is this Liberal government’s plan to ensure the safety of drinking water in Ontario’s schools?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The minister responsible for early years and child care.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the member opposite for this very important question. I know how important it is to keep our children safe. As the minister responsible for early years and child care, safety is one of my top priorities.

When we send our kids off to school or child care centres, we want to know that they are safe, healthy and being looked after. We will continue to work with our partners to ensure that all children in child care and in schools in this province are safe and have access to clean drinking water.

Our standards are the strongest in Canada, and we have strict rules in place requiring immediate action should an issue arise, so parents can rest assured that their children are safe. While lead is generally not found in municipal drinking water, Ontario still requires every single daycare, school and child care centre in the province to test for it. We’re the only province to do so, and I want parents and kids to know that over 98% of those facilities meet or are better than Health Canada standards.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Acting Premier: Flushing and testing is not a solution. There is no safe amount of lead in drinking water, especially for children, whose growing bodies absorb more lead than the average adult’s. As lead accumulates over time, it can affect children’s brain and nervous system development.

These recent lead tests showed concentrations at some schools that were 100 to 300 times greater than the provincial standard. Western University engineering professor Clare Robinson says, “For the lead issue, there’s just really no quick fix” and that “all plumbing and fixtures containing lead” should “be replaced.”

What is this Liberal government’s plan to replace the plumbing and fixtures at the 640 schools and child care centres that tested above the provincial standard?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to again thank the member opposite because I think it’s really important for parents out there to know that right now, Ontario’s standards are the strongest in Canada. We are absolutely looking at making sure that we are ensuring the safety of our children and that they are in safe and healthy environments when they head off to school or child care. Parents can rest assured that their kids are safe.

In fact, we have a long-term plan to address instances of lead in drinking water at schools and daycares. This includes providing $1.4 billion this year for school repairs and upgrades—absolutely important upgrades and very necessary infrastructure upgrades. This is really the largest provincial investment ever in school renewal, so let’s think about that. It’s a historic investment.

As part of the plan, we’ve also strengthened Ontario’s water standards, which are already the strictest in Canada. We want to make sure that children head off to school—

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

New question.

Correctional services

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I know that great strides are being taken in Ontario concerning correctional services. Howard Sapers, one of the leading voices in correctional services, was appointed as Ontario’s independent adviser on correctional reform. He has delivered two comprehensive reports that are helping to inform Ontario’s path forward.

Our government has implemented substantial change through segregation reform, new hires to support our front lines, our facility health care systems and more. Mr. Sapers and many community organizations, such as the John Howard Society, have recognized our commitment and are supporting our plan. Would the minister further detail our government’s transformation of Ontario’s correctional service system?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you to the member from Beaches–East York for this very important question.

As of today, we have a total of 7,109 inmates in our custody and care at our 26 correctional facilities—7,109 inmates that our government and our dedicated correctional staff are committed to rehabilitating in a safe and humane manner.

Are there issues within our system? Yes. Our government is not shying away from that. But this is exactly why we are implementing the greatest change to corrections in a generation. This is not about scoring political points, and certainly not about rhetoric; this is about doing what’s right.

Our government has taken action by hiring more staff, increasing mental health supports, investing in correctional infrastructure and soon-to-come legislation to cement real and lasting change for decades to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to thank the minister for her very enlightened response. I particularly look forward to seeing her on Political Blind Date with the member for Parkdale–High Park on TVOntario tonight at 9 o’clock. I appreciate her dedication to reforming Ontario’s correctional system, a dedication you’ll see in that TV show.

Both the minister and the Attorney General have been implementing progressive and modern changes to corrections, policing and the courts. I know that their goal and the objective of this government is to establish a truly 21st-century justice system. My constituents of Beaches–East York are expecting that our courts, our prisons, our policing and our support services are equitable, fair and inclusive.

Would the minister further detail our government’s transformation of correctional services in Ontario?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you again to the member from Beaches–East York for the supplementary.

Our government is building two new facilities in Ottawa and Thunder Bay that will serve as models of innovation and renewal for years to come, where the needs of inmates and staff are put first.

It is proven that the warehousing of inmates simply doesn’t work, but nobody seems to have told the Leader of the Opposition and/or the party opposite that. As a federal member of Parliament and an eager Harper Conservative, his greatest justice legacy was supporting mandatory minimums, which only resulted in the further warehousing of inmates.

We all know that any failed Conservative policy isn’t complete without a substantial, misguided budget cut. The Leader of the Opposition voted for a 10% cut in Corrections Canada’s budget while his government was locking more people up.

Mr. Speaker, we are basing our plan on the best evidence.

Tree planting

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Mr. David Harbec, the manager of Somerville Seedlings in Everett, wrote to the Premier recently and said, “Perhaps you were not aware that, as we speak, the managers in charge of the Ontario Tree Seed Plant closure are only giving us, the stakeholders, one option—not all options as Minister McGarry has stated as recently as November 15. I would suggest that the minister is grossly misinformed by her staff. The only option we are given is to get ‘in line’ in hopes to get some of the seed that is left on the shelf.”

Mr. Harbec and the Ontario Tree Seed Coalition are asking the government to accept the transition proposal they submitted to the minister on October 13. The proposal allows the ministry to walk away from the seed business, but maintains their leadership role through the fiscal support of the province’s propagation and forest genetic experts.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister actually work with stakeholders and accept the transition proposal?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the member opposite for his question today. I had an impromptu meeting recently with Rob Keen, who is the head of Forests Ontario, as you know, and who had just actually had a meeting with my ministry the day before. His comments were that we were working very well with them to identify all options.

We are not only meeting with the stakeholders and the nurseries, but we are identifying new opportunities for our private sector. The private sector now provides 80% of the seed extraction and 100% of the stock growing for the province. I see this as an opportunity for private nurseries to expand operations as the ministry changes its focus to a science-based approach.

We continue to work with all of the stakeholders to develop new policies such as a new seed zone policy and to create a new genetic archive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister: This minister claims she’s still consulting, but those who have taken

part in those meetings report back that her staff is just going through the motions. They’re ignoring reasonable alternatives from the industry to protect jobs and the environment by keeping the tree seed plant operating.

Over two dozen environmental groups, municipalities and private sector nurseries are opposed to the minister’s plan: She mentioned Forests Ontario; also, groups include Ducks Unlimited and the cities of Toronto and Ottawa. Ed Patchell, CEO of the Ferguson Forest Centre in my riding, wrote this to me: “This is really the last step in the Liberal government’s abandonment of forestry in southern Ontario, leaving no controls on future forest genetics.”

Will the minister shelve this ill-conceived plan, or does she want her legacy to be the abandonment of forestry in southern Ontario?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you very much for the supplementary. The new genetic archive will be a potential new source for the type of scientific information needed to address climate change. For example, our scientists will need to know exactly where the seeds have come from as they consider migrating tree species in reaction to changes in climate.

We continue to work with all of our stakeholders to continue all the important conversations and to ensure that, moving forward, we have a modern seed genetic archive and that we continue to grow the seeds.

It’s important for me to note, too, Speaker, that the party opposite has not supported in the past—under their government in the mid-1990s, they privatized the system that put them in this situation to begin with.

We continue to work on this side of the House to ensure that we have savings for the taxpayers and the important programs that we have moving forward.

Infectious disease control

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Acting Premier. People in London are worried today about an outbreak of a deadly virus in our city. In the past 18 months, invasive streptococcus has tragically taken the lives of nine people and sent 30 to the intensive care unit. Local health officials have reached out to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for help. They say the outbreak is “very unusual.” That leaves people who are in hospital or have to sit in the emergency department today worried and scared that this virus is not yet under control.

What is this government doing to stop the deadly o