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

February 26, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Feb-26 (PDF)

L070 - Tue 26 Feb 2019 / Mar 26 fév 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 February 2019 Mardi 26 février 2019

Orders of the Day

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

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Government accountability

Police services

Government accountability

Agriculture industry

Health care

Palliative care

Police services

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

International trade

Indigenous programs and services

Northern economy

Autism treatment

Tourism

Jagmeet Singh

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Autism treatment

Air cadets

Albert Jackson

Mois de l’histoire des Noirs

Participation House

Mois de l’histoire des Noirs / Black History Month

Black History Month

Health care

Milton’s Walk of Fame

Canadian International AutoShow

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

The People’s Health Care Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les soins de santé pour la population

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Health care / Soins de santé

Visitor

Petitions

Child care workers

Fish and wildlife management

Child care workers

Animal protection

Child care workers

Fish and wildlife management

Child care workers

West Lincoln Memorial Hospital

Autism treatment

Fish and wildlife management

Child care workers

Child care workers

Orders of the Day

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

Adjournment Debate

Autism treatment

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 21, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand that the member for King–Vaughan currently has the floor if he chooses to speak. I recognize the member for King–Vaughan.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to just conclude my commentary with a notation about the actions we’re taking through this legislation. Before I carry on, if I may just note for the table that I will be sharing my time with the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Let the record be clear.

I want to just note that the focus for our government is very much on helping create an Ontario advantage by reducing regulations and red tape by 25%, as we agreed, to match the federal government’s call to action on red tape reduction; by reducing the corporate income tax rate; and by increasing access to supply of skilled labour in this province. As a combination, together with our economic reforms, we feel a great level of confidence in the future of our economy and our prosperity.

We’re going to take every action possible—every single action possible—to give our industry, our businesses, our job creators and, in particular, our small businesses in rural and urban settings the opportunity to achieve their full potential to compete in a global marketplace, to get their product to market and, ultimately, to prosper in this economy.

I conclude with a great level of gratitude to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who is in this House this morning, for bringing forth this legislation, and for having the courage of his convictions to tackle the great challenges facing our economy.

I now cede the remainder of my time, as I mentioned off the top, to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Good morning, and thank you, Speaker. It’s an honour to rise today to speak about Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act. It’s an important piece of legislation that is key to fulfilling the government’s plan to put Ontario back on track towards competitiveness.

As I’m sure everyone in this House knows, and those of us who ran on a plan for the people, we were elected with a very strong, clear and decisive mandate. One of the biggest parts of that mandate is a commitment to reduce red tape across government, and that commitment is at the heart of Bill 66. This bill, if passed, would implement over two dozen actions to make it easier for businesses to create jobs and for people to find them.

Before I start talking about the specific items in this bill, I want to highlight why reducing red tape is so important. As part of my role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I attended the Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference—ROMA—a few weeks ago. One of the many speakers was Premier Doug Ford, who highlighted a fact that bears repeating: Under the previous Liberal government, the number of regulations in Ontario grew to over 380,000—that’s 380,000 pieces of regulation. That’s a pretty difficult number to understand. It’s just a really big number. But the effects of this overregulation are much easier to spot.

After 15 years of overregulation, companies have said that they have had enough of the high cost of doing business in Ontario. Many simply stopped investing in modernizing or expanding their operations here, putting them at risk of falling behind the competition in the US or elsewhere. Others still decided to take new investments to more welcoming places, or are actively exploring options to ship their entire operations to the United States.

This is a reality not limited to one sector of our economy, because the amount of red tape in our province affects every aspect of our economy.

This is exactly the message we heard last week when I was meeting with manufacturers in Wellington county with the member for Perth–Wellington. Manufacturers in that community vary from textiles to home construction, and they’re all concerned about their futures in the Wellington community and in Ontario as a whole.

Those companies and the people they employ have a fantastic and strong advocate in the member for Perth–Wellington. The member for Perth–Wellington asked me, as the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to come and to hear first-hand the experiences of those companies in the county, and the problems they’re having. Quite simply, the kind of situation affecting companies like those is unacceptable for the province of Ontario and its people, who depend on a strong economy to find jobs and to access the products and services being offered to Ontario businesses.

It would be irresponsible for the government to let the situation continue, and that is why we are taking swift action to fix it.

Heureusement, nous avons maintenant un gouvernement fort ici à Queen’s Park. Nous sommes maintenant dirigés par un premier ministre et un ministre du Développement économique qui comprennent l’importance de la réduction des formalités administratives pour les entreprises ontariennes. Seulement quelques mois après les élections, nous avons déjà fait des progrès considérables.

Thankfully, we have a strong PC government here at Queen’s Park, led by a Premier and a Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade who understand just how important it is to address the regulatory burden of Ontario businesses. In a few short months since forming government, there has been significant progress on this front.

As I was saying, this Legislature passed into law Bill 47, which was an ambitious first step to making Ontario open for business and open for jobs. Bill 47 made it easier for Ontario’s businesses to thrive, while maintaining strong protections for workers, and changed regulation to allow businesses to hire more skilled workers.

Just last week, the Premier and the minister announced the province’s Driving Prosperity plan, an ambitious plan to support Ontario’s automotive sector. The plan helps protect the industry while ensuring that it can continue to meet the new demands of the 21st century.

This commitment to reducing red tape is core to the work our government is doing, and is reflected in many of our announcements. Whether we are eliminating the job-killing carbon tax or simplifying the process for commercial carriers, our government is on a mission to improve Ontario’s prosperity.

This bill is rather big, and it covers a wide range of areas from pawnbrokers to upholstery to telecommunications. In fact, Bill 66 increases competitiveness in a wide number of sectors, including agriculture and farming, pawn brokerage, child care, energy, sub-metering, pensions, upholstery, wireless services, long-term care and more.

I am sure that to many of the people watching or listening to this debate, some of these things may seem boring. Honestly, this bill may not be a riveting bedtime story, but it’s something that is very important to the people of Ontario. I may not be a pawnbroker or an upholsterer or a telecommunications professional, but people in Ontario are, and it’s our job as a government, and it is our responsibility as members of this House, to look out for all of them.

Although there is a lot to talk about in this bill, I want to use the bulk of my time here to focus on

schedule 3 of the bill, which has to do with child care.

During the last session of this Legislature, I had the opportunity to speak on a motion brought forward by the member opposite, the member from Scarborough Southwest. The member’s motion was regarding child care. It’s an issue that’s top of mind to many people in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore. During the debate on the bill, I highlighted the importance of being able to provide choice to families needing child care. Our government had recently provided more choice to families by removing the not-for-profit requirement that is placed on access to the provincial child care subsidy.

Greater choice allows families to have easier access to more child care spaces and simplifies the process by which child care operators can offer available spaces to people who need them. In short, greater choice is beneficial for consumers and small businesses in Ontario.

This is the same principle of choice applied to the child care portion of the bill, as well. Let me be clear what this bill does to improve choice when it comes to child care. This bill does two main things. First, it removes restrictions on home-based child care providers, including allowing additional children. Second, it lowers the age of children that authorized recreational programs can serve, from the age of six to the age of four. These are common-sense, practical changes that will benefit home-based child care providers and the families who use them.

It’s important to remember that many home-based child care providers are small business owners with limited resources to navigate needless and wasteful government bureaucracy.

There are a few benefits from these changes that I want to highlight. The Minister of Education has highlighted that her ministry receives a number of applications from home-based child care providers who want to look after more than two children under the age of two years old. By increasing the cap of children under two years old from two children to three, a large number of these applications will no longer be necessary.

These changes also allow home-based providers to

schedule programming efficiently, without having to worry about providers’ own children reaching school age and requiring a reduction in the number of children legally permitted in their child care. Again, these changes create choice and certainty for child care consumers and providers alike.

In reducing red tape and making Ontario competitive, the child care sector may not seem like the biggest priority, but I want to say it is a priority for the people in Etobicoke–Lakeshore, and it is a significant piece of red tape reduction.

Growing up, some of our experiences with child care may be different. My mother was a teacher, and in those days—which I’m sure many people out there would have a hard time understanding—if you were a teacher and pregnant, you actually had to quit your job. So my mother quit her job when she was pregnant with my sister and was a stay-at-home mom. When I was born two and a half years later, my mom was still at home. When my brother was born two and a half years after that, she was at home as well. After that, she did start a small business, as she was able to do that when my brother was two, and make a different type of living, because she decided not to go back to teaching.

I think the goal here is to allow parents to have choice, and I think what our government is doing is allowing that.

I’m proud of our government, and I want to make sure that these changes, which are vital to ensuring the success of Etobicoke small businesses and businesses across Ontario—and allow people to create jobs and create an income for themselves, and create a level playing field with big-brand franchises.

I am proud to be part of this government. I’m proud to be part of a government that is making life better for people in Etobicoke, for people in Toronto, for the business community and all the people they employ.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I just want to start off this morning by giving a shout-out to a good-hearted gentleman whom I always refer to as my brother from another mother, and that’s my friend Jagmeet Singh, who was successful in winning his seat in Burnaby last night. I look forward to seeing him over in Ottawa as he addresses and tackles the issues on behalf of the good people of Burnaby, but also on behalf of the good people across this country, from coast to coast to coast.

Now back to this bill, Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act: You look at the line that is being used by the government, “reducing red tape”—let’s talk about some of that red tape and let’s see who’s going to be benefiting from the reduction of that red tape.

When you look at protecting tenants, there’s going to be some skyrocketing hydro bills because some of the sub-metering issues that are going to be there are going to permit certain landlords to boost their fees. That’s red tape that’s going to help everyday people?

Let’s look at stripping the Employment Standards Act in regard to the reporting and averaging of overtime hours. That’s going to help everyday people across this province? I don’t think so.

Let’s look at less transparency and making it easier for long-term-care homes to access and get licences to operate. Well, there’s going to be a lot of fly-by opportunities in order to create business for the private sector. That’s going to help everyday people? I don’t think so.

Let’s look at the attacks they’re doing on the environment with Bill 66 in regard to opening the door to repealing the Toxics Reduction Act under

schedule 6.

Listen, let’s call this bill for what it is: It’s there for business. They’re the ones that are going to be benefiting from this, and average, everyday people like me and you, Mr. Speaker, are not going to be benefiting from this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Smith: I’m going to take 10 seconds at the beginning of mine as well to give a shout-out to my nephew, who got engaged this past weekend. He’s the first of our family—with my brother and sister—to get married.

Getting back to the bill, though, one of the things that my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore pointed out is that we actually have an auto plan moving forward. We’re looking at how we’re going to make things better for the auto industry in Canada, in Ontario specifically, over the next 10 years.

She spent a lot of time talking about the child care funding and expanding that access so that not just the not-for-profits will benefit from it. In my riding, in particular, that’s a major issue for us. If you’re in a rural setting, it’s a very different situation for child care than it is in urban settings. We don’t have that critical mass of people, so having someone who is able to look after your children so that you can do things makes a big difference for us.

I’m going to talk about Buckhorn, in particular, one of my communities. There are about 500 people who live there. They’re about 20 kilometres or so from the nearest larger area. In order for any of them to have child care for their kids—we’re only talking about five or six kids. It’s not a big enough centre for them to have a true child care centre that is staffed 100% the way that the opposition would like it to be. So home care is something that is massive in areas like my riding. Opening it up so that those families have that ability, then, to have child care for those kids is something that’s very important, and I’m happy that we’re taking the initiative to do that.

I’ve said this repeatedly and I will say it again, because it can’t be said enough: Government’s job is to legislate to the point of integrity, not to interference. We’re way beyond interference now, and we need to get back to integrity to make it better for Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to wish a very good morning to a resident from St. Catharines who I know is tuning in this morning to get into the conversation of Bill 66, and that would be Pat Lindal.

I’d like to point to the issues surrounding

schedule 10 within Bill 66 which will affect the Niagara region, specifically. Our goal here is to ensure residents are protected and their interests are taken into consideration. We need to make sure that municipalities are taking every scenario into consideration when cutting through the red tape the Ford government loves to talk about. Policy is in place for a reason.

If this government is able to circumvent highly important environmental and planning acts, we absolutely need to make sure that residents’ health, drinking water and their rights as residents of this province are protected.

Land use planning, reviews and consultations are to be done by the provincial bodies that determine what is best for each region and how available land can be used most effectively. Growth plans are just that: important plans that dictate how a community grows, looks and functions. If “open for business” can supersede predetermined plans, municipalities no longer have a framework to manage short- and long-term growth plans. As we all know, development plans don’t just come out of thin air or overnight; years and years of analysis have to take place to determine the current and future needs of all communities.

It is ridiculous that this Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing does not have to conform to key policies of the Planning Act to protect our growth plans.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to thank the members from King–Vaughan, Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Algoma–Manitoulin, Peterborough–Kawartha and St. Catharines for their comments on this bill.

I did have to come back to the member from St. Catharines’s comments. I don’t know if she was aware, but we’ve pulled

schedule 10 out of this bill because we listened to the people. I’m glad that we were able to listen to your concerns on those things.

Speaking to red tape reduction: British Columbia gets by with 125,000 regulations. We have 380,000 regulations in this province. The last time I checked, buildings weren’t falling down, water was safe and people were getting jobs in British Columbia, so I don’t understand the hesitancy about getting rid of some of the overregulation that we have here.

Our Minister of Children, Community and Social Services has said that the best social program is a job. I guess that legislation comes down to what we feel philosophically about how we look at job creators, how we look at innovators and how we look at business. If you look at business as something that needs to be held down, to be overtaxed and overregulated, I suppose, then you would be against Bill 66. But if you look at business as the people that generate new growth, that generate innovation, that generate jobs, that give people opportunity, then naturally you would be supportive of Bill 66.

I think it’s really that philosophy that we’re talking about back and forth here this morning with the opposition and the government side.

In order to best serve Ontario, we need to get as many people into the best jobs as we can. That’s the thing that we have to do: We have to be open for business so that we can make this a better place to live, work, play and raise a family.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now back to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her final comments.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I want to thank the members from Algoma–Manitoulin, Peterborough–Kawartha, St. Catharines and Brantford–Brant for their comments today.

This is an important bill. I often worry when the members opposite of this side of the House fearmonger. As my colleague from Brantford–Brant had said, we have removed that piece of the legislation, which was

schedule 10. This is a very positive bill. This is a bill that’s going to help keep people employed in this province.

We have to remember that there are 370,000 pieces of red tape, and you know what? That’s a ridiculous amount. That’s just crazy, when you think about that. These are hindrances to getting jobs done. This is what’s stopping people from getting work done. This is stopping people from hiring new staff. We have to move forward as a government, as people have said we need to do.

This province was an absolute mess when our government took over—an absolute mess—$15 billion. This government has taken swift action to make this better for the people. This bill highlights some of the ways that we are going to start fixing the problems—start fixing the problems, because this is not an overnight change. This is something that has been happening for 15 years of neglect and overspending and over-promising. We need to buckle down and take some action and get some things happening, making sure that Ontario is not just open for business but open for creating jobs in this province.

Just to wrap up: I want to make sure that the members opposite and the people who are listening realize that things that we do in this government are not at the expense of health and safety or our environment. We are very careful to ensure that our environment will remain safe, our children will remain safe and our people will remain safe.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from University–Rosedale.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you, Speaker, for having me speak on this bill, Bill 66. Many people have contacted my office expressing concern about numerous elements of this bill. I do believe this bill is going to make life worse for people, not better.

I don’t believe the argument that this is a bill that is simply designed to eliminate red tape, because I don’t believe that red tape is this mysterious pot of money that will somehow allow us to provide quality services and not raise taxes. I have a hard time believing that. When I look at this bill and I hear the words “red tape,” what I’m actually seeing are rules that regulate big business and big developers, and rules that help and protect Ontarians. I see not red tape but rules that provide environmental protections, that keep our drinking water clean, our food healthy, and our air free of toxins.

When I look at this bill, what I see is a bill that hurts the environment, loosens regulations on children, and makes life a lot harder for our low-income and our moderate-income workers, who are really struggling in today’s economy.

I want to turn to

schedule 5.

Schedule 5 is a big concern to me. It’s the enabling of the repeal of the Toxics Reduction Act and its regulations, which currently require large industries to develop plans to reduce their toxic use and to publicly report on the use of toxics and the generation of toxics. This seems like a pretty important act to me.

What I’ve heard from this government is, “Well, we don’t really need it because it’s simply a duplication of the federal government’s act and regulation on toxics.” That’s just not true. It’s not true because environmental experts have looked at the differences between the bills and they have said that there is not duplication. When this government was asked to identify duplication between the provincial bill and the federal bill by the media, they didn’t even bother to respond. It’s pretty obvious what some of the differences are.

The big one is that the Toxics Reduction Act is designed to encourage reduction on an industry-by-industry and plant-by-plant basis. That doesn’t exist within the federal regulation.

I find that deeply concerning because the regulation of toxics in Ontario is still extremely important. I’ll tell you why it’s important: because, in 2016, we produced more cancerous chemicals into our air, land and water than every province or state in North America, except for Texas. We produced 26,000 tonnes of cancerous chemicals and released them into the environment in 2016. That has a very real impact on people living not just in Ontario but all across Canada and the United States and beyond.

It makes me think of Grassy Narrows, which is the example of a toxic which is regulated by the Toxics Reduction Act—mercury—and the impact that the spill of thousands of tonnes of mercury had over 40 years ago on that community.

I think about Steve Fobister, who I have met many times, and his life, and how the mercury poisoning impacted him. He was a five-time chief and he spent his life as a fisherman, as an environmentalist and as a family member. When the mercury was released by the company, Reed Paper, the employment rate in Grassy Narrows was 90%. He was one of the many people who were employed by the fishing industry. But because of that mercury spill, which was not reported, he and that community and generations after him have suffered a legacy of poisoning, a legacy of sickness, which continues to this day.

What we find when we look at Grassy Narrows is that they still have higher health problems and rates of learning disabilities than other First Nations communities. They have higher rates of death. They have higher rates of suicide. They have higher rates of neurological diseases, Alzheimer’s, brain defects, brain tumours and a whole host of things which shouldn’t have to happen.

I bring up Grassy Narrows because it is an example of what can happen if we don’t properly regulate toxics. It’s an example of what happens when we no longer require companies to publicly report on what kinds of toxics they are releasing. It’s an example of what happens when we no longer require companies to come up with a plan and reduce their toxics over time.

Another example that I find deeply disturbing, and that is much closer, is what’s happening with the Aamjiwnaang community and the Chemical Valley near Sarnia. Many of the companies that are in that area are regulated by the Toxics Reduction Act, and are required to report on what toxics they are releasing and to have a plan to reduce them. I fear that Bill 66 will impact the amount of toxics that are released and will make life more unhealthy for that community.

I’ve been following that issue for a while. I have a report here, and some of the stories are just heartbreaking. This one is about Ron Plain. This is part of an exposé that Global News, the Toronto Star and Ryerson did two years ago to look at the impact of toxic spills and the release of cancerous chemicals in that community. It talks about Ron Plain and how, when they interviewed him, he was likely going to be dead in 12 months. That was the expected life that he had left. He was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer that prevents the blood cells in his bone marrow from maturing.

“It’s an excruciating way to die: in varying states of languor and with pain that runs as deep as your bones until the very last exhale.”

This is his typical day: “‘I get a blood transfusion every Tuesday, and then I go see my pain doctor, and I get 21 needles,’ he says. ‘And then I come home and I’ve got the energy to maybe wash the dishes, take a break and relax for a while, get up and sweep the floor, take a break. That’s my day. That’s my excitement. That’s what I can do.’”

He said he expected cancer. “Nobody was shocked. My wife and I sat there in the chair” when he found out about the diagnosis, and he said, “Yeah we figured.”

The reason why he figured is because that community knows that the industry in that area is, even today, not properly regulated, and are releasing chemicals into the air, the land and the water, and it’s harming people’s lives. This bill, Bill 66, is going to make it worse, because you’re stripping away the basic right of people to know what toxic chemicals are being released in their backyard. You’re stripping away the regulation that these companies should have to reduce the amount of toxics that they have over time.

Now, I’m not saying this bill is perfect—it’s not—but it’s better than what you are looking at doing. Instead of stripping it away, we should be building upon what this Toxics Reduction Act has, and properly enforcing it so that we can have clean air, clean water and healthy food. It’s of deep concern to me.

Another concern that I have with this bill is the additional attack on workers’ rights. So you’ve just done Bill 47. Okay, so you didn’t increase the minimum wage from $14 to $15 an hour. You’re getting rid of paid sick days. I’ve had infectious disease experts contact me and say that’s a stupid idea, because it’s going to actually increase the amount of sickness in the workplace, because people are going to go to work sick. Literally, I had someone from SickKids who is an expert with infectious disease, specializing in the flu, who said, “This is really not a good idea. I don’t know why they’re doing it.”

And then, what we’re doing here with this bill is, you are changing the rule so that companies are allowed to force workers to work more than 48 hours a week with no longer getting ministry approval.

I’ve heard this government say, “Look, that was just an unnecessary requirement, because the worker has to agree.” Well, when you are a worker and this is your only job, and an employer comes up to you and says, “I need you to work 60 hours this week,” you are not going to say no, because you need that job to get ahead in life and pay your bills, put your kid in child care, pay the rent and do all of the things you need to do to survive. You are not going to say no. So that’s going to make life a lot harder for a whole lot of people who are already struggling to make ends meet.

What I also find really concerning about this bill is the elimination of the very, very basic poster that employers are required to put in an obvious space so workers can see it, so that workers know their basic rights. I have heard this government say, “Well, they can just go online, or they can look it up.” People don’t do that. People don’t know. I remember my first job that I had; I didn’t know what my rights were, so it really helped to have a poster—this was in the United States—that you looked at and you could see what your rights were.

It seems very obvious to me, and it doesn’t seem like it would cost a lot of money for an employer to get the poster and get a piece of sticky tape and put it on the wall. That doesn’t seem like a very expensive piece of red tape to me; it seems like a very cheap piece of Scotch tape.

I fear that this bill is not really designed to eliminate unnecessary red tape; this bill is designed to make it harder for workers to find out about what their basic rights are, so that employers can take advantage of them.

When I look at this economy and what’s happening in Ontario, I feel that workers in this economy, particularly low-income workers, already have it pretty hard. We have an economy that has become a precarious worker economy, where so many of the new jobs that we’re creating are the kinds of jobs that you cannot build a life on. These are jobs that are precarious jobs, minimum wage jobs, jobs where it’s hard to get time off, jobs where you don’t get paid for your sick days, jobs where you don’t know what your

schedule is and it changes all the time. It’s very hard to have those kinds of jobs and lead a decent life in Ontario today. It’s very hard to have those kinds of jobs and pay for child care and pay for rent—which is now the highest in Canada, in Toronto—and it’s very hard to pay for food, which is going up and up and up. It’s very hard to pay for a lot of things.

This requirement of making it a lot harder for people to find out their basic rights, and allowing employers to force workers to do more overtime and have less access to getting paid for that overtime, is just going to make things worse, and quite frankly, it’s not right.

Another piece of this legislation that I have a lot of concerns about is

schedule 3. Once again, this government likes to say, “Well, it’s red tape, red tape, red tape.” I don’t know if basic—

Interjection: Have you ever been in business?

Ms. Jessica Bell: I have, actually. Thank you.

This example of red tape is about the basic regulations that we need to keep our kids safe.

I have two children. Both of them are in child care. You know what it’s like, as a parent, when you drop your kids off at the daycare. You want to make sure your kids are in the safest, warmest environment possible. You want to know that the daycare workers really care about them and that things are not going to go wrong. I fear that these regulations on child care are going to make things a little bit more unsafe in child care spaces.

I’m very concerned about the change to increase the number of kids under two in the care of the caregiver and the change to increase the number of kids under two in the care of an unlicensed caregiver. These things are deeply concerning to me, because these changes were introduced after we had a number of baby and toddler deaths in Ontario. That’s why they were introduced. We don’t want to have those kinds of horrible situations happen again in Ontario because this government decided to loosen very important regulations.

I have an

article here from the University of Toronto. These researchers are experts on child care legislation. They have done many studies on the safety of child care in Ontario, in Canada and in the United States. They say, “A disproportionate number of deaths occur” of children, toddlers and infants “in unlicensed home child care.... Many countries, including the US, Canada and Ireland, allow for these businesses to operate legally ... without any real government oversight.”

What they found is that, in some parts of Canada, there are more regulations on dog walkers and hot dog vendors than there are on unlicensed child care providers.

I can send this to you if you want to look at it, and you can do your own assessment on the quality of this, by an academic who spent most of their life researching child care regulation.

What I find very concerning is that, certainly, the safety of dogs and the food we eat from street vendors is important. I don’t want to get food poisoning. And when someone’s dog is going for a walk, I certainly want it to come back happy and healthy and exhausted. But I am also very concerned about the safety of our babies and children. I fear that this regulation and these changes are going to make things a little bit more unsafe when they simply don’t have to be.

There is no doubt that child care is expensive in Canada. It’s very expensive in Toronto, I understand, and I agree with some of the comments made by members opposite that there is a shortage of child care spaces. It is very hard to find a child care spot. I remember that when I was looking for child care, I started to put my name on wait-lists before I told my parents-in-law that I was expecting my first child, for the very reason that I wanted to get my kid into daycare so I could continue to be a part of the workforce after I took my year off.

I’ve heard also many stories from parents who struggle with the cost of child care. Just recently, Jen Fitzgerald contacted me. She’s a lady who lives in my riding. Her youngest son, Keaton, is on the autism spectrum. He waited two years to get critical services that he desperately needs so that he can learn how to communicate with his sister and learn how to communicate in the classroom. In order to pay for the support her son needed, before she got access to government support, she had to pull her youngest child out of child care so that she could continue to provide support for her oldest son.

I don’t disagree that the cost of child care is a problem, but what I don’t agree with is this idea of loosening regulations in order to maybe increase child care spots. I think that there is a better way to address the child care crisis in Toronto and Ontario, and that could be to fund public and not-for-profit quality care, to roll out $15-a-day care, and to top up child care workers’ wages so that they can earn a living wage. Every single parent needs to be able to access a quality child care spot, but we shouldn’t be doing it by cutting regulation.

I do want to close by drawing attention to something this government says that it is no longer going to do, but I’m, quite frankly, not so sure. That is

schedule 10, which is to amend the Planning Act to allow for municipalities to move forward on an open-for-business zoning bylaw. I have read the news, and I’ve heard this government say that they are no longer going to allow that

schedule to be moving forward. I’ve got to say, I’ll believe it when I see it, because during the election, you ran around saying, “Oh, well, we’re going to open the greenbelt up for development—“

Hon. Todd Smith: No, we didn’t.

Ms. Jessica Bell: —and then you backtracked. And then we find, buried in this bill—Bill 66—another sneaky little way to open up the greenbelt for development. Then, for a while, you were saying in the news, “Well, no, we’re not going to do that. No, no, no, we’re not going to do that.” And then the news got out and people actually read this massive bill, and municipalities and the public realized that it is actually what you’re going to do. Then you went, “Okay, we’re not going to do it.” The intent is there.

I still have concerns about that schedule, and I will continue to have concerns about that schedule. I will continue to tell people who contact my office saying, “I’m worried about this government’s plan to open up the greenbelt,” until I see the amendments saying that you’re actually not going to do it.

These are the reasons why I’m very opposed to this bill. I don’t believe Bill 66 is a bill that is going to help people in Ontario. I don’t believe it’s going to make Ontario more competitive. I don’t believe it’s going to make Ontario a better place to live. I think it’s going to make Ontario a worse place to live, a place with worse protections for workers, a place where our environment is going to be a little bit more unsafe and where our children will have less protection.

I think you can do a lot better than that, and I encourage you to do so.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: It has been interesting, listening to my colleague’s comments there. I would, however, suggest that she take a look at the news, because this past few weeks, when the Premier was at ROMA back in late January, he very explicitly said to a crowd of about a thousand people in attendance, including rural mayors, reeves and councillors—and he said loud and clear—“We have heard you on Bill 66 when it comes to

schedule 10, and this is something we’re going to be taking back and we’re going to be revisiting.” So with that in mind, I would suggest my colleague ask her staff to look into what our government has been doing.

The common recurring theme that we have is, we are here for the people, and we are here to listen. If something we proposed might not have—if there are reactions to it or if people have comments or feedback, we take that in and we listen, because that is what a government for the people is all about.

For that reason, I am so proud to be standing here today in support of Bill 66, because when it was first announced back on December 6, 2018, the Honourable Todd Smith, who is the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, said that the whole purpose of this bill is to reduce red tape and regulatory burdens.

Given that Ontario has the highest number of regulations—over 380,000 regulations—and given that even in my riding across Carleton, all I hear about is businesses being burdened with these unnecessary regulations, I am glad that we are moving forward with this bill in just under a year of being elected here.

We have been a government for the people, and we will continue to be a government for the people.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Jill Andrew: Bill 66, making Ontario competitive, the government’s slogan of being for the people—I return to the question: Which people? Are you there for sick people? Are you there for people who are struggling to make ends meet? You have abandoned the minimum wage increase.

I had the pleasure yesterday of meeting with Bruce, Lisa and Gloria from the Time to Care campaign. I have a problem with

schedule 8 of Bill 66, which is going to make Ontario supposedly competitive. What it’s going to do is place a lot of vulnerable populations at possible risk— vulnerable populations like the seniors who are living in long-term-care facilities, where there are not enough staff to take care of their needs, where seniors are having to stay in soiled beds—feces, urine—for hours because there are no staff available to take care of them in a timely manner.

What we really need, if we want to make Ontario competitive, is to make Ontario safe. What we need is to have four hours of hands-on care for residents at long-term facilities every single day. We shouldn’t be cutting services for people who are vulnerable, who are in need. We should be adding services—more beds, more behavioural nurses, more staff—and that is not happening. That is not happening.

If you want to make Ontario competitive, start with making it safe and start with making it better. Ontarians deserve better, seniors deserve better, our grandparents deserve better.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s a pleasure to be able to rise in the House today and take

part in questions and comments on the debate on Bill 66.

I wanted to go back to something the member from Peterborough–Kawartha—I hope I got that right, Dave.

Mr. Dave Smith: God’s country.

Mr. Mike Harris: God’s country—you’re right; exactly.

He said earlier, when we were talking about child care in this province—my riding is roughly 1,000 square kilometres. The northern part of that is quite rural. It could be half an hour to 40 minutes between larger population centres, where you would have a larger daycare, if you will. Home daycare is something that is very prevalent in my riding. I’ve had the opportunity to visit a few home daycares. My sister-in-law actually runs a home daycare, albeit in New Brunswick, but I’m very familiar with what goes on at these home daycares. I think there are some really, really great, responsible people out there who are providing care for our children.

I think, as a parent—and a lot of us in here are. I know that pretty much every time I get a chance to mention my kids, I’m always happy to mention them. But as a father of five, I want the choice to be able to decide where I best spend my child care dollars. Is that going to be at a licensed daycare centre? Is that going to be at a home daycare? Is it going to be having a caregiver come into my home?

But in the case of rural Ontario, often you don’t have a lot of options. So I think this, Mr. Speaker, is a great first step in reforming child care here in Ontario, making it easier for parents to be able to get out there, making sure that they’re able to take

part in the workforce and that their children are in a safe and secure environment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Bon matin, monsieur le Président, et merci.

Je voudrais aussi dire félicitations au chef du NPD fédéral, Jagmeet Singh, pour sa victoire. Je suis sûr que Jagmeet va faire un travail excellent pour le Canada et puis faire avancer nos valeurs.

J’ai entendu parler de « red tape » et la bureaucratie. Je peux vous dire que, pour un gouvernement qui se dit un « gouvernement du peuple », il est plutôt pour les compagnies et non pour les travailleurs. Je pense que c’est ma collègue qui l’a dit le mieux : on remarque dans le projet de loi qu’il enlève les droits des travailleurs, qu’un employeur n’est même plus obligé de mettre les droits des travailleurs sur un mur au moins que le monde sache ce qui sont leurs droits pour se protéger—pas fort. Je pense que le travailleur a droit à ce minimum de service-là de son employeur.

Elle l’a dit aussi très bien, quand on parle des heures de travail : les travailleurs aujourd’hui ont de la misère à mettre les deux bouts ensemble. Les familles ont tellement de pression. Puis là, aujourd’hui, avec ce nouveau projet de loi, ça veut dire que l’employeur va pouvoir arriver le matin et dire, « Excuse, Guy, tu vas travailler 60 heures. » Qu’est-ce qui arrive à la qualité de vie? Qu’est-ce qui arrive? Et puis, on se dit « gouvernement du peuple »? On n’a pas la même vision d’un gouvernement du peuple. Je peux vous dire que les travailleurs méritent beaucoup mieux.

Je ne sais pas ce que ce gouvernement-là a contre les syndicats, mais d’éroder des conventions collectives ou d’éroder le langage de contracteurs—les employés des contracteurs méritent les mêmes heures de travail et les mêmes conditions de travail que les syndicats. Je pense que c’est la moindre des choses. Je pense qu’un travailleur mérite d’avoir ce droit-là.

Je voudrais vous remercier, monsieur le Président. Bon matin.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Merci. Now back to the member from University–Rosedale for her final comments.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you to the members for St. Paul’s, Carleton, Kitchener–Conestoga and Mushkegowuk–James Bay for your comments.

I am looking forward to when there is an amendment to

schedule 10 so that the greenbelt is not opened up for development. But as I said earlier, until I see it, I’m not going to believe it, because this government has not acted in a way that is trustworthy for me.

I also am very concerned about the idea that this is a government for the people. The government is here for a few people. It’s here for big developers. It’s here for the wealthiest among us. But there’s also this politics of division that this government is pushing for, where there are a whole lot of people that this government is not for. That includes people such as the people in Sarnia who live in Chemical Valley, who are now going to know even less about the toxic chemicals that are being emitted by the industry in that area.

They’re not for the people in Grassy Narrows and for the future people who might experience something similar to what Grassy Narrows is experiencing, people who won’t know what kinds of chemicals are being released in the groundwater in their own backyard or near them. I don’t think this government is for them with this bill.

I also have really serious reservations about whether this government is for the minimum wage workers in Ontario, the one million people who live on $14 an hour in Ontario, who are struggling to make ends meet. This government is not behaving in a way that they have those people’s interests in mind, because if they did, they wouldn’t require them to do forced overtime when they’re already struggling to make ends meet and live a decent life. This bill is not for them.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been more than six and one-half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, I would like the debate to continue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Therefore, further debate.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you to the House leader for allowing debate to continue on this important bill. I rise today to speak on Bill 66.

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about restoring Ontario’s competitiveness, but we need to be clear about what they want Ontario to be competitive in. The Premier’s agenda suggests the government doesn’t want to be competitive in the fast-growing clean economy, a $7-trillion-a-year global economic opportunity. The government doesn’t seem to want to compete in the high-wage economy after they froze Ontario’s minimum wage. Bill 66 shows the government wants to compete in a race to the bottom, a race that most people in Ontario don’t want to win.

We’ve heard members of the government wax on about small businesses that are buried under paperwork. If this legislation were about making life easier for small businesses, then I’d be on board. If the government wanted to reduce red tape for low-income people who are forced to fill out mounds of paperwork and navigate lots of bureaucracies to obtain the services they need and deserve, then I’d be on board. But that’s not what’s happening here. Under the guise of cutting red tape, the government has threatened to punch holes in Ontario’s greenbelt, threatening our food-growing farmland. They’ve opened the door to unravelling clean water laws put in place after the Walkerton tragedy.

In December I asked the government why they were creating legal paths for municipalities to pave over the greenbelt and violate the Clean Water Act. At the time, the minister accused me of fearmongering. Well, Mr. Speaker, the response from municipalities and citizens was on my side. They told the Premier to keep his hands off our greenbelt. They said protecting water and public health is not red tape. Countless municipal councils passed resolutions saying they were not willing to sacrifice our water and green space for a campaign slogan. And so while I applaud the minister for tweeting that

schedule 10 of Bill 66 will be withdrawn, I ask the Premier why the government considered it in the first place.

I want to thank the thousands of citizens who mobilized to protect our water, our food-growing farmland and green space, and I ask those citizens to remain vigilant because this government has a number of reviews already under way that threaten farmland, water, green space and endangered species.

How can any government consider itself fiscally responsible when it threatens the environmental services like clean water and farmland that nature provides for free? The greenbelt alone provides $3.2 billion of environmental goods and services to the people of Ontario every single year. The food and farming sector contributes over 800,000 jobs and $40 billion to Ontario’s economy. What government that is open for business would threaten to pave over the asset base of all those jobs and all that wealth?

Speaker, in my limited time today, I want to focus on two other schedules in addition to the dreaded

schedule 10. The first is

schedule 5, on the Toxic Reductions Act. Of all the ways to cut red tape, why loosen requirements around reducing toxins? Ontario already has some of the highest emissions of toxins of any jurisdiction in North America, second only to Texas. Instead of eliminating the Toxic Reductions Act, we should be strengthening it, because clearly the previous government’s act wasn’t getting the job done.

Do we really want to attract businesses to Ontario that don’t want to be straight with the people of Ontario about the toxins they are putting into our environment and that are affecting our public health? The health minister is making an announcement right now about changes to the health care system, and one of the most fundamental ones is making sure that we have a healthy environment.

Next, I just want to touch on

schedule 3, which increases child care ratios in the Child Care and Early Years Act. We need child care to be available along a range of options so that people can choose safe and licensed providers, but the current ratios were put in place to save children’s lives. What government considers regulations that were put in place to protect the people we love as red tape?

I urge this government to remove those schedules from Bill 66 as well. Let’s have an honest conversation about ways to reduce red tape on small businesses and ways to reduce duplication and paperwork, but, Mr. Speaker, not at the expense of public health, public safety, our environment, the foodland, the farmland and our water.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a privilege to rise and speak to the member from Guelph and Bill 66. A number of changes are going to be made there if it passes at committee.

The reduction of regulations is something I talked about for a long time in opposition, and now in government, I’m glad to see that we’re moving there.

About consumers being able to understand their wireless service rights: There’s an amendment in there as well.

On June 7, we ran on a platform of reducing red tape and making Ontario open for business—and “open for business” means open for jobs.

The part about the Toxic Reductions Act—I heard the other member talking about that—it does affect Sarnia–Lambton. What we’re doing there is, the federal laws—we’re going to subscribe to those. So there’s a duplication, having the provincial mandate of those regulations and duplicating it with the federal regulations. Anyway, it’s not the issue that some people would try and make it to be.

I think one of the more important issues too is amending the Labour Relations Act to deem public bodies such as municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities and others so that their non-construction employers—this is major. It will open up the bidding and contracts so that people will be able to bid on those projects. Hopefully, because it’s tax dollars that are paying for those facilities, it will keep those costs down and allow greater responsibility and opportunities for people to work in those industries.

The streamlining of pension plans for employers is another issue, and amending the Private Career Colleges Act is another important issue, but we’ll maybe touch on that later.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am pleased to be able to participate for a couple of minutes in the debate on Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act. You know, Speaker, I think the problem that we have seen with this government is that they equate competitiveness with removing regulatory oversight, and there are lots of occasions where a good regulatory framework can actually contribute to competitiveness. Some of the most successful economies in the world—Germany, for example—have more regulations in place than Ontario.

There are good reasons for regulations. Not all regulations are unnecessary red tape, which is what this government seems to think. Regulations are developed in order to protect the people of this province. We see in this bill a move to eliminate many important regulations that we have relied on in Ontario for decades to protect us.

We heard earlier my colleague talking about Grassy Narrows. Close to my home in London, southwestern Ontario, the legacy of Walkerton is very real, and it’s a huge concern. That this government would even contemplate—would even contemplate—allowing businesses to ignore the Clean Water Act as a means to improve their so-called competitiveness is just appalling, Speaker. It’s unconscionable.

The other issue, of course, is around child care. The regulations that were put in place around ratios were there to protect children. They were put there in the wake of some deaths of children in the GTA. We can’t water those down if we are to do our job to protect children.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Daryl Kramp: Let’s really think for a second: What is the purpose of a regulation? What is it? It’s meant to preserve, protect, regulate, encourage, but it is certainly not meant to strangle. When you have a regulatory body that is out of control, that is the result.

Let me just give a few examples that I have locally that might demonstrate the fallacy of this. Twenty years ago, in our area, approximately 8% of the entire health care budget was spent on administration in our hospitals—8%. Now, up to 30% of the entire health care delivery budget in our hospitals is spent on administration. That is money that is not spent on direct-line services.

Many, many years ago, I was a municipal councillor and deputy reeve, and I can recall there were building permits coming forward, people wanting to put a subdivision in or just transfer a lot. The regulatory process all through the developmental approval took approximately a year—occasionally, if it was extremely complex, maybe two. Now a standard, standard building process is five to six years. That is absolutely untenable, Mr. Speaker.

What that does is that, of course, builds the cost into that, and the cost then is transmitted through to the people who need housing, whether it’s affordable housing, regular housing, commercial housing or industrial buildings. We’re driving a cost out of being competitive.

We don’t live in our own backyard. We live in a global economy where we have to compete. When we price ourselves out, what happens? We not only can’t compete, but we suffer the effects of an economy that really, really hurts, and who does it hurt? The people who need the help the most, Mr. Speaker. So what I would like to say—do I have time to go on? Because I’d love to. Can I go on for the next five to 10 minutes, I’m assuming? I can’t? Well, thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. The time is up.

Further questions and comments?

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I just wanted to talk about something that was sort of glossed over by the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: pawnbrokers. Now, it doesn’t sound very sexy or anything like that, but there’s something that they did with this bill that I think they glossed over and I think we should be aware of.

With regard to pawnbrokers in Bill 66, what the government is doing is, they’re making it easier for criminals to steal, and to steal your stuff. I’ll tell you how they’re doing that: They’re cancelling the responsibility of pawnbrokers to keep basic records about who sold them the goods. What’s the purpose of that? That’s what they’re doing right now. The records that are a tool for police investigating crimes are no longer required. We believe it’s wrong for the government to take that tool away from police officers, which could lead to increased burglaries and more work for already overloaded police services.

What they’re doing is, they’re sneaking it in the bill, and they’re removing that basic item. What’s going to happen now is that municipalities will have to choose whether or not to require and enforce record-keeping, which would be another cost piled on to cities and towns. The result is clear: People fencing stolen items will win, and Ontario families and law enforcement will lose.

I ask the government, who made this decision, why are they making it easier for people to sell stolen goods in Ontario? What sort of backroom deal did they cook up for this to go through?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now back to the member from Guelph for final comments.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I want to thank the members from Sarnia–Lambton, London West, Hastings–Lennox and Addington, and Brampton North for your comments.

The one thing I would like the members opposite, in particular, to understand is that I haven’t heard any opposition members say they’re against any kind of regulatory reform. In cases where there might be some delays or added costs or added paperwork, it probably makes sense. I’ve had some businesses come to me and say, “You know, in one province, the form to comply with this regulation is 16 pages, and in another province it’s two pages, so why not go with the two-page form?”

But I think what I’m saying, and what I hear a lot of opposition members saying, are things like protecting children, protecting public health and safety, protecting us from toxic emissions, protecting our water and farmlands. That is not red tape. It’s just not red tape. I don’t know what company wants to invest in a province that’s not going to have strong laws to protect their children or to protect our green space, our water—things that are essential to public health and the public welfare.

I want to just point out a point that the member from London West made: In many cases, regulations have actually made businesses more competitive, because they’ve created a better environment for investment to take place in because they’ve created a society that people want to live in and want to invest in. We can’t forget that, because if we do, then we’re not leaving the livable legacy that we want our children to enjoy in this province.

So I ask the government to make changes to Bill 66 at committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The time for debate this morning has now expired.

It is now close to 10:15. Therefore, this House will stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled Expenditure Estimates: A Review of Ontario’s Proposed Spending Requirements for the 2018-19 Supply Bill, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): With us today in the Speaker’s gallery are some special guests: Erinn Jones and Grae Pollard, who are students from the University of Akron in Ohio and who will be working at Queen’s Park for the next few months. They are joined by Jenni Fitzgerald, manager of internships from the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, and table research clerk Meghan Stenson. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Jill Andrew: It is my pleasure to say that our page, Anika Sood, has her family here visiting us at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We have Niru Kumar, we have Alok Sood and we have Keshav Sood, as well. Thank you very much for being here.

We also have a few classes from Eglinton LINC in my riding visiting today, as well as Ashley Bomberry, an arts and culture worker from Six Nations of the Grand River. She’s also here with Aylan Couchie, a writer from Nipissing First Nation; Andrea Goulais, youth secretary of the Nipissing First Nation youth council; and other Indigenous community members, as well as Kate Cornell of the Canada Dance Assembly. They’re here at Queen’s Park organizing and participating in the Indigenous Culture Fund rally which is taking place today at noon in front of Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to remind members that we keep our introductions brief and to the point.

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Ontario to the Legislature. I’d also like to invite everyone to come to their reception this evening from 5 to 7 in the Legislative dining room to enjoy some of Ontario’s best food. Joining us at question period, we have Bart Rijke, Nick Thurler, John Wynands, Sid Atkinson, Will Vanderhorst, Bonnie den Haan, Albert Fledderus, Murray Sherk, Mark Hamel and Steve Runnalls. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We look forward to this evening.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Today, I would like to welcome from our riding the mayor of Red Lake, Fred Mota, and Red Lake’s chief administrative officer, Mark Vermette.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d also like to add my warm welcome to Mark Hamel, a director at Dairy Farmers of Ontario. He hails from the amazing riding of Huron–Bruce, and I look forward to catching up with him later tonight.

Mr. Joel Harden: It’s with great pleasure that I welcome to the people’s House today the CUPE workers’ committee for people with disabilities: Peter Stapper, Kimberly Goode, Terry Batley, Gerry Boily, Michele Gardner, Mary Miele, Gary Sprague, Peter Vambe, Diana Doucette and Stephanie Malinsky. Welcome to the people’s House.

I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention that the mayor of my city, Jim Watson, is in this House for a reception for people from Ottawa and all of us, so come and join us.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: There are a number of other dairy farmers here today: Henry Wydeven, Patrice Dubé, Shikha Jain, Sean Bredt, Rey Moisan, Bita Farhang, Kristin Benke, Laural Adams, Bryan Zeiler-Kligman, Naomi Shuman and Joseph Ragusa.

I would also like to introduce Rebecca Clothier. She is a clerk and administrative officer of the municipality of Perth South.

Miss Monique Taylor: It give me great pleasure to welcome Cheryl Clark to the House today. She is the mom of six-year-old Drew, who is on the autism spectrum. Welcome to Queen’s Park today, Cheryl.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s Ottawa Day today at Queen’s Park, so there’s a reception tonight. I’d like to welcome Mayor Jim Watson and councillors Jenna Sudds and Stephen Blais, as well as Cheryl Jensen from Algonquin College and Jack Kitts from the Ottawa Hospital. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I would like to welcome today Jenna Sudds, city councillor for Kanata North, and Veronica Farmer, the interim executive director and director of operations for the Kanata North Business Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and have a good Ottawa Day.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to welcome Alex Kolanoff, Donald Hingston and Katie Miller from St. Catharines Holy Cross secondary school. They participated in the Youth Arts Program yesterday. Welcome.

Also, Francesca Delano, my constituency assistant, who will be filling in—thank you for coming.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the great privilege of welcoming to the Legislature and introducing to the members of the Legislature Eric and Marie-Augé Noue from Grimsby in my riding, who are the parents of page Joséphine Noue. Thank you for being here today.

Ms. Doly Begum: It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Ziaul Alam and Luminous Jamsheel to the House this morning. They’re the wonderful parents of four-year-old Rio. Thank you so much for being here today.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I would like to introduce Lily and Farhan from the Canadian Federation of Students. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. David Piccini: I just wanted to give a special welcome to Queen’s Park to two dairy farmers from my riding: Sid Atkinson and Will Vanderhorst. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thanks for joining us, gentlemen.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome members from Dairy Farmers of Ontario: Henry Wydeven, Albert Fledderus, Nick Thurler and Kristin Benke. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome members of the Economic Development Council of Ontario who are with us today—in particular, their CEO, Heather Lalonde, and Delia Reiche, who’s the project director from Elgin Middlesex Oxford. Welcome.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to rise on Ottawa Day at Queen’s Park.

It’s my pleasure to introduce: Mayor Jim Watson, a former member of this assembly; Jenna Sudds and Stephen Blais, who are city councillors, as well as my Nepean mother, Councillor Jan Harder, a long-time city councillor; Serge Arpin, the chief of staff to the mayor of Ottawa; Mathieu Gravel, director of issues management; Steve Willis, general manager of planning, infrastructure and economic development; Matthew Eason, economic development officer at the city of Ottawa; Michael Tremblay, president and CEO of Invest Ottawa; Veronica Farmer, executive director of the Kanata North Business Improvement Association; Mark Kaluski, chair of the Ottawa Council of Business Improvement Associations; Lise Bourgeois, president of La Cité; Pascale Montminy from La Cité; Michael Crockatt from Ottawa Tourism; Ian Faris from Ottawa Board of Trade; Ian Sherman from Ottawa Board of Trade; Julia Forbes from the Shaw Centre; Benoit-Antoine Bacon from Carleton; Jacques Frémont from University of Ottawa; Cheryl Jensen from Algonquin College; Lise Sarazin, president of Regroupement des gens d’affaires; Bruce Harvey, film commissioner of the city of Ottawa; and Dr.

Alan Forster and Bernie Etzinger from the Ottawa Hospital.

I welcome all members tonight between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m. in room 228 and 230, as we celebrate Ottawa Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I, too, will introduce a special guest, I think, for the fourth time now, a former member of the Legislature in the 38th Parliament and 39th Parliament, representing Ottawa West–Nepean. Jim Watson is here today. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Since the news broke about the secret wait-list freeze, families have struggled to understand why the government would withhold services from their kids. Trust has been broken. Families feel betrayed.

Can the minister tell us how many children were denied service while the government imposed their secret freeze?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to be in the Legislature today to once again defend our government’s plan to clear the wait-list of 23,000 children who were denied service by the members for Don Valley East and Don Valley West.

Let me be perfectly clear: The list was not frozen. Since I inherited office, I injected an emergency $102 million into the system to ensure that we could bring an additional 2,500 children into service since June 29. So we have actually increased the children receiving service. But what I’m really excited about, Speaker, is that on April 1, 23,000 children will actually have hope at the end of the tunnel when we start to clear that wait-list over the next 18 months. That’s a great-news story for this government.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: It sounds like the minister should have read her own memo asking regionals to put a pause on this wait-list.

I have yet another story of a family impacted by the government’s secret wait-list freeze. Cheryl’s son, Drew, is six and has been on the wait-list since 2016. Last summer they were told that their spot was coming up, but in the fall they were repeatedly told that no spots were available, and they were not told how long they would have to wait. Like many parents, Cheryl was not told that the OAP wait-list was frozen. She was strung along for months. Cheryl told me that all she wants is honesty and transparency so that she can plan her son’s future and her finances. How many other families went through what Cheryl and her family did?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’m glad to hear Cheryl’s story on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. There is hope for Cheryl’s family. For the first time, those children who were trickling off the wait-list have an end goal in sight. That’s why I went to the Treasury Board and secured an additional $102 million, so that we could have an annual spend this year of $361 million and a $321-million spend moving forward, up from the $256 million that the Liberals spent.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear: Our goal is to ensure we have early intervention. The best way to do that is to double the investment in diagnostic hubs and to ensure that we clear the wait-list of 23,000 children. Right now, one in four children who have autism are receiving service in this province. I think that’s unacceptable. It is my job as children’s minister to ensure all children—the other three quarters who are being denied service by the Ontario government—receive that service, and we will do that within the next 18 months.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: This minister’s job is to be at that table, fighting for kids in this province, not putting a program together that doesn’t make sense.

My office has heard from many families that were about to enter services, only to find out that their services were mysteriously unavailable. We have heard conflicting claims from this minister as to why this happened. Last Thursday, the minister said they froze the list because the program ran out of money. Yesterday, in a statement from the ministry, the government said they never froze it at all. But we know for a fact that they did. We’ve seen those leaked emails. We’ve read the leaked messages.

Will the minister do the right thing now? Either step down immediately or replace this plan and start being honest with the families of this province.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Throughout this entire process the last seven months, my parliamentary assistant, Amy Fee, and I myself travelled across the province, held dozens of round tables, spoke with stakeholders, met with parents and heard some very gut-wrenching stories. So what we did during that period of time was, we needed to try and sustain the broken—and broke—system that we inherited from the previous Liberal administration, which allowed 23,000 children to languish on a wait-list. We, through that period of time, ensured that there were an additional 2,500 children that were brought into the program, and we’re going to continue to support families.

But what we have to do, Speaker, is go towards early intervention where we know it’s scientific and evidence-based. We have to double the investment into the diagnostic hubs and we have to provide directly to the parents, so that we can empower them, so that they can choose the services that are in the best interest of their child, whether that’s behavioural therapy, whether that is caregiver training, whether that is respite or whether that is a technological aid. But I’ll tell you, I want all children—

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

Next question.

Autism treatment

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Yesterday, in question period, the minister read a quotation from a Windsor mother, Sherri Taylor. Sherri has four children with developmental disabilities. Well, I’ve heard from Sherri, and she has already written a letter to the minister: “The statement read by Minister MacLeod yesterday in the Legislature on my behalf is proof of her manipulation, and outright untruths to the public and makes a mockery of every parent who has a child with developmental disabilities, autism or otherwise.”

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary comment.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I was reading someone else’s words, but I will withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And conclude your question.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Sherri is disgusted with the way she has been used. Does the minister think this is acceptable behaviour?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: My understanding is that she provided a quote to our office, but if I used that quote yesterday incorrectly, I unequivocally apologize.

But what I will not apologize for is lifting a wait-list of 23,000 children who are being denied service by their Ontario government because of the previous Liberal administration—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: —program; 8,400 children by March 31 will have been receiving support through the previous program.

As the minister responsible, I injected $102 million in additional funding so that we could not only preserve the program and also bring more than 2,500 children on—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I will continue to advocate for—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: —doubling investment in diagnostic hubs and I will continue to support empowering parents so that they can choose the services they need, whether that is a technological aid, whether that is caregiver training, respite or behavioural services. But we are going to clear the wait-list in 18 months.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: That is a hollow apology, considering that Sherri told me the minister’s office asked her for a statement before they announced changes to the autism program. She showed me the emails where she was told specifically to add the line, “The government is on the right track” to her statement. She was not told what the statement was to be used for, or that the minister would be reading it aloud yesterday.

What does the minister have to say to Sherri, and parents like her, who have been threatened and used by her?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Again, I want you to know, and parents across Ontario to know, that we are committed to ensuring that we bring in parental empowerment and direct choice for families to clear the wait-list of the 23,000 children who have been languishing. It’s not right that three out of four children in the province of Ontario with autism were denied support by their previous Liberal government. That’s why we’re committed to ensuring that we clear that wait-list over the next 18 months by investing in diagnostic hubs and ensuring that parents have the choice to invest in the types of therapies that best work for them.

That’s what we’re going to continue to do on this side of the House. We are committed to this plan, and we are committed to implementing this plan. As the minister responsible for this plan, it will be implemented on April 1.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Sherri feels manipulated. She emailed the minister’s office a number of times after the autism changes were announced, to share her serious concerns—no reply. It’s like her usefulness to this minister has expired.

The minister has bullied, threatened and manipulated families like Sherri’s and service providers like ONTABA into giving their support to a plan before they even laid eyes on it. She has taken advantage of their willingness to participate and engage with her office in good faith, only to use their voices and twist their words for her own political gain. This behaviour is completely unacceptable for anyone, let alone a minister of this Legislature.

Will the honourable minister finally actually do something honourable and resign?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much, Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to once again get up and talk about our government’s plan to clear the wait-list of 23,000 children who are being denied support from their Ontario government.

It’s not fair that three out of four children with autism in the province of Ontario are languishing on a wait-list and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: —that we had an unsustainable program that cost us an extra $100 million in the last several months.

We’re committed to this plan. This government is committed to ensuring that it’s implemented on April 1.

To the honourable member opposite: I want her to know that I will be the minister responsible for implementing this plan on April 1.

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, through you to the Acting Premier: For months, the Premier has insisted that his only vehicle request to the OPP was for a modest, possibly used van, but court documents show that the Premier’s staff had sent a detailed request for a brand new van that included $50,000 worth of upgrades.

Can the Acting Premier explain the disconnect between the modest second-hand van that he was describing in public and the over-$100,000, off-the-books, taxpayer-funded super-van that he was demanding in private?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: A request for a used van for a Premier who actively engages in talking to the people of Ontario, all across Ontario, from Windsor West to Thunder Bay, means that he wants to continue to engage in the important work that we’re doing in government, which is speaking directly to the people, making sure that we’re working for the people, to find out what they believe our government should be working on. That includes ending—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the minister for interrupting. I’d ask the opposition to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the government side to come to order.

I would ask the minister to conclude her response.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. I simply want to reinforce that the Premier’s request for a used van was to ensure that he could continue to do his work while he is travelling from community to community.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The vehicle the Premier asked for sounds like the Taj Mahal on wheels. It includes a mini-fridge. It includes a 32-inch television, a leather power-reclining sofa couch in the back and, of course, a Blu-ray player. This is of course paid for entirely by the taxpayers, off the books.

When the Premier said that he wanted to stop the gravy train, Speaker, it’s clearly because he needed time to get on board. Acting OPP Commissioner Brad Blair said, “No way,” but Ford family friend Ron Taverner is on the record defending the Premier’s personal pleasure wagon. Is that why the Premier offered him the job of OPP commissioner?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I believe that the member is ascribing motive. I would ask him to withdraw.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And the Minister of Community Safety can respond.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that the member opposite wants to have some fun with this, but let’s be clear: A request for a used van to allow our Premier to continue to do his work while he travels from community to community to speak first-hand to the people of this province is, I think, a perfectly reasonable use of resources. He asked for a used vehicle. That’s what we’re talking about here. You can play games—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again I apologize to the minister. I have to interrupt her. I can’t hear the minister because of the voices on the opposition benches. I’d ask you to come to order. The clock is ticking.

Minister, please conclude your response.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: While the members of the opposition continue to play games, we will do what we were elected to do in June, and that is to govern and work for the people of Ontario.

Police services

Mr. Doug Downey: My question today is for the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that yesterday the Attorney General spoke to the Police Association of Ontario about our government’s new policing legislation. Members of our caucus know that police officers, women and men who protect our communities with honour and integrity, risk their lives every day for our safety. I’m proud to be part of a government that recognizes the work that they do.

Our law enforcement professionals respect the importance of their roles. We respect the importance of their roles. I’m proud that our government’s legislation promotes a strong, fair and transparent partnership between police, the people and the government to ensure safe communities across Ontario, including the communities in my riding of Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell us what the Police Association of Ontario is saying about our proposed changes?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to thank the member from Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte for his question this morning. Our government knows that police officers are everyday heroes who risk their lives to keep our communities, our children and our families safe.

Yesterday I spoke with members of the Police Association of Ontario, and they are very supportive of our proposed changes. They said that they spent three years advocating for thoughtful modernization of the Police Services Act. They said, “Ontario’s front-line police personnel welcome today’s announcement by the Ontario government and are hopeful that this new Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will serve to restore fairness and respect for professional policing, make oversight more effective, and improve governance, training, and transparency.” Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what our legislation will do once passed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Doug Downey: I would like to thank the minister for her work on this important file.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte know that Ontario is the best place to live, work and raise a family. They want to know that our communities are safe and that police have the tools they need to get the job done.

Minister, yesterday, the very hard-working parliamentary assistant put it best: “Our front-line officers are everyday heroes, and when they speak up about concerns ... that put public safety in our communities at risk, it is our responsibility as a government to listen and to act to ultimately keep the people of Ontario safe.”

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Minister, could you please share with me more about what our government for the people is doing on this important file?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I was proud earlier this year when, through the CRIA grant program, many police forces across Ontario, including in Durham, York, Sudbury and Sarnia, received funds for important projects like fighting human trafficking.

Our government is committed to keeping our communities safe. One of the first things our government did was press pause on the Liberals’ reckless Bill 175. We promised to fix the legislation and let me say: Promise made, promise kept.

The Police Association of Ontario knows they have a true partner in our government, a partner who recognizes the importance of independent and effective oversight, but also a system that treats officers with respect and fairness.

The police association has said that they are committed to working with our government to ensure that Ontario continues to be a safe place to live, work and visit. Our government is committed to keeping our communities safe.

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Acting Premier. My question is about ethics in government and the integrity of our electoral process.

Media reports late last week indicated that the Premier’s party was struggling to sell tickets to the Premier’s fundraising dinner, and that’s why the Premier’s staff are telling lobbyists that their access will be cut off if they don’t help fill the room.

Does the Premier have any justification for this blatant violation of Ontario’s election finance rules?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members please take their seats. Come to order.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite for the question this morning. I can tell you that no lobbyist is going to influence our Premier, the Premier of Ontario. The Premier of Ontario is so in touch with the people of Ontario. The Premier of Ontario is out there criss-crossing Ontario, meeting with everyday people in communities every day. Those are the people we’re working for in this government.

He has been having $25 spaghetti dinners in communities right across Ontario, meeting with grassroots people in our communities. In fact, he had one in Kitchener a couple of weeks ago. The people were thrilled with the action that this government has been taking since we have been the government of Ontario in the last—

Interjections.

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

I have to caution the House: I have to be able to hear the member who is asking the question and the minister who is responding.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I appreciate the minister’s answer to the question. But he’s supposed to end with the punchline, not begin with the punchline. Speaker, it was hilarious.

It’s becoming more and more clear how things work under this Ford government. If you’re a lobbyist who can help fill the empty seats at the Premier’s fundraising dinner, you get access, and you get results. If you’re a family struggling to pay for treatment with autism—not so much. The Ford government has absolutely nothing to offer to you except the bill for the reclining leather couch in the back of the Premier’s personal pleasure wagon.

When is the Premier going to stop worrying about his backroom friends and start listening to the families that are hurt by his decisions?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks for the question. I don’t know if Yuk Yuk’s is still operating or not or if they have a stand-up night, but maybe the member from Essex couldn’t make it that night.

But I can tell you that our government has been out there holding spaghetti dinners right across the province, talking to people in our communities, on our main streets, and hearing from the people of Ontario. Our business community is thrilled now, because Ontario is again open for business and open for jobs.

Listen, I’m not going to talk about the success that this party has had with fundraisers, because we’ve had a lot of success. Maybe, according to the CBC story I heard the other day, the NDP should think about having a fundraiser, because they’re not doing so well—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Agriculture industry

Mr. Dave Smith: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. A report released last week by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that farmers are struggling with the barriers caused by red tape and the time required to do the paperwork they need to fill out. I’ve heard from farmers in my riding, and they’re struggling with the same concerns. It’s an obvious thing, but they’ve said that farmers want to spend their time farming.

Last week, the minister announced improvements to the Feeder Cattle Loan Guarantee Program at the Beef Farmers of Ontario AGM. Could the minister please explain what improvements were made to the Feeder Cattle Loan Guarantee Program that will help our hard-working farmers focus on what’s really important—their farms?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to thank the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for the question. I was honoured to attend and speak at the Beef Farmers of Ontario AGM last week, where I also got to enjoy some of Ontario’s—the world’s—best food.

Last week, our government announced improvements to the Feeder Cattle Loan Guarantee Program that will help make sure the province’s agriculture sector is open for business, better able to create and protect jobs, and grow the economy. These improvements would reduce unnecessary costly credit checks in the program, which will save co-ops time and money. The revisions would also streamline the transfer of ownership of livestock once the loan has been paid off. They are the result of listening closely to the beef farmers, hearing their concerns and acting on their ideas to fix long-standing issues in the program.

I look forward to continuing to work with our beef farmers to find ways to make life more affordable for all.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you to the minister for his answer. I agree with the minister, and I’m proud to say that we have some of the best-quality food and beef in the world here.

I’m happy to hear the minister is tackling the red tape that’s driving jobs and investment out of this province. Our government has a plan to reduce the unnecessary regulations and cut through the burdensome red tape. We’re removing 25% of that burden, and we’re going to maintain the highest food safety and animal welfare standards.

Can the minister please tell us how these proposed changes will support this government’s open-for-business mandate?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thanks again to the member for his question. Ontario’s beef farmers are among the many impacted by out-of-date, unnecessary government red tape that’s adding to their operating costs and hurting their competitiveness. These proposed changes are part of our Open for Business plan to add to the more than 30 red tape and regulatory reductions to reduce the burden on job creators, while protecting our environment, our food safety and our animal welfare standards. We want to hear from farmers and others in the agri-food industry about how our government can make changes to eliminate burdensome requirements that slow businesses down and make them less competitive.

Like I said before, we have the best-quality food here in Ontario. We want to support our farmers, our producers, our agribusinesses and our agriculture industries so they can continue to provide the best food in the world, from the field to the fork, for all Ontarians.

Health care

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Minister of Health. After spending a month denying that this government has been cooking up a secret scheme to overhaul our public health care system, the minister today will be tabling a bill that will do just that. Dr. Rueben Devlin, who has been paid $1 million to consult with Ontarians about ending hallway medicine, hasn’t even made a single recommendation yet, but this government is prepared to move forward with their disastrous plan that will carve out parts of our health care system to for-profit interests that they know will leave patients lost in the shuffle.

Minister, why is this government so insistent on plowing ahead with their ill-conceived health care privatization scheme?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’m very happy to address this question because there have been a number of misconceptions out there for weeks, started by the official opposition. In fact, the plan that we unveiled this morning, and the legislation that I will be introducing this afternoon, concentrates on strengthening our public health care system. That’s what it’s all about. It’s to put the patient at the centre of our health care system and connect the patient to their care.

There is no element of privatization in this plan. It is about making sure the people continue to have access to our publicly funded system of care, and they will continue to pay for their care with their OHIP cards.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock again. Supplementary.

Ms. Sara Singh: Back to the minister: I think we all know that privatization can happen in different ways. We know that it can happen when public dollars are siphoned off to for-profit private operators, padding their profit margins rather than going towards those public health care services that everyone in this province deserves.

We saw privatization creep in the last time the Conservatives were in government, when they privatized home care. Now we all have a home care system that doesn’t meet the needs of everyday families.

So I’ll ask again: Why is this government ignoring what Ontarians want and plowing ahead with a disastrous bill that will outsource parts of our health care system to for-profit providers?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I believe that when the legislation is introduced this afternoon, the member opposite—in fact, all of the members of the official opposition—will understand just how wrong they are.

This is about strengthening our public health care system. What we are talking about is creating Ontario health teams that consist of local providers. They can come together in any way they see fit: in partnerships, in joint ventures, whatever they want to do.

If any funds are left over from one year to the next, they will be derived directly back into patient care. That’s where they will be going. No private providers will receive money from this. This is about strengthening our public system of health care.

I can also tell you that in my years of opposition—six years as health critic—and my time as Ontario’s first Patient Ombudsman, and as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, I have heard from thousands of people—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Next question.

Palliative care

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister announced big changes in health care today.

Minister, I want to talk to you about palliative care and something that’s small but really important. Being able to die at home surrounded by your loved ones is a common desire.

Yesterday, the member from Windsor West reintroduced Dan’s Law for the third time. I congratulate her for that. It was inspired by Dan Duma, who moved back from Alberta to die at home with his family and was told, “You have to wait three months to get home care.” Dan’s Law waives that three-month wait. This shouldn’t happen to any family.

Minister, you and I have talked about this, and I know that the member from Windsor West has raised it as well. There is a solution that’s on the books. It has been on the books since June 18. It can happen today.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the minister commit today to changing regulation 552?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would like to thank the member opposite for the question, and the member from Windsor West for her continued advocacy on this issue.

The issue of Dan’s Law, as I understand it, has been something that my ministry has been evaluating to determine what options exist for patients moving back to Ontario from other provincial jurisdictions. Home care is an essential component of our health care system for patients and a key element in addressing the issues of hallway health care. We promised the people during the election that we would end hallway health care and that we are modernizing our health care system to put patients first.

I will have further to say in the supplementary on this specific question, but it is something that is very important to me as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I thank the minister for her response. It’s something that we can all agree on. It has taken too long to do this. It’s not something that can be negotiated at the federal-provincial-territorial table. You just can’t get people’s attention. There’s a solution there. It affects a small amount of people so much. It happened in my riding of Ottawa South last year and it’s happening right now. We just don’t see it. It’s happening today.

Minister, I’m going to ask you again. I’d like you today to commit to changing regulation 552 and making sure that this does not happen to another family. Thank you.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Yes, I will commit to changing regulation 552, and I thank the member, and the member from Windsor West for their work on this.

Police services

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Before the last election, the Liberal government passed a deeply flawed piece of legislation that ignored the everyday realities of the difficult jobs that our brave police officers are asked to do every day. Our government for the people has remained committed to public safety across this great province and to fixing the policing legislation that the previous Liberal government broke.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House how the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will support front-line officers in their work to keep the people of Ontario safe?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for this important question and for your advocacy to ensure that our communities remain safe.

Mr. Speaker, our government sees the police, the people and their government as true partners in public safety. That includes a fair and transparent police oversight system and it keeps our communities safe.

Bill 175 would have weakened the public trust in police because it was confusing, plagued by delays, unaccountable and based on a presumption that the police were often wrong. Imagine being subject to an investigation that could drag on for months and months simply because you were doing your job. This was the fate of the officers who responded so heroically to the Danforth shooting, and it is often the fate of officers who respond to suicides.

Our proposed legislation would restore trust and accountability in police oversight and support front-line officers who do this important work to keep Ontario safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Parsa: I thank the minister for her response. I’m proud to stand here today knowing that our government is committed to rebuilding the confidence of the people and the police in an oversight system that will ultimately help build safer communities on a shared foundation of restored trust and accountability. The men and women of our police services know that our government for the people is listening to them and will continue to work to ensure public safety across this great province.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain to the House now how this proposed legislation will restore respect for police officers?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It would be a pleasure. Mr. Speaker, public safety is everyone’s business and everyone in Ontario has a stake in keeping our communities safe. Our government was elected with a mandate to fix the Liberals’ broken police legislation. The Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act is driven by a simple principle: Trust between the police and the public they serve is essential for public safety.

When it comes to police oversight, our proposed legislation, if passed, would restore transparency and trust to a police oversight system that had previously left the police and the people they serve in the dark for too long. It proposes to focus investigative resources where they are needed: on possible criminal activity within a police oversight system that is transparent, fair and effective.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be regarding police officers with the respect they deserve, and we will always stand by these brave men and women.

Autism treatment

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Minister of Education. The government’s very callous changes to the Ontario Autism Program will mean that thousands of children will lose access to vital services as early as April 1. Families are, I think it’s fair to say, terrified and worried about what will happen to their children as they re-enter a school system or spend more time there, a system that we all know is already stretched so thin.

Can the Minister of Education tell parents what specific plans have been made to ensure that children with autism spectrum disorder will have the supports they need at school when their funding expires in just four weeks?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I appreciate the opportunity to speak about what our government is doing to make sure that we’re treating children with autism and their families with the respect that they deserve—and I’m speaking about all of the children with autism in Ontario, unlike what the previous administration did under Kathleen Wynne.

With that said, I am very pleased to share with you that last fall, we actually started doing some work in addressing this situation very seriously—

Interjections.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: If the members opposite would care to listen, they would know that we extended a pilot project last year with regard to improving school-based supports for students with ASD. Again, last summer, one of the very first things that I did was to start looking at the inconsistencies from board to board to board in this province, and I found it very, very concerning that there wasn’t one common approach to supporting children with autism who required companion dogs.

I heard from people, specifically from the region of Waterloo, who were disgusted—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: It boggles the mind. We know that school boards already, today, spend more money than they get from the government on supports for children with special needs. And we’ve just heard over the last 24 hours from boards that came to the social policy committee that they haven’t heard one single word from this minister about what’s coming in four weeks and what supports are going to be there—not one directive, not one word.

We know that our educators, our teachers and our educational assistants do their very best to support students every single day, but they are stretched to the limit. The truth is that this government has cut supports to students with special needs.

I want to know, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Education will tell parents and families if they are going to be hiring more teachers, educational assistants and support workers to ensure these children get the support they need in schools. Will the minister at least consult with the school boards?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Honestly, I think the members opposite would be very well advised to take a look at what we’ve done thus far with regard to school boards, because we’ve been working with our school boards right from day one. School boards will be receiving $3 billion in special education funding this year. Also, above that, I repeat the fact that we extended the pilot program examining how we can improve supports for students with special needs such as ASD.

Another thing I would like to do, Speaker, is I would like to thank everyone who stood in this House last week to support the passing of second reading of my bill, Bill 48, safe and supportive schools, because we absolutely are committed to ensuring safe and supportive classrooms for teachers and their students, so parents have confidence in a system that crumbled over the last decade.

Again, we are moving forward and working with our school boards. We’ve already done so much, Speaker, and I look forward to speaking about what we’re doing in the coming—

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

Interjections.

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

Next question. Start the clock.

Autism treatment

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question today is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. I’d like to ask this question on behalf of parents and on behalf of children with autism here in the province of Ontario, so they can get a bit of clarity on some of the numbers the minister has been using.

Here are a couple of facts. In 2016-17, the government expenditure for autism was $317 million. The budget, as of April 1 of last year, was $321 million. Now, the minister keeps using a number of $256 million, so one would conclude that they had to have made a cut in order to add the additional $102 million. Can the minister please explain where she got the $256-million expenditure from?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: As the former minister on this file, he should know that it was his government that put a $62-million holdback on this program. I had to go to Treasury Board not once but twice to clear up his mess, the one he created when he ignored three out of four children in the province of Ontario who were stuck on a wait-list without any hope. I was able to, with the support of the Treasury Board, get $102 million extra to sustain a program that his government allowed to fail. If anyone should be standing here and discussing numbers, it should be the honourable member opposite who led this program into bankruptcy.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Coteau: This is exactly why we need to know the numbers, because what just came from the minister does not sound right. Mr. Speaker, it takes a really strong person to admit something is broken, but it takes a stronger person to stand up and fix it. At this point, we know that the budget was approved for $321 million by the previous government. How did the minister get to $256 million?

This is what we know, Mr. Speaker: There has been a lack of transparency on this file. Parents do not believe the numbers that are coming out from the ministry. We know that people feel like they’ve been threatened. In addition to that, now people are suspicious about the wait-list, that it has been intentionally held back.

Would the minister do the right thing and step aside, and let someone come into this file to actually bring some clarity to these numbers and to help the children here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, I appreciate that, but under his plan, they had budgeted $256 million. His own government withheld $62 million which I had to go to the Treasury Board for before it was released, in addition to an additional $40 million—$100 million in emergency funding.

Their program ignored three out of four children in the province of Ontario. They had a wait-list of 23,000 children. Since I’ve assumed this position, not only did I get that $102 million, but we cleared another 2,400 children through the system.

I will tell you, Speaker, if anyone should be resigning in this House, it should be the seven independent Liberal members who allowed that wait-list to languish with 23,000 children. Step aside.

International trade

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Last week, the Premier travelled to Washington, DC, with the Premiers of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. The group of Premiers, representing the Council of the Federation, called for an end to American tariffs on steel and aluminum.

Twenty-five per cent tariffs on steel and 10% tariffs on aluminum have been in place since June of last year. These tariffs are hurting Ontario workers and Ontario businesses. Over 16,000 people in Ontario work in the steel and aluminum industries, including many in my riding of Durham. Could the minister please outline for this House what our government is doing to get these tariffs lifted?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member for Durham for the question and the great job she’s doing in Durham.

Speaker, our government believes that free trade benefits families and workers on both sides of the border. Over nine million jobs in Canada and the United States depend on our historic trading relationship.

As a government for the people, we have a duty to protect all those jobs. That’s why the Premier travelled to Washington, to bring the message that these tariffs and the uncertainty they cause are harming American and Canadian workers and families.

While in DC, the Premier met with six governors and US trade representative Robert Lighthizer, who is the American trade negotiator, reminding them of the damage that these tariffs are doing to jobs on both sides of the border. Since coming to office, the Premier has engaged with 20 governors directly and delivered that same message to them.

Speaker, we’re doing everything to get those tariffs lifted, and I know—

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

Ms. Lindsey Park: It’s a relief for families in Durham and across our province to hear that our government is doing our part to resolve the uncertainty caused by tariffs.

I know that during the trip, the Premier had the opportunity to share the work of our government in making Ontario open for business. From regulatory reform to reducing taxes, our government has been moving quickly to reverse the damage caused by 15 years of Liberal mismanagement. Could the minister inform the House how our message was received?

Hon. Todd Smith: I’m surprised at the heckles I’m hearing after my last response. It sounds like the NDP wants to keep these tariffs in place.

Speaker, business leaders here in Ontario and around the world are glad that our province has a Premier and a government that actually understand business, unlike the members opposite. They don’t seem to have a clue when it comes to doing business.

While in DC, the Premier had the opportunity to share the work our government has done with American investors. He met with 30 business leaders from big companies, big companies like Apple, John Deere, Amazon and the American Chamber of Commerce—very important, influential businesses on both sides of the border.

The Premier says they’re hearing that Ontario is serious about being open for business and open for jobs. In fact, the governor of Kentucky actually gave the Premier a big red pin, talking about the work they’ve been doing in cutting red tape—work that we’re doing here in Ontario that the NDP seems to be against, Mr. Speaker. We’re going to do everything in our power to make Ontario open for business and open for jobs, despite what the NDP—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Indigenous programs and services

Ms. Jill Andrew: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Today, Indigenous community members are gathering outside Queen’s Park at 12 p.m. to rally support for the cancelled Indigenous Culture Fund. I hope the minister will join us.

Last week, the minister made a ministerial statement to recognize Ontario Heritage Week where he said, “A full appreciation of our Ontario heritage also embraces the experiences of Indigenous communities.”

Indigenous culture should never be treated like some commodity the Conservative government deploys when it benefits the province’s tourism industry. How can the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport encourage Ontarians to explore their heritage when he does not see their cultural revitalization projects—in essence, the exploration by Indigenous peoples of their own cultures, languages and heritage through the Indigenous Culture Fund—worth funding?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that very important question. As you know, our government for the people recognizes that artists and arts organizations, such as the Ontario Arts Council, play an important role in building a strong economy while contributing to the quality of life of Ontario’s communities.

Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government’s irresponsible and reckless handling of the province’s finances left us with a $15-billion deficit. Every dollar that we pay in interest could be money that could be used for programming, including Indigenous programming. Unfortunately, due to the mismanagement of the province’s finances by the previous government—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Toronto–St. Paul’s, come to order.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: —we have been forced to make tough decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Mr. Speaker, we were elected on a clear mandate to restore trust and accountability to the province’s finances, and that’s exactly what—

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

Supplementary: the member for Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Andrea Goulais, youth secretary of the Nipissing First Nation Youth Council, has travelled down to Queen’s Park to speak this afternoon about how cancelling the Indigenous Culture Fund will be particularly harmful for our young people. One example of a funded project in her community teaches our members about traditional ways of harvesting, foraging and gardening, and addresses issues of food security.

What does the minister have to say to Andrea and other Indigenous youth today who are facing the loss of their elders’ oral teachings, traditional knowledge, ways of being and languages with the cancellation of the Indigenous Culture Fund? Meegwetch.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that question. Our government is reviewing the Indigenous Culture Fund to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently to maximize the impact of Indigenous cultural support. Individuals who have already received grants through the ICF will not be affected during this review. Our government will continue to invest in the Ontario Arts Council at the 2017-18 level of $64.9 million.

We do have programs that are funded through the Ontario Arts Council that offer supports to Indigenous artists, including Curatorial Projects, Dance Training Projects, Indigenous Artists in Communities and Schools Projects, Indigenous Arts Projects, Indigenous Presenters in the North, Indigenous Visual Artists’ Materials, and Skills and Career Development.

Our government will continue to support the Ontario Arts Council. Our government also supports the arts through the Ontario Cultural Attractions Fund—

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

Northern economy

Mr. Ross Romano: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Although 10 years may seem like a long time to some, those of us in the north remember the fierce debate that occurred when the former Liberal government forced crippling legislation on the Far North without meaningful consultation. No one from the Far North asked for the Far North Act. This was a plan conceived by the former Liberal government in an effort to pander to supporters of special interest groups living in their downtown air-conditioned condos.

Finally, we have a government that is working for the people of northern Ontario. Finally, we have a government that is listening to the pe