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

November 5, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Nov-05 (PDF)

L123 - Tue 5 Nov 2019 / Mar 5 nov 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 November 2019 Mardi 5 novembre 2019

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Long-term care

Economic policy

Fundraising

Government fiscal policies

Job creation

Water quality

Skilled trades

Education funding

Consumer protection

Long-term care

Skilled trades

Hospital funding

Women’s issues

Terry Fallis

Answers to written questions

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Hamilton Naturalists’ Club

City of Richmond Hill

Transportation infrastructure

Movember

Veterans

Broadband infrastructure

Health care funding

Sikh community

Fur industry

Red tape reduction

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Introduction of Bills

2345260 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2019

Haggart Belting Canada Ltd. Act, 2019

Franco-Ontarian Community Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la communauté franco-ontarienne

Petitions

Education funding

Air and water quality

Equal opportunity

Long-term care

Education funding

Public sector compensation

Food safety

Equal opportunity

Food safety

Long-term care

Food safety

Orders of the Day

Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour mieux servir la population et faciliter les affaires

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 31, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

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

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

M me France Gélinas: I’m happy to be doing the lead on Bill 116 on behalf of the NDP. Actually, I’m doing it on behalf of my colleague Bhutila Karpoche—sorry, the member for Parkdale–High Park—who is at home with her newborn right now.

Bill 116,

An Act to enact the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence Act, 2019 and the Opioid Damages and Health Costs Recovery Act, 2019, has, as the title will say, two parts. The first part has to do with the creation of the centre of excellence, and the second part has to do with how the province of Ontario could position itself to be able to sue the manufacturers of the drugs that are behind the opioid public health emergencies that we have.

Before I go on to start my remarks, I wanted to share some of the work that the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions did. It was actually the Minister of Health who had put together a request for a select committee. At the time, we hadn’t had a select committee in this assembly for decades. She did her work. She made sure that people understood how important it was and, much to everybody’s surprise, a request for a select committee coming from a then member of the opposition was supported by the entire House, and the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions started its work.

I was the NDP representative on that committee. We started our work in 2008 and completed it in 2010. At the time, I was relatively new. I had been elected in 2007. I was coming out of 25 years of working in health care so, I figured, listening to comments on mental health and addictions, I had this preconceived idea there wouldn’t be much new in this. I came from 25 years in health care. I had seen thousands of cases of mental health and addictions before. Let me tell you something: I knew nothing and I had heard nothing.

We heard from 230 people who came and did presentations in front of the committee. The stories that we heard, some of them I could repeat word for word what they told us—the intensity of the hardship was such. People who were facing mental health and addictions themselves had reached out for help, how our system let them down completely or led them down a path with catastrophic outcomes. A lot of those stories, it was their loved ones who would come and talk to us, simply because their loved one was no longer with us.

It was just really, really tough. I would say that rarely a day of hearings would go by that you did not come out of there having cried for half of what you heard and in really, really deep thought. We put out an interim report of what we had heard, and then we put out a final report in 2010, in August of 2010, with 33 recommendations as to what needed to be done to change this. How can we continue to fail so, so many people in need with mental health and addictions? We had to do better.

I will always remember we had a press conference in the press gallery here at Queen’s Park to launch the report. All of us—there were three parties represented in the House in those days. All three parties, all members of the committee, stood together on the little stage in the media studio to launch the report, to show how important it was to really push the idea that action was needed immediately, that things needed to be done.

Much to my chagrin, the media covered the event as to the first time that all three parties held a press conference together. They did not go deep into the issue. They barely covered the recommendations that we were making. They were focused on the fact that all parties in the House were in agreement. But like many others, the systemic discrimination toward mental health and addictions was there. They did not want to talk about mental health and addictions; they wanted to talk about the fact that we had gotten along. I would say that we should have expected it. It was disappointing.

So the report was tabled. There were five members—at the time, it was the Liberals that had the majority government. There were five members of the government on the report. We had unanimous support. We really expected this to bring upon change, to bring upon action, and nothing happened. The 33 recommendations sat in that book. I would say, when the Minister of Health and I talked every now and again, we would talk about them. The previous Minister of Health, Helena Jaczek, also talked about them, because Helena had been—I’m allowed to refer to her by name now that she’s not here, right?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes.

M me France Gélinas: Yes. So we would talk about it and talk about the work that we had done, but nothing came of it.

I would like to read into the record the first recommendation of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions in our final report. The first recommendation is, “A new umbrella organization” called “Mental Health and Addictions Ontario ... responsible to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care—should be created to ensure that a single body is responsible for designing, managing, and coordinating the mental health and addictions system, and that programs and services are delivered consistently and comprehensively across Ontario.”

The second part was, “All mental health and addiction programs and services—for all regions of the province and for all ages, including children and youth—should be consolidated in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.” We had detailed recommendations regarding the new Mental Health and Addictions Ontario. What the mission statement would be, the strategic goals and the responsibilities were all detailed into the body of the report.

So I would say, it is not a surprise to me to see

an act to create the centre of excellence in mental health and addictions—I would say not exactly the way that we had put it forward back in 2010, but certainly the spirit is there.

When we first started the select committee, we heard at the time from 13 different ministries. Every ministry that had some delivery of mental health and addictions services came and talked to us. Some of them, I would say, were brutally honest in telling us that they knew nothing about mental health and addictions. That was one part of their portfolio of their ministry that they knew they were not very good at and that they would be more than willing to give to anybody else who would want it; but they understood that the clients who they were serving needed this access to mental health and addictions and that it should be part of it.

The act to create the centre of excellence in mental health and addictions is in that spirit. It’s really to give mental health and addictions a home, to make somebody responsible, to identify best practices, to put together a basket of services that will be available to all of us. No matter how old we are, no matter where we are, no matter who we are, if the need is there, you can count that the service will be available.

Right now in Ontario, we have some centres of excellence. Whether it be for children’s mental health or for addictions or for mental health for the elderly with cognitive impairment etc., we have the knowledge, we have the skills. But it’s a patchwork, so that if you happen to live here, you’ll be able to gain access, but if you have the same problem needing the same type of care but you happen to live there, none of this is available to you.

Some of what we find as a government offering services—we have no idea if those services are of value, if they bring out outcomes. For some, we have in-depth knowledge that this is a service that should be available to all of us. It has proven to be effective, but it continues to be funded half-assed.

Most—all—of the public mental health and addictions services were caught under this salary freeze under the previous Liberals. There’s a very low rate of unionization in the mental health and addictions system. There are some in our hospitals and stuff, but in the community it’s very low. Remember there was this wage freeze that applied to everybody that was not unionized?

Those people have been caught with no budget increase for over a decade, a salary freeze for a very long time; and I must say, this government has been in power for a year and a half, and things have not changed or improved in our mental health and addictions system. We continue to have this patchwork of some good services with clear, defined outcomes available to some of us, but not to most of us, and not all of the time. So this is where we are.

I would also like to read some of the other recommendations, and I will tie it to Bill 116. Recommendation number 2 from the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions:

“Mental Health and Addictions Ontario”—which is the name that we give to this new agency—“should ensure that a basket of core institutional, residential and community services is available in every region of the province for clients of all ages, identify gaps, and eliminate duplication. Referral patterns must be put in place for the provision of those specialized services only available outside of a region. Each region must also have sufficient capacity to care for clients with concurrent disorders.”

None of this is in this particular bill, Bill 116. But I hope that the spirit of this is there, that the centre of excellence—in health care, most of the time a centre of excellence is there to identify best practices and then to show the rest of the health care system how to roll them out. But from the existing centres of excellence that we have in our health care system right now, they have no way of funding those services. It is fine to say, “Oh, you need to have an integrated health record,” let’s say, to make sure that the transition is done from primary care to mental health and addictions.

So this could very well—the centre of excellence, there’s a good chance that they’re going to identify this as a best practice.

But when there is no money, when there are no resources, when your agency hasn’t seen a budget increase for the last 10 years, when you have a hard time recruiting and retaining qualified staff because you haven’t been able to give them a pay increase in close to a decade, this becomes pies in the sky. You can identify the best practices all you want, but if you haven’t got the means to roll those out, we will be no further ahead. It will be another bunch of recommendations that went nowhere.

The third recommendation was, “Clients and their families should have access to system navigators who will connect them with the appropriate treatment and community support services.”

There, you went outside of just the mental health and addictions system. We talked about housing. We all know: housing first. If you are homeless, nothing else matters. Remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—food and shelter? If you don’t have a place to call home, if you don’t have food, you will never be able to start therapy for your mental health and addiction. You will never be able to get better because the basic human needs would always be there. We need food and shelter to live, and we go through the hierarchy of needs—food and shelter.

We all know that, unfortunately, we have homelessness in most parts of Ontario. I can speak to the homelessness situation in Sudbury. You look at the statistics, and when I used to be the executive director of the community health centre, we ran the Corner Clinic. It was a clinic for homeless people, and 90% of our clients had severe mental illness and addictions. One of the big reasons why they became homeless was because they had a mental illness or an addiction.

If you want people to be able to get the care they need, mental health is like any other health issue; it is treatable. There are treatment options out there that allow you to live a normal life, to get better. But none of this will be feasible if you are homeless, if you don’t have food and shelter. This is what the system navigators—when you look at what is happening right now with housing, affordable housing is an issue in pretty much every community. When you have a hard time treating your mental health and addiction, if, unfortunately, you become homeless, finding a place that you can afford, finding shelter, becomes priority number one.

So we had identified housing, then income support. Our system of Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program—you don’t live on Ontario Works; you survive on Ontario Works. Ontario Works gives you just enough money so you don’t die, but not enough to keep you living. And the increases in the payments we make to Ontario Works are very small. Any of us trying to make ends meet on $560 a month—I don’t know how they do it. You survive, but you cannot live.

The third one that we wanted the system navigators to work on: housing—finding affordable housing, or shelter if you are homeless; income support so that you can afford to live, you can afford the basics of life, food and shelter, a little bit of clothes and maybe a bus pass so you can go to your next doctor’s appointment; and then employment.

The systemic discrimination against people who have or have had a mental health issue or an addiction issue is still there throughout our society, but it is especially visible in employment services. They are the first ones to lose their jobs. They are the first ones to be reprimanded. My colleague from Sudbury often makes this—comparing the two: If you tell your co-worker or your boss, “I’m leaving early because I have a dental appointment,” nobody looks at you. Who cares? Go to the dentist. It happens to all of us.

But if you tell your co-worker or your boss that you have a mental health appointment, things are not handled the same way. This is what systemic discrimination looks like. So you’re not at ease to say you need help when, really, one of the first steps to help you feel better is to have people around you that support you. Yet, if you say that you have an appointment for your mental health, your co-worker won’t look at you the same way and your boss won’t look at you the same way.

There’s a good chance that a little note will go into your file that you had gone for a mental health appointment, and somehow everything else that ever happens to you will be related to this, although it may have nothing to do with anything. The systemic barriers are there to employment.

We also had asked that the system navigators handle peer support. We know peer support is one of those best practices. It works. It has helped a lot of people. It has a possibility to change the course of treatment for many, many people, if you give them access. We have some excellent peer support programs in Sudbury. We don’t have too much that works good in mental health in the northeast, but we have a few peer support programs that work really good. But it’s always the same thing: Their budget is iffy from one year to the next. You never know if you will continue to have a job after the end of the fiscal year.

Your budget that’s supposed to start on April 1 is not shared with you till October sometimes, and the first things to get cut are peer supports.

We have to not only say the right thing, but we have to do the right thing.

The system navigator would also help with recreational opportunities. We’re all human beings. We all need some time off every now and again. We all need some recreational activities. Although they may be there, they may be accessible and they may be available, oftentimes it is those systemic barriers, the systemic discrimination, that makes it hard for somebody who has a mental health and addiction problem to be able to reach them.

The system navigators were a best practice that had been identified by the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. It is something that we all believed in—I would say it’s something that we still believe in—but there is very limited access to system navigators, if at all. There are a few of them linked to a specific agency that often has a limited mandate and a very questionable stability of their funding—not exactly what we had in mind when we made those recommendations.

Recommendation number four was that, “Mental Health and Addictions Ontario should conduct an assessment of the need for acute care psychiatric beds for both children and adults by region.”

We have very few specialized psychiatric hospitals—very few beds, also. Those are even fewer if you talk about children. I won’t pretend to be an expert in any of this. It had been identified as something that the centre of excellence should look into. At the time, we called them Mental Health and Addictions Ontario.

Recommendation number five was, “Mental Health and Addictions Ontario should ensure that primary care providers and relevant staff in all levels of the education and long-term care systems have access to common, age-appropriate, evidence-based assessment and screening tools.”

That came because, especially for children and adolescents, the first episode of serious mental illness is often experienced in the late teens, while people are still attending high school. It is not always picked up by our school system, who just don’t know that it is time to refer this person to the health system rather than punish them for what is seen as bad behaviour. Of the 230 people who came and did deputations, we had quite a few people who shared those stories. We also had teachers who had seen the results of letting those kids fall through the cracks.

Recommendation number six was one that resonated with me in northern Ontario. It was, “Mental Health and Addictions Ontario should facilitate the creation of more 24/7 mobile crisis intervention teams.”

We saw that in some big centres they had a mobile bus that went around at night, mainly—the end of the afternoon and late into the night—and became available to anybody who was in need, whether it was a person to talk to, a cup of coffee or warm clothes if it was winter etc., but also be staffed by people with knowledge in mental health and addictions so that you could service other areas of the riding.

I service a large northern riding in and around the city of greater Sudbury, but the people who are serviced live hours away from Sudbury. On a good day, it will take you at least two hours to drive to Gogama, yet there are people in Gogama who get sick, who have mental illness, who develop addiction issues, just like everywhere else in Ontario. A mobile bus would be very helpful.

Recommendation number seven: “The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care should expand and do more to publicize Telehealth Ontario’s ability to respond to callers with mental health and addictions issues.”

This also has never happened. It is a resource that exists for all of us. As long as you have a phone line, you can call Telehealth Ontario. They won’t give you prescriptions or do a diagnostic, but they will certainly listen to you, they will try to help you connect with some of the services that exist in your community, they will help you make a decision as to whether it’s time to go to emerg, to go see your family physician or a nurse practitioner if you have one, whether this is something that a community agency can help you with. The service exists, but I would say that the statistics continue to show that most people facing mental health and addictions are not phoning those numbers.

The next recommendation is that: “Mental Health and Addictions Ontario should work with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to review emergency department protocols in order to increase their capacity to deal effectively, efficiently and sensitively with people appearing with mental health and addictions issues, and when appropriate, redirect or connect them to community-based services and supports.”

The stories we heard about the failings of our emergency departments were horrific, Speaker, just horrific. The people who work in our emergency departments, I’m sure, are qualified, good people, but they come with the same systemic discriminations that every other Ontarian has. Those have started to go down. I thank Bell Let’s Talk, who first started to talk about people who—the athletes and the people who came forward, to try to tone down the stigma. But it is still very visible, and it is still very present.

People who present themselves in one of the hundreds of emergency departments that we have in Ontario, if you present with a mental health and addiction, there is a good chance that inside of those hospital walls you will be discriminated against. Add to this the overcrowding in our emergency department: It does not make it a very suitable environment for somebody who is in the midst of a mental health and addiction crisis to find themselves in. It is noisy; there are a lot of people around. I would say, aside from inside a prison—and I will get to this—it is a very bad environment for people in the midst of a mental health crisis.

And then you have the stigma and the discrimination that are still present within our hospital walls. I’m not proud of this. I’m really proud of our hospitals, and I’m proud of the people who work in there, but this is one part that really needs some work. We had identified this and put it in a recommendation in 2010. It has had a bit of an improvement, but it is still, in general, very present.

Yet we have best practices. We know how to provide good emergency care to somebody who presents with a mental health and addiction problem. Those exist. But the resources to make sure that our hospitals are able to provide those are not there. At the first triage, if you see that it is somebody with a mental health and addiction crisis, there should be a quiet emergency room

part in your hospital to handle mental health and addictions. Don’t let them in with the crying babies and everything else that goes on. It’s just going to make things worse.

We have a bill that will give us a centre of excellence, which is something wonderful, but when we have already identified best practices—this is why I was going through. When we’ve already identified best practices, when we’ve already identified how to do better and how to provide quality care to people who are in need, we know what to do. But there hasn’t been the resources available to our hospitals to make this happen.

A lot of our hospitals would like to revamp their emergency department, but when you are funded for 100,000 visits but you get 500,000 visits a year, it’s pretty hard to think about anything but the next patient. This is what the system looks like right now. We were given examples through the summer and fall when we were not sitting. We filed—I couldn’t count—hundreds of access-to-information requests to all of our hospitals and many, many other health care providers to have a sense as to where things are at. Hallway health care is there to stay.

I have a story of a child with severe mental illness who was admitted into Health Sciences North, our hospital in Sudbury, and spent five days in a hallway. Let’s just say that the quality of care—you cannot provide quality care in a hallway, and you cannot provide quality care to a child who has a severe mental illness in a hallway for five days in a row. Health Sciences North managed to open a few more pediatric beds—they’re not really beds; they took a room that used to have a TV in it. Anyway, they do the best they can, but you cannot provide quality care in a hallway, in a TV room, at the end of a hall or in a patient lounge. It’s just not happening. But this is what we have.

When we have a bill that says that we will put in a centre of excellence, the centre of excellence will continue to identify best practices, and then what? Where is the strategy that will make sure those best practices, once they are identified, are actually implemented or are actually available to us and become part of our care pathways? None of this is in the bill.

I’ve gone through quite a few of the recommendations that the select committee had made. A lot of those recommendations—I’m hoping; I’m guessing—will be very similar to what the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence will be identifying. Unfortunately, things have not changed in the last nine years. I would say that in many circumstances things have gotten worse, not better, in the last nine years.

The recommendations that we made back then, the best practices that we identified back then—I’m expecting the centre of excellence will identify very similar best practices, and then what? Then you put them on a piece of paper, and nine years from now a health critic for the NDP will read those recommendations into the record and say, “Nothing has been done”? I’m worried. I want action. I have nothing against a centre of excellence. I have nothing against giving mental health and addictions a home. I think it’s a good first step, but it is just that: a good first step.

I can’t help but to contrast this with some of the actions that have been taken already. There was planned funding of $330 million in mental health. We already know that some of those best practices—there are agencies, hospitals, mental health associations and agencies that know that they’re not using the best practice because they haven’t got the resources to move to the best practice. That money could have been helping, or could have moved us closer to best-practice health care in mental health and addictions, but this money was not available.

Same thing: We just came out of estimates. I don’t know how many questions my colleague Bhutila and I asked about the $69 million for child and youth mental health services. The government continues to tell us, “Oh, no, no, no. We did not cut the $69 million.” But if you didn’t, show me an estimate as to where that has gone. I can be pretty persistent, asking the same question over and over, and when I get no answer, then I have my answer, Speaker. If there was $69 million in new dollars, they would be able to show me, and they were not.

Mind you, for some of the questions, they said that they would get back to me. That was in May. We are now in November, and I still haven’t received my answers. The last time I saw them, I told them that I don’t want to die of old age before I get answers to estimates questions. They laughed, but they did not say that it was coming.

So I will keep my fingers crossed that I am wrong, that they did not cut $69 million from child and youth mental health services, that they will be able to show me that in the estimates, that I was wrong, that the $330 million planned for mental health was actually—but so far, it looks like I’m right. But I’m really sorry to be right, because this money could help to change things right now.

I’m surprised to see that there’s 21 minutes. There are a couple of other things that I want to talk about.

One thing is the opioid crisis. The second part of Bill 116 is the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2019. If you’re a lawyer, I’m sure you will love this part of the bill. I am not a lawyer, but what I get out of this part of the bill is that we are giving ourselves the tools to be able to bring the big manufacturers, that make those drugs that people get addicted to, to court.

I can tell you that the NDP government in British Columbia has already done that: They have brought the manufacturers to court. A number of other provinces are in on the lawsuit. It is not clear to me why we don’t just join in, but I’m not a lawyer. I’m sure that there will be a lawyer someplace who will say something. Whether I’ll understand this or not, I don’t know, but all I can tell you is that many, many jurisdictions have brought the opioid manufacturers to court. Some court settlements have been reached, but the opioid epidemic—the public health emergency that it is—has continued.

Oftentimes, the amount of money that is given leads the manufacturer to declare bankruptcy. They are structured in such a way that a part of their business can declare bankruptcy while the other

part continues to go. Why this happened, I don’t know, but it is what it is. So to give ourselves the tools to go after the manufacturers—more power to you. I would say to join in with BC and let’s get this done—the sooner, the better.

But this is but a small part, Speaker. If you look at what BC is doing, the first thing they have done is declare the opioid crisis a public health emergency. I don’t know how many times I’ve stood in this House, how many letters, how many requests, how many motions we’ve put forward to declare a public health emergency—the last one was last Thursday, by my colleague the MPP from Sudbury—and this government has always refused to do this.

Declaring it a public health emergency allows people who have very, very big caseloads to suddenly not deal with the opioid epidemic as a small, important task among 100 tasks but to focus on it so that we can have a real impact, so that the solutions that are available to us that are feasible, that we have the knowledge and the skills to do right now—we would suddenly have the time to carry them through.

I can also tell you that the BC government has launched a 10-year strategy to tackle mental health issues. When I see the creation of a centre of excellence I want to say that the centre of excellence will be located under Ontario Health.

Ontario Health is this new agency that will be responsible for the planning and the delivery of hospital services; long-term-care services; interdisciplinary primary care; home care and community health; and mental health and addictions, as well as palliative care. Six programs within the Ministry of Health, within the health services that are available to us, are now under the governance of Ontario Health.

Under Ontario Health, you will find the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence, not unlike, I guess—we used to have the Trillium Gift of Life, which was focused on best practices for organ donation and organ transplants, which have been very effective, and not unlike Cancer Care Ontario, which identifies best practices in cancer services, which are also being rolled into Ontario Health. So Ontario Health will have one more centre of excellence, this one in mental health and addiction.

As I say, the spirit of this is something we support, is something that we know we needed in 2010 and we still need now. Is it the right place? Remember when I was reading some of the recommendations? A lot of what we need to have excellent mental and addiction care is outside of the health care system. It has to do with housing. It has to do with income. It has to do with all of this stuff—employment, peer support, recreational opportunities etc. None of this is part of Ontario Health; none of this is part of the Ministry of Health; and now the centre of excellence is three times removed.

What will be their relationship with, let’s say, the Ministry of Corrections? We all know that as MPPs we can go and visit the provincial jail, which I have done on a number of occasions. The statistics speak for themselves: I think close to 20% of the people that are there should not be there. The only reason they are there is because they have a mental health issue or an addiction, and they should be receiving support. Aside from a noisy, crowded emergency room, a prison cell is not conducive to treating mental health and addictions.

I want to put into the record a letter that was sent by the John Howard Society of Sudbury. It was sent to the Solicitor General as well as to the Minister of Health, and said, “First, and foremost, we commend the government for following through with this issue and for supporting the work of Dr. Turnbull and his expert committee. We have read his report, as redacted by the government, and know that the report presents a very true and vivid picture of the state of health care in correctional facilities.”

The report from Dr. Turnbull is quite clear that the way that we are offering mental health and addictions support to people in our correctional facilities has to change. He puts forward good best practice as to how this should change. So I’m having a little bit of difficulty making the leap of faith that the centre of excellence that is being created under Ontario Health under the Ministry of Health will have the leverage necessary to make sure that the recommendations for best practice, for health care in our correctional facilities, will finally be able to change.

If you have an opportunity, go see the health facility in your local provincial jail. I was in the Republic of the Congo in Africa—that was a really, really poor health facility, but they had more modern examination tables than we had at the Sudbury jail. You’re talking about a Third World country, where those tables had actually been donated by nurses in Montreal. They had made the donations to the health facility in the Republic of the Congo. Their equipment was better than what we have in the Sudbury jail here in Ontario—just as an aside.

The John Howard Society says, “Our organization would like to know what initiatives are occurring with your ministries to implement the Turnbull report. The John Howard Society of Sudbury will work with work with your ministries to implement Dr. Turnbull’s recommendations for correctional facilities. We can be contacted”—and they go on. It’s signed by Michael Sabo, their president, and John Rimore, their executive director. It was copied to me, to the MPP for Nipissing and to the MPP for Sudbury. That was on September 17. No response has been received.

I was reading that into the record because, again, the centre of excellence under the Ministry of Health, within their six portfolios—how do you make those connections? Certainly, the bill doesn’t touch on that at all. I have no idea if it could even happen. Yet we all know that to improve the outcomes of the care we offer to people with mental health and addictions issues—the solutions are not just under health, and certainly not just under the six portfolios. So I continue to be a little bit worried.

Coming back to the opioids and the different strategies that different provinces take: When you look at consumption and treatment services in Ontario, for reasons unknown, the government decided that there could not be more than 21. They have never been able to justify or show us the body of evidence that says that Ontario needs no more than 21. How could it be that in British Columbia, which has a population of five million, they have 30? In Ontario, with a population of about 14 million, we are restricted to 21, and right now only 16 of them are funded.

There’s a huge disconnect between what they would like us to believe will happen and, when they have an opportunity to act, what really is happening. We speak with our words, but we speak even louder by our actions, and when we see the actions that have been taken, they seem to be inconsistent with the words that are being spoken in that bill.

I am forever an optimist. I see bits and pieces that give me hope, but I certainly do not see a strategy that will bring us to the place where we need to be, where we don’t let people with mental health and addictions issues down, where we don’t lead them down a path that leads to catastrophic outcomes anymore, where we learn from the best practices that already exist, where we invest to make sure that the mental health and addictions agencies don’t continue to go 11 years without a basic funding increase and do not continue to go years and years without a pay increase to their staff that are not unionized. All of this we could change.

The ministry has said a number of times—certainly through estimates–—that the government will be increasing mental health and addictions by $174 million in this fiscal year. That was repeated a number of times in estimates and even pointed to so we could see that there has been some investment, but when you follow the money—and for those not familiar with estimates, this is what estimates is all about. We follow the money that comes. When you follow the money, this is all money that came from the federal government.

The federal government has promised us $1.9 billion to go towards mental health in the next 10 years, and the provincial government has matched that money, $1.9 billion. You will often hear a $3.8-billion increase in mental health and addictions services, which is great news. There haven’t been too many announcements of big investments like this by this government, but mental health and addictions is one. So yay, except, is it all going to come in the ninth and 10th years? In the first year there was zero investment from this government in new money in mental health and addictions.

There was an investment of $174 million, but through estimates it didn’t take long to realize that this money came from the feds. It did not come from the province.

The province’s commitment is over 10 years; we all know that, but we couldn’t invest a dollar of our own money? You say that it is an emergency, and you say it is a priority. You’re proud of repeating the $3.8-billion investment that you will make over 10 years, but here again, the actions don’t support the same level of enthusiasm that I would like to have for the whole thing—very simple things that don’t cost anything. The provincial Opioid Emergency Task Force—the name says what it is.

It’s a task force of people who know a whole lot more about mental health and addictions than I do, people who know a whole lot more about opioids and how you deal with them. There’s an Opioid Emergency Task Force at the provincial level. Those people have been identified. The task force has been recognized and all this.

Do you know how many times they meet, Speaker? They have not met under this government. Really? Here’s a resource that is available that doesn’t cost anything. All those people come and all you have to do is listen to them. We all know that the opioid epidemic is a crisis. I call it a public health emergency—

Ms. Catherine Fife: It is.

M me France Gélinas: It is, and yet, a task force that wouldn’t cost the government anything has not been called back together. Why? How can you look at the number of deaths, how can you look at a thousand Ontarians dying of opioid overdoses and not find the time to reconvene the task force that will help you deal with it? I find that hard, Speaker. I find this really hard.

I want to believe that this government wants to do the right thing. I want to believe that Bill 116, the creation of a centre of excellence in mental health and addictions, will bring us the changes that we all know need to be done, that will bring us the changes that we had identified way back by the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions and many other best practices that exist. This is what we want; this is what we need. We want the strategy that will go with it.

We want to know that it is taking this issue seriously, that we’re not going to have the centre of excellence that will identify best practices and then wish upon a star that those best practices will find the money themselves to make it happen in every corner of the province. I don’t believe in wishing upon a star. I don’t.

The centre of excellence will be there. They will identify best practices. We have the $3.8 billion. We have the review of the services that are already there, that could facilitate.

But none of this has been put together, and the little actions that have been taken since this government has been in power leave me very insecure that this will be a priority, that we will not only identify best practices but that we will roll them out, that the levers will be available for either the Ministry of Health or the centre of excellence to work across ministries, whether it be with children and youth; with children’s mental health services; the ministry of children and youth; Ontario Works; the Ontario Disability Support Program; correctional services; schools; colleges, training and universities—because we have bits of mental health services available in our colleges and in our universities and in our high schools and in our correctional services and in our community support services and all over the place.

This is why the number one recommendation of the select committee was to give mental health and addictions a home.

We are seeing the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence Act creating a centre of excellence. I sure hope that we don’t only identify the best practices but that we see a strategy to roll them out; that we see the provincial Opioid Emergency Task Force called back together; that when a community comes forward to say that they need consumption and treatment services, they’re not going to be told that because you don’t have the rehab services, because you don’t have community mental health, you’re not allowed to have that either. Because this is very much what may happen to all of the northern and rural communities because we have zero access to mental health but wait times.

I realize that my time is gone. You have been more than patient with me. I still have a lot to say, but I will sit down.

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the member for Nickel Belt with respect to Bill 116, the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act.

I did have the opportunity to serve with the member on the select committee almost 10 years ago. I have to say that your comments brought back many memories for me—mostly good memories, some bad memories, in the sense that we did hear some very tragic stories from people who had not been receiving the services that they needed to receive for mental health and addictions problems in Ontario, and also some sadness that many of the recommendations that we made have not been implemented and 10 years have gone by. I think if we had proceeded with those recommendations, we would be in a much better place in Ontario right now.

But what I am very happy about is the fact that we were all able to get together, all of the members of the committee, and we were able to put aside our political differences and really listen to the people who came to speak with us. We had several hundred people come and speak with us who told us what they wanted, what they felt that they needed. We actually wrote that report together, all of us together. I hope that there will be other opportunities for similar select committees in the future because I truly feel that we did some great work together.

The first recommendation that the member spoke of was the suggestion that we made then, that we have Mental Health and Addictions Ontario, which is now really being mirrored by the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence that’s being proposed in this bill. This, I think, is really the essential foundation for a mental health and addictions system in Ontario to be able to set best practices, to deliver equity across the province in terms of making sure that there’s a core basket of services that everyone in Ontario can receive, to be able to reset the clinical guidelines and to be able to review the data.

I’m sorry, there’s more that I’d like—

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

Questions and comments?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I want to commend the member from Nickel Belt for really putting the issue of mental health and addictions into a historical context. It’s important for us to remember the work that happened in 2010 through the select committee. This is work that needs to be put into action. That was the main theme that I took away from her comments.

But the pushback always is that there isn’t enough money and there’s never going to be enough money, so it has really paralyzed action. I want to share my frustration with the Liberals, who at least enabled this work to happen, but then not to act on it is almost unethical—it is almost unethical. The emotional labour that the member from Nickel Belt touched on, that the committee went through, we can’t lose that. That should be driving us forward and propelling us forward.

There’s a story out today in the National Post, where companies have realized—I’m the economic development critic, so maybe putting a different lens on it may propel action—that in Canada, there are some 500,000 Canadians who are “unable to work at some point due to poor mental health problems or illnesses,” according to a recent study. This costs the Canadian economy $56 billion every year. Ontario is one of the largest provinces in this country. These are direct costs to Canadian companies. This government says that they’re open for business. Think of the cost to lost productivity.

But these direct costs also include health care benefits and drug costs, as well as short-term and long-term disability payments totalling more than $50 billion annually.

It’s interesting, because the study started in 2010. Bell Canada has brought in a number of supports for their employees. Mental health-related short-term disability relapse has gone down by 50% and short-term disability claims have been reduced by 20% since 2010. Think of the progress that we could have made in this province.

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I think we all agree here that mental health and addictions is a priority for all of us, especially all of us in Ontario, which is why we have committed $3.8 billion in new funding over 10 years.

It is imperative that we find a comprehensive, well-thought-out, well-planned mental health and addictions strategy. Our proposed establishment of the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence is a step in the right direction to help us assist those in need. As we all know, one suicide is one suicide too many. There is nothing more heartbreaking than a child who feels that they have nothing to live for and who ultimately takes their own life.

Recently, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Community and Social Services announced Project Now in Mississauga, together with the LHINs, the Region of Peel, Trillium Health Partners, the Peel District School Board and all the community agencies. This aims to end child and youth suicide by 2027. This decision was made in collaboration with all of our partners and is a great step to provide much-needed services and the ability to recognize those who desperately need our help.

I really do urge everyone in this chamber to support the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, because it’s what we need to make sure there are no more suicides and to get people back on track.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Sudbury, and thanks for the comments I heard from the government side on this issue.

I want to agree with the consensus I’m hearing here that we need to act, but I want us to ask ourselves a question for a moment, thinking about the second portion of this bill, which will empower the government to legally pursue opioid manufacturers. If crucial substances for our children were poisoned in the province of Ontario, how long would it take for us to act? If the manufacturers of baby formula were manufacturing poisoned substances, how long would it take for us as a province to act? How long did it take for us to act with the listeriosis crisis for meat in this province?

Immediate action—that is the answer to the question. But thousands of our neighbours—drug users are our neighbours—are being poisoned right now by the supply of illicit opioids in the market, and the second

schedule of this bill does nothing about that.

I want to thank people from community health centres in Ottawa: Simone Thibault, from the Centretown Community Health Centre, Naini Cloutier at the Somerset West Community Health Centre, Cam MacLeod at the Carlington Community Health Centre, and the people at the Sandy Hill Community Health Centre, who are themselves working directly with our neighbours who are addicted to drugs. Because only when we see them as our neighbours, not as an alien species needing sympathy but our neighbours, our loved ones—those of us whose families, like mine, have been directly impacted by drug overdoses—is when we’ll act with the urgency this measure deserves.

This government needs to move beyond

schedule 2 of this bill. It needs to commit itself to a safe supply. It needs to run the illicit manufacturers of opioids off the streets. We have to stop allowing the poisoning of drug users in the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We return now to the member from Nickel Belt to conclude this portion of the debate.

M me France Gélinas: I was happy to be able to put a few words on the record about mental health and addiction. We don’t talk about mental health and addiction very often in this House, and I wish we would. Bill 116 was an opportunity to do just that, to show people that have dealings with mental health and addictions or have children, spouses, family members or co-workers who have a mental illness or an addiction that there is hope out there, that hopefully things are about to change and services are about to become more accessible.

When I was on the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, our recommendations were clear. First, give mental health and addictions a home. Don’t let it be offered by 12 different ministries. Some of them don’t want to be in the mental health and addictions business at all but have no choice. Give it a home.

Give it a place that is responsible for identifying best practices to make sure that we can bring those best practices throughout the province so that there is equity of access; that the people who I represent in northeastern Ontario will have access to the same basket of services as people who live anywhere else in this province; that we will look at evidence-based; and that we will treat mental health and addictions treatment like every other part of our health care system.

We’ll look at what works, we’ll analyze the data, we will identify best practices and we will move forward in a way that will give hope to thousands and thousands of people who have reached out for help but so far have gotten nothing but a wait-list.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We still have a couple of minutes left before our morning recess, so we have time for an abbreviated debate. Further debate?

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: It is a great honour to rise today in support of Bill 116, the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addiction Services Act. This legislation promises to put the people of Ontario first. It promises to improve the quality of our mental health and addictions services, and for that, I thank our Deputy Premier and Minister of Health, who has worked tirelessly to protect and transform our health care system.

Mental health is health. Unfortunately, our current mental health services do not meet the needs of Ontario’s patients. The system is difficult to navigate, is fragmented and is not equitable. That is why creating a robust and innovative mental health strategy is a priority for this government and why we have recently designated an Associate Minister for Mental Health and Addictions.

I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate Minister Tibollo on his new portfolio. His clinical and academic expertise will serve him well in this role, but moreover, his passion for this subject is the driving force behind many of our efforts, and it is highly contagious.

As I was driving in this morning I heard on the radio that in the city of Toronto we are seeing more pronounced homelessness. There are tents being set up along our city’s main streets. With the temperatures getting colder, people are looking for a way to stay warm at night. Shelter spaces in our province’s capital are at about 93% capacity right now, and we know that with the opioid crisis it is putting more people at risk of homelessness. People who suffer from mental health challenges are at a greater risk of homelessness as well. That is why it is so important that we meaningfully address the problem of the opioid crisis and mental health and addictions—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’m sorry to interrupt. We have run out of time this morning to continue this portion of the debate.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: We have the representatives from the Canadian Credit Union Association here with us today.

Soyez les bienvenus à Queen’s Park.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce a number of chicken farmers from the province of Ontario. The Chicken Farmers of Ontario are hosting a reception this evening, and I encourage everyone to come out and support our province’s chicken farmers, the best chicken farmers in the world.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome Adrienne McKenzie, Glenn Pollinger and Arnold Denton of the Luminus credit union, which is located in my riding of York South–Weston. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s a real honour to welcome two visitors from my riding, Danielle and Ronald Richer, who are the parents of page Mackenzie Richer from Guelph. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured today to have two local chicken farmers from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex: Carolyn Cornelissen and Brian Lewis. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to introduce Susan Stockwell Andrews, a good friend of mine from the Windsor Family Credit Union. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Susan.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I’d like to welcome Amogh Ravishankar, my LA, to Queen’s Park. He’s been working for me since the summer and today is his last day. I just wanted to wish him well as he continues his studies.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to welcome Sally Harding to the House today. She’s a resident of my riding and owns Nightingale Nursing.

Mr. Jamie West: I’d like to welcome back Faith Munoz and Michau van Speyk from the autism community. Welcome to Queen’s Park again.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome Home Care Ontario to Queen’s Park today. Home care providers are a valuable part of our health care system.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. I hope you have a wonderful day here today.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to welcome, from the amazing riding of Huron–Bruce, two very successful chicken farmers: Adrian Rehorst and Rick Kaptein. I thank them for all their advocacy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Ed Benjamins and Doug Duimering of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the privilege of welcoming to the Legislature today two chicken farmers from my riding of Niagara West: Jordan Fois and John Kikkert. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Donna Skelly: It’s an honour to rise today to welcome from my riding Murray Opsteen from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario—a sector that contributes almost $2 billion every year to our local economy.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I’m very pleased to see, in the members’ gallery today, constituents Tom Beischlag and Henk Lise with CFO.

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Good morning. It’s my honour to welcome and introduce, from my riding of Cambridge, Mark Hermann, who is part of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario and one of the best chicken farmers in the riding of Cambridge. Welcome.

Mr. Mike Harris: I also have a chicken farmer from my riding here today—all the way from Wellesley township, Scott Buchan.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: I want to welcome Mr. Hubert Wong and his two children, Tatyana and Alexander. The children are here to learn about our Canadian parliamentary system and how it operates. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming—joining us shortly for question period—students from Ellwood Memorial Public School in Caledon.

Oral Questions

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. Since the Legislature resumed, families have been concerned by growing evidence that the Ford government is taking hallway medicine from bad to worse: hospitals operating over capacity; an urgent care centre receiving five patients for every one that is funded; and a government that’s only brought in 21 new long-term-care spaces, despite exploding wait-lists for long-term care.

The government effectively froze hospital funding in its last budget. Does the Premier think this will fix hallway medicine?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question, but the leader of the official opposition will know that this is not a problem that just sprang up overnight. This happened after 15 years of Liberal ineptitude on this file. This is something that we are working very hard on to change.

We know there are many different strategies that need to be employed; there is no one, single answer to this. But with respect to any suggestion that our hospitals are not being funded properly—of course they are. We have added $384 million more this year to hospital funding, a 2% increase for each and every hospital. Plus, we have just recently made an investment of an additional $68 million to help those small and medium-sized hospitals that had structural funding deficits—again, according to a funding formula that was created by the previous government.

I will have more to say in my supplemental with respect to the other strategies we are employing to end hallway health care.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, with all due respect, funding the hospitals at the same dismal level that the Liberals did is not going to fix hallway medicine in our province.

Last week, we revealed that the government was ignoring overcrowding in Brampton and Etobicoke hospitals. It led to more hallway medicine as patients waited longer and longer. But it’s not just limited to those communities, Speaker: In Markham Stouffville, freedom of information reveals that the Liberals left the hospital at 103% occupancy last summer, and it’s grown to 116% occupancy this year.

Will the Premier acknowledge that the Ford government budget has taken health care in Markham from bad to worse?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, we are working hard to improve the situation with hospitals, having hospitals, long-term-care providers and home care providers work together in a way that hasn’t happened for years and years.

I’m very proud of the work that the home care association, the community care association, the long-term care association and the Ontario Hospital Association are doing. They all recognize there is a patient to be served here. It’s not up to any one organization to act on their own; we all need to act together. That is why we were bringing forward the transformation of our health care system: to make sure that care is centred around the patient.

With respect to the concerns that the leader of the official opposition is expressing, we are activating a number of different areas in order to reduce the need and the crowding in our hospitals. My colleague the Minister of Long-Term Care is working very hard on creating the 15,000 long-term-care spaces that we’ve promised the people of Ontario we would provide within five years, and we are going to do that. We are also opening reactivation care centres—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, things are getting worse and not better, Speaker. That’s the reality.

Hallway medicine in Sudbury under the Liberals was horrific—nothing less than horrific. Will the Premier admit now that it’s worse under his government?

Hon. Christine Elliott: What I can say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the leader of the official opposition, is that unlike the previous government that did nothing with this, except to let the lists grow, we are taking action on many fronts.

As I indicated previously, we have opened reactivation care centres in a number of areas, where alternate-level-of-care patients—i.e., those who don’t need to be in hospital who are stuck there—are able to go to a reactivation care centre where they will receive both some physical as well as mental health and social rehabilitation, with the result that many of these people don’t need to go into a long-term-care home after all. They actually can be discharged home with the appropriate home care supports around them.

Similarly, we are working with the people who have chronic mental health and addiction issues. With chronic mental health problems, there are a number of the same people who cycle in and out of emergency departments in hospitals. So we know that the answer is not simply investing in hospitals, but in community supports, so that people with those mental health challenges can actually get the care that they need in the community—

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

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier—but what we need is people to actually get the care that they need in their hospitals. That’s what we need.

The Premier promised to end the hallway medicine crisis by the summer. Instead, in hospital after hospital, patients have seen things go from bad to worse. Freedom-of-information data from Hamilton’s Juravinski Hospital shows the hospital was already over capacity a year ago. Now it’s at 110% capacity. But the staff are worked off their feet trying to accommodate the need, and it’s taking longer and longer for doctors to even see a patient for the first time.

Is the Premier ready to admit he has broken his promise and is content to let hallway medicine progress from bad to worse?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: As the member should know, we are taking steps across a number of areas, including in hospital investments. We have put, as I indicated earlier, $384 million more into hospital funding this year over last year. We are going to invest $27 billion over the next 10 years in hospital infrastructure to create another 3,000 new hospital beds to deal with this.

I certainly recognize that we also need short-term assistance. These are longer-term goals that we are working on, but we need to make sure that we can invest both in the hospitals and also in the community.

The member indicated that we need care in the hospitals. A lot of care can be provided before people need to get to hospitals, though, and I think we need to recognize that. We need to recognize the great work that home care services are providing right now, that are providing a great response and doing a triage, in many respects, to people who may appear at the hospital emergency departments but may not need to be admitted. In many cases, people can go back to their own homes, where—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, the Minister of Health should know that she shorted the request of the Ontario Hospital Association by almost half of what they wanted to just keep the hospitals at the desperate situation that they were already in. So the amount that she mentioned was nowhere near what the OHA was asking for in the last budget cycle.

For patient safety, Ontario hospitals should be operating at no more than 85% capacity. The minister should know that, as well. That is the internationally recognized standard. Yet, today we see hospitals in Brampton, Markham, Hamilton, Sudbury that are all routinely operating well over 100% capacity, that are all routinely treating patients in hallways, leaving patients unable to access basics like showers for days at a time.

Is the Premier going to acknowledge that the hallway medicine crisis is real and start addressing it immediately? Or is he going to continue claiming that he’s going to solve it by next summer?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the leader of the official opposition that I’m well aware of these figures. I hear about them every single day, and we are working very hard to bring those numbers down. The reality is that this is a situation that has been outstanding for 15 years. It’s not something that you can just turn around on a dime.

There are many steps that need to be taken, from increasing hospital funding, which we have done; from building new infrastructure for hospitals, to create 100,000 new beds; from building 15,000 new long-term-care beds, which my colleague the Minister of Long-Term Care is working on; from increasing the supports in our community for mental health and addictions.

I can tell you that in the consultations that we have done with respect to mental health and addictions, we’ve heard from hospitals who have said, “Don’t provide more facilities for us. We don’t think that people should need to be in hospitals. You need to be able to provide those services in communities.” So we need to build up those community investments, which we are also doing. We are working on many fronts to deal with this. This is something that is—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I have to say, I find it odd that the Minister of Health is saying that hospitals didn’t want extra funding when they in fact asked for almost twice what the government gave them in the last budget. It seems pretty ridiculous. Like Mike Harris before him, this Premier can deny his cuts to health care all he wants, but families can see those cuts: more crowded hospitals, more fired nurses and more hallway medicine.

Last week’s report by the Financial Accountability Office confirms what we have known for some time: The Ford government budget won’t address the crisis in long-term care and will make hallway medicine worse. Is the Premier ready to table the mystery plan that will solve this by the summer, or is he ready to admit that his policies are failing patients?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, through you, I think it really is important to stick to the facts. The facts here are that we are increasing our funding in health care. We are spending $1.3 billion more this year than we did last year in health. We’re investing in health care and education, because we know that those are the issues that are most important to people and families across the province.

We are investing across many areas in terms of infrastructure, in terms of programs. We know that it’s important to deal with mental health and addictions. We’ve been speaking about that today in our debate, with respect to Bill 116. That is an area where we do need assistance.

In point of fact, I didn’t indicate that the hospitals didn’t want any more funding, of course. They were happy with the $384 million that was provided, as well as the $68 million in additional funding. But the point that they made was that we also need to invest in community funding for mental health and addictions, because people should not have to be in crisis and go to the hospital only because that’s the only place that they know of when they’re feeling—

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

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. As the Premier knows, the growing wait for long-term-care beds is compounding the hallway medicine crisis. While the Premier has issued news release after news release after news release re-announcing the same long-term-care beds that the Liberals never built, we know that wait-lists will keep growing. Only 21 beds have actually been built, and it’s clear that most of the new announcements of the beds promised by the Ford government MPPs had been announced before.

Can the Premier tell us how much time was spent repacking Liberal announcements as PC announcements that could have been spent actually constructing long-term-care beds in our province?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. Our government is absolutely committed to creating a 21st-century long-term-care system. That includes building 15,000 new beds and redeveloping another 15,000. We’ve already allocated, this year alone, 1,814 new beds. We have created capacity within the long-term-care sector, and we’re halfway to realizing the 15,000-bed allocations. We are well on our way to doing that.

We know and we acknowledge the aging population. We acknowledge the challenge that we are facing and that your government, under the Liberals, supported for 15 years. We acknowledge the neglect that has happened over that time. We are addressing that and an aging population. We know we need new capacity. We are looking to end hallway health care, addressing the issues within our hospitals. It is absolutely—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier said that he would do things differently, but his plan for long-term care doesn’t just sound the same; it actually is the same. It literally is the same.

Over the last year, PC MPPs crossed the province, repeating Liberal announcements. The member for Durham announced the same 53 beds that her predecessor announced in Port Perry. The Minister of Long-Term Care announced the same 40 beds that her predecessor announced in Brampton—thousands of re-announcements, but only 21 new beds were actually built, while the wait-list grew by 2,800.

Will the Premier tell us how much time was lost and money was spent by Liberal and Conservative MPPs trying to take credit for long-term-care beds that still have not been built?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. Our government, contrary to what is being presented by the opposition today, is committed to protecting what matters most. That means including ending hallway health care, and we have allocated, as I said, over 1,800 new beds. We have reconfirmed the allocations that were previously done to provide certainty to our sector.

We consulted with our sector to understand what they needed to assist in creating the capacity, which is much more than has been done by the previous government, supported by you, while patients languished on wait-lists. We are absolutely dedicated to getting this done. We’re halfway there with our allocations. We want to make sure that people get into the beds when they need them.

We’re also working cross-ministry, ministry-wide, with the Ministry of Health to make sure that we have innovative programs in the community to assist as well. There is much work being done.

Economic policy

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is to the Premier. Premier, I am once again absolutely thrilled to be able to rise in the House and share with everyone more great news about economic activity and investments happening in my city of Hamilton. For far too long, the city of Hamilton and other cities right across Ontario were neglected by the previous Liberal government, which instituted policies and regulations that stifled economic productivity.

For many people in my city, the pursuit of economic opportunity meant having to leave. Finally, however, Hamilton and other cities right across the province have a government that values the ingenuity and ability of our highly skilled workers and is willing to put in place policies that support them.

Can the Premier elaborate on the new investments happening in my city of Hamilton?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for doing a great job, for having a very loud voice in Hamilton, because guess what, Mr. Speaker? Hamilton has been ignored. It has been run by the NDP, the socialists, who destroyed the city for years. Now these companies are flowing into Hamilton, because of our great MPP. That’s why they’re flowing.

A new investment from Quebec: The Corbec steel company has announced that they’re building their first plant in Ontario. It costs anywhere from a $50-million to a $100-million investment, a 100,000-square-foot building, 100 employees, because they love the policies of this government.

As we saw, the NDP and the Liberals destroyed the province, ran 300,000 manufacturing jobs out of this province. We’re creating 272,000 new manufacturing jobs.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is back to the Premier. Premier, since our government has come to office, there is a flurry of economic activity in Hamilton, with close to $900 million being pledged for projects, including $100 million for DHL airport cargo expansion, the launch of Panattoni’s $30-million Aeropark warehouse, a $40-million expansion of the Mondelēz candy plant, and a $700-million pending deal for Hamilton city centre by IN8 Developments for reinvention of the downtown mall.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier speak to the larger economic impact our policies are having for the rest of the province since we formed government?

Hon. Doug Ford: I’d like to thank the member once again. The economic success we have achieved so far is absolutely incredible. Our province is absolutely booming right now. We haven’t seen unemployment numbers like this—so low—in decades, because we’ve created the environment for companies to thrive and prosper and grow within this province.

They’re coming in by hundreds. Companies now know that Ontario is open for business, and when that happens, Mr. Speaker, guess what? We get more revenues up to the provincial coffers. Personal income tax revenues grew by $2.5 billion, because there are 272,000 more people working now than there were a year and four months ago. Sales tax revenues grew by $1.7 billion, reflecting healthy and confident consumer spending. Corporate tax revenues are up a billion dollars. That’s where we’re getting more money to put into education—$700 million more—and to health care, $1.3 billion, because—

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

Fundraising

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, my question is about the integrity and the credibility of this Premier.

Yesterday, Canadians heard some shocking news from the Premier. According to an email that he sent supporters, the fabric of the nation itself is at risk, unless we send him a toonie. A cash grab this crass would be shocking from any other Premier, but when it’s the Premier who posed for magazine covers claiming to be the “resistance” against the federal government, frankly, Speaker, it strains credulity.

If the Premier is remotely serious about this, he wouldn’t be trying to fundraise off of it. Will he apologize today for this crass fundraising email and return any money that he raised from it?

Hon. Doug Ford: After the last federal election, we’ve never seen this country so divided, ever—ever. I had a great conversation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the Premier. The House will come to order.

The Premier will reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: I had a great conversation with Premier Scott Moe from Saskatchewan and Premier Higgs, along with Premier Legault and Premier Kenney. We thought it would be a really good idea—I invited them to Toronto, by the way, to hold the COF meeting here—to send the message around the world that, yes, within a family there may be a few bumps, but we want to give the world certainty. We want to give the business folks certainty to invest here, not only in Ontario but across Canada.

We have to unleash our energy file that’s been stifled for years and years and years under the NDP and the Liberals here. They believe in charging people $1.60 per litre for gas—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, the Premier mentions the Premier of Alberta, but it was odd during the federal election to see the Premier of Alberta, dispatched by his party, campaigning here in the GTA while this Premier essentially was in the Andrew Scheer witness protection program. If the Premier wants to claim and pretend that he’s Bill Davis, he should know that Bill Davis didn’t hide during elections and shake people down for toonies.

Speaker, will the Premier apologize for his crass fundraising email and return any of the money that he’s raised from it?

Hon. Doug Ford: House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It seems that the member opposite has been very nervous since the NDP member of Parliament for Essex lost to a Conservative. He almost seems to be auditioning for a job or an appointment on the floor of the Legislature.

I will say to the honourable gentleman—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ve been asking the House to come to order over the course of the morning. We’re not even halfway through question period. I know your riding names. I will start singling you out if you don’t come to order.

The government House leader has the floor.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I would say to the honourable gentleman: As I said, he seems to be auditioning on the floor of the Legislature. If he wants to talk about cutting red tape, if he wants to talk about the importance of free trade, if he wants to talk about the importance of balanced budgets, then I encourage him to visit the Public Appointments Secretariat. There will be an increased conflict stream. We’ll send that off to the Integrity Commissioner. But if he wants to do all of those things, we’d be happy to have him selling Ontario to the world as well, Mr. Speaker.

Government fiscal policies

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier. When this government took office, they inherited a strong economy. The FAO calls it four years of robust—

Interjections.

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

I had to interrupt the member for Scarborough–Guildwood because I couldn’t hear her because of the noise coming from the government benches. I have to be able to hear the person asking the question.

I apologize to the member for Scarborough–Guildwood and recognize her again. Start the clock.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Speaker. The FAO called it four years of robust growth, low unemployment—the lowest in decades—very strong revenue growth.

Despite the evidence, this government continues to create a manufactured deficit. It’s an illusion, misleading Ontarians and justifying—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I ask the member for Scarborough–Guildwood to withdraw her unparliamentary remark.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Withdraw—and justifying deep cuts to vital social services that support low-income and vulnerable communities. People who receive social assistance as their main or only source of income often have to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table.

Why are you, Premier, persisting with your manufactured deficit and cutting $1 billion from social services—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. I’ll remind all members to make their comments through the Chair.

The Premier to reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, it’s staggering what I just heard—absolutely staggering. We came into office. We lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs—so much for the economy booming. Our health care was a disaster. We had the highest hydro rates in North America. People were leaving. Companies didn’t want anything to do with Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the Premier. I apologize. I’m going to ask this side of the House now to come to order so I can hear the Premier.

Premier, you have the floor. Please reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard over and over again, as I criss-crossed across the province, that these companies would leave in a heartbeat if we had never won this election, and thank God we won, because those 272,000 people—the MPP from Scarborough was saying it was booming? Those 272,400 people did not have jobs. They were worrying about how they were going to pay their rent, pay their mortgage, put food on the table. Those 272,400 people now can do things they might otherwise not be able to do.

We have this province booming like we’ve never seen, right across North America—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will please take his seat.

The supplementary question.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Again to the Premier: In tomorrow’s fall economic statement, will you commit today to reversing the 1.5% cut made to the previous government’s planned increase to social assistance and improving social assistance for people who need it?

Yesterday, the Daily Bread Food Bank released a report and detailed troubling trends in food bank reliance in Ontario. Not only is food bank use on the rise in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, but clients are mainly racialized, Indigenous or disabled, and they are overrepresented in food bank use. More than two thirds of food bank clients live in private rental units and are vulnerable to precarious housing and homelessness. Even in small towns, in rural Ontario, people have begun to see more visible signs of homelessness on the rise.

Premier, will you stop the reckless cuts to services that the most vulnerable in this province depend on and reinstate the planned increase in—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’m going to ask all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

The Premier to reply.

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

Hon. Todd Smith: There’s a lot to unpack and a lot to correct in that question from the member opposite. I can tell you that our government has increased social assistance rates—

Hon. John Yakabuski: Increased.

Hon. Todd Smith: —increased social assistance rates by 1.5%.

We’ve also worked to reduce red tape for those involved in working in social assistance, and I can tell you, that’s been met with great, great enthusiasm by those social workers who are at ODSP offices and at Ontario Works offices. They’re now actually able to spend more time working with their clients to get them into employment, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Premier was just mentioning the 273,000 jobs that have been created in Ontario under this government’s watch in just over a year. Our goal is to link those people, those 900,000 people who are on social assistance, into full-time employment so they can stand on their own, they can become taxpayers in Ontario and continue to provide that safety net to those who are vulnerable—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The next question.

Job creation

Mr. David Piccini: My question is for the minister responsible for small business and red tape reduction. Mr. Speaker, we know that excessive red tape and burdensome reporting requirements, when gone astray, stifle innovation and stifle job creation. In fact, we saw practical ramifications of that under the previous government, when over 380,000 regulations, double that of the next highest province, stifled job creation. The member opposite who brought up supposed job creation—maybe less just government jobs—can tell that to Craft Food House, which shut down in my riding; can tell that to General Electric employees who were laid off in my riding.

Thankfully, on June 18 last year, we saw a new government. Can the minister responsible for red tape reduction please share with the House some of the practical steps he and our government have taken to increase job creation and create jobs in this great province?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South for being a strong advocate for businesses across this province.

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of Premier Ford and the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, our open-for-jobs, open-for-business policies have helped create over 272,000 new jobs in the province of Ontario. It’s about competitiveness, making Ontario open for business—more competitive. A more competitive Ontario will lead to higher productivity levels, better jobs and higher standards of living, more income, higher incomes for families across this province. We are looking forward to building on our open-for-jobs, open-for-business policies and making Ontario the economic engine of Canada once again.

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

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I know that when constituents visit me in my office, they’re not looking for handouts; they’re looking for how to enrich their lives. They’re looking for better jobs. They’re looking to grow their family, and they’re looking to contribute and give back to their community and to have the conditions and the required job in order to do so.

I’d like to ask the minister specifically what he’s doing for truck drivers. I know I have a lot of truck drivers in our community who drive around the clock. We know that the only driving the previous government was doing was driving our economy into the waste bin. Can the minister please tell us what steps he has taken for truck drivers in our community and other small businesses so that we can continue to once again be the engine of the Canadian economy?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Our government is focused on making driving more efficient for Ontario’s truck drivers. Each year, Ontario’s truck drivers must complete multiple inspections in order to operate on our roadways. First, they must complete an annual inspection that can take up to three hours. Additionally, they must take another inspection which can take another hour. We’re simply reducing this and putting it into one inspection that will help save time and costs for our professional truck drivers across the province.

Mr. Speaker, it’s about common-sense regulation changes that will save time and money and help us make Ontario more competitive and build on the 270,000 new jobs that we have helped create under the leadership of Premier Ford. It’s about making Ontario more competitive and driving more investment into this province and ensuring that hard-working families have access to more—

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

Water quality

Mr. Jeff Burch: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment assured us that the government was working with municipalities to upgrade their water systems to remove lead pipes. Will the Premier then please explain why the Ministry of Infrastructure has cut its contributions to the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund by 100% this year?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member for that question. I’ll read something from Health Canada that they put out when they changed their guidelines or their limits this year. Health Canada has messaged that municipal drinking water is still safe and that nothing has changed overnight about the excellent quality of our municipal drinking water.

Canadian municipal utilities continue to provide their communities with the safest water yesterday and the safest water today, and they will continue to provide the safest water tomorrow.

Health Canada recognized that their aggressive targets cannot be achieved overnight and there are significant challenges to meet them, mostly outside municipal authorities to address.

Our government is willing to work with municipalities and work with the federal government to ensure that municipalities have access when they’re doing upgrades to replace those pipes. There’s a Green Infrastructure Fund that’s out there right now. We hope the municipalities are putting in projects that will fix those systems within the municipality.

Mr. Speaker, the testing is undergoing in all municipalities. It’s public; it’s on record. We’re the best in Canada at reporting and ensuring that those tests are online and active and are ready for the public to—

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: Again to the Premier: According to this year’s estimates for the Ministry of Infrastructure, provincial funding for the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund was cut from $111 million last year down to just $1,000 this year—only $1,000 for a program that provides funding for municipal water infrastructure so cities and towns can have safe drinking water.

How can the Premier claim he’s helping municipalities improve their infrastructure when he has completely cut provincial funding for the program that helps municipalities improve their water infrastructure?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Just last November, the Chief Drinking Water Inspector reported that Ontario’s drinking water is one of the best protected in the entire world. Ninety-nine per cent of municipal residential drinking water systems meet Ontario’s drinking water standards. Ninety-five per cent of schools and daycare centres in over 87,000 test results meet Ontario’s standard for drinking water, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the member opposite to reach out to his municipalities, as mine has done, and put together a project for the green infrastructure fund. That is the way to access funding at this point between federal and provincial governments to help alleviate the costs.

But, Mr. Speaker, the municipalities are continuing to do their necessary testing and reporting. The Ministry of the Environment is continuing to oversee the test results. If there is an adverse effect, they have remedies in place to ensure that action is taken to take the appropriate measures to ensure that people are kept safe with their drinking water. Anybody out in their residence can go to their municipal office and ask for testing of their own tap water to see if there is lead involved. But we have a strong, safe drinking water program in place and we’re continuing to support that in this government.

Skilled trades

Mr. Vincent Ke: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Speaker, as you are aware, November 3 to 9 is skilled trades week. All across the province, we are celebrating our tradespeople and the incredible work they do to keep our province moving. In the near future, one in five jobs will be within the skilled trades. With such a high demand, we need to be sure we have the people to fill them.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us about how his ministry is preparing our students for the jobs of today and tomorrow, and how we will address the employment gap within the skilled trades to ensure more students enter these great professions?

Hon. Ross Romano: Thank you very much to the member from Don Valley North for that very thoughtful question and for his great advocacy on behalf of all his constituents. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the member joined myself and the Premier just earlier this year for a tour of Seneca College’s Centre for Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship, where we got to see first-hand the great and incredible work that our colleges are doing to prepare our students for incredible careers in the trades.

I can’t think of a more proud profession to be a part of than the trades. Just look at the roads we drive on, the buildings we work in, the hospitals we get our care in and the schools we get our education in. Who built them? The trades. With all the advancements in technology, there’s no better time than now to be a part of the trades. So I would encourage everyone in this House and everyone in the media gallery to spread the word: Be proud. Be professional. Join the trades.

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

Mr. Vincent Ke: Thank you to the minister for that answer. It is great to hear that our government is actively taking steps to ensure that our approach to the post-secondary education system is adaptive and responds to the needs of businesses. In 2019, a career in the skilled trades does not necessarily look like the careers of the past. More than ever, students need to be equipped with the most up-to-date education possible.

Speaker, can the minister tell us more about how our post-secondary institutions are creating the next generation of tradespeople, and highlight some of the exciting opportunities before them?

Hon. Ross Romano: I am so humbled and privileged to be a part of this ministry, where my job is to make sure that our post-secondary students find great-paying jobs. That is why I started out in this role meeting with the presidents of all of our post-secondary institutions, all 45 of them, and I learned something very, very unacceptable, which was that the program approval process took sometimes in excess of two years. So immediately, we made changes to that, and before the House even resumed last week, we had already brought that program approval process down to six months.

With 81% of all trade apprenticeship training happening within the college system, these changes to the program approval process will allow more students to gain better access to programming and to ensure that our schools can give them the tools they need to access programs and training in the trades, in these proud professional careers.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. We know from teachers and students and families just how bad this Premier’s cuts are making things in our schools, and now a new report from People for Education shows that student mental health is suffering because of it. The report shows that not only are there fewer support staff available at fewer hours—thanks to this government’s cuts—but to make things worse, these cuts are particularly hurting rural students across the province.

Students, teachers and our schools are suffering. Will this government do the right thing, reverse these cuts and stop making life worse for students and their families?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

The report calls for a more proactive intervention approach to mental health: positive mental health intervention for our youngest. It’s why this government announced a historic investment, more than doubling the mental health funding in the province of Ontario, from $14 million to $40 million, as well as hiring 180 full-time psychologists, psychotherapists and support workers to support high schools right across this province.

The report also calls for de-escalation training for our staff, for our administrators and for our principals. We’re doing that through a new investment announced just two weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, I know there is more to do. I think if we can work together as parliamentarians to ensure young people have the support they need, we could all know that our young people have the support needed to get through the difficulty and adversity of mental health challenges.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The minister can talk the talk about mental health, but his cuts are making things worse for the most vulnerable children in our schools.

Let’s talk for a moment about facts and not fiction: In the Upper Canada District School Board, cuts have meant they’ve lost their psychological associate and all 24 mental health and behavioural support workers—that is shameful.

Simply put, investing in mental health in our schools saves lives. Cramming more kids into overcrowded classrooms makes it harder for students to get the vital attention and mental health support they deserve.

Again to the Premier: Will he listen to principals, teachers and the experts, and scrap the cuts and stop jeopardizing the well-being of Ontario’s students?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The Premier and all members of this caucus are absolutely committed to supporting the most vulnerable in the class. It is why our government announced more than double the mental health funding for the most vulnerable children in schools, from $14 million to $40 million.

It’s why, for children with autism, who are on the spectrum, we more than doubled the funding envelope for kids with ASD. It’s why for kids with special education needs we’re investing more than any government in the history of this province: a $3.1-billion investment to help those children.

These are the facts: 180 new psychologists, psychotherapists and social workers supporting high schools across our province. I know there’s more we can do, but this government is leading by example, investing in the front lines and supporting the most vulnerable kids in our classes.

Consumer protection

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. As the minister knows, the Auditor General released her value-for-money audit on Tarion last week. The report found that Tarion failed to properly provide the consumer protection required when builders do not honour their warranties to new home buyers. The auditor also found that Tarion dismissed thousands of requests for homeowners who missed Tarion’s tight deadlines.

To put it simply, Tarion is not doing nearly enough to protect Ontarians as they buy a new home. Can the minister explain what actions our government is taking to ensure that Ontarians are being properly protected when buying a new home?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: First of all, I’d like to thank the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for that amazing question, because this is a very important issue across Ontario. I can tell you, the first thing we started doing was that we started to listen and we started to meet with stakeholders, because we understand the importance of making sure that there is a proper warranty in place for new home buyers.

I have to remark on the fact that just last week, the member opposite from Humber River–Black Creek actually noted that in the Auditor General’s report, it said that there was a complete lack of oversight by the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government. I agree wholeheartedly on that, because we’ve heard time and again examples of homeowners who essentially had the carpet yanked out from them because of the failure of that past Liberal administration.

I can tell you what we’re doing. We have taken steps to establish a separate regulator. We are reviewing the feasibility of a proper insurance program. I’ve used my minister’s power to compel the disclosure of—

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the minister: It’s reassuring to hear that you and our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, are working to strengthen protections for home buyers.

In addition to having concerns with protecting new home buyers, the Auditor General found that Tarion lacked transparency and accountability. Our government must ensure that Ontarians can have confidence that Tarion is fulfilling its mandate to protect Ontario home buyers. Speaker, could the minister outline how the government is transforming Tarion to ensure their number one priority is always to protect Ontarians who are buying a new home?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I want to put it on record that we very much appreciate the report that the Auditor General tabled on October 30. She had some very viable suggestions and rationale as to why home insurance for new home buyers—or warranty, I should say; the home warranty for new home buyers—needs to be reviewed.

I’m pleased to share with you—I said we’re meeting with stakeholders. Tarion is taking their responsibility in the previous oversights very seriously. They, too, are being progressive. We’re working very closely with the board of directors to make sure we get home warranties for new homeowners back on track.

Another thing I want to share with you is that we’re also taking a look at what we need to be doing to protect condo owners in the province of Ontario as well. We’re going to be reviewing and working very diligently to make sure that we get back on track for condo owners and new homeowners after the dismal performance of a failed Liberal government. I look forward to—

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

The next question.

Long-term care

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Long-term care in Ontario is in crisis. As the Financial Accountability Officer exposed, the number of seniors waiting to move into long-term-care facilities has reached a record high.

People like Monique Shoppoff of Hearst have to be taken care of by their family at home. Mrs. Shoppoff is 87 years old, has problems speaking, can no longer cook or bathe herself and cannot control her bowel movements. She needs to be in long-term care.

Speaker, why is this government cutting long-term-care funding when people like Mrs. Shoppoff are left on their own, fighting for human dignity?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member for the question. For the first time in Ontario’s history, this government is prioritizing the needs of our most vulnerable people—15,000 new beds for long-term care, 15,000 to be redeveloped. We’ve been working with our sector. We heard very soon after becoming a dedicated ministry to long-term care that there were issues in some of the funding streams, and we’ve addressed those. There have been no cuts to long-term care. I repeat that: no cuts to long-term care.

It is absolutely clear to me that the previous government, supported by the NDP 90% of the time, ignored the issue. For 15 years, long-term-care people waited on wait-lists—15 years. We are working with our sector. We are making sure we get our most vulnerable into the beds that they need and deserve, to help caregivers—

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Speaker, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases like Mrs. Shoppoff’s in northern Ontario. My mother is one of them.

For the facility we host in Kapuskasing, which has 88 beds, there are another 98 seniors on the wait-list. A large number of hospital beds are occupied by people on the wait-list. In Hearst, the Foyer des Pionniers’s wait time is three years—three years, Speaker.

We are talking about the people who have built this province, people who have done their due part to live the rest of their lives surrounded by love and care. Why does this minister believe that seniors like Mrs. Shoppoff can wait three years to obtain the services they need and deserve?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you again for the question. We recognize the issues that have been many, many years in the making under the neglect of the previous government. We don’t just add water and create a long-term-care bed.

These are real people, recognizing the families and the caregivers and all the impact that it has on families. I feel that very strongly. Our government is making sure that we are streamlining the processes to get shovels in the ground, people in the beds faster, caregivers supported. We are working cross-ministry to make sure that we have staffing addressed, that we have the funding envelopes that are needed.

This is so much more than the previous government ever did or ever thought of doing. My own family has been impacted by this. I take it personally. Our government is dedicated to getting 15,000 new beds open and supporting people in the community. We will continue to work every day to get that done.

Skilled trades

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is for the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development. Over the next five years, one in five jobs in Ontario is expected to be in trades-related occupations. This week, people and organizations all over Canada are participating in National Skilled Trades and Technology Week, a sector close to my heart. But raising awareness is not enough. Urgent action is needed to break down barriers so people can enter these rewarding, exciting and well-paying jobs.

Building a skilled trades workforce is a priority. Can the minister please tell us what the government is doing to make it easier for people to join the trades?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills for that very important question. We do have a challenge on the horizon. Urgent action is needed to ensure we have highly skilled workers to build Ontario’s future. Mr. Speaker, my friend and Canada’s Building Trades Unions director, Arlene Dunn, says that the construction sector needs 260,000 new workers over the next 10 years.

Our government is going to deliver for this generation and the next generation. That’s why we moved swiftly to end the College of Trades, reduce membership fees for those in the skilled trades and lower the apprenticeship ratio. We want to create an apprenticeship system that’s free from red tape, easy to navigate, and unlocks the potential of our young people so they can have a lucrative and great-paying career.

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

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Thank you, Minister. I am glad our government is taking this important step.

Minister, giving someone a hand up sets them on the path to success. It’s how we put people first. Those who enter Ontario’s skilled trades choose important careers that lead to secure jobs, rewarding work and a good quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell the House how the government is helping young people and underrepresented groups join the trades?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you again to the member for that question. Mr. Speaker, great careers await our young people in the skilled trades.

Last week I was honoured to join the Minister of Education, the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues and the member from Niagara West to announce the expansion of the Specialist High Skills Major. We now have programs in over 700 high schools right across this province to encourage young people to enter the trades.

But our commitment to the trades doesn’t stop there. Last year in Ontario, 1,600 young people were exposed to jobs in the skilled trades through Ontario’s Pre-apprenticeship Training Program. This program gets groups like newcomers to Canada, women, francophones, youth at risk and others who are unemployed or underemployed on track to becoming a skilled tradesperson. Mr. Speaker, our government is building the workforce that Ontario needs today and into the future.

Hospital funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, this government’s decision to fund hospitals well below the rate of inflation, just like the Liberals did, is forcing London Health Sciences Centre to reduce staff and close beds, putting London patients at risk. To deal with a $53-million deficit created by both Liberal and Conservative governments, London Health Sciences Centre is cutting staff hours and implementing a hiring freeze—the equivalent of eliminating 165 full-time positions. In October, it also announced the closure of 49 hospital beds, leaving even more London patients to be cared for in hallway stretchers.

Speaker, can the Premier explain how cutting the equivalent of 165 staff and closing 49 hospital beds will fix London’s hallway medicine crisis?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question, but in fact, London Health Sciences Centre has received funding across the board as part of the $384 million extra this year over what was paid for last year.

Now, the hospital does make their own decisions, as you know. They have their own board of directors. They have to meet their own funding requirements within their own budget. So the decisions that were made by London were made very carefully, but also made to make sure that patients were not going to be disrupted, that they are going to combine what’s going on with these services that will no longer be provided by the hospital—they will be provided in the community.

The hospital has worked very hard to make sure that there is no patient disruption, but this was something that they needed to do in order to meet their own budget requirements, and that was their decision. It has nothing to do with funding, with respect to funding by the province.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, 11 of the closed beds are in the burns and plastics unit, which means the unit is effectively shutting down. Nurses with specialized training in treating burns will be redeployed to other areas of the hospital. When burn patients come in, these nurses, if they are available, will have to leave the other patients they are caring for, compromising the care those patients receive. Vulnerable burn patients will have to be transported through the hospital for special treatment, increasing their risk of infection.

Speaker, does the minister believe that removing the burns unit from London Health Sciences Centre is good for patient care?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The hospital in this case is enacting a capacity plan to standardize their approach to patient access and flow while improving patient safety and service quality. They are making changes according to the level of demand that they are experiencing, which is what I would expect all of us would expect them to do. They are making these changes based on what’s available in the community, based on the level of demand that they are experiencing and what is necessary in order to enhance capacity in other areas. They are making decisions based on what’s happening within their own community and within their own hospital.

That is something that is up to them and something they discussed with the Ministry of Health. We’re supportive of their efforts to make sure that they can live within their funding envelope while still delivering excellent, quality patient care, which, of course, they are going to continue to do.

Women’s issues

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: My question is for the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues. Speaker, the simple fact is that we need more women in the workforce. Unfortunately, we know that gender stereotypes and gender biases develop early in life and affect the choices made by girls and young women. Often, these biases follow women into the workforce. To combat these, we need investments into programs that encourage and assist women to get into the workforce and move into leadership roles.

It was a pleasure to host the minister this summer when we went to YWCA Toronto and spoke with staff and alumni of the Moving on to Success program.

Can the minister share what kind of investments and initiatives we are making to support women in the workforce?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member from Scarborough–Rouge Park for that question. It was great to visit your riding this summer.

Our government knows the value of women in the workforce.

I was honoured to visit the YWCA this summer with my wonderful colleagues from the Scarborough area. They work with women and girls to provide them with skills and help them find employment.

I also had the chance to meet with Paro Centre for Women’s Enterprise in Thunder Bay about the great work they’re doing to encourage female entrepreneurs. They are celebrating 25 years of excellent work this November 7, and I wish them all the best.

Speaker, our government supports 23 women’s centres across Ontario that work to increase women’s employability, social inclusion and safety, which can lead to their fuller participation in the economy.

It is through organizations and initiatives like these that we can raise women up, get more women in the workforce and build a better Ontario.

Terry Fallis

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I want to draw members’ attention to the fact that tomorrow we have a very special guest visiting the Legislature: award-winning author Terry Fallis. We put notices on your desk. I would cordially invite all of you to attend.

Answers to written questions

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I rise on a point of order pursuant to standing order 99, which deals with written questions. As per 99(d), “The minister shall answer such written questions within 24 sessional days,” and 99(e), which states, “The answers to such written questions shall be given to the member who asked the question”—that’s me—“and to the Clerk of the House....”

Speaker, I rise on this point because my question number 126 to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, tabled on May 1, was due yesterday, and my question number 127 to the Minister of Infrastructure was also tabled on May 1 and was also due yesterday.

I’d like to know when I can expect answers from these ministers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to advise the House that the member for Oshawa does indeed have a valid point of order. I need to remind the ministers that they are required, under standing order 99(d), to file a response within 24 sessional days to a written question, and the responses are now overdue. I would ask both the ministers that they give the House some indication as to when the responses will be forthcoming.

I recognize the Minister of Heritage.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: With the name change to the ministry, we had a little bit of a delay. We have signed off, though, with the new letterhead. So thank you very much for raising it and bringing it to our attention. We are going to make sure you get the information as quickly as possible.

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

This House is in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1138 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have with us today, in the Speaker’s gallery, the consul general of the United States at Toronto, Mr. Gregory Stanford. He is here today with a number of members of his staff from the US consulate.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re delighted to have you here.

Mr. Gurratan Singh: It is with great pleasure that I introduce two amazing guests to this House. We have with us, from Ohio, Mr. Tarunjit Singh. He is an activist. He is an academic, a professor of engineering, as well as an advocate for peace and justice. He will be our keynote speaker at tonight’s reception, around the anniversary of the Sikh genocide of November 1984. So it’s with great, great pleasure that I get to introduce Mr. Tarunjit Singh to this House.

As well, we have members from a local seniors group from Brampton. We have members from the Gore seniors group.

It is our great, great honour to have both of these amazing guests in the House today.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to welcome Mr. Ziad Malawi, the president of the Jordanian Canadian organization; Mr. Abdel Rahman Fraishat, Mr. Abdel Kareem Farhat and Lara Richard, representing the guests from Jordan; as well as the newspaper AL-Mersal, in Arabic. Welcome.

Members’ Statements

Hamilton Naturalists’ Club

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I rise today to acknowledge and to celebrate the incredible efforts of the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club.

The Hamilton Naturalists’ Club is celebrating their 100th anniversary. That’s 100 years of dedication to the appreciation and to the conservation of our wild plants and animals in Hamilton and the surrounding region.

One of their earliest achievements was the designation of Cootes Paradise as a nature preserve in 1927. As a result, generations of Hamiltonians have and will continue to enjoy the beauty of Cootes Paradise.

The Hamilton Naturalists’ Club Christmas bird count is a tradition that dates back to 1921.

They are true leaders in the protection and conservation of our environment and natural resources. At a time when the government is cutting environmental protections and has no credible plan to address our climate crisis, the importance of public education and environmental advocacy is needed now more than ever.

Congratulations to the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club for doing that work for over 100 years.

City of Richmond Hill

Mrs. Daisy Wai: In March, the town of Richmond Hill officially became the city of Richmond Hill. Our amazing community is growing rapidly, and I could not be prouder of the business community, which has helped the community to grow into where it is now.

Other than the business achievement award, the Richmond Hill Innovators of the Year Awards are presented to recognize innovative Richmond Hill companies. They are transforming industries and positively contributing to the Canadian and world economies.

On October 30, four outstanding homegrown businesses were awarded this prest