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

April 2, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Apr-02 (PDF)

L086 - Tue 2 Apr 2019 / Mar 2 avr 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 April 2019 Mardi 2 avril 2019

Orders of the Day

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

Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour des écoles sûres et axées sur le soutien

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Health care

Addiction services

Autism treatment

Greenhouse gas emissions

Licence plates

Northern economy

Automotive industry

Government advertising

Job creation

Autism treatment

Pharmacare

Foodland Ontario

Taxation

Northern economy

Elder abuse

Visitors

Deferred Votes

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

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Autistics 4 Autistics

Bayview Yards

World Autism Awareness Day

Police

Traitement de l’autisme

Health care

Spinal muscular atrophy

Whitchurch Stouffville Chamber of Commerce business awards

Pope John Paul II

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Genocide Awareness, Education, Condemnation and Prevention Month Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le Mois de la sensibilisation aux génocides et de la Condamnation et de la prévention des génocides

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

World Autism Awareness Day / Journée mondiale de sensibilisation à l’autisme

Petitions

Autism treatment

Landfill

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Education funding

Autism treatment

Fish and wildlife management

Autism treatment

Toronto Transit Commission

Mental health services

Tuition

Student loans

Orders of the Day

Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour réparer le gâchis dans le secteur de l’électricité

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 April 1, 2019, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Stephen Crawford: We’ve been talking about Bill 66 for some time now. I must say that this is legislation that has been put forward by the government that’s going to help bring Ontario back on track. After 15 years of Liberal mismanagement and 380,000 regulations, this is the beginning of a process to get Ontario back on track to be the economic engine of Canada. Three hundred thousand manufacturing jobs lost in Ontario over the last 15 years: What are we doing about it? We’re going to get Ontario open for business.

What are the key components of this bill? We want to improve credit union financing, allowing credit unions to participate in local financing to help our local communities. We want to allow open tendering on construction projects. This is just the beginning. There’s a lot of work to be done for Ontario to reclaim its position as the economic engine of Canada, but Bill 66 is certainly a good start.

With that, I move, pursuant to standing order 48, that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Mr. Crawford has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour des écoles sûres et axées sur le soutien

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 20, 2019, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 48,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to education and child care / Projet de loi 48, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’éducation et la garde d’enfants.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: As always, it’s a great pleasure to rise in the House, and it’s great to see everyone here this morning. I would like to let the House know that I will be sharing my time on Bill 48 with the member from Markham–Stouffville.

Before I get into the details, I would just like to review a few things. We’ve been talking about Bill 48 for a while, but I would just like to remind everyone here and at home watching that this government established the largest consultation in education history. An incredible 72,000 people took part: teachers, students, parents, anyone who had concerns with our educational system.

This is a government that listens and a government that is clearly for the people. I can’t stress enough, at a time when students needed a government to stand up for them to ensure a safe classroom environment, that—let’s be honest—the former Liberal government failed them.

All of the feedback that we have received actually culminated in an amazing initiative that will see students succeed in the classroom because teachers will be supported and parents will be satisfied with the education their children are finally going to receive in classrooms across every single school in this province. We’re listening and we’re making sure that we’re getting it right, once and for all.

We need to make sure that we’re engaging youth and creating the right climate in which they feel safe, and ultimately to realize their dreams. We need to make sure that parents and students across this amazing province of Ontario know that it is the Ministry of Education’s and this government’s number one priority to ensure that each and every student will have access to meaningful education—an education that will help students reach their future goals and an education that will enable our students to find secure, good-paying jobs into the future.

This means that, regardless of where students live or what school they attend, they have access to the best classrooms, the best teachers and resources that make Ontario a world leader in education. Whether that’s in Brantford, Burford, Paris, London, Hamilton, Simcoe, Kenora, Windsor, Kitchener or Ottawa, quality and access to educational supports should be equal.

Mr. Speaker, the world is changing rapidly. If Ontario does not adapt to this new reality, we will be left behind by other jurisdictions and we may never catch up, so we have to take action. We, as a government, have only one choice, one course of action, and that is to move forward and find innovative ways to succeed. And that success begins with our teachers. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge our teachers for their commitment, their passion and their dedication to Ontario students. I thank all of them for the work that they do, day in and day out, in the classroom.

I’d like to talk a little bit about math first. Speaker, this government has been committed to working alongside our educators. The Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act would support teachers to become better prepared to teach the fundamentals in math and make it mandatory for aspiring teachers in Ontario to pass a math proficiency test before receiving their licence to teach, aimed in part at addressing years of declining student scores in the subject. We want people who actually enjoy math to be in front of the classroom demonstrating to children that math is an important skill and a fundamental, basic need.

The previous Liberal government just made things worse with an unproven and experimental curriculum known as “discovery math.” We can clearly conclude that this curriculum has failed our students. We are putting an end to experiential math and getting back to what works.

EQAO data show that 49% of grade 6 students met the provincial math standards last school year, and that was down from 54% in 2013-14. Among grade 3 students, the EQAO said that 61% met the provincial standard in 2017-18, down from 67% in 2013. Speaker, we can and we must do better for our children in this great province.

I just want to quickly mention that this bill will help to deal with the empty student spaces in Ontario—roughly 55,000 in southwestern Ontario school boards alone and across the province—an issue the previous government had carelessly ignored.

Families of students with special education needs have asked for a more clear and transparent process for requesting that service animals be able to accompany their children to school, no matter where they live. Our government for the people has been clear that we are committed to supporting parents and students, as well as teachers, in our education system. Every family in this province should feel supported when it comes to their child accessing a meaningful education. That is why we stood up in this House back in October when we first introduced Bill 48.

Under Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, there will finally be fair, open and consistent processes to be followed when families make requests for service animals to accompany their children at school. All publicly funded school boards in Ontario will have a locally developed and publicly available service animal policy in place by September 2019, based on policies and guidelines established by the Ministry of Education. This is good news for families across the province with special needs, and I commend the minister for this initiative.

As I previously stated, Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, is geared towards keeping our children and students safe and ensuring that they are better supported in their learning environment. I’d also like to speak for a minute, Mr. Speaker, on abuse.

If passed, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act will guide the discipline committees of the Ontario College of Teachers and the College of Early Childhood Educators in revoking an educator’s certificate for committing any act of sexual abuse of a student or a child where the discipline committees of the colleges have found the educator guilty of such acts. It will also allow the government, through regulation, to prescribe other acts of a sexual nature prohibited under the Criminal Code that would result in a mandatory revocation of an educator’s certificate.

I am fairly certain that many Ontarians already expect that this would be the case. If an individual in a trusted position of authority like a teacher commits

an act of sexual abuse, that person should lose their ability to teach in the province of Ontario. But it is not the case right now; and as legislators I believe we have an obligation to fix it. This legislation does just that.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, with the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act our government is moving forward on an important commitment: to put our students first, providing them with a safe and supportive learning environment. It builds on that work that we’ve done consulting Ontarians—as I mentioned before, the largest education consultation in Ontario’s history. Together we will ensure that Ontario students are well -prepared for the jobs and the professions of tomorrow and the future.

I encourage all members of this House to support Bill 48 because we know we have to put our students first. Our students need to know that we are there and that we respect them and all of their needs. Speaker, I honestly think this is the first time in 15 years that a government has decided to make sure that we have a great education system that makes sure that all of our children are ready to compete in this world. We are very excited to make sure that happens.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member did say he would be sharing his time. I recognize the mark from Markham–Stouffville.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. The member for Brantford–Brant did a wonderful job of articulating some of the very important features that are in this bill. I’ll just take a minute or two, if I can, to reiterate some of those before I move on to some of the other aspects that I think are important. Obviously, the member touched on the safety and security of our students.

He touched on the important work that is going to be done with respect to math and helping make sure that our students have a better understanding, a better opportunity to learn math in an environment and in a fashion that was successful for many, many years before we transitioned to something called “discovery math.” It’s something that I know many students have had difficulty with, but as a parent, I can say that I also have some difficulty with it, trying to explain to my own kids what it is that they’re dealing with.

But I think the more important parts of this—and the member was right; there was a very large consultation: over 72,000 engagements on education, but not just on this bill, obviously; on the wide range of things that the government is doing. And as I’ve said so often in the House, the government is working in a fashion that understands that it’s not easy to change 15 years of Liberal-NDP coalition government in just one fell swoop. We have to do it in an intelligent fashion; we have to do it in a manner that works for parents, that works for students and that works for taxpayers.

And I think that’s what we’re doing; we’re doing small pieces at a time, so that we can maximize the change, to the benefit, in this instance, of our students.

Because I have a little extra time, I want to touch a little bit on—and let me just, at the outset, say obviously I will be supporting this bill, but I think there is—and I know the minister would feel the same. The government is always going to be looking at opportunities to make our schools safer. It’s what we do. I think all members on both sides of the House would agree that, if something comes up and we can bring a bill forward that makes the school even safer, we will do that. But as a parent—and I have heard from a lot of parents in my community—what is a safe and supportive school changes. It’s different from parent to parent and from student to student.

I think back to 2014, when there was a shooting in Ottawa and I was a member of Parliament. A safe and supportive school at that time was a school, a principal and a staff that ensured that my kids were shielded, removed from the school and taken care of. That was exceptional work done by the school board. It was exceptional work done by the teachers and the principal of that school. Fast-forward a little bit: Now it’s 2019 and change is coming, and sometimes change can be difficult. But I now look towards what is included in a safe and supportive school.

I’ve heard from a lot of parents who are frustrated that politics sometimes makes its way into the school system. They’re frustrated by it; they’re annoyed by it; they’re irritated by it. Obviously, it’s important to teach our students what politics is—what it is and how we make the decisions. What is a government? What is an opposition? What are the parties that are included in it? I think we would all agree that that’s where it should stop, that our students, especially in our primary or elementary schools, aren’t to be used as tools to influence political debate or discussion.

I would hope that we would all agree that that’s wrong, because for some students, a safe and supportive school environment isn’t one where they have to confront teachers or administrators who are showcasing a particular policy that they might not agree with.

I look at my own instance in York region: Teachers are wearing buttons that showcase a political message. For some students and for some kids in that school, the message that is being displayed might not necessarily be one that they feel safe and secure by seeing. It leads to a lot of different questions.

When you are in elementary school and the teacher, the person that you look up to—and I know, in my instance, when my kids are at school, I tell them, “You listen to your teacher when you’re there.” When I was growing up, the teacher was the substitute for the parent from 9 o’clock until 3:30. When I went home and said sometimes, “Oh, the teacher did this or that to me,” my parents didn’t pick up the phone and say, “Hey, teacher, what are you doing?” They said, “Well, you better modify your behaviour to make sure that you don’t get your teacher upset with you.”

Our students look up to the teachers, so when they are confronted with a political message, and when that student addresses a teacher and the teacher can’t respond—and the response that they get is, “We’re not allowed to talk politics in the school.” Yet the teacher wears a button with a political message, which leads to a number of different questions—questions of: “Why is this being done in my school? Are there arguments? Is there animosity? Is there something that I need to be worried about?” Is that a safe and supportive environment? I don’t think so, Mr. Speaker.

I think we can do better. I look and I ask why. I don’t necessarily believe that it is the teachers who are making political statements. They are the vessels by which a political statement is being made, but I believe it’s the union leadership that makes this happen.

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Calandra: I know members opposite are laughing. The members opposite laugh at this; they think it’s funny. I ask the members opposite: Do you have young children at school? If you have a young child in school who suffers from anxiety, and a teacher knows this, is it responsible for that teacher to wear a political button that might attack something that the student feels passionately about? Is it right for them to do that? I say no.

I say no to the union leadership. Don’t use our students, through our teachers, to advance a negotiating position, because that’s wrong. If you have a strong position, then leave it for the bargaining room. If your position is strong, leave it for the bargaining room, because that is where it belongs. Don’t use teachers, don’t use students; leave it in the bargaining room—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Member from Carleton, you’re heckling your own member. Come to order, please.

Mr. Paul Calandra: What is a safe and supportive environment will change.

In the bill, there are some exceptionally good things. The member for Brant talked about service animals; that’s good. We talked about changes to math; that’s good. We talked about being safe and supportive when it comes to sexual abuse and teachers losing their licences; that’s good. I know that many of the members on both sides will agree with that.

But I think as a House we also have to take the next few months at some point to have a very real discussion on what belongs in the classroom. What form of protest can happen in a classroom? Do we want to politicize our schools? Or should they be somewhere where—I know that when I visit a school, I don’t go into the school as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party; I go into the school as a member of provincial Parliament. I talk about the good work that is done by members of provincial Parliament on both sides of the House, how important it is for an opposition party in our system.

I talk about the importance of all members of Parliament, the work that they do. I talk about the fact that I was a federal member and I was defeated by another member who is doing some really good work in the community, although that person defeated me. I’d like to think that all members do that.

So while members opposite might think it is funny, to some students, it’s not funny. When a political message is being displayed to our kids—

Ms. Jill Andrew: Cuts for kids.

Mr. Paul Calandra: And there you have it, colleagues. You heard the insult across the floor. You heard the insult across the floor. “Cuts for kids” is what they say.

Ms. Jill Andrew: That’s what the kids tell me. The cuts are hurting them.

Mr. Paul Calandra: But you should fight that battle here. If you believe that, then have the courage to stand in this place and fight that battle. Don’t have your kids fight that battle for you. If you believe that, then stand up for what you believe in this place, because you were elected to do that. A 10-year-old was not elected to do it, a 12-year-old was not elected to do it, and a grade 1 student was not elected to do it, and they shouldn’t be used as a vessel to try to influence public policy.

While I think that the work that our teachers are doing is great—I could not imagine a better group of teachers than the ones whom I have been blessed to have with my kids—I take issue, because I also believe that teachers should know better. They know the students they’re teaching. They know how they feel. They know the issues they would face when they come home, and sometimes common sense has to prevail over a political message.

I am prepared to go anywhere to fight for what I believe in. I am prepared to stand in this House and fight with the members opposite, debate and argue, and if I lose, as I have done before, and get thrown out of office, then so be it. So be it. I accept that. But what I do not accept and will not accept is using children to try and advance a political agenda.

While I support this bill and look forward to voting in favour of it, I believe the time has come for us to have a broader discussion on how we eliminate partisan politics from our schools. That’s what we have to do as a very important next step. I look forward to debating any member across who feels differently—who feels that our students should be used as political pawns.

To the parents who have called me, I tell them this: I will fight on your behalf and I will make sure that your kids feel safe—

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

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the member for Brantford–Brant for his comments, and the always-entertaining member for Markham–Stouffville.

Here’s the point I invite my friends to consider: I think you’re setting the bar too low in your new appreciation of math. I know I heard the members opposite talking about how horrible the sex ed program was under the Liberals because it consulted online about 4,200 people—0.001%. What I invite the members opposite to consider, if they understand math the same way I do, is that 72,000 online represents 0.005% of Ontario’s population. I used to teach university courses, Speaker. I can tell you, that’s not a passing grade in consultation. You need to set the bar a little bit higher.

You need to take this bill on the road. I was at the social policy committee. I heard the witnesses who testified to this bill. None of them spoke in favour of it—none of them. If you took this bill on the road, what my friend from Markham–Stouffville would begin to understand is that kids are not being used as pawns in the debate over education. Kids are organizing. I want to say to all the children right now in high schools organizing walkouts across this province on Thursday that the members on this side of the House, we are with you. We support you. Walk out of class, because this is a government that doesn’t listen.

This is a government that time-allocates everything, that thinks consulting 0.005% of the province is the best consultation in Ontario’s history. Sorry, my friends, take your bills on the road. Show up in Ottawa and ask parents, ask children if online learning for half of a full year of a high school career is adequate. Will they get enriched from that?

Respect teachers. Respect students. Respect the organizing that’s being done and listen for once, instead of governing by bulldozer. That’s what I want this government to do.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga—

Mr. Mike Harris: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I just can’t help myself.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): —will come to order. I could have asked you to come to order three or four times during the last two-minute hit, and I didn’t, so I’m saving it for now. But the next time I have to speak to you this morning, it will come with a warning. Thank you, sir.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: It’s real pleasure to be able to stand again and speak to this piece of legislation. I’ve had the opportunity to participate in the leadoff as well as the second reading leadoff, and I really look forward to this coming to a vote soon and passing here in the Legislature.

I have to say, I appreciate the passion that both my colleagues, the member for Brantford–Brant and the member for Markham–Stouffville, brought to the debate this morning. It’s a passion that’s felt by not just the Minister of Education, but myself, as we look forward to supporting our students in classrooms across Ontario, making sure that they do have those safe and supportive classrooms and are receiving the best possible education for the future as well as today.

Speaker, one of the other things I found really, really puzzling listening to the member opposite was as he spoke about consultation and tried to say that the 1,600 consultation pieces that the Liberals had, as opposed to the 72,000 engagements that we had, somehow justified their curriculum.

I’m a little bit confused, because when the NDP was in the third-party position—and I know that they’re official opposition now; I served in official opposition myself for a year and a half, and it’s a very important role. But the reality is they didn’t ask for consultation on the Green Energy Act. They didn’t ask for taking the Fair Hydro Plan out on the road. They didn’t ask to make sure they would have the carbon tax. Did they ask for cap-and-trade to get taken out on the road? The reality is, they don’t want to talk about their failures that they supported under the Liberal government.

All they want to do is turn it around and try a different set of rules for when the PCs are in government as opposed to their buddies, the Liberals, that they supported when the Liberals were in office. We saw that with the party that voted 97% of the time with the Liberal government.

I just want to say that it’s unfortunate, that sentiment coming from the members of the opposition. But I support this legislation, Bill 48, and I am very pleased to speak to the debate with my colleagues this morning.

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ça me fait plaisir ce matin de me lever pour le projet de loi 48.

Quand on entend le gouvernement Ford mettre les abus sexuels des enfants et les mathématiques dans le même projet de loi, c’est un peu décevant. C’est tellement important de débattre de ces deux projets de loi. Puis il n’y a personne, de ce côté de la Chambre, qui n’est pas contre l’abus sexuel envers les étudiants et les enfants dans les écoles. Je pense que ça ne devrait jamais arriver. Puis si ça se fait, sa licence devrait être retirée et il ne devrait jamais être capable d’enseigner dans une autre classe ou dans une autre école.

On connaît tous, je suis certain—moi, je sais qu’un de mes amis a vécu ça. Puis je peux vous dire que sa vie a été détruite. Aujourd’hui, on veut qu’aucun enfant ne passe à travers ça.

Mais quand on entend de la morale qui vient de l’autre bord du plancher, qu’ils viennent nous faire la morale puis qu’ils disent que les professeurs font du débat politique avec leurs étudiants—écoute, je pense qu’il faut réaliser que la génération d’aujourd’hui est engagée. C’est une génération qui est beaucoup engagée, que ça soit dans la politique ou dans leur futur ou que ça soit pour des changements climatiques ou que ça soit pour l’environnement. Pour eux autres, c’est important.

On n’a rien qu’à voir ce qui va se passer le 6 avril qui s’en vient : comment ils sont engagés et prêts à se lever puis à marcher dans les rues pour confronter un gouvernement qui n’écoute pas, qui veut grossir des classes, qui veut enlever le « one-on-one », le un sur un pour les étudiants.

Le gouvernement devrait prendre le temps d’écouter les professeurs et les étudiants. Ils sont dans les rues. Les étudiants sont dans les rues pour dire : « Écoutez nous—ce qu’on veut, pas ce que vous nous proposez. Changez votre projet de loi. Reflétez nos valeurs. » Ce n’est pas ce qu’ils font. Au contraire, ils ne veulent même pas se promener avec leurs projets de loi—pour pas être critiqués. Ce n’est pas un bon gouvernement. On devrait consulter les étudiants plus et les professeurs.

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

Mr. Dave Smith: I’m going to touch on a couple of things that were said during the speeches and possibly some of the things in the two-minute responses. First off, the member for Brantford–Brant talked about how the number one priority is that our children feel safe in their schools. And that is one of the main goals of this bill: to make sure children do feel safe in school, that they have the opportunity to go and learn without having that anxiety, without having a lot of concerns over what’s going to happen when they get to school.

The second thing he talked about that sticks out to me is that 49% of the students in grade 6 met the provincial standard in mathematics. We are falling behind on that. You can spin it any way you want. You can say that it’s only 5% less than it was the previous year for testing, and statistically it’s not that big of a difference, and throw a whole lot of different things out, but 49% is not a good mark. I would hazard to say that even 80% probably isn’t where we should be, because that means that 20% are still falling behind.

Then he also mentioned the AODA legislation and how Ontario needs to be a leader in that. Actually, that is Ontario’s legislation. Only 39 of 72 school boards right now have some kind of a policy for service animals. We have an opportunity, through our schools, to change a lot of what our society does and how we reflect on things. I think it’s incumbent on us as the government to have our school system leading the way with our students, letting them know, having the students grow up so that our next generation recognizes that everyone has abilities, their different abilities, and promoting them that way. I’m proud to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, because of that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We’ll return to the member from Brantford–Brant for his two-minute summation on what he just heard.

Mr. Will Bouma: I have to start by saying I am so glad that the member from Markham–Stouffville went after me because his eloquence and his elocution are superb, and I so appreciate the arguments that he brings to the table. And I’d like to thank the other members who spoke to this: the member from Niagara West and the member from Peterborough–Kawartha on our side, and also the members from Ottawa Centre and Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

I can appreciate the comments from the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay and I am glad that he is supportive of what we’re changing with the math curriculum, that he is supportive of what we’re changing with service animals, and that he is supportive of what we’re doing with those teachers found guilty of sexual abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member from Ottawa Centre made very clear exactly the point that the member from Markham–Stouffville was trying to make on using students as political pawns, and in fact even using teachers as political pawns, and being afraid to debate these things here on the floor, and instead using those who are most vulnerable in our system in order to do that.

What actually struck me this morning most of all, Mr. Speaker, was that we started off at 9 o’clock finishing up with Bill 66. I think it’s so fascinating that we’re talking about Bill 66, where we’re going to do things to make Ontario open for business and so that our children have a future, and that on the same day we’re talking about Bill 48, where we can promise Ontario that we will be preparing students for those jobs that we will be building.

I won’t claim, obviously, that we get everything right, because I’m the first one to say that 90% of what we deal with is the mistakes from previous administrations, but I’m convinced that we are taking a step in the right direction.

I’m looking forward to the passage of Bill 48.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to rise today to represent the views of the people in London West. I’m here on their behalf, and I will be participating today in the third reading debate on Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act.

I have to say, Speaker, it feels a little bit like this debate is taking place in some kind of parallel universe or alternate reality. We are here discussing this legislation, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, as we know that the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services are off-site making an announcement about the autism program, doing some more damage control over what is probably the most botched policy announcement in the history of this Ontario Legislature. It is taking place just after hundreds of people marched 28 kilometres in Ottawa.

I want to recognize my colleagues the member from Ottawa and the member from Sudbury, who were part of that march, who were highlighting the fact that there is a need for a national autism strategy. Because parents of children with autism can’t risk another government like this government doing to children with autism what this government has done.

We have a government that has announced a new autism program that’s going to make funding dependent on age rather than needs. The result is that the services that are needed by children with the most—

Mr. Dave Smith: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Peterborough–Kawartha has raised a point of order.

Mr. Dave Smith: We’re discussing Bill 48 today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Yes, we are.

Mr. Dave Smith: Shouldn’t the debate be around Bill 48?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I am listening closely and I’m sure the speaker will bring it back in that regard. Thank you for your intervention. With all due respect, we could have had several interventions earlier as well. If you want to do that, I’m sure the other side will play the same game when the member for Kitchener–Conestoga gets up. But thank you for your intervention.

I’ll return now to the member from London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you very much, Speaker.

The autism program that this government has rolled out, as I was saying, makes funding dependent on age rather than needs, which means that the children with the most intense needs will have their services taken away if they don’t meet the age criteria. We know that the overall amount of funding that’s going to be available is completely inadequate to address the reality of the cost of the intensive services that many children with severe autism require.

We have a government that said it was 1,000% behind parents of children with autism and that under this government, no parents would be protesting on the lawn of Queen’s Park. And what did we see, Speaker? We have seen wave after wave of protest on the lawn of Queen’s Park—communities across this province—as parents are pushing back and telling this government that their strategy for dealing with autism is completely inadequate.

We have a government that brought forward a plan that disadvantages girls, Speaker, because we know that girls are much more likely to be diagnosed later than boys, and that means that they will receive a much lower level of funding than boys; same thing for children with autism in rural and northern communities, who may not get that diagnosis at the early age that would qualify them for the maximum amount of funding. We’re debating this legislation in that context.

We’re also debating it, Speaker, as we know that in two days 100,000 students at more than 500 schools in this province are going to be walking out of their classrooms. They’re going to be saying no to cuts. Those young people understand what it means when you take $1 billion out of the public education system, when you remove 10,000 adults—teachers, education assistants, guidance counsellors, mental health counsellors. When those professionals are taken out of our schools, out of our classrooms, children suffer. Cuts hurt kids.

I want to acknowledge Rayne Fisher-Quann, the inspiring student who has organized this walk-out that’s taking place in two days, the largest student walk-out in Canadian history.

We know that OSTA, the Ontario Student Trustees’ Association, has made very clear its opposition to some of the changes that this government has proposed, particularly around making four e-learning courses mandatory for secondary school students to graduate. Students have said this is not what students need. Some students do well in e-learning courses, but many students do not. That’s not the appropriate kind of setting for a lot of students to learn. This is going to disadvantage students, particularly those who are at highest risk, and it will also disadvantage students who don’t have access to broadband or WiFi in their home communities.

We also know that four days from now, on Saturday, April 6, we’re going to see thousands of people again rallying at Queen’s Park to push back against the cuts that this government has proposed. They understand that cuts to our public education hurt kids. Cuts do not create safe and supportive classrooms. Cuts do the exact opposite of creating safe and supportive classrooms.

Speaker, the other context that we have to remember in which this debate is taking place is the fact that there’s a $16-billion backlog in school maintenance and repairs across this province. That means schools with boilers that aren’t working, schools that have leaky roofs, schools that have crumbling steps to enter the building. This is not a safe and supportive environment for either students or for the education workers who work in these buildings.

Yet this legislation that we’re looking at today says nothing about the reality that children need qualified professionals in their classrooms to enable them to learn to their fullest capacities. They need school buildings that are in decent shape, that are functioning, so that they can have a healthy learning and teaching environment.

Speaker, in my community in London, the Thames Valley District School Board just had to announce that 100 staff are going to be laid off as a result of this $1 billion that the government is taking out of public education. There are going to be 100 fewer learning coordinators, teachers on special assignment, custodians, clerical workers and others. What do these learning coordinators and teachers on special assignment do in the Thames Valley District School Board? They are engaged in a number of ways in the school setting. They are working on a provincial math strategy, Speaker.

And isn’t that interesting, because this bill speaks to math, but it doesn’t talk about teachers developing a provincial math strategy. It comes at math from a very different approach, and I’m going to speak about that in a minute.

These learning coordinators and teachers on special assignment are also engaged in supporting Indigenous education in our schools. They are engaged in coaching teachers on how to improve their practice in the classroom. Yet these are the people who are being cut because of this government’s decision to remove funding from public education.

Yesterday, we learned that 35 educational assistants are going to be laid off in the Thames Valley District School Board and that educational assistants who want to become certified in applied behaviour analysis—which is a very effective therapy for students with autism—are having to cancel the training that they booked because they’ve been told that the school can’t afford to let them leave the building because there’s no one to cover for them if they go to do their training. We also know, at the same time, that the Thames Valley board is expecting more than 500 students with autism who will be entering the school system as a result of the new Ontario Autism Program.

Speaker, in this context, of all these things that I’ve talked about, I’m looking at this bill and I’m looking to see what kinds of measures are proposed in this bill to deal with what is actually happening in our public education system. What do I see, Speaker? I see a requirement to revoke the licences of teachers and ECEs who are found guilty of committing sexual acts. This is absolutely essential. We know that this is a long-overdue thing that needs to happen, and it’s non-negotiable. This should absolutely have happened. The government could have brought this forward as a stand-alone bill.

We could have dealt with this in the summer. We could have dealt with it last summer, when we came back for that emergency session.

It’s hard, Speaker, not to be cynical about a government that claims to be concerned about the safety of children, and yet the first thing it did—instead of bringing forward this requirement to revoke the licences of members who are found guilty of committing sexual acts—was attempt to remove the health and physical education curriculum from all students—every single student—in this province. Thank goodness for those secondary school students who pushed back and got the government to change course slightly.

But that was a move that not only did not improve the safety of students in our school; it actually put students at risk. It puts students at enormous risk when students aren’t taught concepts about consent, about their right for autonomy over their own bodies. That was a very dangerous thing that this government did. Despite that, I appreciate that we will soon have legislation in place to ensure that those licences are revoked.

What else is in this bill? I started out talking about autism. We know that governments of all stripes have had to grapple with the need to develop funding programs and policies to address the needs of children with autism. This bill allows the minister to establish policies and guidelines with respect to service animals in schools and to require boards to comply with those policies.

Speaker, I have to say that, when my son was in elementary school—he started in JK at Northridge elementary school in London—there was a student with autism. He had a service dog who was called London, and that service dog was a celebrity in the school. London, the service dog, did a great job for the student that he was entrusted with, and so I know that service dogs can be vital supports for students with autism. But we can’t pretend that a service dog for a child with autism is any replacement for the kind of professional therapy, the kind of intensive therapy, that trained behavioural therapists can provide.

This is a good step. This is a good thing to have in place, but Speaker, given the chaos that has been unleashed by this government with regard to autism supports, this measure falls far, far short of what we actually need to see happen.

The third piece of this bill that I’m going to highlight is around the mandatory math tests for teachers. Let’s not forget, Speaker, that when this bill was first introduced, the government was apparently engaged in a consultation about what needed to happen to help improve math scores in the province, but this government decided that they weren’t going to wait for the results of that consultation. No, they were going to go right ahead and introduce this bill and introduce this requirement that every teacher in the province take a mandatory math test in order to graduate from teachers’ college.

Speaker, I was a policy researcher before I was elected, and I always like to see the evidence. Show me the evidence that the actions that are being taken by this government will actually have the outcome that the government desires to see. This government has proposed that requiring teachers to take a mandatory math test is going to improve math scores. To me, without the evidence that this has actually been the case in other jurisdictions that maybe have tried this approach, without that evidence, this is magical thinking that somehow requiring graduates of teachers’ college to take a math test is going to improve math scores.

The other thing that we have to keep in mind, Speaker, is that there are 125,000 teachers in schools across the province. There are about 5,000 teachers who are projected to retire each year. That means that when those retirements are replaced—if they are replaced, because we know that there are going to be 10,000 jobs cut from our education system. But if those 5,000 teachers are replaced every year with new graduates who have taken a mandatory math test, it’s going to take a minimum of 25 years before we have teachers in our schools across the province who have taken this mandatory math test.

And that’s if you believe that a mandatory math test will do anything to improve students’ math scores.

It’s ironic, Speaker, that at the same time that this government decided that they were going to require these mandatory math tests, they also eliminated the funding from a program that was allowing teachers to get additional qualifications in math, and many teachers wanted those additional qualifications in math. We all know that a program where you are learning continuously is much better than a one-time exam to test knowledge. Yet this program to allow teachers to gain the additional qualifications in math, the funding for that program was cut by this government, because despite the success of these AQ courses, this government decided that that was not the way they wanted to go.

It’s interesting, when you look at some of the history in this province, Speaker. In 2001, under a previous PC government, there was a requirement that teachers were going to be tested on their knowledge, and what happened? Within a couple of years, those tests were abandoned because people recognized that doing these kinds of mandatory testing is not effective. It doesn’t work, to actually ensure that the students who are being taught by these teachers who have been tested are going to learn better.

So, Speaker, I have to say that if I was grading this legislation, I am not sure where I would land. I think it would pass, but maybe a D+, because this legislation does very little to address the pressing issues, the priorities, that we need to be talking about in our public education system.

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

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I stand to support Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act. We all agree that we need to get rid of discovery math and get back to the basics for our students, and we need to support the students who have the need for safety dogs. And we need to prohibit sexual misconduct with our students.

Even though autism is not part of this bill, I would like to respond to the member from London West. For the past 15 years, funds were cut and services were cut, and we have not provided services to 75% of autistic children. It is because of this that parents are expecting more funds and more support from this government, and that’s why the minister saw the need. The minister of MCCSS fought for extra funding of $100 million immediately when she found that the system was already broke—and broken. When we listened to the needs of the parents, she also—now, just recently—doubled what we have already got to $600 million, the largest funding in history and among the other provinces in Canada.

We care for our students. That’s why this whole House, this whole government, is working very hard for the future of our students. We would ask the opposition to see the need for this bill, which is really focusing on bringing the best quality and bringing the best curriculum to our students. Please all support Bill 48.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a privilege to take my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin and to have the privilege of sitting here with the member for London West. I wish you would have been my teacher, giving out grades like that. My goodness. I wouldn’t have spent so many days in detention, maybe.

Speaker, my goodness, what world is this government in? I’ve spent the last two months—three months now—since this bill has hit the floor trying to engage with our school boards, trying to engage with a lot of our parents; as a matter of fact, students have been trying to engage with my office as well. I have to say, where did you come up with this stuff? Because they don’t know either. I’m asking them, “Did you give some direction?” In this, I’m talking to my school boards and parents and teachers. I’m going, “Where did they get it?” It didn’t come out of the sky.

Here’s how we can best describe it to you. Sometimes, when I’m driving on the highways in northern Ontario, I come across and I see these two eyes in the middle of the road. It’s a deer that’s sitting there, and he’s just looking at me. That’s the reaction that I get from school boards across my riding: “They didn’t talk to us. They didn’t come up. We don’t know where the justification for these numbers is.”

I want to thank the member for really focusing her discussions on autism, and I look to have the opportunity to talk about autism when I get to speak on this bill and the impacts that it has on students. I hope I get the opportunity to talk about how informed our students are on their education, on the future of the environment, on jobs, and on the economy. They are the ones who are reaching out to us as politicians. That’s what I’m hearing from students when I go into my schools, anyway, and they’re asking me questions.

I’d like to stand here and tell them, “You know what? We’re all here to do a good job.” I choose to believe that we are all trying to move our issues forward. However, what makes us different—and I do relay this to the students in the classrooms—is that our priorities are very different.

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

Mr. Daryl Kramp: It’s a rather interesting comment today from across the House. If I just might offer a little bit of a personal reflection: One of the things I was most proud of from all of my years in public service is that I probably spent more time in school classes than maybe any other member of Parliament in Canada. Civics, grade 5, grade 10—I made it a passion to reach out on a consistent basis to our students.

I can tell you, I’m deeply disappointed with some of the comments from across the aisle. As an example, the member for Ottawa Centre, who I have a great deal of respect for—as a matter of fact, I think he’s a fine member of Parliament and does some great work here. But to suggest, quite frankly, that the students are to be used and are utilized as pawns on this is deeply, deeply disturbing to me.

The reason I say this is I have family that are teachers. I spend a lot of time in the schools, and—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He has not said that. You can’t just make this stuff up.

Mr. Daryl Kramp: Please, if you just give me the courtesy of my comments.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Fair enough.

Mr. Daryl Kramp: What bothers me is, we all want a better world for our students, regardless of where we are at on either side of the House here.

I had a protest outside my office the other day. Wonderful. Great. People have the right to protest and the privilege to protest. Those are the democratic principles we stand for. But when I saw young people going by giving the finger and being applauded, I thought to myself, “What kind of an example does that set?”

I was fortunate. Every year, I won the student vote—“sad,” from the reflection from the opposition—but I never, ever once issued a partisan statement in a class. I only talked about our process, our procedures, our privileges and our possibilities, and I would certainly suggest do not use our students as pawns in this. As the member from Markham said, let’s discuss the issues personally and frankly.

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

Ms. Jill Andrew: I am proud to stand today and add my voice to the government bill, Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act.

I would just like to speak on behalf of the students, the countless students that I have spoken to in my riding, and even nearby my riding, in schools like North Toronto, Northern Secondary and Forest Hill CI. These students are activists, and I am really proud of them because they are the ones coming to me and saying, “Jill, are you going to fight for our classrooms not to balloon out of control? What about our sex ed? What about our physical and health education curriculum? What about our human rights, Jill? What are we doing to protect them? The government’s not listening to us. We haven’t been consulted.”

So when the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, who happens to be the son of a previous Premier who really did a job on the education system—a terrible job because of the funding formula that is still broken, a funding formula that has our kids sitting in schools that are falling apart. Those are the issues that kids are worried about. These kids are activists and, good golly, am I proud of them.

So when the member says talk to real people, not activists—these students are activists and we should be proud of that. They go to school to learn about democracy. They go to school to learn about how to stand up for what they believe in. And they’re standing up to this government, and this government is not listening. What you’re doing is you’re taking away their democracy. You are hurting kids with these cuts. And how dare you talk about us using children as pawns. Some of us are actually teachers over here. Some of us have actually stood in classrooms. I am proud of our kids and I’ll keep fighting for them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We now return to the member from London West to wrap up what she just heard on the questions and comments.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank the members from Richmond Hill, Algoma–Manitoulin, Hastings–Lennox and Addington, and Toronto–St. Paul’s for their comments.

Speaker, as my colleague the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s noted, many of us in this building have backgrounds in education. I myself was a school board trustee for 13 years before I was elected. We bring those experiences to the debates that take place in this chamber.

Certainly, as a former school board trustee, I have connected with current school board trustees, and nobody is saying that what we need right now in our public education system are guidelines for service dogs for students with autism and mandatory math tests for teachers. Speaker, I’m not hearing that.

What I’m hearing in Thames Valley is the fact that there are a minimum of 500 students with autism who are going to be entering the school system. Not only will there be no additional supports, but the supports that are already there are being taken away. I talked about the 35 EAs who have been cut, and other EAs who were planning to do ABA training have been told they can’t be released because there’s nobody to cover for them. So these students with autism will be entering a school system that is completely unprepared to address their needs.

We also know that in Thames Valley there are almost 2,000 students with other kinds of disabilities who are waiting for rehabilitation therapy, for speech and language, for OT, for PT, and they are waiting for sometimes up to two years. Those are the kinds of issues we should be addressing, not what’s in this legislation.

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

Mr. Mike Harris: Mr. Speaker, it’s an absolute pleasure to be able to rise today. I do apologize to the Chair for earlier, but sometimes, like I said, I just can’t help myself.

It is my pleasure, again, to rise today to speak in support of Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, introduced by the very Honourable Minister of Education, the member for Huron–Bruce.

It has also been my pleasure to participate in this debate, especially having the opportunity to listen to my fellow members on both sides who are passionate about education in this province.

Quite simply, this act will ensure the health, safety and well-being of our children while improving their scholastic achievement in classrooms across our great province. Above all, it puts children and parents first by ensuring that students have greater opportunities to excel and teachers have the necessary skills to support them.

But first, I must commend the work of the Minister of Education. This bill and her latest announcement, following our largest ever consultation on education in the history of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, with over 72,000 respondents, shows that our government is listening to students, parents and educators. She has laid down a framework that will modernize the curriculum, modernize classrooms and empower educators to prepare students for the reality of the modern world.

Just to quote our honourable minister for a second, because she really nails what our government’s vision is for education, the vision we promised during the campaign, the vision we are implementing now: “We must ensure that all students receive the education and supports they need to support a career path that aligns with their interests and abilities, while building on their capacity to adapt as the world around them changes.” Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very important statement.

I’m going to go on to read a further quote: “Whether they live in Toronto, North Bay, Windsor, Vankleek Hill, Kenora, Palgrave, Caledon, Smiths Falls or even Belgrave in Huron county, students require tools that will enable them to pursue an apprenticeship, attend a college or university, or immediately enter the” workforce in their community.

Bill 48 reflects this vision. It proposes common sense and positive solutions for problems in the education system.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Someone raised you right.

Mr. Mike Harris: Someone did raise me right.

So, let’s review the components of this act.

Schedule 1 amends the Early Childhood Educators Act to require mandatory revocation of an early childhood educator’s certificate if the relevant discipline committee finds the member guilty of sexual abuse or child abuse.

I wish we lived in a world where provisions like this weren’t necessary, Mr. Speaker, but it is clear that this government must take a zero-tolerance policy to protect children. Therefore, schedules 3 and 4 also make amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act and Teaching Profession Act that provide absolute clarity on what is appropriate and inappropriate in the classroom.

Schedule 2 amends the Education Act to give the minister authority to establish policies and guidelines respecting service animals in schools, and requires boards to comply with the policies and guidelines that are set forth. Currently, Mr. Speaker—and this number is staggering—only 39 of 72 school boards across the province have policies in place to address the needs of service dogs in their schools. I’m very surprised, considering the real benefits that service dogs provide to students, especially with autism.

To quote our outstanding parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, the member for Niagara West, “Service dogs have been proven to:

“—provide increased safety for the child...;

“—passively teach the child responsibility;

“—lower aggression and frustration levels, leading to positive behavioural changes;

“—provide comfort when a child is upset;

“—add a degree of predictability to social settings for both the child and parents; and

“—reduce social stress levels, allowing greater participation in education as well as social and leisure activities.”

Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable that some school boards still reject service dogs in the classroom. Families of students with special needs deserve a clear and transparent process for requesting that service animals be able to accompany their children no matter where they live. This rings true for Waterloo region and the rest of the province, Mr. Speaker. I know that my fellow members on both sides of this chamber are well aware of and commend the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler’s incredible advocacy for her son’s right to have service dogs join him in a Waterloo Catholic District School Board classroom.

This amendment will ensure that all families feel supported and that members of the public have an opportunity to give input to shaping local school board policy.

I wish to highlight the other important component of

schedule 3. An amendment to the Ontario College of Teachers Act will require applicants to the college to pass a math test. This provision supports teachers to be better prepared to teach the fundamentals of math. Moreover, these changes will provide more confidence to parents that the government is working to ensure that Ontario continues to have one of the best education systems in the world.

As the official opposition sometimes forgets, including when we discuss economic development, our students are now competing at a global level. In today’s climate, businesses have the markets of the world at their disposal. Markets have to be innovative in the ways they attract business. How are we going to make this market stand above the rest? It begins with crafting a strong and adaptable employment base.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, math scores were declining under the previous Liberal government. EQAO records show that between 2011 and 2016, the percentage of primary students—grades 1 through 3—at or above the provincial standard for mathematics decreased from 68% to 63%. Added to this, during that same period, the percentage of junior students—grades 4 to 6—at or above the provincial standard decreased from 58% to 50%. Those numbers represent a one-percentage-point drop over the previous school year for those grades, though the numbers have decreased each year that EQAO assessments have been completed since 2013.

Therefore, we need to raise our teachers and students up to a level playing field with fellow Commonwealth countries like Australia, which conducts a literacy and numeracy test for initial teacher education students, and like the UK, which mandates a professional skills test for prospective teachers to assess core skills.

Moving forward from this bill, our new back-to-basics math curriculum will focus crucially on math fundamentals for all grades and a renewed focus on STEM, skilled trades and financial literacy, Mr. Speaker.

Financial literacy is an absolute essential to student success to build a well-educated, responsible workforce. Therefore I am glad it will be a major component of the grade 10 career course.

This back-to-basics math approach, which will include new online resources, will improve student performance in math, help students solve everyday math problems, and increase students’ employability in the jobs of tomorrow.

Moreover, we also recognize the importance of the educator. As such, we will be providing funding for teachers wishing to get additional qualifications in math.

Again, this current bill will ensure the health, safety and well-being of our children while improving their scholastic achievement in classrooms across our great province. More importantly, I have received positive feedback from my constituents, including parents and teachers, who have expressed their concerns about declining core math skills and key supports like service dogs being excluded from students who need them.

As many of you here know, I am the proud father of five children between the ages of three and 12. Having safe, supportive and productive classrooms is important to me and to thousands of other parents across this province. The previous government left us an outdated system that did not prepare our students for the realities of today. Our government has been clear from the beginning that we are listening to parents and consulting with our education partners to modernize and improve Ontario’s education system, from kindergarten to grade 12. This legislation reflects this.

Moving forward, I will continue to meet and consult with local school boards, unions and individual teachers in my constituency.

I fully support Bill 48 through its third reading. Let’s get this passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): That takes all of our time this morning. When we resume, we’ll be doing questions and comments.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): At this point, this session will stand in recess until question period at 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I’d like to welcome Patricia Chartier and Fred Berenbaum from Beaches–East York, and Kenneth Yurchuk from Etobicoke. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to rise today and introduce a long-time friend of mine and a steadfast advocate in the autism community, Matthew Dever, and his daughter Emily-Grace. It’s so great to have you here from our nation’s capital.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: It is my pleasure to introduce some people from the Canadian Franchise Association. I have in the galleries Kevin O’Donnell, Stephen Schober, David Collier, Victor Hinojosa, Clark Harrop, Joel Friedman, Pawan Johar and Andrew Arminen. Thank you so much for being here today, and welcome.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I, as well, have the Canadian Franchise Association. I think we had to split up the amount of people—John Kellett, Peter Noronha, David Druker, Steve Moorman, Michelle Burton, Brian Bazely, Joel DeGroat and Sridhar Rao.

M me France Gélinas: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Patricia Chartier and Kenneth Yurchuk, the only two patients who got to do deputations at the Standing Committee on Social Policy. Thank you so much for your courage. Much appreciated.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: I’d like to welcome my intern, Linda Bui, back to the chamber. Welcome, Linda.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome to the Legislature once again Michau van Speyk, who is from the Ontario Autism Coalition. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Michau.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to give a very warm welcome to Queen’s Park today to Rob Pope, a constituent of mine from Campbellford, a Rotary member; and Eloisa de Castro Costa, all the way from Brazil, a Rotary exchange student in Northumberland–Peterborough South. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Doug Downey: Also with the Canadian Franchise Association are Peter Drutz, Ruthie Burd, Stefania Sigurdson Forbes, Manojh Subenthiran, David Tsai and Sherry McNeil.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Hamilton Mountain has a point of order.

Miss Monique Taylor: I seek unanimous consent to allow members to wear neurodiversity pins in support of adults for autism on world autism day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow the members to wear a pin in recognition of world autism day. Agreed? Agreed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Peterborough–Kawartha on a point of order.

Mr. Dave Smith: I seek unanimous permission to wear the Oshawa Generals’ vintage jersey in recognition of Oshawa being better than the Peterborough Petes this year.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Peterborough–Kawartha is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to wear the hockey sweater this morning. Agreed? Agreed.

The member for Durham.

Ms. Lindsey Park: In solidarity—I think the member has the vintage jersey—I’ll wear the current colours in my seat, if I can get unanimous consent from the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Durham is seeking unanimous consent of the House to wear a hockey sweater as well. Agreed? Agreed.

The member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Ross Romano: This morning I wanted to welcome members of the Invasive Species Centre from my riding of Sault Ste. Marie to the Ontario Legislature. They are here today for their advocacy day and their reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230. I encourage everyone to come out tonight for some northern hospitality and meet Tracey, Lori and the rest of the group from the ISC.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Do we have any more introductions of guests?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order: the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Speaker, on behalf of everyone in the Legislature, and certainly my caucus colleagues: I know we don’t make references to a member’s absence, but we know that Jimmy McDonell has been off on surgery, and it is just great to see him back here this morning.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes, indeed. Welcome back.

The member for Scarborough–Guildwood on a point of order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I would just like to welcome some guests who are here today from the Canadian Franchise Association: Geeta Gandhi, Stephen Schober, Gary Prenevost and David Collier, who I have met with this morning. I’d like to welcome them today.

Oral Questions

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Today the government’s mega-health bill is being discussed at committee. This should be an opportunity for everyday people to express their views on the government’s scheme, but while 1,594 people asked to appear at committee, the government will only allow 30 people to speak—less than 2% of the people who signed up.

One woman who has come to express her view is Patricia. She has come to Queen’s Park today because she opposes the government’s decision to collapse Cancer Care Ontario and pull the rug out from under thousands of cancer patients and their families across the province.

There are many, many more voices that must be heard before the government plows ahead. Will the Premier agree to hear those voices?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the leader of the official opposition for her question.

Certainly, there is an opportunity for people to present, but as the leader will also know, this is a situation where, in every case when we are in committees on bills, not everyone is going to have the opportunity to appear to make a presentation. However, they do have the opportunity to make written presentations—anyone who wishes to do so, of that number that the leader of the official opposition has mentioned. I can assure her that we will take every submission into consideration, whether it’s verbal or written.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to read to the House some of what Patricia, a cancer survivor from Toronto, said before committee:

“I don’t want to live in an Ontario in which the needs of cancer and transplant medicine are lumped in with every other aspect of health care and forced to compete for the attention of a small, appointed centralized board. That makes no sense.

“In fact, it feels to me like a crime against the people of our province.”

Will the Premier listen to Patricia and others like her, stop ramming this bill through, and instead listen to the patients and experts who have come forward in droves with very, very serious concerns?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Certainly, it is important to listen to Patricia’s concerns. We are listening to people across the province.

But what we are doing is strengthening our public health system and making sure that it responds to the needs of patients, families and caregivers.

While I understand that Patricia is concerned about Cancer Care Ontario, she need not be, because those services are going to continue. The leadership is under one administration now, but the work that is being done will continue. The excellent-quality cancer care services that Cancer Care Ontario has provided in the past will certainly be continuing into the future.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Patricia isn’t the only patient hoping to be heard today. Kenneth from Etobicoke is fighting a long and difficult battle with cancer. Kenneth says that Cancer Care Ontario has been there for him every step of the way. Kenneth is extremely concerned about Cancer Care Ontario being folded by this government into their super-agency—not just for himself, but for his children and his grandchildren.

What does the government have to say to Kenneth and his family from Etobicoke today?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, it is important to listen to the concerns of anyone who wants to appear before committee, and we are listening to what they have to say.

However, I could say to the leader of the official opposition and to Kenneth and his family that the excellent care that he has been receiving will continue, as will cancer care for anyone else in Ontario who needs it.

Cancer Care Ontario is a great organization. It provides great services, but also can serve as a template for other issues, other areas of chronic disease management where we don’t necessarily have a great system and great infrastructure.

We look forward to working with Cancer Care Ontario, learning lessons from them about what an excellent chronic disease management strategy should look like so that we can expand that so that people with other issues can receive help, and Kenneth can certainly continue to receive the services that he needs from Cancer Care Ontario, now and into the future.

Addiction services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier, but I have to say to the health minister that giving 2% of the people who want to have a voice heard at committee is not fair for the people of Ontario. It is the wrong thing for this government to do.

Yesterday, in response to the opioid crisis—an unprecedented public health emergency—the Premier said that he was cutting funding to six overdose prevention sites because “not in my backyard.”

The Premier has heard from health professionals, nurses and experts warning him that people could die as a result of this decision. How does he justify his priority?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: She misquoted “not in my backyard.” I was referring to one of the media who was asking me.

We’re putting together a great system. I had an opportunity to speak to the Cabbagetown community, who said that their MPP wasn’t returning their calls. The federal MP wasn’t returning their calls. They couldn’t believe I returned their calls. They were telling me that they have four safe injection sites, all within a kilometre.

We believe in having a wraparound facility to make sure that we help people with addictions. There’s no one more passionate about trying to help people than myself, Mr. Speaker. I find it—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: I found it so disturbing yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition wanted to get personal and bring my family into discussions.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Yes, that was disgusting.

Hon. Doug Ford: That was pretty disgusting. Rob, my brother, had an issue in front of the whole world. He dealt with it. I just found it disgusting that you brought family members into the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order. Order. Government side, come to order.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have to say that I think the entire world felt a lot of deep sympathy with Mr. Ford and his family as he went through that crisis, and that’s what I was referring to. But what I do need to say is that that same kind of compassion and empathy needs to be thought about right now, with all of those other families who are also facing the same kind of crisis as the Fords happened to have to face so publicly not so long ago.

This opioid crisis is claiming lives every single day, and health experts say that this government’s decision will result in increased deaths. In fact, those were the exact words of Toronto’s Chief Medical Officer of Health: “You will see more deaths.”

Is the Premier ignoring these warnings, or does he simply not care about them?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: First of all, through you, Mr. Speaker: I’d like the leader of the official opposition to know we take the opioid crisis very seriously. We know this is a major public health emergency. That’s why we took the time to do the consultations, to make sure that the decisions that we’re making and the criteria that we were developing for the consumption and treatment service sites were legitimate and were based on data and evidence.

I would again remind the leader of the official opposition that we still have—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You cannot demonstrate from the galleries. You will have to leave.

Sergeant-at-Arms.

You have to leave.

Interruption.

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

The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care was in the midst of an answer. I would ask her to conclude.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you. We are certainly aware that this is a major crisis, a public health emergency. That is why it was important to consider and visit—I visited a number of the consumption and treatment sites to understand myself and to listen to staff and to listen to some of the people who were using the sites and to speak with people with lived experience. I had a long conversation with them.

The decisions that were made were based on proximity, to make sure that we didn’t have too many in one area, that they were geographically dispersed, that they were able to provide the wraparound services to save lives, of course—of course, that’s a first priority—but also to make sure that they could provide the rehab services that people need when they are able to make that decision—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The opioid crisis did not happen overnight, and I don’t think anybody can choose where somebody might overdose. It won’t go away just because the Premier pretends it’s not happening. Overdose prevention sites will save lives. But instead of listening to doctors, nurses, health experts, mayors, councillors, local elected officials and families who risk losing loved ones to overdose, the Premier is trying to limit the response even as the crisis continues to grow.

When will the Premier realize that if he wants to save lives, we can’t turn our backs on people and say “not in my backyard”?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Speaker, again through you to the leader of the official opposition, what she is suggesting is absolutely not the case. It is not an issue of “not in my backyard.” It is where it is appropriate and where the greatest need is. I would remind the leader of the official opposition that there are six sites open in Toronto, with another site under consideration, working with the city of Toronto, because we know that it helps many people and it needs to continue to do so, but there are other issues that need to be resolved.

There have also been three new sites that have been opened: one in Thunder Bay, one in St. Catharines and one in Parkdale. We recognize that there are needs across a variety of communities, and we want to make sure that we can continue to serve those communities. That’s what we’re doing. We want to make sure that, as we are developing the consumption and treatment service sites, I think it’s really important for everyone to remember that this is part of a much bigger picture of mental health and addictions that we are trying to provide support—

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

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier, but I would say to the Minister of Health that it’s appropriate to save lives wherever they need to be saved, Speaker—wherever they need to be saved.

As the Premier knows, today is world autism day. It’s a day when countries around the world strengthen our commitment to the full inclusion and participation of people with autism. This year, the Ford government has become a focal point for activists and parents for all the wrong reasons. Now the government is finally admitting that their scheme to take funding away from children with autism was just plain wrong.

Will the Premier commit today that funding to fully meet the needs of Ontario children will be included in the upcoming budget?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We have a great team working on the autism file. We’re doubling the funding. It’s going to be in excess of $600 million. We’re consulting with parents. We’re consulting with therapists. We’re consulting with organizations that work with children with autism, and we’re passionate about it. I can’t even begin to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how many people I’ve talked to, till all hours of the night, telling them that help is on its way.

We’re going to make sure that we’re listening. I think the announcement was incredible today. We’re taking a three- or four-pronged approach to this, getting education and health involved, along with our all-star minister sitting right over there, an incredible person, the Minister of Social Services, who’s been going through this for months trying to make sure that we get this right. And we won’t stop until we get this right.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Parents have watched as this government has done everything they could to impose their cruel autism funding scheme on parents; I’d say that’s not so great. They threatened experts who refused to endorse it; I’d say that’s not so great. They told parents they were moving up the wait-list even as they froze it; I don’t think that was great. They told everybody hoping for better not to have false hope; that wasn’t great either.

Today, we can celebrate the fact that those parents never gave up, notwithstanding the way that this government dragged them through hell and back. The government is asking parents to trust them yet again. But this government, and especially this minister, who I also think is not that great, have done little to earn their trust.

Will the Premier commit today to fully funding, in the April 11 budget, a new program that is it actually based on children’s needs, not their age and not artificial caps?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: As somebody who has worked on this file for the 13 years that I have been in this assembly, this is always an emotional issue and one that can be easily politicized.

The announcement that I, myself, the Minister of Health as well as the Minister of Education made today was to lower the temperature, to include people across Ontario to take

part in our largest consultation on autism in the history of the province so that we can best assess how we can build a needs-based approach that looks at the wraparound services. What we announced, and what the Premier was talking about, is that on May 1 we are going to have an online consultation that we would ask parents and all Ontarians to be a part of. The second thing is that we’re going to be creating a panel across this province with experts, clinicians, parents and those with autism.

The third thing is—and this is one of the most important things for every member of this assembly—that we are asking all MPPs, regardless of political affiliation, in the official opposition, in the independent caucuses as well as the government caucus, to participate in round tables. We believe we all have a role to play—

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

Interjections.

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

Members, please take your seats. Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, come to order. The member for Orléans, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South, come to order.

Restart the clock. Next question.

Greenhouse gas emissions

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Premier. For 20 years, drivers across Ontario have been required to take time out of their busy lives to get an emissions test for their vehicles. While the program was effective in 1999, when it first was introduced, for many years it’s been called outdated and ineffective. Yesterday, I was pleased to welcome the Premier, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Infrastructure to the Thorncrest dealership in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore to announce the official end to the Drive Clean program.

When our government was elected, we were given a mandate to make life more affordable and to reduce the burden to taxpayers. Can the Premier tell this House how ending this program will make life easier for Ontarians?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the great member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. We had a great, great announcement yesterday with the three ministers. I can tell you, we’ve done some really great things. But it seems, when we go out there and we talk to the common folk, nothing is more important than getting rid of Drive Clean. Drive Clean was just a cash grab, a $40-million cash grab, that dug into everyone’s pockets. Again, people can’t stand it when the government sticks their hands in their pockets unnecessarily. We finally got rid of Drive Clean. It’s done; it’s gone.

We’re putting more money into people’s pockets. The time it took to go into the Drive Clean and the hours you’d have to wait—it was totally unnecessary.

We’re moving forward. We’re making sure that we’re listening to the taxpayers, listening to businesses. Everyone’s happy about this Drive Clean—that it’s finally gone.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I have heard from my constituents that they are thrilled they won’t have to waste their time and money on this outdated service.

As our government continues our efforts to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario, it has been made clear that the federal government would rather move forward on their carbon tax plan. The federal government claims families will be better off, and they will be reimbursed for this tax. They have legislated this tax with many questions that still remain unanswered. For example, the impact of this tax: What impact will it have on businesses and institutions, and how will this impact the day-to-day lives of the people living on fixed incomes and those with families?

It has become very clear that this incentive plan was hastily put together and left provinces with more questions than answers. Can the Premier tell this House what impact we know this carbon tax will have on the good people of Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday was a great day for the people of Ontario when it came to Drive Clean. It was an absolutely terrible and sad day for the people of Canada. People of Canada saw prices driven up by 4.5 cents at the gas pumps—actually, it’s five cents with the HST—not to mention, diesel is going up.

My friend Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that people are frustrated right across this country with this carbon tax. It’s amazing when the Prime Minister says, “We’re going to help you. This carbon tax is going to help you.” Well, he’s sadly mistaken. It’s hurting the people of Canada. It makes us uncompetitive around the world when we have this tax.

And by the way, it does nothing for the environment at all. All it does is hurt businesses; it hurts families. Everything is going up in the grocery store. No matter if you’re taking little Johnny to the hockey game or if you’re going to work, everything is going to cost more.

Licence plates

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Last week, when the news broke, it seemed so unbelievable that even the Premier’s own media staff couldn’t believe it was true. They were tweeting it out. But now it’s been confirmed that the Premier’s response to the thousands of auto jobs that have been lost in Windsor and Oshawa is to put his ever-original “Open for Business” campaign slogan on Ontario licence plates.

Can the Premier tell us how much this vanity project will cost the taxpayers of Ontario, and whether he has any evidence that businesses are making investment decisions based on licence plate inscriptions?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Essex: I can tell you that people across this province want change. They voted for change, and they’re getting change.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: When I spoke to the CEO—

Interjections.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I can’t hear the answer, Speaker.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, when I had an opportunity to speak to the president of Chrysler, what he actually told me was that it was 15 years of high taxes, high hydro rates and endless regulations. That is what hurts the economy. That’s what hurts the car companies.

And I can tell you on the other note, when we went to Toyota, they were happy about getting rid of regulations, getting rid of the cap-and-trade, making sure we’re lowering hydro rates. They’ve actually invested in the new RAV4. They’re expanding.

So, throughout the automotive industry, we are doing well. We’re doing well. We’re going to support the people in Windsor—

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, this is probably one of those ideas that sounds good when you’re reclining in the backseat of your personal pleasure wagon on the leather couch, but to people facing the loss of good-paying union jobs in Windsor, it sounds like a tone-deaf Premier and a government without a plan.

How can the Premier tell a working mom who just lost her job that their plan to save jobs is a cheesy catchphrase on a licence plate? Is that really the best your government could do, Premier?

Interjections.

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

To the Premier, to reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the House and the people of Ontario that changing the licence plates doesn’t cost a penny to the taxpayers. They are still producing the plates. It’s going to be the same cost.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker: There are over 200,000 jobs out there available. I spoke to the mayor of Windsor. He feels confident that he’s going to support the people on the third shift over at Chrysler who were laid off. He feels confident that they are going to get jobs. I told him we’re at their disposal. Anything they need, we will be standing beside him.

But right now, Mr. Speaker, the economy is on fire in Ontario. It’s on fire. We have more jobs than we have people to fill them, and everywhere we go when we talk to business owners, they say, “Keep going. Thank you for the tax cuts. Thank you for lowering hydro rates. Thank you for getting rid of the cap-and-trade. We need more people.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to say, there are a lot of comments coming from the opposition when the government ministers are answering their questions. I need quiet. We all need quiet in here.

Start the clock. Next question.

Northern economy

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. Speaker, as of yesterday, the federal carbon tax has officially taken effect. Our northern communities cringe at the thought of their gas prices rising any further than they already have. The Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines has been very passionate about the heightened cost of gas in these areas, and has been dedicated to finding an answer for the people he represents. With the rollout of the Trudeau carbon tax, these areas are now going to face even higher prices.

Can the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines tell this House how our northern communities will be impacted by this carbon tax.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Cambridge for this question and her hard work in her community. Mr. Speaker, it’s not just about Kenora–Rainy River. It’s about Kiiwetinoong. It’s about Thunder Bay, and it’s about requests from people from those regions who called out to me and said, “Stand up against these gas prices.” That’s why I called and wrote the Competition Bureau. Immediately following, Mr. Speaker, he agreed to launch a full investigation.

Let me rattle off a few prices, outside of potential unfair pricing: $1.35 in Kenora today; $1.40 in Thunder Bay; $1.40 in Ear Falls; $1.329 in Wawa; $1.30 in Timmins; $1.26 in Sudbury; and $1.29 in Cochrane. Can you imagine filling a full-size Dodge Ram pickup truck in Timmins today, Mr. Speaker? This is not responsible. This is not right. We can be responsible with our environment and not gouge the pockets of northern Ontario to—

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

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: It’s clear that the minister feels strongly about the gas price increase in northern communities. Everyone across the province had hoped it would be an April Fool’s Day joke, but we were quite disappointed when we awoke to see gas prices had skyrocketed overnight.

The people of Ontario were clear when they elected our government. They voted for change, they voted for jobs, and they voted for affordability. Our government has been working tirelessly to keep our promise to the people of Ontario to make life more affordable.

After bringing an end to the job-killing, regressive cap-and-trade carbon tax, the people of Ontario are once again met with uncertainty of how the Trudeau carbon tax will impact them. Can the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines tell this House what the true cost of this carbon tax will be on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I’ll take a few more moments just to expound on the situation in northern Ontario. This isn’t just about how much it’s going to cost us more at the pumps. It gets colder up in northern Ontario. The heat is on a little longer at the beginning and ending of each season. They are forecasting costs in the range of $100 to natural gas bills for families and small businesses. Can you imagine that kind of increase, Mr. Speaker? We’re hearing from seniors. We’re hearing from small businesses. We’re hearing from mining and forestry operators about the consequential costs.

As the Premier said, make no mistake about it: This isn’t just the price of gas, natural gas and propane, Mr. Speaker. Companies that distribute products and services all across northern Ontario are going to incur higher costs. That’s going to put a high cost on everything, Mr. Speaker. We’re not going to stand for it. The problem is, the NDP is in cahoots with the federal Liberals. They’re doubling down and the member from Ottawa Centre wants the highest carbon tax in the world. That’s why the rest of—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Get the mustard out. The baloney is flying.

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

Start the clock. Next question?

Automotive industry

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Last week, auto workers at the Fiat Chrysler Windsor assembly plant were told that 1,500 direct jobs are on the chopping block come September. Those workers produce the award-winning Pacifica and Pacifica Hybrid. After strong advocacy from my federal NDP colleagues, the federal government has included the Pacifica Hybrid in their rebate program. The Premier can easily do the same here in Ontario. Industry experts warned last year that scrapping the EV rebate would hurt sales. It happened in BC. They brought the program back and, as a result, they brought sales back up again.

Will the Premier actually do something helpful and bring back the rebate and encourage Ontarians to purchase greener, made-in-Ontario vehicles?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: We’re actually doing better than that. We brought in the first phase of our auto plan. We’re so committed to the auto sector that that is the first strategic plan that we brought in, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve taken great steps to remove red tape, working alongside of FCA, Fiat Chrysler, and all of the other auto manufacturers that are located in Ontario. I can tell you that when I meet with FCA, when I meet with Ford and General Motors and Toyota and Honda, what they tell me, what they tell the Premier when they meet with the Premier, is that putting a carbon tax on their business when no other major auto-making jurisdiction in North America has a carbon tax makes it extremely uncompetitive for them to do business in Ontario. So what does the federal government do? They bring in a carbon tax yesterday that makes it more uncompetitive for those automakers in Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the Premier, Speaker: Thanks for all that word salad, Minister. You didn’t really say what you’re doing to help these workers.

The Premier knows there are many things that he could do to support not only the 1,500 workers at Windsor assembly, but also the estimated 9,000 workers in my community who could lose their jobs. When GM Oshawa announced it was closing its doors, the Premier gave up in a flash. And now with Windsor assembly, he’s missing in action again.

We know that one of the easiest ways to support the workers in Windsor is to incentivize Ontarians to buy award-winning, made-in-Windsor vehicles by bringing back the EV rebate. He could finally create a provincial auto strategy and he could work with FCA, Unifor and the workers to secure a new product for WAP to build on their full flex line.

The government claims to be fighting for auto jobs. Are they acting on options like these, including an auto strategy?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite, who clearly hasn’t been paying attention over the last couple of months here at Queen’s Park, because the new government of Ontario has been doing exactly what the automakers want and need, and that is bringing in an auto plan that’s going to make it more competitive for them to do business in Ontario. We launched Driving Prosperity back on February 14 at an auto facility up in Vaughan–Woodbridge. It was a great day.

We received glowing marks from everyone in the auto sector, including those downstream in the supply chain, to make Ontario a more competitive jurisdiction; to make sure that we’re investing in the talent that they need and the innovation that they need, Mr. Speaker.

All of what the automakers have heard in our plan is exactly what they’ve been asking for for 15 years and exactly what the Liberal government was ignoring for 15 years. What we’re going to do is ensure that Ontario is a competitive jurisdiction, not the highest-priced carbon tax jurisdiction in the world, like the NDP want.

Government advertising

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. Government has a responsibility to be honest with people about how their tax dollars are being spent. It’s bad enough that the Premier is wasting millions on his politically motivated lawsuit against the federal government; now we are learning that the government is planning to spend millions more on a partisan ad campaign against the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell the people of Ontario how much of their money he is spending on his political campaign to sabotage climate solutions at a time when we are experiencing a climate emergency?

Hon. Doug Ford: To the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. Government advertising, as you know, is used to tell the people about their rights and responsibilities, as well as government programs and services. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to review advertising to ensure that it’s delivered in the most efficient and effective way and that it delivers for the people of Ontario.

Let me talk a little bit, since you raised it, about the carbon tax. As I understand the federal carbon tax program, the idea is to take a little bit of money out of this pocket, process it through government, and then put back the same amount in this pocket. Well, let me tell you, one thing I’ve learned in government is that maybe the government takes a little processing fee, a little administration fee, and that not the same amount ends up in this pocket, but something a little less, and then they have to reach into another pocket.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister reminding us that the Premier is against making polluters pay. But I thought the Premier was for saving taxpayer dollars, as well.

No one gave the Premier a mandate to spend our money on his political advertising campaign.

Just last year, the honourable member from Dufferin–Caledon introduced a private member’s bill to restore the Auditor General’s oversight of government advertising—a great private member’s bill.

Will the Premier pause his anti-climate ad campaign against the federal government until legislation is in place to restore the Auditor General’s oversight over government advertising?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you again for the follow-up.

It has been brought to my attention that the federal government is mailing postcards to households and has an extensive online advertising campaign promoting their carbon tax plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I also understand—

Interjections.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Can you settle down my side, Mr. Speaker?

I understand that under the previous Liberal government there was a huge jump in advertising spending right before the election. I’ll let the House determine what might have been the reason.

What I will say is that the government is exploring all options for review under all forms of government advertising.

I will tell you this, as well: We’ve introduced the Audit and Accountability Committee. We’re not going to let the Auditor General’s report languish in someone’s drawer. We’re going to actually act on the Auditor General’s recommendations and provide value for money for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Job creation

Mr. Dave Smith: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Under the Liberals, the number of regulations in Ontario ballooned to 380,000—more than any other province, more than double the second-most regulated province, British Columbia.

Employers in my riding have been struggling to cope with the burden of government regulation, including members of the Canadian Franchise Association who have joined us here today. Our government promised to make Ontario open for business, open for jobs. Regulatory reform is an important part of keeping that promise.

Can the minister outline for the House the importance of cutting red tape and restoring Ontario’s economic competitiveness?

Hon. Todd Smith: I sympathize with the member and his Peterborough Petes.

I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park the members of the franchise association who are here today. They’re our job creators. They’re our small and medium-sized businesses right across Ontario, and we’re trying to make life easier for them so they can continue to create good jobs. Some 725,000 people work directly employed by the franchise association of Ontario. We’re doing what we can do to make sure that we protect those jobs and we create more opportunities in Ontario.

Our province spent 15 years falling behind, but now we have a Premier and we have a government that understands business, that understands how we need to be more competitive and the importance of creating an environment where businesses want to invest and create jobs. We’re going to continue to work for the people of Ontario and make sure we’re open for—

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

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you to the minister for his answer. I know employers and their staff in my riding are glad that our government is making Ontario a better place to invest, grow a business and ultimately create more jobs.

The previous Liberal government introduced policy after policy that harmed entrepreneurs and job creators—a job-killing carbon tax, burdensome regulations, their hydro mess and increased taxes—making it harder to get ahead and forcing us to fall behind. Thousands of jobs left Ontario because of Liberal mismanagement. Our government is committed to bringing jobs back.

Can the minister please inform the House what steps he and our government are taking to reduce red tape and bring good-paying jobs back to Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member for Peterborough–Kawartha for the great question. I can tell you that our government has been hard at work since we were elected on June 7 of last year, after 15 long years of Liberal waste, mismanagement, scandal and over 300,000 manufacturing jobs leaving Ontario.

We’re bringing in policies that are going to make it more competitive to do business here in Ontario: the Making Ontario Open for Business Act, Bill 47, and a little bit later on this morning we’re going to be voting on Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act. I hope that the members opposite will support this bill—30 different pieces of legislation across 12 different ministries that are going to ensure that Ontario is a more competitive jurisdiction. We’re going to reduce the cost to business owners by $400 million as a result of these initiatives that we’re taking to reduce red tape by 25%.

We’re doing everything we can to make sure there are great jobs in Peterborough, Bay of Quinte and every region of Ontario.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Earlier today, the minister announced that she would be consulting on further changes to her disastrous and poorly planned changes to supports for children with autism. The minister, who once said that she wouldn’t offer any false hope for changes, is now once again making promises and insisting that she will listen to families.

Why should families believe the minister now?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to start off by saying that the system we inherited was broken and broke. I was able to go to the Treasury Board, and the President of the Treasury Board and finance minister injected an additional and emergency $102 million so we could keep the existing program afloat. In addition to that, we announced that we had a $321-million program to clear the wait-list of 23,000 children.

In the last couple of weeks, we made a decision, thanks to our Premier, Doug Ford, that we would have additional flexibility, and we announced that we would have enhancements of an additional $300 million. This is going to be an over-$600-million program just within the Minister of Community, Children and Social Services.

Today we announced that we are going to provide some wraparound supports with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, and that will be part of a consultation process.

Speaker, I’ll get into more details in the supplemental about what our government is doing in terms of consultations, but I can tell you and I can assure you that this is going to be the best Ontario Autism Program this province has ever seen.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: I think it’s really unfortunate that the minister didn’t start with the best program from the beginning, instead of pushing through with a program that had nothing to do with families. We have a minister who’s backtracking because she didn’t consult with families to start with.

Parents remember the Premier’s words from the campaign, “I promise you, you won’t have to be protesting on the front lawn of Queen’s Park like you have with the Liberal Premier.” Parents have learned their lesson when it comes to this government. Quite frankly, I’m not sure parents are trusting in this minister. If the government is serious about this commitment, will they back it up in the April 11 budget with a concrete funding commitment to meet the needs of all children?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I just announced that this ministry is working with four other ministries, as well as the Premier. We worked with the Treasury Board president and the finance minister to keep the existing program solvent. We’re working with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health in order to provide wraparound supports.

The Premier then provided us with an extra $300 million more so that we could expand the program, and that’s what I’m really excited about today. We’ve announced that we’re going to consult with an online survey that starts on May 1 at ontario.ca/autism. We are going to do tele-town halls right across the province, which I hope members opposite will be part of.

I have offered to work with all members of this assembly, not just Progressive Conservatives, but also with New Democrats and the independent members of this assembly, so that we can make sure we get a full consultation that happens right across the province. We have indicated that we are going to create a panel of experts so we can best assess how we can spend the money. But this member can either continue to yell at me or she can work with me—her choice.

Pharmacare

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Minister, yesterday, April 1, OHIP+ and universal drug coverage for people under 24 essentially ended. The government is no longer—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Government side, come to order.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, the government is no longer the payer of first resort, and the minister knows that not all insurance plans are the same and that there are gaps, that there are differences between what a drug company will pay and what the drug costs. What happens now is, as payer of first resort insurers always covered that gap. The Ontario government does not right now, which leaves a gap for families that are insured but no gap for families that aren’t insured. That’s not equitable. Can the minister please explain to me how they’re going to address that?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member opposite that OHIP+ has not been stopped. It’s just that the regime that was developed under the Liberals’ previous government has been stopped because it’s not providing the service and value to taxpayers that they expect. Having the insurer be the payer of first resort just makes sense. However, it’s also important to remember that young people under 24 will receive the services they need if they don’t have insurance. That’s what we need to make sure is covered, that people who don’t have coverage will get coverage. That is what we’re dealing with.

With respect to any gaps, if there is a difference between what the insurer will pay and what the actual cost is, any family that’s having difficulty in paying that difference absolutely has the option of applying to the Trillium network to receive that assistance in funding. There is help available. That is how they can deal with it.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much to the minister for the answer. I have a great deal of respect, but universality for children under 24 has ended. There’s a gap. Trillium will not address the gap because it’s not designed to do that, and that’s what I was asking.

Of greater concern, there’s a budget coming up in a week. Now that the Ontario government is no longer payer of first resort for people under 24, is the government going to make the same decision for seniors over 65? Are you going to make it so that insurers are going to be the first payer for people over 65? Is that the intention of the government? That’s number one, the first question.

The second question is: August 1 of this year, Minister—through you, Speaker—the deductible and co-pay were to be eliminated as of the 2018 budget. Is it your intention to continue with that?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The question under discussion being that of OHIP+, again I would say to the member opposite—through you, Mr. Speaker—that the idea of universality has not ended. Young people are receiving coverage for their drugs where they did not before. But if they have an insurer, of if their parents have an insurer, they should be paying first. That just makes sense. However, if there is a differential, there is an option for people to get the help that they need. I recognize that some medications are very expensive and that some may be difficult for families to pay for.

But again, the Trillium outlet is still there for people who need help. They will assess those applications, and they will assist with payment if it’s necessary.

Foodland Ontario

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Over the past 40 years, Foodland Ontario has made our communities stronger and healthier by educating Ontarians on how to recognize, prepare and enjoy locally grown foods.

Each year, thousands of Ontario retailers enter the Foodland Ontario Retailer Awards, which run from mid-April to November. These awards serve as the province’s produce industry’s top competition for excellence, Mr. Speaker, and I’m pleased to hear that the minister recently put consumers back into the picture and has included them in the participation of this amazing program.

Could the minister please tell the House how the Consumers’ Choice award will benefit Ontario’s agri-food business, including farmers and retailers?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Milton for that excellent question.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I want to congratulate all of the retailers that will be awarded this year and thank them for their hard work and their dedication in serving our communities.

Through inviting consumers to partake in the Foodland Ontario Retailer Awards program, we’re looking at raising awareness of local food and supporting local grocery stores. Back after more than 30 years, consumers will now be able to vote for a new Consumers’ Choice award—an award which will be given to the best retail display of Ontario’s fresh produce.

These grocery stores are fixtures in the community. They not only keep our communities healthy; they create jobs and pour money back into the towns and cities they serve. Increasing the presence of local food in our homes, schools and public institutions is a top priority for this government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank the minister for his answer, and I appreciate all of his hard work in advocating on behalf of the agriculture community, including Ontario’s produce retailers.

Not only does the creativity and variety of each year’s submissions leave the judges impressed, but the sheer volume of contenders from across the province only goes to show how active our grocery stores are in promoting local foods. In 2018 alone, over 4,250 entries were submitted, along with 6,000 photos of captivating displays, showcasing fresh, homegrown Ontario produce.

Could the minister please share with the House the changes our government has made to the Foodland Ontario Retailer Awards program?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member for the question.

It’s no secret that the previous government never turned down an opportunity to wine and dine themselves on the taxpayers’ dollars. As disclosed in the public accounts, last year the previous government spent $50,000 in taxpayer money to host these retail award events in the luxury Liberty Grand complex in Toronto. In order to attend these lavish lunches, a select group of people had to travel in from out of town, through Toronto, while taxpayers paid the cost.

Our government is taking a different approach: Instead of travelling to us, we will be visiting our hard-working Foodland retailers. I’m pleased to say that this summer, my parliamentary assistant and I will be visiting stores across the province to congratulate the winning retailers. We will see the stores, their products and displays and thank the staff who build the displays. I look forward to meeting with them and seeing first-hand the great work they do for the people of Ontario to present us with the best and safest food in the world.

Taxation

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question this morning is for the Minister of Finance. Good morning, Minister.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Good morning.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Today, the Financial Accountability Officer released a scathing report that shows Ontarians will see fewer benefits from the LIFT tax credit than they would have if the government didn’t freeze the minimum wage. The 300,000 Ontarians who would have benefited from a higher minimum wage will see no benefits at all under the government’s scheme that puts workers last. Those who do get something will be more than $400 worse off than they would have been if they could have just earned a $15-an-hour wage.

Does the minister continue to stand by a plan that leaves hundreds of thousands of Ontarians worse off?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Let’s start with the facts. The Financial Accountability Officer confirmed that our government’s LIFT Credit will put $2 billion back in the pockets of low-income earners over the next five years. We will never apologize for bringing relief to families who need it most. The FAO recognized that over one million people will receive tax relief thanks to our government’s LIFT Credit.

He also previously recognized the damage of increasing the minimum wage too quickly. I’ll quote what the FAO said: “that Ontario’s proposed minimum wage increase will result in a loss of approximately 50,000 jobs ... with job losses concentrated among teens and young adults.”

We took a balanced approach. By pausing the increase in minimum wage, our government has given businesses time to adjust to avoid further losses while still providing relief to low-income earners.

Interjections.

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

Restart