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

March 7, 2018

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Mar-07 (PDF)

L147 - Wed 7 Mar 2018 / Mer 7 mar 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 7 March 2018 Mercredi 7 mars 2018

Orders of the Day

Climate change

Introduction of Visitors

Notice of reasoned amendment

Gerry Martiniuk

Oral Questions

Hospital services

Service fees

Cardiac care

School safety

Opioid abuse

Winter highway maintenance

International trade

Police services

Ambulance services

Women’s issues

Forest industry

Student mental health services

Arts and cultural funding

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Sharon Hart-Green

Employment standards

Ghanaian Independence Day

John Milkovich

Tree of Stars

Seniors

Ontario 55+ Winter Games

Alfred Lafferty

Whitby Public Library

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy / Comité permanent de la justice

Petitions

Government advertising

Mental health services

Child protection

Sewage treatment

Government services

Health care

Long-term care

Road safety

Cardiac care

Highway improvement

Correctional services

Hydro rates

Prix de l’essence

Orders of the Day

Safer Ontario Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour plus de sécurité en Ontario

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Climate change

Adjournment Debate

Mental health services

Mental health services

Mental health services

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Climate change

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 6, 2018, on the motion regarding climate change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to pick up where I left off yesterday because, first and foremost, it is always a pleasure to advocate on behalf of the great people of Huron–Bruce and represent their voice right here at Queen’s Park. It’s particularly important on an issue like this, Speaker.

The constituents of Huron–Bruce have a close relationship with their natural environment, and that’s where I left off when we last spoke about this particular motion. No matter how the government slices and dices it, rural Ontario absolutely consists of the best stewards of the land. We always want to make sure that it’s well cared for when it comes to the environment because, quite frankly, our livelihoods come from this environment. Farmers, those in agri-food, those involved in recreation and tourism, and those involved in conservation all understand the importance of this environment.

We have three major rivers in the great riding of Huron–Bruce and in the Great Lakes watershed: the Bayfield River, the Maitland River and the Saugeen River. I might add that the Teeswater River runs close to our farm as well. The conservation authorities of Ausable Bayfield, Maitland Valley and Saugeen do a very, very good job managing these waterways.

I left off this debate the other day by discussing agriculture. I want to thank the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for meeting with us this morning and talking about driving prosperity for this province. They have a good message. Clearly, this side of the House totally gets where they’re coming from. The agri-food industry’s primary production, in concert with value-added processing, is driving the economy in Ontario today.

Farmers are extremely diligent about their use of fertilizer, about caring for their land, caring for their water and caring for their soil. Ontario farmers lead by example. As I mentioned the last time we spoke about this particular motion, Ontario best practices, when it comes to farming, are being used as a benchmark around the world. Particularly in recent years, Ontario farmers embraced the four Rs: the right resource, at the right time, at the right rate, and at the right place. That is something that this government needs to understand: Ontario farmers are doing their bit.

They get the science behind agriculture. Let them be the best at what they do. Don’t interfere with needless regulation and burdensome legislation that just presses them down.

I say that because we have seen countless innovations and practices emerge out of the agri-food sector that are absolutely positives for the environment. Speaker, there’s a variety of different approaches a party can take towards politics. On this side of the House, we believe, as Bill Davis did: In the 1971 election he had a slogan and that slogan was simply, “Action Speaks Louder Than Words.” But I think we see a different perspective across the aisle. They have a lot of nicknames, but I think the one that strikes closest to home is the “take-credit party.”

I don’t always agree with the NDP, but there are private members’ bills they have brought forward—and the critic for the environment from the NDP and I have had amazing talks. Some of their private members’ bills have been timely and effective. My fellow Progressive Conservative members absolutely have done the same. Oftentimes, the Liberals will either implement these ideas and, at the very least, take credit for them. Saving the Girl Next Door is a perfect example, or Rowan’s Law, which went through third reading yesterday. I guess that’s their choice, that’s their prerogative, Speaker, but again, actions speak louder than words.

To get back to this motion, the Liberals talk a lot about the elimination of coal plants. It’s pretty rich. It’s interesting. Even Liberal candidates are touting the fact that the Ontario Liberals closed coal plants, and they’re pretty proud of that. But let’s be real: We all know who led the way and signed the first piece of legislation to close coal plants. That was a combination of Elizabeth Witmer and Jim Wilson. Here in the PC Party of Ontario is where the closure of coal plants started.

It’s a little glib to hear the Liberals carry on in the matter in which they are, especially when they sold off part of Hydro One and as a result, indirectly, Hydro One and Ontario Liberals invested in a coal plant in the States. Again, actions speak louder than words.

There’s a quote that I’m fond of, and I think it will resonate with the Liberals when the election arrives. It’s from John Adams. It goes like this: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” That is a very strong quote and something that we all should strive to adhere to.

So when we talk about the environment, I think we need to pat Progressive Conservatives on the back once in a while, because again, as I said earlier, it was this side of the House, it was our colleagues Elizabeth Witmer and Jim Wilson, in concert, who started the closure of coal plants in this province. Robarts created the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Bill Davis, as I mentioned the last time we spoke about this motion, created the first Ministry of the Environment. Mike Harris created an unprecedented amount of parks and protected areas around the province. There are countless examples like this.

In fact, I know many members in my caucus have brought forward some very important concerns and proposals about the environment, the management of natural resources and the management of wildlife. What we find is that the Liberals take a lot of credit for these ideas, and I guess that’s the benefit you have of being in power. That’s the rub. But as we know, “with great power comes great responsibility.” That’s where things kind of part, in my way of thinking, anyway, Speaker.

On the environment, we see very little responsibility in play by the government of the day, this tired, worn-out Liberal government. But since actions speak louder than words, let’s investigate this further. What we see time and time again in this House is that is that this government has a track record of saying to Ontarians that they know best. But the fact is, quite simply, they don’t. Those people who work with their municipalities, who work with their conservation authorities understand the role waterways and water management play in their communities.

But we have seen from this government that they don’t trust the people in my neck of the woods. That’s too bad, because they have done a lot of good on the environment, on soil and water management, and on the Great Lakes, as I have mentioned previously.

My colleague from Perth–Wellington spoke the other day about the treatment of horse racing in this province, and the Liberals’ disrespect of rural Ontarians. This is noteworthy because the Liberals used to have the Perth–Wellington seat, until they shoved the Green Energy Act down the throats of our constituents. Essentially, by shoving the Green Energy Act down our throats, they were saying, “We know the land and the environment better than you.”

But now, again, they’re turtling, because not only are there examples of how that Green Energy Act is affecting the health of residents in my riding, but now there are new concerns in terms of how their dismal Green Energy Act has affected water quality in Kent county. It’s absolutely horrible, the manner in which they’re turning a blind eye to those issues. I thank my colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex for doing a great job representing these concerns.

Time after time, the Liberals make their decisions unilaterally here at Queen’s Park, but they never listen to the people. They never listen to the people who should be impacting the Liberal policies. They never listen to stakeholders. They never listen to Ontarians, generally speaking.

It gives me cause to remind people that this motion is about climate change.

I remember, in the winter of 2016, we attended consultation after consultation. People wanted to hear about how the province could do better in terms of the environment and the reduction of emissions. The Ministry of the Environment, under the leadership of Glen Murray at the time, wanted to hear: Did people favour cap-and-trade—a price on emissions—or a carbon tax?

Well, Speaker, guess what? As environment critic for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, I did my research. In 2015, at the climate summit in Peru, Glen Murray, the Minister of the Environment at the time, was participating in an interview, and his comments were caught forever on tape. He said, “Oh, we’re going with cap-and-trade.”

They already knew what they were doing in the fall of 2015, when Glen Murray, in Peru, was saying they’re going with cap-and-trade. Then they tried to pull the blinds over Ontarians and pretend they were consulting with them, saying, “We want to hear from Ontarians about the environment: Do they prefer a price on emissions with a cap-and-trade scheme, to see all Ontarian dollars that are committed to reducing emissions flow to California? Or what other options are there?”

Again, that is a perfect example of how their actions spoke louder than words. Their actions, in that particular case, proved they don’t care what Ontarians think.

It’s time Ontarians stand up and say, “Liberal government, you’re done. We want to be respected. We want to be listened to. We need a government that will take us in the right direction after June 7.”

It’s interesting: When we go back to the motion at hand and around climate change, we have to listen to all levels of government. We need to listen to the experience of municipalities, of conservationists, of farmers, of processors, and, as I said, of the majority of Ontarians. But as we see with this motion, what is decided in the back rooms of Queen’s Park is never based on sound judgment. It’s the MO of a tired, worn-out, embattled government. This is the same back room that brought us Ornge, eHealth, gas plants, the Green Energy Act, as I mentioned before, and while we’re on the topic of climate change, David Livingston. This is a point that—

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Huh?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I will share with you that because—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Listen to that, Speaker. They’re a little sensitive to the facts when they’re presented to them in the manner in which I did.

Let’s go back to the motion. The text of the motion that we are currently debating reads, “efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution at the lowest possible cost to families and businesses.” Well, this is indeed a bold claim, since the Liberal record over the past 15 years shows that Liberals actually prefer the highest possible cost.

The Liberals are well known for wasting Ontario tax dollars. As I said: Ornge, gas plants, the Green Energy Act—I could go on and on with examples of that. But today the Liberals are not wasting our taxpayer dollars on this motion; they’re just wasting our time.

I have to hand it to them. Most people’s environmental strategy would be about fixing concrete problems like invasive species, runoff, wildlife management, forestry management, water quality—like I mentioned, in Chatham–Kent, just to pick a topical issue. But the Liberals always have something special up their sleeves—and because of that, I would like to move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Ms. Thompson has moved adjournment of debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

I believe the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 0915 to 0945.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Members, take your seats.

Ms. Thompson has moved adjournment of debate.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recorded by the Clerk.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing until the Clerk counts.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 11; the nays are 29.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I declare the motion lost.

Further debate. The member has 19 seconds.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate finishing up. We know full well that the Liberals are now in full election mode. But when they’re up against 81%, using this House for election ploys rather to bring solutions forward for Ontario, I think is dismal.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, thank you for recognizing me to speak on this very important motion. I’ve got lengthy comments to make and I will be using my time, but I do want to say at the outset that I really hope that all members of this House recognize that this motion is not a laughing matter and that the issue that this motion addresses, the issue of climate change, is not an electoral matter. It is a matter of our future. It is a matter of the future of the pages who help us in this Legislature. It is of grave importance to my son, Rafi, and my daughter, Elliana, and many, many children across this province.

We may merit the debate as to how we deal with climate change. But, Speaker, to have a conversation around saying somehow climate change is not an issue, or somehow it’s an election issue, I think is very short-sighted in 2018. I just wanted to say that as a starting point because I personally passionately believe that is one of our gravest challenges moving forward as we build our country for the next 50 years.

So that when we are looking back and saying what Canada looks like at the 200th anniversary of its Confederation—in combination with the work that we have to do in reconciliation with our indigenous peoples, climate change is the second most important issue we have to deal with, and an obligation and a responsibility of representatives today towards our future generations, our generations that are growing up now in terms of the society, the province and the country that we leave behind.

Speaker, I want to start by reading this motion for the record because I think it’s a simple motion. It’s a simple motion because it speaks of some very important facts that are worth addressing. The motion simply says that “in the opinion of the House, we recognize that climate change is a real and present threat that is already costing Ontario families, and that Ontario should do its

part in supporting national and international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution at the lowest possible cost to families and businesses by putting a price on pollution to combat climate change.” That is the totality of this motion.

I can say with a fair bit of conviction—at least in my community of Ottawa Centre that I have the great privilege of representing in this House—that if I read this motion to anyone in my constituency—and I have had many, many conversations with people in my riding—you will get hardly any disagreement on this motion. In fact, the conversation comes to, “What real action are we taking to combat the effect and impact of climate change?”

As I look at this motion, I parse it down into four parts that this motion is addressing:

(1) Climate change is a real and present threat.

(2) It is costing Ontario families. There is a cost associated with that threat.

(3) We have to do our

part in supporting national and international efforts—the work that is being done nationally, across the country, and the work that is being done internationally, with agreements like the Paris treaty, in order to reduce greenhouse gas and pollution.

(4) The best way to deal with this—the consensus that exists right now around the globe—is to put a price on pollution to combat climate change. There is no better way of dealing with climate change than to look at the key ingredient, which is the emission of carbon or greenhouse gases. The best way to curtail that is by putting a price on that.

Again, in order to be fair, I will say this: We can debate as to what form the price should take, whether it should be cap-and-trade or a carbon tax and what the quantum of that price would be. That is a legitimate policy debate to have. Different political parties, or different people of different persuasions, could have a different point of view on that.

That actually speaks to our role as legislators to have that debate. Where I get into trouble is when I hear people say that climate change is not a problem, that it is not a real threat, that it’s not man-made and that we don’t have to do anything to deal with climate change, or “Climate change is a problem, but we don’t have to do anything to deal with climate change.”

Those sentiments are not hypothetical. When you start hearing the leadership of certain political parties, like the Conservatives, right now, say that, that is of concern, because that is not really then stepping up to the real issues that we’re facing or being honest in our conversation with the people as to what solutions may be necessary to deal with the problem.

To my mind, that is not leadership. To say, “Yes, climate change has got to be dealt with. We’ll figure something out, but no, we’re not going to put a price on pollution via carbon tax or cap-and-trade. We are not going to address that via policy instruments that are most effective”—and there is a consensus around the world to deal with this. I think that is not right. That is not leadership. That is really not addressing the issue in a meaningful way.

Now, I know people are getting squirmy about that. That’s why bells are being rung; they don’t want to talk about that. That’s unfortunate, because I think it’s an important debate to have.

That’s where I’m coming from. We’re at a time in terms of our understanding of this issue that the argument that climate change is not real and the argument that climate change is not a problem—it’s not a real debate. I know that many members of the Conservative caucus—most of them are good friends of mine—don’t agree with that. I know inside they don’t agree with that. Unfortunately, they have been led to a path where they are being forced to agree with that and hence the little bit of delay tactics that we are seeing in the House. Let’s engage in that conversation. Let’s engage in a meaningful, honest conversation with Ontarians around climate change.

Let me speak to the actions that we are taking as the Ontario government, because I think they are important actions. They are meaningful things that we are doing to deal with climate change. Again, on merit, on policy, you may not like the direction, and I respect that. But then, in exchange, we expect something with more conviction from the other side.

In our case in Ontario, I think all the research has shown—and there is ample research that has been done—to demonstrate that the largest source of greenhouse pollution that existed in our province, up to now, was in our energy sector. That was the largest source of carbon emissions. Why? Because, Speaker, as you know, until 2014, we were burning coal to produce electricity, the dirtiest way of producing electricity. We were just throwing in so much greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, which had a significant impact on the health of our environment and, most importantly, on our own personal health.

We all remember the smog days in our large, urban cities like Toronto, Ottawa and other communities surrounding as well. We remember the health impact, the difficulty in breathing, the impact on our children who suffer from asthma, and their lung health and other aspects. That’s not a distant memory. I hope for these children, our pages, it will be a distant memory soon.

That was a reality in the province, and it took a lot of courage for a government—in this case, a Liberal government—to step forward and say, “We’re going to shut down coal.” It took time, because you can’t just do this automatically, overnight. You have to create new power generation. And to get away from a very cheap way of producing electricity—coal was and is the cheapest way of producing electricity, in terms of electricity generation, and it has huge costs when it comes to the environment and our health. But we took that step. And 2014 was, I think, the year that we shut down coal generation.

The effect of that is absolutely real. The effect of that is that we no longer have any smog days. We’re starting to see that asthma rates in children are starting to drop. There are real consequences, and real, positive impacts that are taking place as a result of that one, single, very bold decision.

I’m happy to note, and a credit to all the members, that the conventional wisdom of this place now is that that was the right move to do, which is good. There was some questioning about this—but I’m glad. I remember when I ran in my first election, in 2007, the then-leader of the Conservative Party talked about putting scrubbers on coal chimneys. I thought that was ridiculous. You don’t put scrubbers on emissions and, somehow, clean smoke will come out. The Conservatives ran on that, right?

But you know what? A credit to them now: They’ve moved on. They actually, like Stephen Harper when he was Prime Minister, try to take credit for getting rid of coal generation in Canada. That was the richest moment in my life that I’ve seen from any political leader. But nonetheless, it was reaffirmation to me that they are starting to realize that that was the right thing to do if they’re trying to take credit for it. But that is done.

The question you then ask, Speaker, is: What are the other sources of emissions? Again, analysis shows that the next two big areas that we need to deal with—the large source of emissions around greenhouse gases—is around our transportation sector and our built environment. Our buildings, with aging infrastructure, emit and waste a lot of energy, and our homes as well.

The work that Ontario is doing in terms of putting a price on pollution through a cap-and-trade system—again, we can debate the merits of whether cap-and-trade is better than a carbon tax. That’s a fair debate. We think cap-and-trade is the most cost-efficient and more effective way of dealing with greenhouse gases.

But what we are dealing with through our Climate Change Action Plan is that not only have we put a price on pollution through cap-and-trade, but we are using those monies to make investments through our businesses, through our families, through our public institutions to reduce emissions in our built environment, like our hospitals, schools, and universities and colleges. Most of them were built some time ago, have aging infrastructure and need steps around insulation, changing windows, better boilers etc.

Also, building a robust public transit infrastructure: The investments we are making in terms of the LRT in Ottawa, which very soon will be opening and runs through my riding and is going to phase 2 to other parts of the city, or the expansion of the GO network or the building of the electric speed rail through southwestern Ontario—all of these are very important investments to build public transit to ensure that people have alternatives to driving their cars.

Speaker, the reason that cap-and-trade, if I may speak to that for a moment, is a better system—and, again, notice that in this motion we don’t talk about cap-and-trade as a preferred model; we are saying that there should be a price on pollution that has the lowest possible cost. We have to agree that putting a price on pollution is the most effective way of dealing with this real and present threat of climate change. The reason we prefer cap-and-trade is its effectiveness.

(1) It costs less to Ontario families and businesses than just a flat carbon tax. Again, there are ample studies being done. Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission is a body that I follow regularly, and they have done a lot of good, independent analysis around these areas.

(2) By mechanism and by design, cap-and-trade is a system that, over time, puts a cap on how many emissions you can put out in the environment, and that cap comes down. That is an effective way because it incentivizes innovation. It incentivizes companies and businesses who are involved in mechanisms or processes that result in high emissions to actually go to cleaner technology, to cleaner sources. There is an incredible element of innovation that exists as a result of a cap-and-trade system versus a flat carbon tax, because a carbon tax is just a tax.

It is a motivation to move away from using something that you may pay a higher tax on because it’s a disincentive to your personal finances, but the incentive for anybody—taxes become normalized over time; we know that. The incentive for somebody to then invest and innovate and to bring in manufacturing or processing that is less carbon-intensive does not exist in a flat carbon-tax model.

That is why we prefer the cap-and-trade model. Not only is it lower-cost, but it has a built-in mechanism to ensure that we move to technologies that are cleaner in nature.

Here’s an interesting thing, Speaker. I think members of this House will know that the most successful and effective cap-and-trade system that has existed and that worked was the one that Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister and Ronald Reagan as President agreed on to deal with acid rain.

We may remember how big of a challenge acid rain was to Ontario, Quebec and the border communities. That was happening because of the emission of sulphur dioxide in our environment. Those two leaders, in their respective roles, worked together—both were conservatives—and came up with a cap-and-trade mechanism to deal with acid rain. Guess what, Speaker? It worked. We do not have an acid rain problem anymore.

We actually have an example of—again, memories for us; this generation of pages won’t even know about acid rain, which is fantastic, right? That’s where we want to be in terms of climate change as well. We dealt with this—I was probably their age at the time when that issue was being dealt with—effectively, through a policy tool that we knew would cost less to businesses and to consumers but be more effective and would work. At the end of the day, where you want to get at is, hopefully, you deal with the problem, as we dealt with acid rain, and you don’t need the mechanism in place.

If we stop and reduce our dependency on products and services that are carbon intensive, there won’t be a price on pollution, because those products will disappear from the marketplace.

Speaker, I wanted to lay out these facts, and I really wanted a clear distinction in the debate that’s taking place. I think this motion deals with facts, and it’s important that we support facts. On the policy prescription as to how we deal with those facts, we can differ. But to argue that there is no problem of climate change, or to argue that, “Yes, there’s a problem with climate change, but we don’t have to do anything about it because the timing is not right,” or that somehow we can not deal with the problem, even though consensus exists that a price on pollution is the best way—I think that is not honest.

I really hope all members will support this motion, because this motion is factual. It’s not prescribing one idea, like cap-and-trade over carbon tax. It doesn’t do that. It recognizes that as the second-largest economy in this country, we have to play our role in fighting climate change. I hope all members support this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Motion 60 is pretty much the truest example of how this government is running on empty, so to speak—out of ideas.

I’m going to do a little bit of poli-sci 101. It’s a motion—a resolution, if I may. There is nothing binding about this motion. If the government of the day truly believed that this was something that they wanted to deal with and bring forward ideas on, they have that ability. They’re the government. They can bring forward legislation. They can pass regulation in cabinet. You can make those changes. To suggest that this non-binding motion is going to change the course of Ontario’s history is stretching the truth, to put it mildly.

As I say, to be blunt, motion 60 is a non-legally binding statement of intent. Frankly, it speaks to an issue which the government has already put forward a position on and has already brought forward legislation on. Carbon pricing is already the law in Ontario, yet the government has done nothing better than to sit and discuss the issue in an attempt to score political points.

When I think about all the issues that I know are impacting the residents of Dufferin–Caledon, it is shocking that the government would come up with a non-binding resolution when there are so many other things we could be talking about.

I think about the seniors and families struggling to find long-term-care placement. These families are having to deal with multi-year wait-lists, yet the government decides that a non-binding motion is more important to debate. There are also over 800 people on the wait-list in my community, and that number is growing.

I think about the Community Living agencies across Ontario struggling to deal with the added costs of the recent changes to labour legislation. These changes are hindering their ability to provide service to our society’s vulnerable individuals.

I think about the 300,000-plus manufacturing jobs that have left this province under the Liberals’ watch. I hear from many business owners who are struggling under this government’s record of red tape, waste and skyrocketing hydro rates.

I think about the growing hallway medicine in the province of Ontario and an email I got from a mother whose daughter was in the hallway of Brampton Civic Hospital for more than a week. I got another picture last week: again, a mother sitting in a hallway waiting for a room.

I think about fixing our inadequate system of mental health services, which is leaving our children and families behind. There’s an eight-month wait-list for children’s mental health services. At the same time, there’s been a 67% increase in the hospitalization of youth due to mental health issues. Surely the government does not find these statistics or the reality on the ground of families struggling to find the services for their loved ones acceptable.

I think about the millions of dollars the government is spending on partisan, self-congratulatory ads. They can do this because they watered down the legislation that allowed the Auditor General to stop the government from spending taxpayers’ dollars on partisan advertising.

I think about the fact that the disastrous Green Energy Act is still the law in the province of Ontario and that hydro rates will only continue to skyrocket after the next election, after the government’s short-term fix to their mismanagement wears off.

Speaker, I think we could all name examples, yet all of this took a back seat because the Liberals thought they needed to re-debate an issue which was already law and already debated in this chamber. This non-binding motion helps no one except the Liberals—because, for some strange reason, they have chosen this as their priority.

While we are on the subject of things that this government would be addressing—

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order: the member from Barrie.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Yes, Speaker. I think that the member is not speaking about the topic of the motion. There is no health care in this motion. I would ask that the speaker stick to the topic.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you for your point of order, but I do believe health would be part of “environment”—concern for people’s well-being. I believe that the member is coming back and forth trying to tie things in. I rule that it’s not a point of order.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker.

This non-binding motion helps no one. While we are on the subject of this government, what we could be addressing and debating instead of a non-binding waste-of-time motion—I have several private member’s bills that I believe would actually provide something to the people of Ontario instead of pointless debate while the government kills time, and they relate directly to the motion.

Particularly, they could be using this opportunity to discuss my proposed legislation, Bill 141, the Sewage Bypass Reporting Act. Bill 141 certainly speaks to the changes in our climate and how they are impacting our infrastructure. According to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, “Managing stormwater is becoming more difficult and expensive because of climate change, population growth, land use decisions and a large infrastructure deficit.” The commissioner identifies the most recent estimate of Ontario’s stormwater infrastructure deficit as $6.8 billion.

The commissioner says, “In 2008, it was estimated that it would take about $681 million a year for 10 years” to close the infrastructure gap. The commissioner goes further, saying that many municipalities are unaware of the state of their sewage and waste water infrastructure because many do not have the stormwater monitoring programs and are unaware of the actual conditions of their facilities. The changing environment and the lack of adequate stormwater infrastructure is placing a serious burden on our environment and our residents.

The results of these issues are instances called sewage bypasses. The commissioner describes the phenomenon of bypassing by saying, “Untreated waste water and stormwater are discharged directly into a water body in order to minimize basement flooding (‘sewer backups’) and infrastructure damage.” Heavy rainfall and inadequate sewage infrastructure are leading to a significant amount of partially or untreated sewage being discharged into our waterways.

We already know that in 2016 over 6.5 billion litres of sewage were discharged into Ontario’s waterways. It’s important to note that that was during a particularly dry summer. With all of the flooding, rain and rapid melting we have seen lately, it is highly likely that 2017 and 2018 will have much higher levels of sewage discharge.

For instance, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper reported in May 2017 that E. coli counts in the Toronto harbour were the highest they have ever been. They were between 16 and 30 times the approved level for swimming. Just think about that for a minute.

I think many people would be using their waterways differently if they knew how much partially treated or raw sewage was, in fact, being discharged. That’s exactly why I have been calling on the government to publicize when and where sewage bypasses occur. The Ministry of the Environment already has that information. Why aren’t we debating that?

Why can’t we have a conversation about some proactive, positive changes that, frankly, all members of the Legislature have brought forward in the form of legislation—not non-binding motions? Let’s talk about some of those ideas instead of spending all of our time on something that is not going to make a difference to the people of Ontario.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the family of the late Gerry Martiniuk, the MPP for Cambridge during the 36th, 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: sons Ivan, Andrew and Seth; daughter Kirsten and her husband, Phil Golds; granddaughter Freya Golds; brother Robert and his wife, Lynda; sister Rosemary and her husband, Bill Booth; and many other family and friends who are here. We welcome and thank the family for being here for the tribute.

We also welcome, in the east gallery, Mrs. Donna Cansfield, the MPP for Etobicoke Centre during the 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments. Welcome, Donna. Also, Mr. Steve Gilchrist, from Scarborough East, in the 36th and 37th. Welcome, Steve. In the members’ west gallery: Rob Leone, from Cambridge, in the 40th.

Introduction of guests.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome Reg Bateman. He is here from the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today I’m pleased to welcome five representatives of Catholic Family Services of Simcoe County: board president Laurie van den Hurk, board member Michael Kodama, executive director Michelle Bergin, fund development coordinator Ryan Lay, and their supporter Janet Irvine. They join us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ross Romano: This morning I’m very excited to rise and welcome from Sault Ste. Marie the CEO of Algoma Family Services, Ali Juma, as well as the director of services, Sandie Leith, who are here today for family services day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Il me fait bien plaisir ce matin d’avoir des invités de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, l’AFO. Carol Jolin, le président, est ici avec Peter Hominuk, le directeur général, et Bryan Michaud. Écoutez, l’AFO est un partenaire clé de notre gouvernement et on les remercie d’être ici aujourd’hui.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I want to welcome two guests to the Legislature today: long-time North Bayite Greg Estabrooks and Jake Forsyth, both from YourTV in North Bay.

M. Gilles Bisson: Vous allez savoir, monsieur le Président, qu’on a l’opportunité et l’honneur d’avoir des jeunes d’à travers tout l’Ontario. Ils sont ici cette semaine pour le Parlement jeunesse francophone.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to welcome Qun Xu and Gang Tong from my riding of Markham–Unionville to the House today. They are the parents of Ricky Tong, who is today’s page captain. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Together with my colleague from Perth-Wellington, we’d like to welcome Susan Melkert and Nick Forte. Nick is the president and Susan is the ED of Family Services Perth-Huron.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I see we have folks here from the Durham family services organization. I see Stan MacLellan and Elizabeth Pierce. Welcome. We’ll see you at lunch for the reception.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Don Pitt, the executive director of the Family Counselling Centre in Sarnia–Lambton, at Queen’s Park today for the 10th annual family service day.

M me France Gélinas: Bien entendu, je veux souhaiter la bienvenue à tout le leadership de l’AFO qui sont ici aujourd’hui : Carol Jolin, Bryan Michaud et Peter Hominuk. Je veux également souhaiter la bienvenue à Brook Morneau, qui est de Nickel Belt et qui est ici pour le Parlement jeunesse francophone. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to introduce, in the members’ west gallery today, Casey Ready, who is executive director of the Community Counselling and Resource Centre in Peterborough, here for family service day.

Casey, we want to give you a warm welcome. Thank you so very much.

Mr. Jim Wilson: On behalf of York–Simcoe MPP Julia Munro, I want to welcome to the Legislature today Doug White and Anna Malcolm. Doug is the father and Anna is the grandmother of page captain Jaclyn White.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

M me Sophie Kiwala: J’aimerais bien faire l’accueil à deux étudiants, Mathieu Symons et puis Simon Denford, qui sont ici pour le Parlement jeunesse francophone.

I would also like to welcome to Queen’s Park Donna Forster, the executive director of Resolve Counselling Services in Kingston and the Islands. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to welcome this morning seven amazing girls from the London West Girls’ Government: Sara Enns, Olivia Floris, Adria Gioiosa, Kennedi Knoch, Venus Osmani, Amber Pridoehl and Eman Tanveer; as well as their chaperones, Michelle Enns, Rosanna Rossi-Gioiosa, Wilfrid Laurier student Mary Chamberlain, my constituency assistant Janan Dean, and Jaskiran Shoker, who is the OLIP intern in my office. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome Rob El-Sayed and Sharon Mayne Devine from Catholic Family Services in Brampton. They’re here today for family service day.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I wanted to introduce a couple of folks here from my riding of Etobicoke Centre. First of all, Speaker, I want to echo your welcome and welcome Donna Cansfield, who was my predecessor as the MPP for Etobicoke Centre and a strong supporter of mine.

Thank you, Donna.

I also wanted to welcome John and Cinna Faveri, who are constituents in my riding of Etobicoke Centre. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to welcome three hard-working civil servants from our provincial highways management division today: Lucy DeFrenza, Kristin Franks and Janet Leader. Enjoy your time at question period.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to recognize Brooklyn Kaiser, a student from my riding who is here for the French model Parliament. I want to welcome you to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome a friend of mine, Kim Harris, who is here to lobby us today for family services in Windsor and Essex county and across the province of Ontario.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome a good friend and the executive director of family services in Northumberland, Janet Irvine.

Mr. Arthur Potts: On behalf of my colleague the member from Scarborough Southwest, I’d like to welcome the family of page captain Bavan Pushpalingam: his mother, Sivaranjani Pushpalingam, and father, Pushpalingam Paramasivam. They’re in the west gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Mr. Robert Hickey, who is the executive director of Catholic Community Services of York Region, from my riding of Richmond Hill.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of the members of provincial Parliament from the Ottawa area, I want to welcome Kathryn Hill, who is the executive director of Family Services Ottawa.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome all the students from Dr. Ross Tilley Public School who are visiting Queen’s Park today, as well as Elizabeth Pierce and Stan MacLellan from Catholic Family Services of Durham. Welcome.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to take this opportunity to welcome everyone here who provides family services right across our province. Thank you for helping Ontarians stay strong. We appreciate all the work you do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery, we have today, as yesterday, a very close friend of mine and a regional director of the OFA, Larry Davis.

Thank you, Larry, for being here. I appreciate it.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the member for Huron–Bruce has notified the Clerk of her intention to file a notice of reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 203,

An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment. The order for second reading of Bill 203 may therefore not be called today.

The government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize Mr. Gerry Martiniuk, the former member of provincial Parliament from Cambridge, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

Gerry Martiniuk

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, it’s an honour to stand up in this House today to speak about former Cambridge member Gerry Martiniuk.

We are joined today by his family members, including his children Ivan, Andrew, Kirsten, and her spouse, Phil, and Seth; brother Robert and his spouse, Lynda; sister Rosemary and her spouse, Bill; his granddaughter Freya; sister-in-law Jennifer; brother-in-law John; and mother-in-law, Norma. We are also joined by his many nieces, nephews and great-nieces and great-nephews. I want to thank all of you for being here today to celebrate Gerry’s life and service to the Cambridge community.

Gerry was first elected in 1995 and served the people of Cambridge for 16 years. Before his election in 1995, Gerry was a municipal councillor, school trustee, alderman for Preston, and chairman of the Waterloo region police commission.

He was involved with St. John Ambulance, the Preston-Hespeler Rotary Club, the United Way of Cambridge, and he served as president of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce.

He gave so much energy and time to the people of Cambridge, and they appreciated him for that.

If not for Gerry, Cambridge wouldn’t have had the University of Waterloo School of Architecture downtown. This was a game changer for the city of Cambridge.

He passionately advocated for the expansion of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital. While in government, Gerry was also successful in convincing his government to increase the hospital’s base funding by 58%.

And after years of Cambridge family doctors not taking on new patients, Gerry spearheaded a task force to attract new physicians to the area.

At Queen’s Park, Gerry put forward a private member’s bill mandating a minimum number of doctors for communities across the province.

In the latter half of his career, Gerry was active in fighting for seniors. Whether it was increased meal funding for long-term-care homes or a higher quality of care, Gerry was there—and on that, we completely agree.

While preparing for this tribute, I had the opportunity to speak to Greg Durocher, CEO of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. He said this about Gerry:

“Gerry was one of those quiet and humble leaders. His passion was our Cambridge Memorial Hospital, and he fought on its behalf all during his tenure as Cambridge’s MPP.

“Gerry was one of those people who fiercely fought for issues he felt were genuine and important to the community. He was never a flashy person who could woo you with his words. He said what he believed, whether you did or not, and he would roll up his sleeves if need be or get an audience with the Queen if that was required.

“He loved people, he was kind-hearted and aside from his family, he put his community first. He was one of those people you loved to like and were proud to call a friend. I miss my friend Gerry.”

After his retirement from politics in 2011, Gerry was looking forward to getting his evenings and weekends back, reconnecting with his family and travelling. I sincerely hope he had the time to do all of those things.

Gerry described the job as all-consuming, acknowledging that as a member of provincial Parliament you have to sacrifice time with your family in order to pursue the goals of public service. Everyone in this House understands the sacrifice all too well.

On behalf of the entire NDP caucus and the people of Kitchener–Waterloo, I would like to thank the Martiniuk family for the sacrifices and the contributions they made to the people of Waterloo region during Gerry’s political life.

Gerry once said, “I happen to be a very obstinate man. That’s what my wife always said about me: ‘You’re one obstinate man.’”

In politics, that kind of determination is an admirable trait. It gets things done here at Queen’s Park. The people of Cambridge benefited from that determination.

It’s easy to see that Gerry’s dedication to the city of Cambridge produced a lasting legacy.

Thank you, Gerry Martiniuk, for your years of service to the people of Cambridge and Waterloo region and, indeed, the province of Ontario.

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

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’m honoured to rise today on behalf of the citizens of Cambridge to pay tribute to the late Gerry Martiniuk, who served as the MPP for Cambridge from 1995 to 2001. We are joined here today by a large number of Gerry’s family and friends. Your presence here is a true testament to the legacy he has left behind.

I remember last year’s memorial service at the church, and it was packed. I think there was standing room only, with lineups down the street to get in. Family, friends and community members joined together to honour his memory.

Gerry not only left a lasting impact on our guests here today, but also right here at Queen’s Park. It’s fitting that we should remember him right here in this place.

Gerry was raised in Toronto by his parents who had come to Canada from Ukraine. He was the oldest of three children. Among other places, he went to Osgoode Hall Law School. He moved to the former town of Preston in Cambridge and set up a law practice.

He married the love of his life, Christine, and raised four wonderful children, Ivan, Andrew, Kirsten and Seth. He lost his wife in 1988 to cancer, and I know he leaned on his family and his friends for support at that very difficult time. Gerry was a family man, immensely proud of his children, his grandchildren, his nieces and nephews and great-nieces and great-nephews, who are here today.

Gerry also became very active in the community that he adopted as his new home. He really caught the public service bug and he became a staple in local organizations, such as St. John Ambulance, the Preston-Hespeler Rotary Club, and the Trinity Community Table that served others who didn’t have enough food to eat in our community.

Gerry continued to serve our community and became a school trustee, then an alderman in the former town of Preston. He was chair of the Waterloo police commission and the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce.

Gerry decided to go forward and run as an MPP, and he did so in 1995. He became the MPP for Cambridge and went on to serve for four terms—no small measure for a man who was known so kindly around the community. During his 16 years, he was parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for native affairs and also to the Attorney General. He was also the critic for a number of key portfolios. But I would suggest that his proudest accomplishment was the passing of his private member’s bill—Ukraine Heritage Day is now celebrated proudly every September in Ontario, marking the anniversary of the first Ukrainian immigrants to Canada.

As an MPP, Gerry was a passionate advocate for the expansion of Cambridge Memorial Hospital, regularly taking petitions here to Queen’s Park from community members. When Cambridge had a shortage of doctors, he took action, as the member from Kitchener–Waterloo pointed out, and helped to establish the very successful doctor recruitment task force in Cambridge. He also worked with others to bring about the School of Architecture to the Galt core, which has been an economic driver to downtown Cambridge.

During the Harris government, he also helped prevent the amalgamation of Cambridge into a larger community, which is what his constituents had asked for. He also opposed the closing of Southwood Secondary School as the community was expanding. I’m pleased that was successful because my children are still attending Southwood Secondary School.

I met Gerry several times as an active volunteer in Cambridge. When I was president of Heritage Cambridge, he came in 2000 to help reopen the restored and historic Sheave Tower in the small village of Blair. He got to stand on the footbridge over Bowman Creek that day to address the crowd alongside other politicians in a beautiful wetland and dammed area. I was proud to have him there, with the rushing water underneath, and he came and told me later it was probably one of the finest and most unique experiences that he got to speak in front of as an MPP. I was very proud of that.

Gerry loved being part of the community and enjoyed his regular visits to the Portuguese Club—I see a lot of nods up there. I remember his enthusiasm when he heard what was on the menu at an event that I was attending as well. He loudly declared, “I love Portuguese stew,” which was on the menu.

Gerry was known as a kind man and a nice guy, but he also had a great sense of humour. His friend Linda, who sat with him at a particular event, said that at that event, Gerry leaned over and said in sort of a stage whisper, “So, that guy over there, he doesn’t look like he belongs here today. You know, he’s got jeans on and a couple of holes in his pants. Are you sure he’s supposed to be at this particular event?” Linda laughed and leaned over and said, “Gerry, that man there is Mike Lazaridis, one of the owners of RIM,” at which point Gerry didn’t miss a beat and he leaned back and said, “Oh. Do you think you can ask him if he could give me a free BlackBerry?”

I personally owe Gerry a debt of gratitude for showing me that politics really is about showing warmth and compassion for citizens. Although we wore different political stripes, we shared a common goal of doing our best for all those who we served each and every day. I saw how Gerry would listen to someone’s concerns, and there was never an issue that was too small or a challenge too big for him to tackle for those he served. He helped me to discover the kind of MPP that I wanted to become, and for that I remain grateful.

Mayor Doug Craig said that they worked together quite well and that he helped him to understand the mechanics of Queen’s Park politics, and that he would be very much missed.

If it’s not already clear to the House today, Gerry’s commitment to public service was unwavering.

To Gerry’s family and friends that are here today: We know that politics takes a toll on our families. We share in your loss today and we celebrate Gerry’s accomplishments. Our community of Cambridge lost a real light when Gerry left us, but the work that he did shines on today. Cambridge is a better place because of Gerry Martiniuk. We thank all of you for sharing Gerry with us. On behalf of the entire Liberal caucus here today, thank you for the gift of Gerry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tribute?

Mr. Michael Harris: It is a truly humbling honour to stand here today with the family, children, grandchildren, siblings, nieces and nephews of a man, a representative, a rebel, a father and a champion, whose lifelong dedication to public service for his community saw him serve at every elected level he could climb: former long-serving Cambridge MPP Gerry Martiniuk.

From public school trustee to Preston town alderman, to being elected four successive times as the MPP for Cambridge, the only thing that could stop him from winning elections was his own retirement. “My daddy always told me to make sure you retire when you’re a winner,” Gerry would later say. “But it’s been wonderful, and I’m somewhat reluctant to leave,” he added. Well, the people of Cambridge and those lucky enough to work with Gerry at Queen’s Park were very reluctant to see him leave as well.

The oldest of three children, raised in Toronto by parents who had emigrated from Ukraine, Gerry was a self-described rebel without a cause in his developing years. By the time he got to Cambridge as a Preston lawyer, that label soon changed to a rebel with many causes, as he began his lifelong work to champion the needs of those he represented: the people—his people—of Cambridge.

That said, Speaker, while testimonials to Gerry’s dedication to his community could fill a book, it was a

chapter before he left his Toronto home that provided the backdrop for every page. As Gerry took his first early steps into political life, it was a chance meeting with a fellow Conservative campaigner that set the path he would follow from Toronto to Cambridge and back again, when he first set eyes on the future mother of his children, the love of his life, his wife, Christine. Of course, that was just the start, Speaker, of a long and wonderful relationship that saw Gerry and Christine raise four children—Ivan, Kirsten, Seth and Andrew—all following their parents’ lead as campaign co-workers in what Gerry ensured was always a family-and-friend affair.

All of us here as MPPs understand the sacrifice and the toll it takes on family as we work to effectively represent the people of our communities, but Gerry was somehow able to bridge the divide between public and family life and bring the two together through his unquestioned dedication to both.

Daughter Kirsten was telling me how having a dad at Queen’s Park was actually a bonus because, in Gerry’s case, given his extended family still residing in the GTA, he never missed an opportunity to bring the family together for a trip to Toronto. The frequent visits with Dad meant weekly dinners at the Legislature, get-togethers with family and a chance to soak in all that a Cambridge kid could absorb under those big-city lights.

Before every election, it was back to door-knocking and putting together signs with Dad, while he shook hands with each and every fellow Cambridge resident he met. He’d get into such a handshaking routine, the kids would catch him reaching out his hand to shake theirs after a long day on the campaign trail.

When he wasn’t working with his family, he was here in this House working his tail off for his community— because those were his passions: his family and the people of Cambridge. He didn’t do it for the headlines and he didn’t do it for the titles. No, Speaker, beginning with his election in the Harris sweep and Common Sense Revolution of 1995, and through successive victories in 1999, 2003 and 2007, Gerry dedicated his work to the people of Cambridge.

As former leader Tim Hudak once observed, “Gerry was never one to pose for the cameras or raise his voice to opponents. Instead, his approach was to roll up his sleeves and get the job done.” And if that meant standing up to those in his own party as a true representative of his people, he wouldn’t hesitate. He stood up and fought for what he believed was right and, as his campaign slogan reminds us, “Gerry Got Results.” His principled stand led the Waterloo Record to label him a “pit bull” when it came to defending Cambridge interests.

Even in his years as MPP, as most communities around him were being identified for amalgamation under the Harris government, Gerry stood up to play a major role in preventing further Cambridge amalgamation.

His dedication to secure both provincial and federal funding to bring the University of Waterloo School of Architecture to the Galt core was matched only by his push to change the funding rules when the U of W project did not initially meet the criteria.

Then there was the expansion of Cambridge Memorial Hospital, the heart of his community and the birthplace of his children. Gerry didn’t let up until those that both he and the hospital served—his friends, neighbours and his constituents—received news that their expansion dream would become a reality.

As the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce president, Greg Durocher, has noted, “Gerry was probably the biggest and best champion the city of Cambridge has ever had for our hospital.” He was a champion who, following the hospital’s expansion, worked to further ensure that health care was accessible and available for Cambridge families, as he dedicated himself through a private member’s bill and other efforts to guarantee minimum numbers of doctors for communities.

In the years before he finally opted to hang up his skates ahead of the 2011 election, Gerry continued to fight for his community, introducing bills to strengthen tobacco laws for minors, require diabetes monitoring in schools and allow the disabled to use guide dogs in public, an initiative I’m proud to say I’ve continued on Gerry’s behalf as access continues to be denied.

In his final year of service, Gerry left a lasting legacy to his community in working to establish September 7 as Ukrainian Heritage Day here in the province. The recognition marked 120 years of the first arrivals of Ukrainian immigrants to Canada—a good number of them settling down, of course, in Cambridge. After 15 years at Queen’s Park, his reputation for getting results was so ingrained that his successor, former MPP Rob Leone, who’s with us here today, told me that two years later Cambridge residents were continuing to call up Rob’s office thinking Gerry was still in the Legislature fighting on their behalf.

Unfortunately, last May, almost 30 years after losing the love of his life to cancer, Gerry fought his final battle with the same disease. We are all poorer for the loss.

Today I join with members of every political stripe, including our Ontario PC caucus, to thank the Martiniuk family—those generations here and those Martiniuks to come—for sharing in Gerry’s legacy and reminding us of the principles we are all here to represent at Queen’s Park: our families, our people, our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Transportation on a point of order.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you, Speaker. I just wanted to correct my record. At the beginning of my tribute, I said that he was elected from 1995 to 2001. I meant to say “2011.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank all members for their very heartfelt and kind words on behalf of their caucuses to the Martiniuk family and on behalf of Gerry.

I want to also indicate to you that I considered Gerry a friend above all. I got to know him and meet with him from time to time, and I can only tell you that your words pay respect and homage to a man who was enjoyed by everybody.

To the family: Thank you for the gift of Gerry. We would also like to provide the family with a copy of the Hansard and a DVD to show you our affection for Gerry. That will come to you later on.

Oral Questions

Hospital services

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier.

Sadly, all of us in the Legislature are aware of the tragedy involving Stuart Cline. Stuck in Mexico, he was unable to fly home because there were no hospital beds available in Ontario.

On Monday, the Premier said that there were dozens of available intensive care beds in southern Ontario. She said that that was including 31 in Toronto, 34 in Hamilton-Niagara and 16 in the southwest. The Premier blamed the insurance company.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier admit that this was her government’s failure and stop trying to pass the buck?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

I just want to take a second because it’s near International Women’s Day and I just noticed that a Somali mothers’ group came in, and I want to acknowledge them. These are women who have lost their sons, their children, in violent incidents, and I want to acknowledge them and thank them for working with us to find solutions.

Mr. Speaker, back to the question from the member opposite: This was a tragedy; there’s no doubt about that. I have acknowledged that—and my deepest condolences to the family and friends of this gentleman. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for them.

What I said in answer to the question earlier in the week was that there are questions about the breakdown in communication between the insurance company and the health care system. I’ll come back to that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: This government’s explanation doesn’t hold water. Let me read you a quote:

“Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition, told CBC’s London Morning program Tuesday: ‘I’m not buying that at all.’

“Mehra said the truth is, despite what the Premier said in the Legislature, virtually every large hospital in Ontario that can deal with complex illnesses is running at 100% capacity or higher.

“‘London is often running way higher than 100%. That means every bed is full.’”

The real problem is that the Liberals have eliminated too many hospital beds.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier blame the insurance company for this government’s cuts and closed hospital beds?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, we have repeatedly acknowledged that opening 1,200 new beds was necessary because there is a challenge, particularly at this time of year when the flu season is upon us. We have opened 1,200 new beds. That’s the equivalent of six community hospitals.

We recognize that there is more that needs to be done, but the fact is that at the time of this situation, there were those dozens of beds available around the province. All I’m saying to the member opposite and the comment I’m making on this situation is that there were beds available. There was an insurance company that was apparently working to find those beds. What was the disconnect, Mr. Speaker? We need to get to the bottom of that because obviously there was something that was lost in the translation between what the insurance company was seeing and what was happening in the system, because the beds were available.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: This government has been in power for 15 sad years. This isn’t anyone else’s fault. This is squarely in the hands—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: No, you’re still over there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Etobicoke North, come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order. And that inched me towards warnings.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: This isn’t anyone else’s fault. This is squarely in the hands of the Liberal government.

Natalie Mehra added, “Last week, the new health minister said there hadn’t been any hospital cuts. Clearly, she has no idea what she’s talking about. Ontario has cut more hospital beds than any other province in Canada.”

They haven’t listened for 15 years.

No one should have to go through what Stuart Cline’s family is going through ever again, Speaker.

Will they come clean and admit this government has cut hospital beds to a crisis level?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: The member opposite’s attempt to conflate the hospital overcrowding issue, which we acknowledge—we obviously have acknowledged that. That’s why we have increased beds by some 1,200, the equivalent of six medium-sized hospitals. We made that announcement in the fall. To conflate that with this particularly tragic event is not doing anyone a service. Not only were there beds available, but in respect to this particular individual’s neurological deficits, there were four neurocritical-care beds at Toronto Western Hospital absolutely there to look after this individual.

Should the physician discussion between the physicians in Mexico, the physicians here—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now we’re a millimetre away from warnings.

One wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: So to conclude, the beds were available. We need to work on improved communication in these repatriation situations.

Service fees

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier.

We know that life is more expensive under this Liberal government. They nickel and dime the people of Ontario every single chance they get. Yesterday, the Financial Accountability Officer highlighted yet another example. The province forecasts that it will collect $2.9 billion in service fees in 2017-18. That’s an increase of 8% over the previous year and up from the average annual increase every year of 6.5% between 2011 and 2017. That’s 45% more revenue from fees since 2011.

Is there not a fee this government won’t raise to make life more expensive?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the member opposite for his question.

It’s important for us to thank the Financial Accountability Officer for his report. We work very closely. We value and appreciate the ongoing relationship we have with the FAO. We work closely on a wide variety of issues, and service fees are an important part of that. They provide a means of ensuring that the costs of programs and services Ontarians want and need most are covered and that those who benefit from the services pay those service fees.

But it’s a balance. Achieving that appropriate balance of cost recovery and affordability is exactly what we are doing. In fact, I understand that recently the Auditor General applauded those efforts. I know the member opposite is concerned about that kind of affordability issue and so are we. That’s why we continue to work very closely and productively with the FAO, and we thank him very much for his work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: This year the Liberals introduced five new fees and, in addition to those new fees, the Liberals increased the rates of 90 existing fees. They range from hunting and fishing licences to driving and registration fees. On the whole, the rate increases were significantly above the rate of consumer price inflation. Simply put, life continues to get more expensive under this Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, they usually rob Peter to pay Paul, and Paul is usually a Liberal insider. Why do they feed their spending addiction on the backs of Ontario families?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock. I’m listening carefully, and it’s tiptoeing towards an unparliamentary accusation. So I’m going to warn the member: Instead of doing anything else, stay away from there.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It was a nice tiptoe though.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark, come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: The Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We are reviewing the findings of this report, to make sure that Ontarians are getting value for money. It’s about fairness, Speaker, and opportunities to work across the province to make life more affordable for the people of our great province.

I was very pleased to see that the report pointed out that 66% of service fees are set well below operating costs, making these services more affordable for Ontarians.

I was also pleased to see that the Auditor General’s report, one back in 2009, indicated that Ontario service fees per capita are amongst the lowest in Canada. My understanding is that that continues today. Also, in 2013, the Auditor General stated that of course the government should recover costs where reasonable and practical to do so. The ministry filed an updated report on that just last year, and we continue to focus on ensuring that Ontarians are getting good value for their money for the services they need. We will continue to work closely with the Auditor General on this.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: The independent Financial Accountability Officer noted that the annual Ontario budget includes a forecast for service fee revenue, but it does not provide a comprehensive list of planned service fee rate changes. We know that their fees will go up. History always repeats itself, and the Liberals are always looking for more money to spend.

With the election just months away, they will take every dollar they can—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. We are now in warnings.

Finish.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, with an election just months away, the Liberals will take every dollar they can to make more announcements.

Will the government provide a list of all their fee and rate hikes? The people of Ontario deserve to know just how much more money this government is taking out of their pockets.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: The reality is that across government, we’ve been eliminating fees as we move to more online services. In fact, there are 40 online services available to Ontarians today. This spring, people will be able to renew their driver’s licence and health care cards online. That will save money and make the programs more accessible and convenient for consumers in Ontario.

In my ministry alone, we have been holding a number of fee increases for almost 20 years.

As the President of the Treasury Board pointed out, there is a balancing act and there is a need to look at cost recovery. We are looking at this report, but I can assure members of the House that Ontarians are getting good value for money, and we will continue to work hard to make sure that happens.

Cardiac care

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. London’s Cardiac Fitness Institute is a long-term cardiac rehab program slated to close at the end of this month. London CFI patients have told me that if they had not enrolled in the program after their heart attack, they would not be here today. Not only does CFI help patients recover from a cardiac event, it helps them maintain their health, with support from health care providers and other patients who know exactly what they are going through.

The Premier and her Minister of Health have defended the closure of the CFI, saying that six months of cardiac rehab is all that is needed, that there is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Speaker, does the Premier stand by this explanation—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Municipal Affairs is warned.

Finish your question, please.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Does the Premier stand by this explanation, this defence of the closure of the CFI?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member opposite for the question.

I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to comment on the specifics of the program, but let me just say this, Mr. Speaker: It is extremely important, given that the health care system, I think, is the finest expression of our values as a province—and that’s a non-partisan statement. I think all of us believe that the health care system that supports everyone is an expression of Ontario values, of Canadian values, that it needs to be fair and accessible to everyone and that it needs to do the very best job, to have the highest quality in every single sector, whatever the illness, whatever the condition of patients is.

It also has to be based on evidence. We have to use evidence to inform the practices in our health care system. Otherwise, we are cut adrift, and there’s a randomness that really will make health care unsustainable. So we are using evidence to the best of our ability and—

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, not only is there British evidence to prove otherwise, but yesterday media reported on a recent Ontario study that says the more cardiac rehab care that patients receive after a cardiac incident, the longer they live. The study was about Healthy Hearts, a cardiac care program in Goderich that was modelled after the CFI. The researcher who conducted the study said the London cardiac rehab program “should be placed on a pedestal instead of being torn down.”

Why is the Premier tearing down a program that has helped so many Londoners, prevented use of our critical care system and inspired groundbreaking scientific research?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Our government is absolutely committed to ensuring that patients in Ontario receive the high-quality health care—including in this case rehabilitative care—that they expect and deserve.

As the Premier has said, we are a government that absolutely believes in evidence-based decision-making. We are the government that introduced measuring outcomes, which, quite honestly, was not done in the past at all.

The London Health Sciences Centre has made the decision to end patient referrals to the Cardiac Fitness institute, but we’re absolutely confident that patients in London will continue to receive cardiac rehabilitation care through the program at St. Joseph’s Health Care London. St. Joseph’s, as I’m sure the member opposite knows, specializes in rehabilitative care. It’s exactly the right place where these patients should be receiving the care they need.

There will also be services available that will continue to be offered through the Cardiac Rehab and Secondary Prevention Program that is also available in London.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Bill Anderson is a World War II veteran who turns 96 this week. He will be heading to northern Ontario next week to celebrate his birthday fly-fishing with his friends. He told media that he has been in the Healthy Hearts program for 21 years after suffering two heart attacks and that he probably wouldn’t be here today without it. There are many, many Londoners who feel exactly the same way about the CFI.

Speaker, the evidence is there to support the continuation of the CFI program. Why is the Premier not there with the funding necessary to keep this life-saving, life-changing program running at London Health Sciences Centre?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We’re certainly going to be working very hard on the transition of patients to St. Joseph’s.

In terms of the scientific evidence, we are saying six months of cardiac rehabilitation. It’s actually a fact that the Mayo Clinic only recommends three months, the American Heart Association recommends three months, and across the province we provide six months.

Now, is it always important to increase physical activity, to have a healthy lifestyle? Absolutely, going forward.

The member opposite did reference the Goderich Healthy Hearts program. This is a program in Goderich that is run by the YMCA—a much more appropriate setting than an acute-care hospital. This is something that is funded on an ongoing basis, not by government but by the participants in the program. This is entirely appropriate. This is post-acute cardiac rehab. This is the way we should go in terms of consolidating services at St. Joseph’s.

School safety

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier.

Rachel is an educational assistant at the Waterloo Catholic District School Board. She contacted my office because she’s very worried about the violence that she sees in the school where she works. In fact, she has experienced violence herself many times. In the most recent incident, her hair was ripped from her scalp and she received a head-butt to the side of the face from a student.

Premier, this is not an isolated incident but rather evidence that schools need more resources and more people in the classroom so that students get the one-on-one attention that they need.

Why is the Premier refusing to give educational assistants like Rachel the support they need to support our students and keep our classrooms safe?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the member opposite for this very important question.

Violence in our schools is absolutely unacceptable. I have to tell you that I have been having many conversations about this. I want people out there in our province to know that this is something we take very seriously. It is absolutely a priority when it comes to our education system. I don’t need to tell anyone here that our schools need to be safe, inclusive and welcoming places, that we have been listening and we are very aware that there is a challenge here that we need to face and we need to address.

That’s why, this year, we have moved forward with an additional $223 million targeted for additional teachers and education workers. This is to support special education and other staffing priorities. This is just one step that I’m telling you about, but I want you to know that there are a number of different pieces that we’re moving forward with because we know it’s a priority and we’re going to make our schools safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Minister, nine out of 10 teachers have experienced or witnessed violence or harassment in their classrooms—nine out of 10. For years, teachers in my community have shared their growing concerns about the workplace stress that they and their students experience on a daily basis.

Rachel told me that she has lost sleep because of the violence she has seen and experienced. She worries about the next school day. She worries about the kids that she works with and knows that, without more individual help, some of them are not heading for success.

What is the Premier’s plan? What is this government’s plan to make sure that every child and educator in Ontario can go to school without fear of violence in their classrooms?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Once again, I want to thank the member opposite for this question.

Once again, I want to say: Actually, we are working on a plan. Frankly, we’re working on plans on many different levels. As soon as we recognized that there were tools and resources that were needed, we moved forward with $223 million. But we didn’t stop there. In fact, we are continuing to look at this issue. We have a working group on health and safety. I’m working with the Minister of Labour on this because we recognize we need to put those supports in place. We’re not just talking about the issues and challenges out there; we are actually on the ground, every day, doing everything we can.

Here are some of the things we’re doing: We moved forward with an additional $6 million to create new and expanded programming to support staff. We are looking, as part of our working group, at expanding access to information, enhancing the Ministry of Labour’s role, and streamlining reporting requirements. All of these pieces are pieces that teachers and support workers told us they need.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, the plans need to be funded and the funds need to be enveloped for the classroom, Minister. That needs to happen in this province.

This Liberal government’s track record when it comes to our public schools is highly questionable. Ontario schools are facing a backlog of $15 billion in capital in maintaining the infrastructure that we’ve already invested in.

Parents are stressed, because they are not seeing the resources, particularly for special education children. Workplace stress is up, and it is impacting the learning environment. Learning conditions are working conditions in our education system.

This government’s failure to review the education funding formula as promised has resulted in a system that is stressed for our students, for our staff and for our parents.

Why is this Premier not prioritizing public education in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Once again, I want to make it very clear that we take this seriously, that violence in our schools is unacceptable and that we are working on many different levels, not on just one level, in order to make sure that we’re putting the supports in place. We’re putting in supports right now. We’re looking at the other supports that we need by working with the Ministry of Labour on health and safety in the classroom. I have a working group on this that I’m talking to, and I speak to people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap up, please.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that we are putting historic amounts of money into our school system, because we understand how important it is to create safe learning environments.

Opioid abuse

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Speaker, Ontario is in the grips of an opioid crisis. Hundreds of families have lost loved ones, and thousands struggle with addiction. This government has been too slow in addressing the public health emergency we have before us.

Now we know the sad results. This morning, the government attempted to bury the new opioid statistics in a news release. The release shows a 52% increase in opioid-related deaths and a 70% increase in ER visits from opioids year over year. This government was slow to respond to the crisis, and it shows in the stats.

Since the former Minister of Health failed to timely respond to this crisis, will the new Minister of Health respond to this crisis in a more expedient manner?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I think we should acknowledge that every life lost in this opioid crisis is an avoidable tragedy, and our government is committed, and has been committed for some considerable time, to doing everything in our power to combat this public health crisis.

We are investing over $222 million over three years to combat this crisis here in Ontario, and we’re going across the spectrum. We’re expanding harm reduction services, hiring more front-line staff and improving access to addiction supports across the province.

In our news release this morning, we of course stated the latest statistics from our Chief Coroner, and these are certainly most alarming. There were some 1,053 opioid-related deaths in Ontario from January to October 2017, compared with 694 during the same time period in 2016. This does represent a 52%—

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: This crisis has been on the radar in western Canada for years, yet this government chose not to take preventive measures to protect Ontarians from the dangers of opioids. Both the government and the previous health minister have clearly failed to properly address this crisis.

Speaker, Global’s Alan Carter notes that there is a significant lag time in reporting the data. Other jurisdictions, including BC, report much more recent data. The government’s reported opioid death numbers are out of date and incomplete.

My question is to the minister. Can she explain why the numbers they provide are so out of date compared to other jurisdictions, and why there is such a lag time between reporting this crucial information?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Actually, I really resent this particular allegation, because it’s absolutely not correct. I met with the Chief Coroner yesterday. Obviously the statistics are extremely accurate, and, indeed, they are alarming.

That’s precisely why my predecessor, on October 4, 2017, announced the creation of a new opioid emergency task force, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario. They are meeting regularly. I also met with the Chief Medical Officer of Health. They are having a strategy that will address each component of this particular issue.

It’s very much wrapped up with our mental health and addictions strategy, as well. Obviously, any opportunities to prevent the mental health issues that may potentially lead to addiction are extremely important, but we’re also introducing overdose prevention sites. The member opposite will start to see—I’m sure he’s aware of the one that we opened in London recently.

I just would like to question why on earth the members opposite were completely silent on supervised injection sites, harm reduction—and nothing in their platform on opioids.

Interjections.

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

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Michael Mantha: Ma question est pour la première ministre. On February 25, Highway 17, the Trans-Canada Highway, was closed from Wawa to White River. Highway 101, between Wawa and Chapleau, was also closed because there weren’t enough snowplows available. Too many had broken down and the contractor just wasn’t fixing them.

I received a call from Sue Cauchy, a Chapleau resident, describing her ordeal regarding the conditions, and her thankfulness for being alive. I spoke to her again this morning, Premier, and she talked about an incident yesterday, again, where she was begging the OPP to contact the service provider with salt, plows and sand on the roads.

Ross Joyce from Manitoulin Island contacted me last night describing an incident that his wife had experienced on roads on Manitoulin Island.

Premier, enough is enough. When is this government going to fix the winter road maintenance program in northern Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you very much for the question today on a very important issue, which is winter maintenance. We’re continuing to work hard to ensure that the roads and highways that families rely on right across Ontario are safe and well maintained to a high standard. Our winter highway maintenance action plan is improving driving conditions each winter.

We’ve taken strong actions by improving the Ontario 511 website, including a new forecasted road conditions feature, and launching Track My Plow in all 20 contract areas. I would suggest to the member that he gives that information to his constituents.

We’ve increased the use of anti-icing liquids before winter storms—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: We’ve provided more equipment in key locations, including another 52 pieces of equipment in northern Ontario, to ensure that our roads are kept clear.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Je retourne à la première ministre. The private contractor, Broadspectrum, which used to be known as Transfield before changing its name after a shocking human rights scandal, has racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties for poor performance in Sault Ste. Marie and the Algoma area.

Last week, near Hornepayne, on Highway 631, the contractor put a snowplow on the road even though it had been tagged as unsafe. There was a mechanical failure. The wing of the plow ended up hitting the cab of the truck. The Ministry of Labour was called in for an investigation.

A change in name does not change the fact that a private contractor like Broadspectrum cares only about profit, not the safety of drivers, employees or the public.

When will the Premier and this government return winter road maintenance into public hands?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you very much, Speaker. Our number one priority is to ensure that we’ve got good-working-order equipment, as well as making sure that the number of plows that we need on the roads continue—the contracting industry has delivered winter maintenance successfully for many years, and our shared priority, again, remains road safety. The ministry is continuing to work with the contracting industry over the last several years to ensure that our maintenance services are sustainable and leading to the best results for the travelling public.

As a result, we’ve seen that a number of improvements to winter maintenance services have been made in recent years, and moving forward with any new contracts, we’re introducing further improvements to keep our roads safe.

As Minister of Transportation, it is my number one priority to ensure that the travelling public can get home to their families safely each and every day. We’ll continue to work with our contractors to ensure that all their equipment is up to date and that we continue to provide the services that we need to.

International trade

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is for the Minister of International Trade.

Minister, as part of the Ministry of International Trade’s Global Trade Strategy, diversification of trading partners and the goods and services which Ontario trades is essential to the future prosperity of our province.

The initial steps of exporting can be intimidating. With that in mind, Ontario has created export service seminars which help potential, new and experienced exporters to identify markets of opportunity and help guide businesses in the development of market-entry strategies. These workshops have been influential in growing Ontario’s global footprint, identifying new markets and building partnerships across the world.

On Thursday, the Ministry of International Trade is teaming up with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business to host an indigenous-owned-business export capacity-building event.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please share with the House some information on this groundbreaking event?

Hon. Michael Chan: The member from Northumberland–Quinte West is correct. Tomorrow we are hosting an exporting services event for indigenous-owned businesses.

Indigenous-owned businesses are staples of Ontario’s economy. Because of Ontario’s global market diversification efforts, these seminars are timely and important. Thursday’s seminar will deliver customized information to help indigenous-owned businesses expand their global footprint. The member from Willowdale and I will attend the event.

Tomorrow afternoon, indigenous panelists from across Ontario will also speak about their experiences, successes and obstacles in exporting. The excitement surrounding the event gives me confidence that there is much more to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Minister, for your answer.

Ontario’s economy is in a position of strength. In the last year, we’ve created 128,400 jobs. Our employment rate of 5.5% is the lowest in 17 years, and under the national average for 33 months straight. We are leading the G7 in real GDP.

Our government is committed to fairness and opportunity for all Ontarians and wants to ensure that all communities are able to fully participate in Ontario’s strong economy.

This event is just one of a number of ways our government is supporting indigenous economic development.

Could the minister tell us more about how this event fits into our government’s broader efforts to support indigenous participation in Ontario’s strong and growing economy?

Hon. Michael Chan: Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: International trade is obviously vital to Ontario’s economy. It’s an important part of growth for businesses of all types. In that regard I can tell you, Speaker, that indigenous partners—many of them—have expressed to me their interest in export opportunities. They want to improve trade literacy among indigenous businesses.

In that regard, the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business reports that most indigenous businesses in Ontario have shown a strong improvement in profitability and revenue since 2010. It’s this growth that indicates an opportunity to benefit by aboriginal businesses accessing alternative and larger markets and hence international trade. Through events like this, as well as initiatives like our $650-million Aboriginal Loan Guarantee Program and the $95 million for the Indigenous Economic Development Fund, we are supporting meaningful indigenous opportunities in international trade.

Police services

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Bill 175 will be reported back to the House today after only a few short hours of debate at committee and despite serious concerns expressed by stakeholders, especially our police associations. But this government is hell-bent on ramming this bill through, forcing a time allocation motion that cut off debate on opposition amendments in committee and gave us only an hour to debate it at third reading. This is yet another example of this government’s lack of respect for the democratic process and the members of this House.

But what’s even worse is the government’s attack on our hard-working police officers and civilian staff.

Why has this government chosen to completely ignore the very serious concerns expressed by our police associations with Bill 175?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I thank the member for her question because it allows me to talk about the Safer Ontario Act, which represents the largest transformation to Ontario’s policing and community safety in more than 25 years. If this bill is passed, it will create stronger, safer communities where people get the services they need, when and where they need them most.

This is not a last-minute project. Actually, it has been five years in the making. We have consulted across the province for our strategy for a safer Ontario across our—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been working very closely with our community partners, listening to their ideas—

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

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: —and concerns in order to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I stand; you sit. The reason why you’re not seeing me stand is that you’re not addressing the Chair, which is what you’re supposed to do.

Supplementary.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Back to the minister: The fact is, your government tabled around 250 amendments to its own bill at committee yesterday. And guess what? Almost none of them address the substantive concerns addressed by our police associations.

Rob Jamieson, president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, couldn’t have been clearer about what he thought of the government’s legislation when he tweeted, “Another anti-law-enforcement amendment.... It is hard to believe how much this government despises our profession.” “Despises,” Mr. Speaker: That’s a pretty strong word.

My question to the minister is, why won’t this government just admit what Bill 175 really is: a symbol of their distrust of and disrespect for Ontario’s police officers?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s never too late to get a warning.

Minister.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think what it demonstrates to the House and to all our stakeholders that we have engaged in past years is that we are listening. That’s why, as we have listened throughout the community process, we knew that the introduction of this bill—and I’ve always been very clear—was never the finish line—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Minister.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: People spoke passionately during those conversations. As I said, this is not the finish line. This is the beginning of our journey in creating a—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga is warned. If I hear another comment, I might go to naming.

Carry on.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: So, Mr. Speaker, this is the beginning: the beginning of our modernization to the first time where you will have a community safety and well-being plan and where First Nations policing will have access to opt in on our Police Services Act.

Ambulance services

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. Hospitals in Hamilton are dangerously overcrowded because of this Premier’s cuts. Patients are being treated in hallways, and now, the number of times when ambulances aren’t available is skyrocketing. In January, we had 31 code zeros, when there is only one ambulance or none at all ready for calls in our entire city. It’s the highest monthly level in five years, and it’s completely unacceptable. People who need an ambulance shouldn’t have to worry that there won’t be ambulances available when they need help.

Why is this Premier doing nothing to stop the code zeros in Hamilton and to make sure ambulances are always available when people need them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We certainly understand and absolutely recognize just how critical ambulances are in providing urgent care to patients who are most in need. In fact, in my former capacity as the commissioner of health services in York region, I was charged with the responsibility for our emergency medical services there.

That’s why, of course, the province has provided 100% of funding for dedicated nurses to receive ambulance patients and get them into appropriate care in hospital as quickly as possible as part of the dedicated off-load nurses program. This year we’re providing $1.4 million to the city of Hamilton for nursing teams dedicated to quick and efficient off-loading of patients when they arrive at our busiest hospitals. We have an excellent partnership with the city of Hamilton, with Hamilton EMS and our hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, our city is growing. Our population is aging. There is a growing demand for health care services and ambulances, but this government has cut over $120 million from Hamilton Health Sciences. Patients are being treated in hallways, and paramedics, who do amazing work every day, are waiting at hospitals instead of responding to calls. Councillors in my city are calling on this government to start funding the new ambulance services that we need. It’s time for this government to stop cutting Hamilton’s hospitals, provide the funding that our hospitals need and stop the off-load delays for ambulances in our city.

Why is this Premier refusing to listen to the people of Hamilton and fix the problems that her cuts have created?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I don’t understand where the member opposite is getting her numbers from. Obviously we work very closely with the local LHIN, and in this year’s budget, we provided Hamilton Health Sciences with nearly $17 million in increased funding. They have received 33 additional beds and St. Joe’s community health centre has received a further 35 additional beds to increase access to hospital care throughout Hamilton.

Just last week, I was in Hamilton to announce the 128 new long-term-care beds for the people of Hamilton. This is going to assist in terms of moving alternative-level-of-care patients into the long-term-care system.

We are in close communication with our paramedic services partners and will continue to work closely with hospital partners to remain attuned to their needs and determine how best to provide ongoing support for them now and into the future.

Women’s issues

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Labour.

Minister, gender-based violence is far too widespread in our society. It is never acceptable and it is never okay. Everyone in this province deserves to feel safe in their homes, in their schools and in their workplaces. I’m proud that our government has recently announced the important investment of $242 million into Ontario’s Gender-Based Violence Strategy.

However, our government is not new at taking action on gender-based violence. In 2016, we established Ontario’s sexual violence and harassment action plan, which went further than ever before to protect our workers. That plan established a dedicated enforcement team that exclusively responds to complaints of sexual harassment. In the first year, it investigated over 1,400 complaints. We are sending a clear message that this will not be tolerated.

Minister, what are you and your ministry doing to ensure that women feel safe—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member from Barrie for this incredibly important question.

Everybody in this province should be able to go to work knowing they’ll be safe in that workplace and that they’re going to return home safe at the end of the day. That’s why I’m so proud this government continued our commitment to addressing gender-based violence when we passed Bill 148. What we did was create a new and separate job-protected leave for those who are affected by domestic violence and sexual violence. Those people will now get 17 weeks of leave, and five of those days are paid.

It’s incredibly important that survivors and their families have the time and the support they need while they deal with tremendously difficult circumstances. This leave affords them that time. It’s hard to comprehend how the Conservatives in this House could vote against that legislation; how they could deny their constituents—the men, the women and the families—who need this protection. Speaker, they should be ashamed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister. When I look around the Legislature, I’m very proud to see so many women working hard for their communities and for Ontario. I’m proud and humbled to represent so many incredible women from my riding of Barrie.

Women are present in all industries and sectors across this province. However, despite our participation throughout the workforce, barriers remain—barriers that prevent full participation by women in the workforce. Most notably, women continue to earn 30% less on average than men. The gap is larger for racialized women, and even larger for women with disabilities.

It’s time to close the gender wage gap. It is time for a comprehensive plan that recognizes economic empowerment isn’t a quick fix and isn’t a one-size-fits-all.

Minister, what are you doing to close the gender wage gap?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you again to the member from Barrie.

For the past four years, we’ve brought together stakeholders. They come from advocacy groups, labour organizations, human resources and business. We consulted with the public. We wanted to know how to move forward on the gender wage gap, and we’ve already made progress.

Yesterday we announced the next step: pay transparency legislation, groundbreaking legislation. It’s going to remove barriers to women and girls’ full participation in the economy. I’m appalled that the party opposite again does not think that this is a priority. They’re trying to delay the debate on this important legislation. They’re trying to delay closing the gender wage gap. The women in all ridings across this province deserve better. The women of Ontario deserve better. We’re building a better Ontario, a fairer Ontario. They should be ashamed.

Forest industry

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. The regulatory framework governing Ontario’s forestry sector is set to expire at the end of June. Thousands of jobs are on the line in northern Ontario. Many northern communities, including many First Nations, rely on these forestry jobs. In January, the MNRF finally recognized that they had failed to adequately consult with municipalities and First Nations. The minister is now proposing a two-year extension of the current framework so they can consult with stakeholders.

My question, Mr. Speaker: What has the government been doing for the past five years? Why did they wait until the eleventh hour before they even began consulting, never mind acting, to save these jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: Thank you for the question.

Actually, we are very pleased with this two-year delay that is there to set up an advisory panel to find concrete solutions to the problem. I’ve had the occasion to speak to the forest industry, and they are actually quite encouraged by the ability to continue to work to resolve the issue between the Endangered Species Act and forest development.

Forestry is important to Ontario. It leads to good jobs. It’s important to the north. But it’s also important to recognize that we need biodiversity and we need to protect our endangered species. Forestry is on board with this. They do want to ensure that forestry continues to reflect well and protect the biodiversity of Ontario. We are quite confident that this panel will provide very concrete, pragmatic solutions to resolve the debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary? The member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the minister: Many forestry companies in Ontario are owned by First Nations communities in need of economic development. Indigenous people in Ontario need jobs close to home in their communities. How can First Nations plan for the future of their communities if they don’t know how their forestry companies will be regulated?

Comments on extending the current regulatory framework were accepted up until this past week, March 5, less than four months before the current framework expires.

Mr. Speaker, if the government claims to care about the interests of indigenous people, why on earth, then, are they making it harder for First Nations to create sustainable jobs?

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: Indeed, I think the commitment of indigenous communities to continuing to work with the ministry and work on this panel to find the appropriate solutions, to reconcile the Endangered Species Act with good forest management, is clear. It’s there. I think this panel that will be working for the next two years will allow us to provide some concrete solutions to resolve the debate.

Certainly I think the jobs that are at stake are protected in this context. The indigenous communities are part of this panel. They will be consulted. It is indeed important that we recognize that we want to resolve the problems for good. We need to have the Endangered Species Act applying to forestry, or solutions that actually recognize that we need the balance between protecting our biodiversity and ensuring economic development for the north and for indigenous communities.

Student mental health services

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. This morning I welcomed to this Legislature seven grade 8 girls from London who are here as the London West Girls’ Government to advocate for a provincial youth suicide prevention strategy. One of their main recommendations is a mandatory K-to-12 mental health curriculum supported by age-appropriate, evidence-based resources and teacher PD.

Gail Lalonde, mental health lead for the Thames Valley District School Board, says, “The girls are forcing educators and policy-makers to confront a gap in the system.”

A mandatory mental health curriculum would ensure consistency across all Ontario schools in how mental wellness skills are taught.

Will the Premier listen to these girls and implement a mandatory K-to-12 mental health curriculum?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Education is going to want to comment in the supplementary, but I want to thank the Girls’ Government group on youth suicide for their advocacy. This is so important. Again, we’re almost at International Women’s Day, and to have a group of young women raising their voices on an issue that is so important to them is absolutely a wonderful thing to see. So congratulations to them.

The bottom line is that we agree. We agree with these young ladies that the importance of preventing youth suicide is a priority. It’s something that we must focus on, particularly in mental health promotion as well as in the early detection of mental health issues and addictions problems.

That’s exactly why our health and physical education curriculum was updated. It was those kinds of issues that were not part of the outdated curriculum. It’s very important that they are there, and I agree with the young women that those issues need to be dealt with across the age range of kids in our publicly funded schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Earlier this year, OSTA-AECO, the voice of Ontario student trustees, released their student platform following extensive consultation with students across the province. Their platform also recommends suicide intervention and mental health training programs for school staff and students.

Last November, OUSA, the College Student Alliance, Colleges Ontario and the Council of Ontario Universities issued an urgent call to action on student mental health in their report In It Together. They recommend a mandatory K-to-12 mental health curriculum, along with transition programming for high school students who are going into post-secondary, and early warning systems for both K-to-12 and PSE.

If the minister won’t listen to the students from the London West Girls’ Government, will she listen to OSTA-AECO, OUSA, CSA, COU and Colleges Ontario and implement a mandatory mental health curriculum in all Ontario schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the member opposite for bringing up this very important issue, and I want to thank the Girls’ Government group on youth suicide members for their advocacy and for bringing their voices right here to Queen’s Park. It was a pleasure for me to meet with them earlier.

I want to tell you, as I told them, that absolutely, suicide, when it comes to our young people or anyone in our province, is heartbreaking and tragic. We have to do everything we can to ensure that not only are we preventing it, but that we’re putting the tools and resources in place to help our young people. I am committed to that, and this government is committed to that.

So I’m going to tell you a little bit about what we’re doing. We’re certainly focusing on mental health promotion, early detection and ensuring there are supports in place when it comes to issues and addictions problems. We have absolutely built pieces into our curriculum from grades 1 to 12. I can take you through all of those pieces and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. You’re not going to. New question.

Arts and cultural funding

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question this morning is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario’s festivals and events attract tourists, support tens of thousands of jobs and generate millions in economic growth. I’m proud to be part of a government that supports these events so that people are drawn to visit and live in our communities.

In my own community of Davenport and across Ontario, the government’s support for festivals and events has played a fundamental role in our cultural and economic vitality. That’s why I’m pleased to ask the minister about an announcement she made this morning in my riding of Davenport at the Theatre Centre. The minister announced the investment we are making in the Celebrate Ontario 2018 program and spoke to how it will bring people together and support our communities to attract more tourists.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you tell the members of this House more about what you announced this morning at the Theatre Centre and how the Celebrate Ontario program will impact our communities?

Hon. Daiene Vernile: I want to thank the member for Davenport, who is a very strong advocate for her riding.

Speaker, we were at the Theatre Centre this morning with the Toronto Sketch Comedy Festival. This is Toronto’s longest-running comedy festival that showcases comedy heroes every March. Visitors can take in up to 12 days of the best live scripted comedy in North America. The festival has been around since 2005 and has grown into a must-see for celebrating the theatrical tradition of sketch comedy. We’re proud to be supporting the Toronto Sketch Comedy Festival. We’re doing this through Celebrate Ontario.

Speaker, these events draw thousands of visitors and tourists every year. Because of the tremendous attractions right across Ontario, people are visiting, they’re staying and they are spending.

I look forward to speaking more about Celebrate Ontario in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the minister for her answer.

Many festivals and events, like the Toronto Sketch Comedy Festival, are having a positive impact on the culture scene in Ontario. Across the province, support from Celebrate Ontario 2018 means that organizers can enhance their programming activities and services. They can offer new and enhanced experiences that attract even more tourists and increase visitor spending.

I know that Celebrate Ontario will have a positive impact in every corner of the province in 2018. From food festivals like the Pan Am food festival to music festivals to street festivals like BIG on Bloor in Davenport to events that teach us about our heritage and cultural diversity, our communities will benefit from increased tourism and visitor spending.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you update the members of this House on the economic impact that Celebrate Ontario will have this summer?

Hon. Daiene Vernile: Thank you to the member for the question.

Celebrate Ontario has been tremendously successful. Every dollar of Celebrate Ontario funding triggers almost $21 of visitor spending. It supports thousands of jobs and it generates millions of dollars in revenue. That’s why we’re investing over $20 million to support 328 festivals and events. That is the highest number in the history of the program. This commitment is going to have a province-wide impact in both small and large communities. It’s going to boost our booming tourism sector. This is a sector that is pumping $32.5 billion into Ontario’s economy every year.

We’re providing support to 198 events in rural and northern Ontario, as well. We’re very proud to be supporting all the festivals right across Ontario.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being a point of order, I will turn to the member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you very much. I appreciate you acknowledging me, Speaker.

I have some guests who are here with me in the east gallery: Shamso Elmi, Zahra Ismail, Qamar Abdirahman, Hamida Mohamud, Sahra Siyaad and Muna Ali. They’re here to support Midaynta Community Services. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Transportation on a point of order.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I know he was here a little earlier, but I’d like to welcome James Maxwell from É.S. Georges-P.-Vanier school in Cambridge, who is here today for the francophone youth Parliament reception.

The Speaker