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

December 3, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Dec-03 (PDF)

L135 - Tue 3 Dec 2019 / Mar 3 déc 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 December 2019 Mardi 3 décembre 2019

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les bases nécessaires à la promotion et à la protection des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances

Legislative reform

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Education funding

Education funding

Pharmacare

Federal-provincial relations

Education funding

Education funding

Tourism

Climate change

Climate change

Transfer payments

Environmental protection

Anti-racism activities

Assistance to persons with disabilities

Food safety

Tenant protection

Deferred Votes

Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les bases nécessaires à la promotion et à la protection des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances

Members’ Statements

Giving Tuesday

Guy Harlev

Affordable housing

Adoption

Community Healing Call-In

Věra Marie Kohoutová

Anne Marie D’Amico

Social assistance

Workplace safety

Rani Anto

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Introduction of Bills

COPD Awareness Day Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à la BPCO

Selection panel, Information and Privacy Commissioner

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Petitions

Anti-racism activities

Climate change

Assistive devices

Organ donation

Assistive devices

Assistive devices

Tuition

Assistive devices

Assistive devices

Long-term care

Anti-racism activities

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 2, 2019, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion, as amended, regarding amendments to the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When this matter was last debated, the member for Scarborough–Rouge Park had the floor. I recognize again the member for Scarborough–Rouge Park.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off from where I left off last night. I was excited to talk about the new proposed changes, which are very exciting, because the time of the day for statements by members will be moved from the afternoon to the first thing in the morning. All members in this place know the value of being able to rise and highlight their local events, the accomplishments of constituents and even some important initiative of our government. Right now, these statements take place in the afternoon, around 1 p.m. or 3 p.m., depending on the day.

These statements are very important to members, but I think we can all agree that most people watch this place for the most exciting part of the day—that is, question period—and may not always tune in throughout the rest of the day.

I believe one of the proposed changes to the standing orders will help to resolve the struggle of being in the Legislature and attending other duties as MPPs. The motion we are discussing proposes, for the first time in our history, that we formally allow the use of electronic devices in this chamber in a non-disruptive manner. Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that some members already take advantage of electronic devices, even though the rules do not yet allow it. By adopting this motion as a Legislature, we would be signalling that we understand that members have other obligations and that, where possible, these obligations should not force a member to leave the chamber.

When the rules of this place relating to the use of technologies were written, the world was a different place. A constituent might have mailed a letter and hoped for a response in two weeks or longer. Now, constituents reach out to me through Facebook Messenger and expect a response in minutes, not weeks. It is actually true: Sometimes my constituents text-message me or WhatsApp or they use Messenger. There are so many forms of communication now, and the expectation is that we will get back to them as soon as possible. Passing this motion will help us to do our constituent work, as well, which I think is a great step.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to serve my constituents as effectively as possible, and for me that means being responsive. Ultimately, this chamber is a place for debate, but allowing quiet and non-disruptive complementary work could help us all to be better public servants, and if this allows members to more effectively participate in debates, then this is a change that we should support.

The government House leader spent the summer consulting with the Clerks of the Legislature, the NDP and independent members to develop a comprehensive and collaborative plan to modernize the Legislature’s standing orders. These changes would modernize the rules of the Legislature, enhance the debate and increase opportunities for all MPPs to engage in this legislative process.

We are very pleased that the independent Liberals and Green Party support these proposed changes, but we are disappointed that after months of consultations, the NDP have decided to withdraw from the discussions and play politics. We are hopeful that once the NDP has had the chance to review our proposed changes, it will be clear that our only objective is a more productive, efficient and effective Legislature with enhanced participation for all members.

The NDP chose to withdraw from cross-party dialogue weeks ago and may not be aware of more recent developments in our proposals. It is disappointing that the NDP have indicated that they cannot support a single change in our proposals, including accommodation of members with disabilities.

While we are proposing that the government may debate the same bill in the morning and afternoon sessions, the intent of this is so the government may more logically move through its legislative agenda, not to expedite passage of legislation.

Further, even with the additional time for debate in a morning and afternoon, a bill would not receive enough debate to pass in one day. We have specifically indicated that a bill and a motion for time allocation for that bill may not be considered on the same calendar day, to preserve existing standards relating to timelines for passage of legislation.

I’m in strong support of this proposed reform. These changes are meaningful and important. They help us do the job that the people elected us to do in a better and more meaningful manner that hears voices from a wider array of viewpoints. This helps people with disabilities participate more fully in the law-making process and empowers them.

I’m profoundly grateful for the people of Scarborough–Rouge Park, who have entrusted me with the great honour to represent them in this provincial Parliament. Every day, my imperative is to make sure I’m doing everything I can to help their lives and make government better and more effective.

This is such an instrument. I proudly vote for changes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to highlight some of what the proposed changes accomplish, and why.

Allowing night sittings in the final 18 sessional days: Currently, night sittings are allowed in the final 12 sessional days. This change allows the government to spread out night sittings so they do not have to be forced into final sitting weeks.

We are also proposing to permit the government to cancel a night sitting when notice has been given but it is deemed to no longer be required. Currently, the government must wait for the night sitting to begin.

Amending the daily order of business to conduct members’ statements in the morning before question period and to incorporate introduction of visitors into the proceedings.

Allowing the House leader to call no further business, at which point the House would adjourn to the next proceeding or the next sessional day: This already is done in the morning session, prior to question period. However, in the afternoon, an adjournment motion must be moved and can be voted upon.

As I mentioned, permitting the use of mobile phones, tablets, laptops and other electronic devices in the chamber.

Changing the format of debate from two-minute hits to one-minute Q&A: Under this proposed rule, after a member completes a 10-minute speech, members will have 10 minutes to question the member who made the speech. Questions are limited to one minute. The member who made the speech will immediately respond to each question as it is asked, and will have one minute to do so. The intent of this is to encourage more active debate and enhance the quality of debate.

Ending the requirement for a verbal referral of a question from one minister to another during question period: Ontario has the only Canadian Legislature which specifically requires a verbal referral of a question. The intent is that question period will be quicker, allowing more direct focus on the questions asked, and the possibility for more questions. The model for this is the House of Commons, in which any minister or parliamentary assistant may stand to answer any question.

Allowing co-sponsorship of private members’ bills by any four members, regardless of their party’s political stripe: Currently, two members from the same party may not co-sponsor a bill. We have proposed this change to recognize that some bills may benefit from this for regional or other political reasons.

Currently, there’s a limit of three co-sponsors on any bill. This change would allow PC, NDP, Liberal and Green members to all sponsor a bill as a show—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Excuse me. Sorry for the interruption. The government House leader has raised a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’m just uncertain as to the amount of time—I wonder if the table officers could clarify the amount of time that we have—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): That’s not a point of order; sorry.

I return to the member from Scarborough-Rouge River.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: Speaker, I think we have had enough debate now on this, and we would like to move adjournment of debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the debate be now adjourned?

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 0913 to 0943.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): All members take their seats, please.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Order, please. Thank you.

Mr. Thanigasalam has moved adjournment of the debate. All those in favour of the motion will rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the motion, please rise and remain standing.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 67; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I declare the motion carried.

Debate adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Orders of the day.

Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les bases nécessaires à la promotion et à la protection des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 27, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to enact the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence Act, 2019 and the Opioid Damages and Health Costs Recovery Act, 2019 / Projet de loi 116, Loi édictant la Loi de 2019 sur le Centre d’excellence pour la santé mentale et la lutte contre les dépendances et la Loi de 2019 sur le recouvrement des dommages-intérêts et du coût des soins de santé imputables aux opioïdes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 28, 2019, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Tibollo has moved second reading of Bill 116,

An Act to enact the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence Act, 2019 and the Opioid Damages and Health Costs Recovery Act, 2019. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Second reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Orders of the day.

Legislative reform

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 3, 2019, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion, as amended, regarding amendments to the standing orders.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The last person who was speaking to the debate was the member for Scarborough–Rouge Park. Does that member still wish to continue or do we go to another member?

Interjection.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you, Speaker. I’m very pleased to add—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’m sorry, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, the opposition House leader has raised a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The member from London was up on her feet way before that. She does want to debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. My apologies to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence. The rotation order would have it so that after we finished that portion of the debate, when the debate was ended, we now go to a member of the loyal opposition.

I recognize the member from London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you very much, Speaker. I’m excited, I guess, to participate in a debate on a motion that has actually gone beyond the six-and-a-half-hour time allocation mark, but is still continuing. It’s a refreshing and unusual situation, quite frankly, that we are able to continue to engage in debate on business that is before the House.

Unfortunately, we have had many, many, many opportunities where it would have been very useful to participate in debate beyond the six-and-a-half-hour mark, at which point time allocation is permitted under the standing orders. However, this government, in its wisdom, I guess, has chosen to use time allocation for almost every single bill that they have brought before this Legislature: 27 bills have been debated; 25 of those bills have been time-allocated.

That said, today we are in this rather unique situation of being able to continue debate following the six-and-a-half-hour time allocation mark, and we are debating an amendment that was brought forward yesterday by my colleague the member for Brampton Centre. It’s a significant amendment, especially on this day, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. It requires that for the duration of the 42nd Parliament, the Speaker can alter the application of any standing order, any practice of the House, to enable the accommodation of members with disabilities so that they can fully participate in the activities of this House.

That amendment was moved in relation to the motion that my colleague the member for Timmins had originally moved to create a Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders. The amendment to enable the accommodation of persons with disabilities is important so that while the Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders conducts its work, there is the ability for the Speaker to fully enable the participation of any MPPs with disabilities who require accommodation in the proceedings of this Legislature.

Speaker, I want to reflect a little bit about why our motion to create this Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders is so important.

We have seen this government, as I started out saying—time after time after time, they have rushed bills through this Legislature, with breathtaking speed in many cases. They have shown, frankly, contempt for the democratic process. They have limited the ability of MPPs on this side of the House to participate in matters of vital public significance. They have limited or eliminated the ability of the public to weigh in on legislative initiatives that are before this House.

Again, speaking to the bills that have been debated in this Legislature since this government took office: There have been five of those bills that moved straight from second reading to third reading with no committee input at all, no opportunity for citizens of this province, for stakeholder organizations, for academics, for experts, for front-line workers, the people who are going to be most directly affected by these legislative initiatives—zero opportunity for any of these people to participate in the discussion on these legislative initiatives, to perhaps bring forward amendments that would strengthen the legislation.

This government has chosen to prevent any opportunity for public input in at least five of the bills that it has brought before this Legislature.

This Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders—might be something that we want to look at, that that select committee could look at. Is that appropriate? Is that an appropriate way to conduct public policy, to do the people’s business in the province of Ontario, to rush legislation through as quickly as possible without providing an opportunity for public input? I think that the members of that select committee, that the persons who may be called to speak to that select committee, may have something to say about whether that is an appropriate way to do business.

Instead of establishing a select committee to review modernizing the standing orders, to review how to sustain a healthy democracy in this place, we see this government introducing changes to the standing orders that are just going to enable them to move bills even more quickly. Speaker, we’ve already seen that this government has lots of tools at its disposal to ram legislation through at unprecedented speed, and yet this government wants to be able to do that more quickly.

Let’s consider, Speaker, what this government has included in its standing orders. It has now proposed that the government be able to hold night sittings for the last 18 days of a session. Previously, night sittings were able to be called, I think, in the final eight days of a session. Then the government moved it up to the final 12 days of a session, and now they want to increase it even further, to the final 18 days of a session.

When you have night sittings, the effect is that it adds the number of hours that are available for a bill to be debated, to move through the legislative process and reach that six-and-a-half-hour time allocation mark more quickly, when you add those hours after 6 o’clock.

Let’s consider a scenario, Speaker: On a Monday, we could have debate begin on a bill, and that debate could continue through the Monday afternoon. It could continue into the evening during those night-sitting orders, and then that evening, as soon as the bill reaches the six-and-a-half-hour mark—and I mean the very minute it hits the six-and-a-half-hour mark, because that’s also included in the standing order—it wouldn’t even allow the person who has the floor to finish their remarks.

The minute that bill reaches the six-and-a-half-hour mark, the government House leader could stand up and introduce a time allocation motion, and that time allocation motion could be written in such a way that the bill moves directly from second reading to third reading, with no opportunity for public input.

Let’s acknowledge, Speaker, that that is exactly what we’ve seen. It’s not as if, “Oh, no. No government would ever do that. No government would ever try to prevent the voice of the people, or would ever close their ears to listening to what people have to say.” We’ve seen this government do exactly that, so it’s not out of the realm of the ordinary that this is the kind of time allocation the government could bring in, that the bill could move straight from second reading to third reading.

Again, on a Monday, after these standing order changes take place, we could see the bill reach the six-and-a-half-hour mark, we could see a time allocation motion be brought in, and we could see the time allocation motion state that the bill will go directly from second reading to third reading. The following day, on the Tuesday, the time allocation motion would be debated. There’s about two hours of debate on a time allocation motion. It would be passed, because the government, of course, would use their majority to pass the time allocation motion.

And then the following day, on the Wednesday, the vote on the time allocation motion would take place after question period. The votes on the second reading of the bill, immediately followed by the third reading of the bill, could take place in the afternoon of the same day.

This government defends itself by saying, “Oh, don’t worry. We’re not going to be moving bills and passing bills in the same day. We’re not going to be doing that. We’re not proposing that in these standing orders.” Well, maybe not, but you are proposing just what I said: that you could have a debate on a bill begin on a Monday, and by Wednesday, it’s law. I don’t think that the people of Ontario think that that’s a good thing for democracy.

I don’t think that the people who are here in this Legislature, who were elected to bring the views of our constituents to the table—I don’t think that that is enabling us as members of this Legislature to weigh in on debates and to participate in decisions that are being made that are affecting all of our constituents.

Speaker, despite what this government says about its concern about enabling the participation of the independent members of the Legislature, when we look at what is actually in this bill, we see the true motivation behind these standing-order changes: It’s to give the government even more ability to ram through legislation as quickly as it possibly can.

One of the other challenges, or one of the other issues that I think the Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders may well want to consider, in addition to the routine use of time allocation—the automatic use of time allocation—is the number of omnibus bills that this government has brought in, and whether the use of omnibus legislation is good for democracy, whether that is a good way to enable the people to participate in decisions that are made in this Legislature. Let’s just reflect on some of these bills that the government has brought forward, has time-allocated at its first opportunity shortly after the six-and-a-half-hour mark.

Bill 132, for example, had 17 schedules, and it made amendments to 80 acts—17 schedules, and it amended 80 acts. Speaker, that bill today is in committee. There is clause-by-clause review of that very hefty piece of legislation, with all of these schedules, with all of these acts that are amended.

When you consider the length of time that the government allowed for people to come to committee to speak to that bill, there is no possible way that the proper due diligence, the proper oversight, the proper analysis and the proper review could be conducted of a piece of legislation that substantial and that comprehensive in the changes that it made.

Perhaps the Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders might want to make some recommendations about ensuring that the time for public input is commensurate with the range of issues that are contained within a bill, that the time allocated for public input actually enables enough speakers to address all of the legislative changes that are contained within a bill.

The danger of time allocation is that it’s not only being used to move through bills that are fairly self-contained, that address a single theme, where the acts that are amended are linked. We haven’t seen that with this government. Instead, they have thrown in odds and ends of pieces of legislation all over the place. It’s very difficult, therefore, for us as legislators, in our 20 minutes that we have to comment on all of those acts that are amended, and for the public, when they come to committee, to bring forward recommendations for review.

Bill 136, another piece of omnibus legislation, has 40 schedules and amends 65 acts.

Bill 57 has 45 schedules and amends 65 acts.

All of these bills have been time-allocated after the six-and-a-half-hour mark, and have provided very, very limited opportunity for people to participate. Now this government wants to bring in changes to the standing orders that are going to allow it to speed things up even further, to move time allocation even sooner, and potentially to pass legislation in the shortest time ever in the history of this Legislature.

Speaker, the other thing that we’ve heard from this side of the House is that they were interested in a dialogue, in a consultative process, about these changes. But I want to remind the government, and I want to remind the people who may be watching this debate, that when this government originally came to the NDP and the independent members with their proposals about changes to standing orders, there was nothing—nothing—in their original draft that talked about the extra participation of the independent members, nothing about additional questions, nothing about additional time in debate.

Our amendment to create the select committee acknowledges that the Speaker should have the discretion to allow the independent members to have those additional member statements, those additional questions and that additional time for debate. But the fact that that wasn’t in the original draft that was presented to the NDP, the fact that the original draft changes to the standing orders raised all kinds of red flags for the NDP, is why we said that we are not going to be negotiating, we’re not going to be supporting this package.

And then, the next thing you know, the government says, “Great news. We’ve got the support of the independent members. We’ve also updated the changes to the standing orders to give the independent members this extra ability to participate in the House.” Speaker, this government is using this deal that they brokered with the independent members to try to mask the highly problematic elements of this package: the ability to have the night sittings in the last 18 days of the session, and the ability to call legislation twice in one day. These are changes that are going to allow the government, as I said, to move its agenda forward more quickly.

If this was a government that had shown some skill in managing its agenda, we may be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But let’s not forget that 24 sessional days were lost in September and October because this government decided to call a five-month recess. Let’s not forget that last December, we lost four sessional days because this government decided to adjourn the House early. Oftentimes, it seems like this government doesn’t know what it’s doing, and it’s scrambling. I guess that’s reflected in the standing orders. It recognizes that it’s had to scramble at the very end to try to ram through its legislation because it hasn’t been able to manage its own legislative agenda.

So I urge this government to truly engage in a collaborative process by supporting both the sub-amendment that we’re debating today, and the amendment that was brought forward by my colleague the member for Timmins to create a Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders so that we can look at the big picture about what really needs to happen in this Legislature to enable, promote and fulfill our democratic mandate.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: I’m very pleased to add my voice today to those of my colleagues who have spoken so far on the changes to the standing orders proposed by the government, as well as the amendments to the motion, proposed by the opposition, that we are debating today.

I want to start by noting how very disappointed I am to see these amendments tabled, and to see the opposition’s attempt to politicize a collaborative, multi-party process undertaken by the government House leader, in conjunction with the Clerks of the House, the representatives of the opposition—at one point—and the independent members over the summer to strike a new set of standing orders.

Let’s look at some of the proposed changes, some of the ideas which seem to offend the official opposition so much.

First, and most important, in my view, is the proposal that would allow the Speaker to alter the application of the rules of the Legislature to permit the full participation of members with disabilities. Currently, a member with a disability requiring special accommodation, such as an electronic assistive device or a personal support worker, would require the unanimous consent of the Legislature. The proposed change would give the Speaker authority to use his or her discretion to accommodate members appropriately.

Once such example of an accommodation could be a member who uses a wheelchair or a similar mobility aid. Under the current standing orders, a member in a wheelchair or other mobility device needs the unanimous consent of the Legislature to vote without physically standing. While I don’t expect any of us would get in the way of such a request, that doesn’t change the fact that in today’s Ontario, such a request should not be necessary.

There are some other very common sense changes proposed in the government’s motion, such as formally allowing the use of electronic devices in this chamber in a non-disruptive manner. Looking around just now, you can see many devices in the chamber. Their use in the chamber has been tolerated over the years despite never being explicitly allowed in the standing orders.

Now, I know that we could have an entirely separate debate on how these devices should be used, but the reality is that these devices are being used, and every time that happens, the Speaker is overlooking some of the current rules that exist in this place. We don’t want to put the Speaker in a difficult position, so let’s formalize these rules and let the Speaker focus on the other rules of decorum that may get overlooked from time to time, or certainly challenged on a regular basis.

Let’s take a look at some of the other changes proposed in the government House leader’s motion, some of the other proposals that the official opposition seeks to wipe out with their amendments.

Our proposed changes to the standing orders will also amend the daily order of business to conduct members’ statements in the morning before question period and to incorporate introduction of visitors into the proceeding. While I’ve come to value the role that members’ statements play in this place and look forward to delivering one this afternoon, the intent of the change is to increase the profile of members’ statements by having them occur when more MPPs are present in the chamber and when the media are actively observing the chamber prior to question period.

This is the way it has been done for some time now in our federal Parliament and is another change I’d expect to be rather uncontroversial.

Along with this change, we’re proposing to incorporate introduction of visitors with routine proceedings so that there are stricter limits on its possible length. To ensure all members still have the opportunity to introduce their guests, the standing order changes proposed by the government specify a simplified and consistent format for introduction of visitors: name, title, organization and riding. These changes specifically prohibit the use of points of order for introductions, consistent with the Speaker’s current application of the existing standing orders.

This change makes sense, like the other ones, if only because introduction of visitors was originally added to the standing orders to prevent the use of points of order for that purpose, and to prevent fewer interruptions to debate is always a welcome thing. One would think this is yet another simple, common sense change that respects the rights of all of the members of this House, but apparently it is too extreme for the official opposition to support. That’s too bad.

Speaker, here’s another idea: The government’s proposed changes would allow night sittings in the final 18 sessional days, an increase from the current standing orders, which allow for night sittings during the final 12 sessional days only. The rationale for the change, again, is quite simple: If night sittings are necessary, we should have the opportunity to spread them out so that they’re not all crammed into a mere two weeks. The proposed change would permit the government to cancel a night sitting when notice has been given but it is deemed to no longer be required. Currently, the government must wait for the night sitting to begin, which is not an effective—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I apologize to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence. Unfortunately, the clock has run out on the occasion for you to continue this debate this morning.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): This House stands in recess until question period at 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’d like to welcome a number of tenant activists to Queen’s Park today, including Rob Field, Geordie Dent, Mark Tennenhouse, Rosa Leo, Kelly Bentley and Brendan Jowett. Thank you so much for coming to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I don’t see them yet, but I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today the Ontario Public Transit Association. It was great to join them for breakfast this morning and to meet members of the organization from across the province. Thank you for all the great work that you do to advocate for transit for all Ontarians.

Mr. Joel Harden: Today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and we are very privileged in this House to be joined by some of our country’s leaders on that front. I want to mention the great David Lepofsky, who I just got back from a press conference with, Odelia Bay, and Sarah Jama. Thank you for all the work you do for our country, for our province, and for people with disabilities.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to introduce some constituents of mine. I met some of them on the evening of the federal election and invited them to come to Queen’s Park. They are from Don Valley West and are with their children, who attend Northlea elementary school: James Carter, with Clara Carter and Sofia Carter; Todd Prendergast, Kara Beitel, Hannah Prendergast and Emily Prendergast; and Regina Espinosa, Ximena Lozada and Andres Lozada. Welcome to you. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to welcome a new member of my family, our first grandson, Anson William Traquair, seven and a half pounds.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Congratulations.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I have an introduction of sorts, as well, a family introduction—extended family. Patrick Kelly, who is the caucus liaison in the Premier’s office and who worked for me for years, and his wife, Beth, on November 21 welcomed into this world Preston Louis, at seven pounds, two ounces. Welcome, Preston Louis. Congratulations, Patrick.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Again, congratulations.

Introductions of visitors or announcements of babies?

Miss Monique Taylor: My granddaughter has now turned 10 months old, so I have no new introductions.

My daily introduction of families with autism: Today in the House we have Laura, Bruce, Clara and Cliff McIntosh. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sara Singh: Actually, since we’re on a trend, last night my executive assistant gave birth to a healthy baby girl. Welcome to Sofia Marie Irene Casselman Moreas. She’s a beautiful baby. All the best to the family.

Oral Questions

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. Parents and students are nervously awaiting news about which schools will be closed tomorrow, and hoping for news that will avoid job action.

Can the Premier tell us what steps he has taken over the 120 hours since job action was first announced to avoid a shutdown of schools tomorrow?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: For 204 consecutive days, the teachers unions have made absolutely no moves at the bargaining table, notwithstanding that the government of Ontario has made significant moves to classroom sizes from 28 to 25, to online learning from four to two.

We are listening to those we are serving; however, every single entity at the table must be reasonable in order to ensure we keep kids in class both Wednesday and every day thereafter. Our government is focused on getting deals because the parents of this province deserve predictability and children deserve educational stability on Wednesday and every day thereafter.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government doesn’t get credit for not cutting even deeper. Parents don’t want them to cut at all; that’s the problem.

To parents and students wondering what’s going to happen to the school year, it looks like the Premier has been doing very little to fix the mess that he has created. For months, the Premier did his utmost to pick a fight with teachers in the classroom and ignore the concerns of parents and students who said his cuts would hurt the quality of our kids’ education and create conflict.

Now that we’re on the verge of school closures across Ontario, is the Premier ready to actually show some leadership, de-escalate this situation and reverse the reckless cuts?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The Premier has demonstrated his firm commitment in the defence of public education by increasing expenditure to the highest levels ever recorded in this province’s history.

Every member of our team is committed to keeping kids in class. We demonstrated this consistent, student-centric focus at the table with CUPE, and with CUPE we got a deal—a good deal for all parties. We seek to do that again for the teachers in Ontario.

What is constant through the process and what is frustrating for observers is that irrespective of the Premier and who’s in the chair, the bottom line is teachers unions escalate against the government. That is unacceptable for parents. It’s what unites Bob Rae, former Premier McGuinty and now Doug Ford. The unity there is that they all faced escalation by unions, and I think parents are frustrated and sick and tired of it. What they want is every party to be reasonable.

We’re going to continue to invest in education, getting a good deal that keeps kids in class.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I guess the minister doesn’t get it, but cuts and rollbacks are escalations. Protecting our public education. That’s the way the government should be going. That’s what parents are saying anyway.

I don’t know what the minister is looking at, but here’s what parents see:

—a Premier who spent months calling teachers thugs and blaming them when he was booed at public events;

—a Minister of Education who literally delayed bargaining so he could hold a press conference about the lack of bargaining; and

—a government that is still defending classroom cuts that mean larger class sizes, cancelled courses and mandatory online learning.

If the Premier wants to keep kids in the classroom, he could de-escalate this situation today by reversing his cuts. The question is simple: Why doesn’t he?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has demonstrated a firm commitment to improving education by putting more money in the system than ever before. He’s committed to that, because we’ve doubled the mental health envelope in this province. We’ve invested more to improve schools—a $550-million renewal to build new schools and improve existing schools. We’re putting in a $200-million math strategy to lift math scores after they were being firmly held at a low rate for 10 consecutive years. They’ve essentially stagnated.

Mr. Speaker, the government is investing in our children. What we’re also doing is asking every party at the table to be reasonable. Students should be in class tomorrow. The government stands with them. The question for the member opposite is: Do you oppose escalation by teachers unions who are keeping kids out of class tomorrow?

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Education defended the government’s decision to hide the results of their education consultation, a consultation which showed an overwhelming majority of parents oppose the government’s plans for larger classes and mandatory online learning. For months, the Premier insisted he was on the side of parents, and he claimed they supported the cuts that now threaten to close schools all across Ontario. Why would he say that when he knew that his own consultation showed the exact opposite?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The government has consistently been reasonable at the table, to incent the parties to stay there and to get a deal. We demonstrated this precise approach in negotiating with CUPE and we got a deal that was good for students, good for parents and good for the workers of this province. We seek to replicate that again with our teachers. For 204 consecutive days, there has been no material change, no change at all, to the position of the unions. How is that an acceptable proposition for parents, who want all the parties to be reasonable and who want the parties to be focused on keeping kids in class?

The Premier has led by example by ensuring that my mandate is to keep kids in class. We’re fighting every day at the table, 24/7, to keep kids in class, where they belong.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, the minister needs to know, and so does the Premier, that what parents see is the furthest thing from being reasonable in this situation. It’s the furthest thing from reasonable that you can get.

But for months, the Premier insisted that parents backed his scheme for large class sizes, mandatory online learning and firing 10,000 teachers. That’s what they were claiming. Yet the government’s own consultation showed that parents overwhelmingly disapprove of these moves, Speaker. This government is still hiking class sizes. This government is still forcing students into online learning that won’t work for them and will not allow them to graduate without these mandatory requirements.

Why would a government who actually listened to parents move ahead with what parents have clearly rejected, Speaker?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, it’s this government that is maintaining the lowest classroom size, in the early years, in this country, and that is a fact which the members opposite choose to ignore.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to families, which is why we’ve made a decision to move the provincial average of classroom sizes from 28 to 25. It’s why we’ve moved the online learning mandate from four to two. It’s why we’ve improved and invested in front-line education.

What we have also heard consistently is the teachers union’s mandate, or insistence, on a $1.5-billion increase in compensation. We’re offering $750 million, and apparently that is insufficient.

Mr. Speaker, my priority, the bias of this government, is to put more money into front of class, to help our kids. That’s what we’re going to continue to do at the negotiating table, and do everything we can, including turning to third-party mediation, to get a deal that keeps the children of this province in class.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s a news flash for the Premier: Cuts that are less deep are still cuts that parents don’t want to our public education system. That’s the reality.

The Premier spent months claiming he had the support of parents and students, yet parents and students have been crystal clear from day one, and they continue to be clear today: They don’t support larger classes, mandatory online courses or firing 10,000 teachers. So instead of working overtime to work with teachers and reach a deal to improve our public education system, the Premier has been making cuts, picking fights and pretending that parents don’t care about these cuts.

When will the Premier stop defending his indefensible cuts and start working with teachers to reach a deal that works for kids, that works for quality public education in the province of Ontario? When will he do that?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Our government supports a deal, not a strike. That’s why we’re working hard at the negotiating table to ensure that our education unions, in good faith, get a deal with us like we did with CUPE just one month ago. The objective of the government is to ensure that the continuity of learning for children remains unimpeded. And what is regrettable is that, irrespective of the party or the Premier, the one constant in my lifetime is that unions escalate against the government. That is an unacceptable reality, and I would think that all members of this Legislature would oppose escalation that hurts our kids.

We stand with parents against escalation. We’re going to work hard every day over the coming hours and days to keep kids in class and do everything we can to ensure that the continuum of learning is not impeded because of union escalation.

Pharmacare

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier, but I don’t know if the minister noticed that there are no parents standing with him. Seventy per cent of them don’t agree with him.

Yesterday, while the Premiers were calling for an increase in provincial health transfers, some were resisting the implementation of a universal pharmacare program. Sadly, it seems Ontario’s Premier was the ringleader in that regard.

At a time when families desperately need a Premier who will work on the national stage to build a pharmacare program, why is this Premier trying to undermine any effort to do so?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. We are looking to solve problems that exist. One of the problems that exists right now in Ontario is that our drug escalation costs are going up 5% year over year over year. We need some assistance from the federal government on that, on rare and orphan disease drugs. It’s wonderful that these discoveries are being made, but some of them are in excess of $1 million per patient. That is something that, as Minister of Health, I take full responsibility for.

We want everybody to receive the medications that they need, but we need the federal government’s assistance on this. We have a robust drug plan already in Ontario. We don’t need assistance with that, but we do need assistance with rare and orphan disease drugs. That’s something that I intend to follow up on with the federal health minister, to let her know what our position is and to understand what the position of the other provinces and territories is.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have to say, I am shocked by that response. There are people in this province that can’t afford their prescription drugs right now, that cut pills in half because they can’t afford to renew their prescriptions in a timely fashion. This health minister refuses to acknowledge that.

This is a very serious situation, Speaker. Ontarians have already seen their health care system slashed by this government, and now the Premier is attacking a national pharmacare plan that can deliver that very real relief that everyday families need. At a time when people across the province are having to choose, as I said, between filling prescriptions and paying their bills, universal drug coverage is a crucial next step. Families simply can’t wait, nor should they have to wait.

Why is the Premier trying to torpedo prescription drug coverage right when Ontarians need it the most?

Hon. Christine Elliott: With respect, Speaker, I need to say to the leader of the official opposition, through you, that we are actually increasing our coverage for health costs in the province of Ontario by $1.9 billion next year. That is a big, big increase. We already have quite a robust health coverage system for people that need coverage. We also have the Trillium program for people that need extra assistance.

However, what we do need help with is access to rare and orphan disease drugs. I’ve heard from many people about this. I know that the coverage issue is very difficult. It’s very expensive. We want people to get that coverage. We want people with those rare and orphan disease issues to be able to receive that kind of care. That’s where we actually need the federal government’s assistance, and that’s what I’m going to pursue as Minister of Health.

Federal-provincial relations

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday, yourself along with other Premiers demonstrated the true essence of national unity and leadership by representing diverse regions and beliefs in support of the betterment of all Canadians. Leaders from across this great nation gathered together to demonstrate a commitment to putting our country first. Premier, you said it best: that although we might have our differences, Canada is united together.

Premier, can you highlight some of the overlapping policies that all provincial leaders raised as requiring further support from the federal government in order for Canadians from across this country to be better served?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our great MPP from Milton. That’s actually the hometown of my daughter, and she tells me everyone loves him over in Milton as well.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: We’ve never seen this country so divided as after the last federal election. We had people from the West absolutely furious. We had Quebec with the Bloc that got elected. They have the third-largest number of seats in Parliament there. It was divided.

What a great visit, when Premier Higgs came by and sat down. I give all of the credit for this meeting to my good friend Premier Scott Moe from Saskatchewan, who felt that this was a time to bring the country together through the Premiers, to make sure that we just lowered the heat amongst all of the provinces and the federal government. I know how much they appreciated the meeting.

After the meeting—Mr. Speaker, we were a divided nation, but we are a nation that’s united right now, and we’ll continue being united, because when we’re united, there’s no—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Restart the clock. Supplementary question?

Mr. Parm Gill: Thank you, Premier, for that answer and for your commitment and leadership in standing up for the people of this great province.

Premier, I know that in particular, you have been a champion for the Canadian economy, taking a leadership role on this front, highlighting the dangers that instability and economic isolation will have for this country. As you have said previously, what is good for Ontario is good for Canada and vice versa. You have said that provinces should be competing together against the world and not against each other.

Premier, can you share with this House the importance of economic growth and the measures that were agreed on by all provinces?

Hon. Doug Ford: I thank our MPP from Milton for that great question.

There were a few items that we condensed down to about four different items that had the concerns of all provinces across this great nation—one being economic development and job creation. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we’re leading North America in economic development and job creation because of the policies of our government. We’re leading the nation, we’re leading North America, with 252,400 jobs. There are 252,000 more families putting food on the table, paying rent, paying mortgages and doing things they might otherwise not be able to afford. Our economy is booming. We’re the envy of Canada and North America.

We also spoke about the transfers. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important in this country than health, health, health; jobs, jobs, jobs. We asked for it to escalate, to go up from 3% to 5.2%, which will take the burden off of the provinces, because I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we can’t do it alone when it comes to health care—

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

The next question.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. First, let me say that nothing that the Minister of Education has said here today will give Ontario families an ounce of assurance that schools will be open tomorrow.

The government says they’re being reasonable when it comes to their escalating attacks on our school system. But let’s take stock for a moment of what they’re offering our next generation: They’re still planning to fire thousands of teachers, they’re still planning to replace in-person instruction with risky, mandatory, Alabama-style learning, and they’re still planning to cram more kids into fewer courses. Mr. Speaker, does this sound reasonable?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, what our government is focused on is investing in the front lines of education. We have increased expenditure. This year, we’re on track to spend $1.2 billion more than we did last year. That is proof positive that we care deeply about the success of our young people.

When it comes to what we’re doing to keep kids in class, we have asked the members opposite to stand with the government, to look to third-party mediation, which worked with CUPE just one month ago. We’ve heard silence.

What we have told parents is that the mission of the government is to keep kids in class by using every tool in the tool kit, because parents should know with confidence that their kids should be in class tomorrow. What is regrettable is that there’s not unanimity of purpose in the Legislature in opposing escalation. The silence seems to be almost implicit support for these approaches, which we oppose.

Our government is going to continue to work hard 24/7 to get deals so we keep kids in class.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to go back to the Premier. The minister clearly needs a lesson in bargaining 101. You’re supposed to go to the bargaining table to improve education, not make cuts that hurt kids.

If this government cared about our students, they wouldn’t be asking them to foot the bill for their tax cuts and their costly court cases. They wouldn’t be jeopardizing graduation rates by cutting courses and pushing kids into online learning. And they wouldn’t be targeting the very people who deliver our education.

As the clock ticks toward job action, will the minister finally do the right thing? Premier, take these unreasonable cuts off the table and stop these attacks on our kids’ future.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite speaks about data points. Will she agree that a $1.5-billion increase is too high when it comes to the offer we’ve proposed for educators, which is for $750 million? The fundamental issue at the table is a lack of willingness to move off a $1.5-billion commitment to increase compensation. It is a fundamental contrast point at the table.

The priority of this government and this Premier is to invest in education. The 1% we’re offering is $750 million, which is somewhat similar to the $700-million increase made at the height of Liberal spending under the former government.

We are committed to our kids. We’re putting more money in math supports, more money in our special education—the highest levels in French, in mathematics support, in First Nations and in French language. We’re doing that because we believe in the potential of the young people in this province.

Education funding

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Education is in a tough spot. I get that. It’s a really hard place to be. But the fact is that the labour action that is in place right now is a direct result of this government’s unwillingness to recognize that the cuts that are being imposed on the system are going to have implications.

I’ve worked as a parent activist with teachers. I’ve been an MPP. I’ve been the Minister of Education. I’ve been the Premier. To a person, I know from that experience, there is nobody in our schools who wants to be part of this conflict. They don’t want the divisiveness; they know that it’s problematic for them and their students.

Also, many, many of the parents who are in our school communities right now were children and students during the Harris years. They know what it’s like to be out of school for weeks on end. They know what that conflict costs.

So I say to the minister, beyond continuing to stand by cuts, what exactly has the government done in the last four days to try to get an agreement?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Mr. Speaker, what we have done is we’ve offered mediation as a reasonable offer to incent the parties to stay at the table. We’ve offered independent mediation, the same mechanism this government used to get a good deal with CUPE, which provided predictability for parents.

The requests and the insistence of the teachers unions is clear: They want a $1.5-billion increase. I actually believe we should be remunerating our teachers well. They are at the front of class; we need to retain talent. They are the second-highest remunerated in the nation.

The preference of this government is to put more money to help our kids. We are looking at every option possible to invest more in our children’s future. That’s the priority of students. It’s the priority of parents and it’s the priority of this government.

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

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. I understand that the Minister of Education wants to claim that this is about compensation. What I have heard the unions and the federations say is that the quality of education is their focus. That’s their primary focus. They know that the cuts to per-pupil funding, the increase in class sizes, and the insistence on mandatory online courses continue to be disrespectful to children, disrespectful to parents and disrespectful to their teachers and support workers.

It is up to the government to bring real solutions to the table. It is time for the government to bring real solutions and to work seriously to come to an agreement. Mediation can only work if there is willingness on both sides of the table. The government needs to bring real solutions to the table.

Will the minister assure the students of this province that he is going to do just that?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the member opposite: “Mediation only works if all parties are reasonable.” I agree, for the first time in my history, with the member opposite. Mediation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member for Essex come to order.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: And what is unreasonable is that for 204 consecutive days, without interruption, there has been no material change at all to the position of OSSTF. How is that acceptable for parents? Every entity needs to be reasonable and put our kids first. What they are not doing is doing so. What they are providing is an insistent priority on a $1.5-billion increase to compensation. That is unacceptable.

We want the unions to be reasonable, to stay at the table and work with the government in good faith to provide predictability for every child in this province.

Tourism

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is for the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. Last month the minister was able to visit Where Canada Begins during her tour of southwestern Ontario. Her visit included stops at local attractions, as well as meetings with mayors and council members from Tecumseh and Windsor, and the CEO of the local tourism organization serving Windsor, Essex and Pelee Island.

The minister was also able to visit the folks from the MH100 teen program, a successful program for at-risk youth in the area, before ending her day at the Windsor International Film Festival, attended by approximately 1,200 cinema enthusiasts and industry professionals. It is clear there is much to explore across all of southwestern Ontario.

Can the minister please tell us how her ministry’s support for attractions in my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington is growing the local economies in communities across southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to respond to the great member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington. He has been a strong advocate in this House for many years for his community. I’m glad to be addressing what we’re doing in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries within his region.

He’s right. Last month I had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Drew Dilkens of Windsor; Gordon Orr, who is the CEO of local tourism; Gary McNamara of Tecumseh and his team; and Mehari Hagos from MH100, a young man who has built, from absolutely nothing, something that is so spectacular that we want to emulate his involvement in sport in underprivileged areas right across the province.

I did have the opportunity to go to the Windsor International Film Festival, where we invested over $50,000. It is the largest film festival, in terms of volunteers, across the entire province. They’re doing great things there. I’m very proud of the work and the contributions that they are making, and we are going to continue to support the Windsor International Film Festival as well as cultural institutions within the member’s constituency.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: That’s wonderful to hear just how an array of industries in southwestern Ontario have such an important impact on our local jobs and tourism spending.

Our region is lucky and proud to call itself a two-nation destination. Since our region is literally a neighbour to our southern neighbour, we benefit greatly from our American friends visiting our sights, assets and attractions. In fact, according to Destination Canada, during the second quarter of this year, visitors from the United States represented 52%, or $3.3 billion, of all spending by international visitors.

Can the minister please tell us what she is doing to reach new markets and encourage more international visitors to explore what she likes to call a world in one province?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The member is right. We do call Ontario the world in one province. You can explore and experience almost anything in this province, and we should be very proud of that.

I’m also very proud of Windsor and the surrounding areas for their marketing of Where Canada Begins, literally embracing tourists from across the border and working, in fact, with Detroit on this two-nation destination.

Let me tell you a little bit about Destination Ontario. We are strategically targeting markets to show the potential for increased visitation and visitor expenditures, including the United States. In 2018, Destination Ontario, Destination Canada and our regional tourism organizations targeted markets in the United States accessible by a short-haul flight, targeted with Ontario-specific content through major publishers—for example, the New York Times, the New Yorker and the Washington Post.

With a combined investment of $2 million, this partnership generated 97,000 incremental trips to Ontario and approximately $59 million in visitors. Mr. Speaker, we are open for business, open for jobs and we’re open for visitors.

Climate change

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Premier’s normally wordy energy minister lasted all of about five seconds in a scrum with reporters when he finally stated that climate change is real and is a consequence of human activity. Then he bolted, shocking all the journalists in the scrum. It would almost be believable, if that same minister had not spent the rest of the week defending his passion for a website that specializes in climate change denial.

Whether it’s tearing up clean energy contracts to the tune of $231 million or putting up stickers that don’t stick, it all points to the Ford government’s belief that they can ignore the climate crisis.

Speaker, why is the Premier stacking key government roles with people who can’t even say whether climate change is real?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We’ve talked about this numerous times. We believe climate change is real but, even better, we have an incredible policy moving forward to meet our target, the Paris accord, of 30%. We’re well on our way. We’re actually going to exceed that goal and focus on making sure we have clean air, clean lakes, clean rivers, and making sure that we respect the environment.

Do you know how we’re doing that, Mr. Speaker? The other day, yesterday, I made an announcement of SMRs, small modular reactors. That is the way of the future. It’s going to create $10 billion in economic development, $150 billion of economic development globally. We know the Chinese and the Russians are playing in this arena. We have the smartest and brightest people when it comes to nuclear right here in Ontario. We’ll make sure that we take care of those jobs.

We’re also getting people out of cars, putting a $28-billion transit system together. That’s the largest infrastructure project in transit in North America. That’s—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, last March, the energy minister appointed his former Conservative colleague Joe Oliver as the chair of the Independent Electricity System Operator and charged him with handling Ontario’s energy needs. It’s a big job for a partisan appointee, but still, Mr. Oliver has found some time on the side to denounce what he calls “climate alarmists” and even suggested, “Let’s not ignore the greater personal comfort of living in a more hospitable climate.” Apparently, Mr. Oliver shares the same love of periodicals as the Minister of Energy.

Since this Premier has given him such a key role in shaping Ontario’s energy future, does the Premier agree with Mr. Oliver about the potential benefits of climate change? If not, why did he let his energy minister give him a key role in planning Ontario’s electricity future?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I’m so proud of our Minister of Energy. He’s an absolute all-star.

The Minister of Energy has one of the toughest jobs down there, cleaning up the mess that the NDP and the Liberals created for this province—and a mess that made us uncompetitive, gave us the highest hydro bills in North America. We’re finally getting our hands around the colossal mess.

I was reading the Auditor General’s reports from 2006 to 2014, under the NDP and Liberal regime. I said there’s never been a bigger transfer of wealth from the hard-working men and women and businesses and ratepayers of this province than under their regime. The ratepayers paid to the tune of $37 billion more than what they should have—$37 billion right into the pockets of the backroom dealers and their cronies, and the other cronies that support the Liberals.

Climate change

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. The Premier is making a lot of noise about his government’s so-called Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, but expert analysts have said that it’s a—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. You can’t drown out the member for Guelph such that he can’t place his question. Order.

Restart the clock. The member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you, Speaker. Expert analysts have said that it’s a made-to-fail plan. Economists and scientists have given it a failing grade, environmental groups have said it has failed to launch, and now a group of young people are suing this government for its failure to act on the climate crisis. Yet the Premier continues to sabotage climate solutions while citing the 22% emission reductions achieved under the previous government.

Well, Speaker, 22% is not good enough, so I ask the Premier if he can cite any action his government has taken to actually reduce GHG pollution in Ontario.

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member opposite for his question. I’m glad that you do have a plan for the environment, unlike our official opposition in this House, which has yet to table a plan to deal with climate change or the pollution.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will have to say that although we have reached 22%, we’re one of the leaders in the country to get our emissions to 30%. The movement away from coal in our electricity sector was started by the last Progressive Conservative government, and we thank the Liberal government for following through on our initial movement towards removing coal.

We have made quite a bit of steps towards making our 30%. This morning, I just announced our new Drive Clean program for heavy-duty trucks in North York that is going to reduce the pollutants and start reducing greenhouse gases in the transportation sector, which is one of the leading causes of greenhouse gases in this province.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Vague platitudes will not solve the climate crisis. It will not solve the emergency we face. As a matter of fact, delaying action is the new form of climate denialism. The bottom line is that this government has at least one minister who enjoys reading climate denial literature.

They wasted $30 million on stickers that don’t stick, trying to sabotage solutions by suing the federal government. They’ve cancelled renewable energy contracts at a cost of $231 million at a time when renewable energy prices are dropping. They’ve actually cancelled transit funding outside of Toronto by 40%.

Speaker, I ask the minister: Can the minister tell the people of Ontario of at least one action this government has done to reduce GHG pollution so that we can leave a livable planet for our children?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Just last month, working with the Minister of Energy, I approved the environmental approval so that it can move forward to start creating the Watay Power corridor up in the north, which is going to remove Indigenous communities off diesel energy production and give them clean energy production from clean sources. There’s one.

We’ve laid the groundwork, with the Ministry of Transportation, to electrify our GO network. That’s going to pay benefits down the road of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve a got historic announcement to build four new subways in the city of Toronto, which is going to remove hundreds of thousands of vehicles off our roadways every day.

We’ve implemented and have asked the federal government—I had a great meeting with the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change yesterday, as we’re moving together with our industrial performance standards that are going to start reducing emissions from industry, the heavy polluters of this province. We’re going to make sure they start lowering their emissions, and they’re going to pay for it if they don’t.

We are doing much to lower emissions in this province, and we’re going to—

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

The next question.

Transfer payments

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. A little over a week ago, he made an announcement, joined by dedicated non-profit and community leaders.

Non-profits and other public sector partners have been asking the government for years to ease administrative burdens. I’ve recently met with representatives of the Ontario Nonprofit Network in my riding of Mississauga Centre, and they told me how excessive administration is taking up more and more of their daily work. After 15 years of Liberal mismanagement and ill-conceived planning, this situation did not improve.

Ontarians expect and deserve better service from their government. That is why the President of the Treasury Board announced that our government will be consolidating transfer payment agreements to service delivery partners, reducing burdensome administration and allowing them to focus on their front lines.

Through you, Speaker, could the minister please explain how consolidation of government transfer payments will improve services for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I would like to thank the very hard-working member for Mississauga Centre for that question. As many people in this chamber know, 90% of government spending is transferred to other people to provide vital programs for Ontarians.

Under the previous administration, the Liberals, many different ministries and systems and processes were used to deliver these tasks in a duplicative way. You could often have a transfer payment agreement to seven or eight different ministries, making it very complicated for those who deliver these programs, which robs them of the ability to deliver those programs in a timely and efficient manner. By simplifying and streamlining the process, not only for municipalities but also for non-profits and for service providers who receive government funding, we are ensuring that Ontarians get funding and more value for their taxpayer dollars.

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

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: I’d like to thank the minister for his response and for being a champion for Ontario’s taxpayers. By making sure that our public sector partners can focus more time and resources towards front-line services, our government is ensuring that Ontarians are getting better access to vital services for their taxpayer dollars. For example, our government has reduced the administrative burden for municipalities delivering early child care programs by 50%. This one example shows how transfer payment consolidation is a smart policy that will benefit service providers and Ontarians alike.

Smart initiatives like transfer payment consolidation are exemplary of how we are building an efficient, effective and smart government together.

My question goes back to the President of the Treasury Board. Could the honourable member please explain what our non-profit partners think of our smart initiative?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Again, I’d like to thank the champion from Mississauga Centre for that question. Transfer payment consolidation has been a long-standing request by recipients of transfer payments, because reducing red tape allows them to focus on what they do best: serving the public, not paperwork.

For example, the Ontario Nonprofit Network, an organization representing 58,000 non-profit entities in this province, spent over a decade trying to convince the previous government to make these changes. The organization said that transfer payment reform is “an important opportunity to modernize funding agreements so that both non-profits and government spend less time on paperwork and more time delivering services that support Ontarians.”

Our work with the Ontario Nonprofit Network demonstrates that we are a government that listens, that delivers and that’s dedicated to building Ontario together.

Environmental protection

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Since news broke of the devastating environmental contamination of Cootes Paradise in Hamilton, I have asked questions in the House about when this government learned of the spill; I wrote to you, as minister, requesting full public disclosure; and I filed a freedom-of-information request related to this investigation. But what I have gotten back from this government is either silence or attempts to shift blame away from the fact that this government chose to not disclose a significant environmental disaster to the people of Hamilton.

The minister has said that an investigation is ongoing. So my question: Will the minister commit to making the investigation’s findings public so disasters like this never happen again?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks very much for the question. I’ve spoken to the media, and in this House as well: The city of Hamilton has failed its residents with regard to letting them know of the spill. We are making changes with the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan to ensure that, going forward, spillage across the entire province will be online and accessible. I have made comment that the investigation is ongoing. When that is complete, we will make the findings public.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Let’s be clear: This was a devastating environmental disaster. Now, a year and a half later, people deserve straight answers, not comments from the minister to the media.

This government’s attempt to wash their hands of the responsibility in all of this is simply appalling. The Premier himself shared his own opinions with the media when he said, “It’s totally unfair what the councillors did and what the mayor did, knowing this all along. You know? They can’t be dishonest with us.” But his own minister knew for over a year and a half that sewage was flowing into our water and said nothing.

The people of Hamilton are looking for some accountability. Will the minister come clean, apologize for keeping Hamiltonians in the dark and release the results of the investigation publicly?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Unfortunately, the member opposite didn’t listen to my response. I said that we would make the investigation public once it’s completed.

We are making changes with regard to how reporting is going forward, and we’ve also made changes to the work that has to be done with the city of Hamilton going forward. It’s going to be a very transparent and open process going forward, and I hope the member opposite works with us and supports us in our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan to ensure that we continue and that we make online reporting of any spillage across this province. We don’t think it’s acceptable when councils such as Hamilton’s decide not to tell the people of their area the fact that they’ve made a huge mistake with their sewage system.

We are going to work as hard as we can at the Ministry of the Environment to ensure the cleanup continues, and ensure that it’s made to go back to how it was originally, before the spillage occurred.

Anti-racism activities

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Many of my constituents were rightfully upset when news broke that a trustee with the Peel District School Board made a disparaging comment about McCrimmon Middle School in Brampton. More concerns have been raised by families, students, the Peel District School Board director of education, the board of trustees and members of the broader community. Allegations of anti-Black racism, broader discrimination, and a lack of adherence to governance, leadership and human resources practices at the board must be taken seriously.

Our government took immediate action and recently launched a formal review of the Peel District School Board. Could the Minister of Education please tell the Legislature what this formal review will cover and how it will serve students and their families?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member for her leadership in standing up for the families of Peel region against discrimination.

We all agree that schools must be safe and respectful places for all students. It is clear, given the very serious allegation of anti-Black racism, that the government had to intervene, which is why we took immediate steps to call in two reviewers to do that. We’ve called in Ena Chadha, who is also, I should note, a Brampton resident, a leader in the South Asian community, a human rights advocate, and former vice-chair of the Ontario human rights board. And we appointed Suzanne Herbert, who is a former deputy minister, but who was also involved in the review of the York Region District School Board—which did a very similar review—and who is a very credible person.

I have also deputized Patrick Case, my ADM for education equity, to lead this process. Patrick is a leader in Ontario’s Black community. He is a human rights advocate and a lawyer, and he will lead the process and sit in on each review to ensure the voices of the Black community in Peel are heard.

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I want to be clear: The Peel District School Board is home to one of the most diverse student populations in Canada, and it employs thousands of hard-working and dedicated professionals, educators, administrators and support staff.

It is of the utmost importance to combat racism and ensure equity in our schools, not only in Peel District School Board but right across Ontario. No student, educator or staff member should ever be victim to discriminatory comments or acts. I know this is a value that every member of our government shares, and that combatting racism and ensuring the safety of our children are important priorities of our government.

Could the Minister of Education tell this chamber why these priorities are so important?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Obviously, we stand with all members of this Legislature opposing racism—particularly anti-Black racism—sexism, homophobia and any form of discrimination or prejudice that can manifest in class. It is the priority of all members of this Legislature to oppose and denounce it, which is why, when hearing about these serious allegations from students, parents and administration, we took immediate action to call in two reviewers.

In addition, I have deputized my associate deputy minister, Patrick Case, a leader in Ontario’s Black community and an advocate for human rights, to sit in on every single review, to lead that process and to ensure accountability for those that propagate it.

We are committed to ensuring that children in Peel feel safe and feel respected in their classrooms.

Assistance to persons with disabilities

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is to the Premier. Today is the international day for people with disabilities. Living with disabilities in Ontario is getting harder for them. This is a crisis, but the actions of this government so far have been to include a cut—in half—to planned increases to the Ontario Disability Support Program, and take $1 billion out of the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. That has made life worse.

We know that there are 16,000 people waiting for supportive housing in Ontario. We know that people with disabilities experience higher rates of homelessness, violence, food insecurity and poverty. We know that from the time children with disabilities are born to the time they grow old, we’re failing them. We’re failing them right now, and we are failing their caregivers, who suffer from ritual burnout right across this province.

On this day, for the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, will this Premier keep making things worse, or will he finally turn this around and start making life better for people with disabilities?

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

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. It’s very important, particularly on this day. But every day, my ministry is working to ensure that we’re improving supports for those living with disabilities, including all of the types of disabilities that the member opposite mentioned. When it comes to developmental disabilities, we are looking into how we are delivering services to those in the DS sector—the developmental services sector—to ensure that we get them what they need.

The previous government, for many, many years, didn’t improve supports for these individuals. That’s why we’re taking an approach where we’re looking across all of the different programs that are available. I’ve met with OASIS—and I know the members opposite were with OASIS when they were here last week—and Community Living and all those different organizations. As a matter of fact, I had a great meeting on Friday with Terri Korkush in my own riding. She is the executive director of Community Visions and Networking in the Quinte region.

There are many different models out there. We’re going to find the ones that work—

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

Supplementary, the member for Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the Premier: The fact of the matter is, there have been numerous studies and reports done. You have the Nowhere to Turn report done by the Ombudsman. You have the housing task force report that was put forward. You have the Deputy Premier, who sat on a select committee and made recommendations about the crisis for people with disabilities.

When will this government put forward a real, comprehensive plan to improve the lives of people living with disabilities?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I would like to thank the member for raising that question. But first of all, I would like to thank the Honourable David Onley once again for his work with the AODA review. The previous government had 14 years to improve the AODA. Mr. Onley said in his report that they did so little. When I tabled Mr. Onley’s report, I was very pleased to announce the return of the health and education SDCs, which was one of his recommendations.

The government knows that a lot of work needs to be done to make Ontario accessible for everyone. Making Ontario accessible is a journey. This government will continue to take an all-of-government approach to tearing down barriers.

Food safety

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Everyone who has farmers in their riding knows the difficulties they face on a daily basis. Cow farmers like the Fosters, dairy farmers like the Schoutens, poultry farmers like the Bekings and lamb farmers like the Acres, all from the great riding of Carleton, and in fact, all farmers across Ontario feed Ontario’s families. It’s important that we support them.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, farmers in Carleton and across Ontario have felt more and more unsafe in their homes and workplaces, which oftentimes are one and the same, due to frequent trespassing on their properties and their homes.

Carleton’s and Ontario’s farmers want to know: What is our government doing about this, and will our government stand with them? Through you, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister please tell us what action we are taking to help farmers struggling with trespass issues?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Carleton for that excellent question. Like her, we’ve heard these concerns from farmers, and I’m proud to say that we are taking action. We have proposed legislation which, if passed, would keep Ontario farmers, their families, agri-food workers and farm animals safe by reducing the likelihood of trespassing on farms and processing facilities. If passed, this legislation would deter trespassers by incurring fines of $15,000 on the first offence and a maximum of $25,000 for subsequent offences.

By ensuring that farmers are able to continue the great work that they do, that animals are kept safe and healthy, we are ensuring the integrity of our food supply.

Mr. Speaker, our government stands with our farmers and remains committed to food safety.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the minister for his response. Mr. Speaker, members in rural Ontario will have heard the concerns of farmers regarding this very issue. This was a big topic of conversation at one of my earlier Carleton Conversations public town hall meetings. I am encouraged by the fact that our government is taking action on this matter, and I’m glad that Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, has been put forward

People in rural Ontario are aware of the great lengths farmers go to to ensure that their livestock is taken care of, and that they need the appropriate biosecurity protocols in order to ensure the integrity of our food supply. Trespassers are often unaware of how their actions might impact these measures taken and inadvertently cause harm.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister tell us more about how this proposed legislation deals with this issue?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thanks to the member for the supplementary question. Our government understands that this legislation needs to strike the right balance. We respect the right of people to protest. We also are committed to animal safety and food safety. Farmers make every effort to ensure the integrity of our food supply by ensuring that their animals are not exposed to disease and distress. Unauthorized trespassers threaten this balance.

The proposed legislation supports farmers and their efforts by creating animal protection zones on farms, processing facilities and other prescribed premises. With our proposed legislation, we are ensuring that food safety is prioritized while also ensuring animal safety and that farmers are able to continue the good work that they do, which all of us in Ontario benefit from.

As we all saw from the farm community yesterday, which widely supported this bill, we can rest assured that our government is doing just that.

I again thank the member for that question.

Tenant protection

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Speaker, almost 100 residents of a few Oshawa apartment buildings found out this summer that their leases were being terminated because of renovations. They’re being renovicted. These soon-to-be-displaced residents are seniors, working families and folks on a fixed income. The housing situation in Oshawa is dire and they don’t know where they will go.

My constituent Angela wrote to me: “The new owners are abusing the renovation loophole to evict tenants, offering large sums of money to people if they’ll give up their right to come back.... They state the units are in such a state of disrepair that renovations are necessary when in reality all they’re doing is updating and slapping some paint on the walls and relisting the units for double what we are currently paying ... this is a cash grab. They know they can get more rent once we are gone.”

Speaker, every single Ontarian deserves a safe and affordable place to live. What is this government going to do to stop renovictions and to help all of these people find a safe, affordable place to live?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honourable member, I want to thank her for the question. I also want to thank her for attending our event yesterday in Oshawa where we announced our latest innovation guide on tiny homes. I appreciated the opportunity to speak about some of the issues in Oshawa with her and Mayor Carter.

In regard to the issue that the member has placed on the table, our government believes that every Ontarian needs a place to call home, and as part of our Housing Supply Action Plan, More Homes, More Choice, we consulted widely about a number of topics, including the issue of the Residential Tenancies Act. We heard from both landlords and tenants about the need for a fairer system.

As the member notes, the Attorney General and I have a shared responsibility when it comes to the Residential Tenancies Act and the Landlord and Tenant Board. We are reviewing the information that we have received as part of the consultation and will be moving forward in the near future.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again to the minister: Each and every week, my office hears from people who are struggling to find a safe and affordable place to live. Let me share some more from Angela’s letter:

“The people in my building have been here for years, like Margaret in her late 80s on a pension, or Heather, a single mom on Ontario Works trying to raise her children while suffering from mental health issues and going to school. There are so many stories of really great people being forced out by greed....

“I’m going to try and fight them ... but how can one little person win against a big greedy corporation? How can they use this renovation loophole when really all they’re doing is cosmetic work to hike up rents?

“Why are we not protected?”

Speaker, I have the same question as Angela: Minister, why are these renters not protected, and what are you going to do about it?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honourable member: We want to encourage a safe and fair system for both landlords and tenants. As I mentioned in the previous question, we have consulted broadly. We understand that it’s important for both tenants and landlords to be able to access hearings during a dispute. I know that the Attorney General and I have worked very diligently with Tribunals Ontario to ensure that we have more adjudicators when it comes to the system.

Again, we’ve heard a number of suggestions. We’re reviewing them. I understand the concern that the member has in her constituency. We share that concern. We want to ensure that the system is fair, that it is balanced.

But in addition, I think the member needs to understand that we also have a housing supply crisis and we need to have more purpose-built rentals in this province. We’ve seen some great strides with some of the measures we’ve done last year.

We’re going to continue to work with all parties. This is a big issue. We need everyone working together—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. That concludes question period for this morning.

Deferred Votes

Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les bases nécessaires à la promotion et à la protection des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to enact the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence Act, 2019 and the Opioid Damages and Health Costs Recovery Act, 2019 / Projet de loi 116, Loi édictant la Loi de 2019 sur le Centre d’excellence pour la santé mentale et la lutte contre les dépendances et la Loi de 2019 sur le recouvrement des dommages-intérêts et du coût des soins de santé imputables aux opioïdes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the members to please take their seats.

On October 31, 2019, Mr. Tibollo moved second reading of Bill 116. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Andrew, Jill

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Begum, Doly

Bell, Jessica

Berns-McGown, Rima

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bisson, Gilles

Bouma, Will

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Ford, Doug

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Fullerton, Merrilee

Gates, Wayne

Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm

Glover, Chris

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harden, Joel

Harris, Mike

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Hogarth, Christine

Horwath, Andrea

Hunter, Mitzie

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda C.

Ke, Vincent

Kernaghan, Terence

Khanjin, Andrea

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

MacLeod, Lisa

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norman

Miller, Paul

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Mulroney, Caroline

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Pettapiece, Randy

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rakocevic, Tom

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Roberts, Jeremy

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Simard, Amanda

Singh, Gurratan

Singh, Sara

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Taylor, Monique

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Vanthof, John

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

West, Jamie

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Yarde, Kevin

Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 104; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 28, 2019, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

This House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1146 to 1500.

Members’ Statements

Giving Tuesday

Mr. Kevin Yarde: As we all know, today is Giving Tuesday, a day set aside every year for people around the world to take action in support of charitable giving and non-profit work. After a long weekend of Black Friday and, of course, Cyber Monday shopping, Giving Tuesday is an opportunity to give back to good causes and to support the things that really matter in our communities.

Our Brampton food banks are working hard to provide hot meals and services to those in need in our community who deal with the daily issues of hunger, poverty and homelessness. Knights Table has helped alleviate hunger in Brampton and across the Peel region for over 27 years. They are the only multi-food location in Peel that offers programs and services 365 days per year. You can help them this holiday season, and all year long, by starting a food drive at your work or your school to gather donations. Volunteer at Knights Table to experience first-hand the positive impact their work has on our community or simply fundraise and donate. Every dollar provides three meals for families in need.

Also in Brampton, we have Meals on Wheels, which has been helping those in need live independently since 1963. With the early onset of winter this year and the recent snowy weather, they’re concerned about funding for their snow-day meals to help feed 400 seniors who need their service during inclement weather. Donations from the public or local businesses would be appreciated so that those in need stay happy, safe and well.

Guy Harlev

Mr. Stan Cho: Last week, I had the great pleasure of meeting an incredible entrepreneur with an incredible story. Two and a half years ago, Guy Harlev and his wife immigrated to Canada from Israel. They had visited Toronto and fell in love with our city.

In his first year in Canada, he opened the first Canadian location of the popular Israeli restaurant-café, Cafe Landwer, in Richmond Hill. His second location is just down the street from Queen’s Park, Speaker, at Adelaide and University.

Landwer Coffee has a storied history: It started as a family-run coffee bar in Berlin in Germany in 1919. When the Nazis came to power, the Landwer family immigrated to Israel, where, today, there are over 60 Cafe Landwer locations. Guy is carrying on that history in Canada with Cafe Landwer’s first international location, which employs more than 100 people right here in Toronto. I’m excited to share, Mr. Speaker, that Guy will be opening five new stores this year, including in my great riding of Willowdale. I have to say that I’m a little bit more than excited to be able to get my fix of halloumi cheese and labneh a little closer to home.

From Tel Aviv to Toronto, Guy is a true new-Canadian success story. It’s small business owners like Guy who drive our economy here in Ontario, and it’s stories like his that make me proud of the work our government is doing to give entrepreneurs the tools they need to prosper. Speaker, when our small businesses thrive, our communities thrive.

I want to congratulate Guy once again on his success and thank him for supporting our community in Willowdale. We can’t wait to welcome Cafe Landwer to the neighbourhood.

Affordable housing

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I rise today to address the housing crisis affecting my riding of London–Fanshawe. Every week, I hear from constituents struggling to find housing in London. They are single people working full-time jobs, families who need more space, students and seniors on fixed incomes and people receiving social assistance. It doesn’t matter what your background is; everyone is facing the same concern: a lack of affordable housing.

Since 2016, the average price of a one-bedroom apartment has increased by $320 per month. London has seen rent increase 15% in the past year alone. That means that 67% of low-income earners spend more than half of their income on housing. The wait-list in London for rent-geared-to-income housing has over 5,000 applicants, and it can take up to eight years for people to move into housing. According to city staff, London needs 30,000 new units to house those who can’t keep pace with rising rents or spend huge proportions of their paycheque on housing.

The housing problem is compounded by the fact that the cost of buying a home has increased dramatically over the past few years, rental turnovers are low and vacancy rates are around 1%. This all adds up to a very dangerous and precarious housing crisis for Londoners, and the crisis is by no means unique to London. That is why I demand this Ford government to take real action and to commit to building new affordable homes, inclusionary zoning and to restore rent controls on new units in Ontario.

Adoption

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Early this year, our government announced that we would be reviewing supports and processes in place regarding adoption in Ontario to ensure that the needs of families and children were being met.

Soon after the announcement, I partnered with the Peel Children’s Aid Society to host a round table to gather feedback. Over 70 people attended, some of whom had already adopted, some looking to adopt and even some who had been adopted. We heard from the community on the challenges they face, such as long wait times, a lack of post-adoption supports, restrictive matching and inefficient processes and operations, with form after form after form to fill out, making matters more complicated and daunting for some.

We also heard that there’s a lack of awareness here in Ontario and a need for adoptive families. A special concern was splitting up children and the need for families willing to adopt teenagers. Speaker, these issues need to be addressed for the betterment of children and families across the province.

I met some of the most caring, wonderful people who had opened their homes. One family fostered a child who was only a few days old. Now, more than a year later, the paperwork has still not been approved so that they can formally adopt her.

I also met two teenagers who had been adopted as teens—and the gratefulness they felt to finally have a stable home and family.

Many of those who were adopting had been adopted themselves. That’s why I’m looking forward to the outcomes of these round tables and will work closely with the ministers to keep pressing this issue to ensure that we have the right programs and services in place to address the needs of the greater community.

I look forward to continuing to engage with my community and sincerely thank all of those who came out.

Community Healing Call-In

Ms. Jill Andrew: Recently, we held our Oakwood and Vaughan Community Healing Call-In at Montage Support Services, a landmark organization dedicated to disability communities. It was an opportunity for us to come together in St. Paul’s and discuss recent incidents of violence in our community and how we’re going to figure out our journey forward together.

The event couldn’t have happened without my staff; Restaurant Canadian Caribbean, which catered; John Howard Society staff; Chana, who provided our entire packed House with naloxone training; and special guests Yami and Brenda, both residents, who shared their wisdom, stories and talents with our community family.

Mr. Speaker, the housing shortage and homelessness—we really need that to be declared an emergency crisis, because it is, and our community is scared, especially for our lower-income, underemployed residents and our senior residents, who are struggling to pay rent on a fixed income.

We also heard that we need community centres, a Caribbean culture centre, longer library hours and spaces for youth so that they can come together, thrive, dream and achieve together.

We need tougher gun laws. Weapons have no place in our riding, and that’s a real thing that we’re worried about. And we need OHIP that really, fully, comprehensively supports our mental health needs.

There was so much more that I could go into, including, of course, support for our local businesses, especially those on Eglinton West and near Dufferin and Eglinton that have been damaged economically due to the Eglinton Crosstown construction.

All in all, Oakwood-Vaughan: an amazing community. Come visit us. We are healing together.

Věra Marie Kohoutová

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It is an honour to rise in the House today, especially on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

Today, I would like to recognize an outstanding member of the Scarborough–Guildwood community. For a number of years, Mrs. Věra Marie Kohoutová has been at the centre of Czech Canadian community in Scarborough. She has helped organize many cultural events in the Czech Canadian community, including the Canada 150 community celebration at Masaryk Memorial Institute.

This past November marked the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism in Europe. Ontario is home to many people who came to Canada from former communist countries in search of a better life. I am grateful that people like Věra, who was born in the Czech Republic, have called Ontario and Scarborough–Guildwood home.

It is with sadness that Věra is stepping back from her many commitments in the community, as she is fighting pancreatic cancer. Věra, I know that you and the community are watching today, and I thank you for your years of service to the Czech Canadian community in Scarborough. I wish you good health and happiness, and we are all here at the Legislature cheering for you.

Anne Marie D’Amico

Mrs. Robin Martin: Today, December 3, is the birthday of Anne Marie D’Amico. She would have been 32 years old today. Tragically, she was violently taken from us and her family on north Yonge Street on April 23, 2018, by a stranger in what became known as the Toronto van attack. Ten people were killed and 16 seriously injured within a matter of minutes, but the impact of the violent attack on innocent people going about their daily lives affected the entire city of Toronto and all of its residents.

Anne Marie D’Amico was a passionate young woman who led by example and influenced positive change through her altruistic behaviour. In order to embody Anne Marie’s spirit, character and kindness, and to continue her legacy, her family, led by her brother Nick, has launched the Anne Marie D’Amico Foundation, dedicated to ending violence against women.

Tonight, December 3, the foundation will host its first annual Turtle Project, an evening of dance performances, live music and magic to spark positive change at the Meridian Arts Centre. I will be attending, along with my colleague the member from Willowdale, and I am pleased to say that the event has sold out, but I encourage everyone to celebrate the life of Anne Marie D’Amico, to support the efforts of her friends and family, and to donate to the D’Amico foundation to help create a positive legacy for this young woman, who was robbed of the opportunity to create her own.

Social assistance

Ms. Doly Begum: Last month I hosted a social assistance town hall with two legal clinics that serve my riding: Scarborough and West Scarborough Community Legal Services. The people at the town hall voiced their concerns about this government’s plan to slash the 3% increase to Ontario Works and ODSP benefits in half next year. People are already having to think twice about buying essentials like milk and eggs. They’re walking to their medical appointments because they can’t afford public transit.

Over the past 20 years, consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments have allowed poverty to deepen. They have ignored the root causes of poverty and failed to take action. Under Conservative Premier Mike Harris, social assistance rates were slashed by 21% and never restored by the Wynne or McGuinty Liberals. Since then, Ontario’s social assistance rates have fallen more than in any other province, keeping OW and ODSP recipients in deep poverty.

Today, after adjusting for inflation, OW and ODSP recipients receive less support than they did in the 1990s after the Harris cuts. As a result, poverty has worsened. Food bank use, particularly in the suburbs, has skyrocketed. Toronto has the second-highest rates of child poverty in Canada, and my riding of Scarborough Southwest has some of the deepest levels of inequality in the city. According to research by the children’s aid society, one in three children in Scarborough Southwest live in poverty. Cuts to OW and ODSP benefits will push those already at a disadvantage into even deeper poverty.

Ontario is a wealthy province in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Families should not be falling behind and further into poverty. I and the NDP will continue to hold this government to account and fight for policies that reduce poverty. I ask this Conservative government to listen and work together to ensure that all Ontarians can make a good life here.

Workplace safety

Mr. Lorne Coe: It’s a pleasure to speak about the important topic of workplace health and safety. We can all agree that everyone deserves to come home safely after a hard day’s work. That’s why Bill 152, the Occupational Safety and Health Day Act, is so important. Recognizing occupational health and safety every year helps foster a positive culture in workplaces across Ontario. It helps to nurture a culture where a safe and healthy working environment is respected by all.

We know that a safer workplace results in many benefits to the employer, including high productivity, fewer sick days and lower WSIB premiums. It builds a strong reputation and makes attracting qualified employees easier.

For workers and their families, they expect their employers, their government and this Legislature to do what they can to ensure they come home safe to their families at the end of each workday.

Workplace injuries still occur every day and profoundly affect workers and their families. This day would help educate employers and employees on the importance of safety.

Speaker, Bill 152 is a great opportunity to encourage and improve health and safety in every workplace in Ontario. There will always be more work we can do, but together, Ontario can continue to lead in workplace health and safety.

Rani Anto

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Today I rise to honour the accomplishments of Mrs. Rani Anto, a constituent from the great riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville. Rani was recently awarded the 2019 Bhayana Family Foundation Innovation and Creativity Award.

The Bhayana Family Foundation Awards recognize extraordinary contributions made by front-line staff and middle managers who are tackling local issues at United Way’s greater Toronto area supported agencies. Their hashtag is #Unignorable. Award recipients are chosen for their dedication to helping people thrive and succeed through commitment, creativity, leadership and partnership. I was extremely proud to hear that a constituent from my riding was honoured with such a prestigious award.

Rani currently works at the Newcomer Centre of Peel as a full-time teacher. She has been in this position since 2015. Around that time, many refugees arrived in Canada. At the Newcomer Centre of Peel, Rani worked diligently to welcome these refugees to Ontario and helped them integrate into their new environment. Rani was recognized for the extraordinary contributions she made as a front-line staff member. Rani managed a class whose graduates are now nearly all employed full-time and thriving, integrated members of our community in Ontario.

Thank you, Rani, for your dedication and service to the people of this great province. Please keep up the great work.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated December 3, 2019, of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Pursuant to standing order 108(f)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Report deemed adopted.

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Mr. Roman Baber: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Valerie Quioc Lim): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 136,

An Act to enact the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 and make consequential amendments with respect to animal protection / Projet de loi 136, Loi édictant la Loi de 2019 sur les services provinciaux visant le bien-être des animaux et apportant des modifications corrélatives concernant la protection des animaux.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 25, 2019, the bill is ordered for third reading.

Introduction of Bills

COPD Awareness Day Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à la BPCO

Mr. Kanapathi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 157,

An Act to proclaim COPD Awareness Day / Projet de loi 157, Loi proclamant la Journée de sensibilisation à la BPCO.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the member for Markham–Thornhill like to explain his bill?

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: COPD is an incurable lung disease that affects more than 2.5 million Canadians, half of whom have not been properly diagnosed. In Ontario, approximately 10% of adults are living with COPD. Increased public awareness, early detection and treatment are imperative to prevent the progression of this extremely serious lung disease.

The bill proclaims the third Wednesday in November of each year as COPD Awareness Day.

Selection panel, Information and Privacy Commissioner

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’m seeking unanimous consent that, pursuant to subsection 4(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the member for Guelph, Mike Schreiner, be included on the selection panel for the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra is seeking unanimous consent of the House that, pursuant to subsection 4(3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the member for Guelph, Mike Schreiner, be included on the selection panel for the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Agreed? Agreed.

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

In Ontario, 2.6 million people have a disability.

When communities and businesses are accessible, everyone benefits. People with disabilities can take

part in everyday life, and businesses gain potential talent, customers and higher profits.

Just two months ago, we announced ways that Ontario is making its education system more accessible. For example, the updated elementary health and physical education curriculum reflects the diversity of Ontario students.

The K-12 and Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committees resumed their work this fall to provide advice to government on addressing education barriers.

Also, the processes for families requesting service animals to accompany their child to school are clearer.

As we recognize the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, I invite my MPP colleagues to join me as we work to bring positive change to the daily lives of people with disabilities.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Responses?

I want to acknowledge at this moment, as the critic for people with disabilities in this province, that that act was created by sympathetic people in this chamber, pushed by disability rights activists in this province and around this country.

I want to salute in particular David Lepofsky, who is here, who is the current chair of the AODA Alliance. I also want to salute my friend Sarah Jama, who is here with the Disability Justice Network of Ontario, and who is one of this country’s tireless campaigners for disability rights.

I also want to salute the legacy of Gary Malkowski, who was part of the NDP government from 1990 to 1995, who was the first deaf parliamentarian in this space, and who championed the case brought in 1994 to have

an act that was finally realized in 2005 with the AODA.

I want to salute people like Laura Kirby-McIntosh, her daughter, Clara McIntosh, and her partner, Bruce McIntosh. I want to salute Sherry Caldwell, with the Ontario Disability Coalition. I want to salute Sally Thomas and I want to salute Kenzie McCurdy, folks back in Ottawa Centre who have fought tirelessly to get people in our profession to pay attention to them so that it might get embodied in

an act like the AODA.

But let me be perfectly clear: While we celebrate the AODA, we have to acknowledge, as Mr. Onley acknowledged in his latest report, that we are nowhere near meeting our AODA obligations. Let me be very clear: A $1.3-million investment to look into the building infrastructure of 250 buildings in this province is vastly short of what we need.

Speaker, I want us to ask ourselves how we would feel if we showed up for work in this place and there was a sign, real or imagined, that said, “You don’t get to come into this place today”—because what Mr. Onley said in his report is that those signs, real or imagined, exist across this province. They exist for the dyslexic child right now who is sitting in a school somewhere in Ontario and who is being asked or compelled to write or learn in a way that is not