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

April 10, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Apr-10 (PDF)

L010 - Tue 10 Apr 2018 / Mar 10 avr 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 10 April 2018 Mardi 10 avril 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Special report, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Visitors

Wearing of pins

Wearing of ribbons

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Taxation

Hospital funding

Dental care

Taxation

Pay equity

Pay equity

Health care funding

Road safety

Climate change

Hospital funding

Labour dispute

Pay equity

Wind turbines

Visitors

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Ontario Scottish community

Pension plans

Organ and tissue donation

Delhi Rockets

Injured workers

Pay equity

Pay equity

Sikh community

Elementary school curling championship

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Vulnerable Road Users Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la protection des usagers de la route vulnérables

Youth Political Engagement Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’engagement politique des jeunes

Protection of Vulnerable Seniors in the Community Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la protection des personnes âgées vulnérables dans la collectivité

Garrett’s Legacy Act (Requirements for Movable Soccer Goals), 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le legs de Garrett (exigences relatives aux buts de soccer mobiles)

Marriage Amendment Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur le mariage

Petitions

Lyme disease

Long-term care

Water fluoridation

Lyme disease

Employment standards

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Lyme disease

Hospital funding

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Lyme disease

Politiques énergétiques

Consumer protection

Orders of the Day

Correctional Services Transformation Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transformation des services correctionnels

Plan for Care and Opportunity Act (Budget Measures), 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour un plan axé sur le mieux-être et l’avenir (mesures budgétaires)

Adjournment Debate

Fire safety

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 3,

An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 17, 2018, and Wednesday, April 18, 2018, from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the notice of public hearings; and

That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on Monday, April 16, 2018; and

That witnesses be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis; and

That the Clerk of the Committee distribute a draft copy of the agenda to the committee members by Friday, April 13, 2018, at 11 a.m. and again at Friday, April 13, 2018, at 4 p.m.; and

That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation, followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members, divided equally among the recognized parties; and

That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2018; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 11 a.m. on Thursday, April 19, 2018; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Monday, April 23, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

On April 23, 2018, at 4:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period, pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, April 24, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report immediately, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 81(c), the bill may be called more than once in the same sessional day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties; and

That, during this time, there shall be no motion for either adjournment of the debate or adjournment of the House permitted. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the votes on second and third reading may be deferred, pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Madame Des Rosiers has moved government notice of motion number 4.

I turn it back to Madame Des Rosiers.

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: Today is Equal Pay Day, which is the day when we wear red to notice that women are still in the red. It serves as a symbolic reminder that every time, each year, it takes a woman longer on average to earn as much as a man. It reminds us of the work that we still need to do to close the gender wage gap.

Today we are putting forward this transparency-of-pay bill, which is important. Let’s get it done. I urge all members to step forward and finish the work on this bill. It’s really important that we shorten our remarks because time is passing for women and I think they want to get the work done. It’s about time that we ensure women are treated fairly in the workplace.

C’est le temps de travailler pour l’équité salariale. Le temps presse pour les femmes en Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to offer remarks and thoughts on Bill 3, which is the Pay Transparency Act, 2018. I’m not happy with the fact that it’s a time allocation, which means they’re limiting debate.

We’re debating yet another time allocation motion on a government bill. Again and again, the government has shown disrespect for the democratic process by cutting short debate in the House.

It is pay equity day. This government has been in for 15 years, so now we’re rushing through time allocation on a bill they just introduced—I don’t know—a few weeks ago. I can’t even remember the exact time—March 20, I guess. There it is; I have it right in front of me here. It just seems that their reasoning to rush it through is pay equity day and, “Chop-chop. Let’s get it done.”

We’ve seen this act play out so many times. It’s actually quite irresponsible when the government introduces the bill and then time-allocates it a few short weeks later.

Soon after they introduced this legislation the first time, they ended by sabotaging their own bill by proroguing the Legislature to deliver their partisan throne speech. So the process had to start over again on March 20, which is the date that I had read previously. So they introduced it before, and then they thought, “Uh-oh, we need to reset the channel in the province of Ontario. Let’s prorogue.” Then they have to reintroduce it again, and then it’s like, “Hurry up and get it through.” It’s one example of just how sloppy the government’s approach on this important issue has been.

The main question is, why are they now, all of a sudden, rushing to pass a pay transparency bill just before an election? I don’t know. What do the people of Ontario think? As I said, they’ve been in for 15 years. Since we’re talking about transparency, I can tell you their intentions are pretty transparent to Ontarians. They’re playing politics, as always. They’re trying to score political points with Ontarians after having ignored this issue for many, many years.

Let’s just look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. This bill has only come out now, four years after the Minister of Labour was given a mandate letter to lead the development of a gender wage gap strategy. Come on; let’s look at the timing. Four years to prepare an eight-page bill that is heavy on symbolism and rhetoric, but light on substance—that’s very disappointing. It’s especially disappointing to the women and girls across this province who may have taken this government at its word when it talked about its commitment to women.

Lots of good titles in their bills, but not a lot of actions—and their timing, as I said, is very political and partisan.

This government is an expert at saying things that people want to hear without having any intention of acting on their commitments. They tell you that they created a stand-alone ministry for the status of women, and named a four-person expert panel to make recommendations on closing the gender wage gap, but the fact is they have largely ignored the recommendations that they’ve received from their own experts. So much time, effort and goodwill have been squandered by the government when it comes to addressing this issue.

Instead of advancing a legislative agenda that would make a real and practical difference in helping employers and employees work together to advance pay equity, this government basically ignored the recommendations made by its own Gender Wage Gap Strategy Steering Committee in its final report. Those recommendations focused on better ways of ensuring the fair valuing of work done by women; improving workplace practices for women; challenging stereotypes; supporting women and families in balancing work demands and caregiving responsibilities, specifically child care and parental leave; and leveraging the government’s size and purchasing power to close the wage gap.

What did the government deliver in response to these recommendations, Mr. Speaker? The answer is, really, not much.

For my part, I was disappointed but not surprised that the government did not accept the offer I made one year ago this week, on the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Pay Equity Act, to create a special legislative committee to sit through the spring and summer of 2017 to develop amendments to strengthen the Pay Equity Act. I made that proposal in question period to the Minister of Labour. I made the suggestion—and I thought it was a good suggestion, to get things moving, to make the government act—because, in the mid-1980s, all three parties worked in committee for close to a year to develop the landmark Pay Equity Act.

On June 15, 1987, the Pay Equity Act was passed unanimously, but almost 30 years later this government’s Minister of Labour has no interest in non-partisan co-operation on this very important issue. Instead, he was very busy ignoring many of his own Gender Wage Gap Strategy Steering Committee recommendations. Meanwhile, for over a decade, they flatlined the budget of the Pay Equity Office, and in doing so they neglected pay equity. They may have even interfered with the ability of an independent agency of government to advance pay equity.

The fact is that under the watch of this Minister of Labour and of this Premier, the financial resources of the Pay Equity Office have been the lowest in the 30-year history of this internationally respected agency. Despite this neglect, the agency continues to investigate workplaces and work with employers to comply with the law. I know the third party on the other side—we have had this discussion many times and they have brought up the same issue.

On page 14 of the most recent annual report, in 2016-17, we read that between 2011 and 2016, the small group of investigators at this agency completed approximately 2,000 workplace pay equity reviews and identified over $27 million in wage adjustments. It’s an impressive result, considering the limited resources they had to deal with. Maybe with more resources and with better access to new technology and analytics, they could achieve even more for women and be better positioned to address wage issues.

Then, all of a sudden, the most recent budget, tabled on March 28, announced a 25% increase in the Pay Equity Office’s annual budget, out of nowhere. They again try to pretend that they care about this issue, but this just shows their cynicism. Not only is it too little, too late, but this Liberal government’s support for the Pay Equity Office remains near its lowest level in its 30-year history.

Coming back to this legislation, I wonder why this government hasn’t strengthened Ontario’s Pay Equity Act by amending it to give this agency, which works well with the private sector on compliance, the authority and the resources to work with employers to regularly provide pay equity compliance reports.

During its consultation, the four-person expert panel on closing the gender wage gap heard strong support for revising the act, to state how pay equity “can be maintained in workplaces that need to make changes to their compensation systems or add new job classes, for example.”

They also thought that “all employers, especially new ones,” need to be made “aware of their pay equity obligations.”

They also recommended re-examining “the role of workplace parties” and “consider who needs to be covered by pay equity, in light of the changing nature of workplace relationships.”

These are all recommendations that the government asked for.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Good recommendations.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes, very logical, very good recommendations. They’ve been wanting the government to listen for a long time.

But this government bill, after they asked the expert panel—I don’t think they really wanted to listen to them, because they’re famous for, “Let’s do an expert panel, but let’s ignore the recommendations.” I can go through many, many ministers with that example.

But this government bill does none of that. In fact, the government’s bill, which is now being time-allocated—which, I say to those that may be watching at home, limits our debate and discussion—has been criticized by a key member of the government’s gender wage gap strategy working group—it’s a mouthful, Mr. Speaker. It has been criticized by the government’s own gender wage gap strategy working group.

This member said that it is a bit rich for the government to claim that its approach is based on consultation with the Equal Pay Coalition, when the Equal Pay Coalition is calling the bill a “missed opportunity” and “timid,” and suggesting that it is lower than the lowest common denominator and requires substantial and substantive amendment to make it all relevant.

I couldn’t get all the time allocation deadlines for committee, but I’ll look at that towards the end of my comments. But, really, it’s suggesting it is lower than the lowest common denominator and requires substantial and substantive amendment to make it all relevant.

On March 7, 2018, this stakeholder called for significant amendments to strengthen the act and bring it in line with employers’ existing legal obligations. They asked for amendments so that the new act would apply to all private and public sector employers with more than 10 employees, to match the Pay Equity Act that we have and to see that the Pay Equity Office has responsibility for the administration of the Pay Transparency Act. They asked for it to apply to all government procurement and government contracts, a very fair ask.

They asked for it to include mandatory timelines for the filing of annual transparency reports. They wanted it to clearly set out what information must be in the transparency reports, including compensation structure and wage grids, job classification and job status, full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal and temporary agencies.

It’s pretty detailed. They did not do this in a “quick, let’s rush this legislation through,” not thoughtful way. The government had asked for all this input. It has got to be very disappointing to the Pay Equity Office and to the members of the working groups that the government, again, had asked for recommendations, and then for the extra panel that the government wanted to look over the working group’s work.

I mean, it just goes on and on in the delay in not really tackling this very serious issue.

They made very thorough recommendations and had very thorough expectations because they actually want to accomplish things. They want to do much more work on pay equity.

I was hoping we would have the time to consider and debate these recommendations, but, again, given the time allocation, I’m sure we won’t.

I’ve got to look to see here. It’s going to go to the social policy committee. It’s Tuesday, April 17, and Wednesday, April 18, for two and a half hours for public hearings. The deadline for requests to appear is Monday, April 16; that would be next week. Witnesses are first-come, first-served. The deadline for written submissions is next Wednesday at 6 p.m. Let me see: They are going to meet the next Monday, April 23, for six hours for the clause-by-clause consideration, which means—to everyone at home—amendments, changes to the bill.

There are a lot of recommendations out there that I don’t know if the government will incorporate or not. They are the ones that asked for the working committees to make these recommendations. They time-allocated all this to go so quickly. Let me see the dates. There will be a report back to the House no later than Tuesday, April 24. Then we’re going to have to hurry up and debate it, and, again, will have limited time—limited time to listen to amendments that may come forward, limited time in committee hearings, and limited time for third reading debate.

This has gone on for years. I even asked last year, last summer, to do a special committee to sit through the summer to push this further ahead, to give the government more material, if they felt they needed it. This, again, has gone on for years, and now we’re close to an election, so we’re, “Hurry up and put this out there, to pretend that we’re actually doing something.”

Mr. John Yakabuski: It does nothing.

Ms. Laurie Scott: No.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It is.

I’ve read from the committee members who are incredibly, incredibly disappointed about how unsubstantive this bill is and what they would like to see. It’s disappointing. It’s disappointing for women and girls in the province that this government hasn’t really taken their issues seriously in respect to pay equity and taking action, as the government always pretends they’re doing but doesn’t actually do.

Back to what the bill actually does: The proposed bill supposedly establishes requirements relating to the disclosure of information about the compensation of employees and prospective employees. Again, “supposedly,” because it’s unclear whether the provisions will actually apply to many private sector employers.

Section 4 prohibits employers from seeking compensation history information from an applicant for a position, but how will this be enforced and what will the penalty be for non-compliance? Who will individuals complain to? Does the ministry have the resources for this work? I’m sure they’re going to say, as always, “It’s in regulations. Stay tuned.” But, really, those are pretty genuine questions. How is this all going to function?

Section 5 requires employers to include in any publicly advertised job posting information about the expected compensation or range of compensation for the position. Again, how will the government enforce this?

We’ve had some briefings. I appreciate that we had some briefings but, again, the devil is always in the details—in regulations. Again, if there was more time, we could be discussing this. We’re going to have to hurry up and get stakeholders to appear before committee—not everybody lives in the city of Toronto—and make recommendations. We, in opposition, do not hold the power on the committee, so if the government does not agree with the amendments, then we don’t have a whole lot of choice.

Again, it’s unfortunate that time allocation is coming on a bill that we’ve been asking for. I’ve been saying since last summer, “Come on. Let’s get a special committee and let’s get things going.”

I don’t know if I have lost my place.

Section 7 prohibits employers or persons acting on their behalf from intimidating, dismissing or otherwise penalizing employees for, among other things, making inquiries about the employee’s compensation, disclosing their compensation or asking the employer to comply with the act or the regulations. Complaints by employees that an employer has contravened this provision may be dealt with by arbitration or by filing a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. My question would be: Is this a problem in Ontario? Where is the evidence? They haven’t listened to the recommendations of the working group. Have they thought through this process?

Sections 8 to 11 address the powers and duties of compliance officers who may be appointed to enforce the act. Compliance officers may conduct compliance audits. If an officer believes that a person has contravened a provision of this act or the regulations, the officer may issue a notice of contravention to the person, under

section 12. Are these compliance officers actually in place? How many does the government think will be needed? What’s their budget? Again, we don’t know.

The current government has become expert at raising expectations, spending taxpayers’ funds unwisely and delaying progress. It’s unfortunate that women’s issues have been more of a communications exercise than a policy priority or program achievement.

I’ve spoken quite a lot on this bill that we’re rushing through the Legislature, on something the government should have acted on a long, long time ago, and on which the opposition wanted to co-operate with them.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sharing my time with another colleague later on. I thank you for the opportunity I had today for the comments—and how the really colourful titles and thoughts that are brought in are timely, just before an election, but no real action is taken on women’s issues and closing the gender gap.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to have a little bit of time to speak to the pay transparency motion before us, although now we’re into time allocation. I find it interesting that on Equal Pay Day, we’re talking about pay transparency and pay equity. We’re talking about transparency—that’s what is in the name of the bill—and yet what the government is doing is trying to shut down debate and not really be transparent. They don’t want to talk about what’s in the bill. They don’t want to hear from the other members in the House. They don’t want to hear from our constituents. They want to shut it down.

Maybe they need to rename the bill to accurately reflect what it is we’ve seen time and time again from this government, because they consistently bring forward time allocation motions and try to shut down debate and rush through their agenda in this House.

It’s also interesting that on the eve of an election—we’re going into an election—suddenly now this is so important to the Liberal government. But I want to point out that for 10 years—10 years—this Liberal government has not given base funding increases to agencies that support people with developmental disabilities. What that means is those agencies can’t meet their pay equity obligations. So we have a government that is trying to talk a good talk but they certainly don’t walk the walk when it comes to pay equity.

Something else that I think is important to point out: When we’re talking about pay equity and we’re talking about pay transparency, but more specifically pay equity, one of the best ways to achieve pay equity is for someone to be a member of a union. I am proud to be part of a team—

Interjection.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I just got the thumbs-up from the member from Barrie, because I know she was a union member. Well, I’m assuming she still is a union member—who voted against her own members and stripped them of their collective bargaining rights and forced them back to work. But she’s still a union member.

I want to point out that I am proud to be part of a team, to be part of the NDP, the only party—not the Liberals; not the Conservatives—that proudly has unionized staff. We don’t just talk the talk on pay equity and workers’ rights; we walk the walk, because our staff are unionized. We encourage that, and we support that and celebrate that.

So again, this government wants to pretend like they have been working on this for a long time—and I would say that 15 years is a very long time. They’ve had 15 years to actually do something about this, 15 years to get it right. Where we are now is with a government who is only doing this because there’s an election looming. On Equal Pay Day, the Liberal government themselves are not ensuring that their own public service employees are receiving pay equity, and that is shameful.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate. Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I guess it’s me.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. I guess the government chooses to invoke the cone of silence. They don’t want to speak to their own motion, another time allocation motion brought before this House—which, I might say, would have been completely unnecessary had the government not decided to go through this big ceremony of a throne speech, proroguing the Legislature so that the Premier could have this walk in with the trumpets and the whole bit, to tell the world how great she was, one more time, and how they were going to save Ontario from the Liberals themselves. Because the Liberals have changed. They now care about the people of Ontario.

In fact, they called the throne speech “care and opportunity.” What it should have been called is “opportunity and care,” because it was the Liberals, once again—which has been the practice of this Premier, since she was elected as leader. It has been the practice of this Premier to practise opportunity and care. Every chance she’s gotten, she’s taken the opportunity to care for the backroom Liberals and the Liberal-friendly people who have made donations to that party. This is no different. This is the way the Liberals work: taking an opportunity to care for those people who are advancing the cause of the Liberal Party, not the people of Ontario.

This bill—we’re going to get into why we think that the use of time allocation is a bad thing. But I would say, Speaker—I would myself propose a time allocation motion: I would like to ensure that the people of Ontario time-allocate this government, so that after June 7, its time has run out. Let’s do a motion in this House, a time allocation on the Wynne Liberal government. On June 7? It’s over. That would be the time allocation.

I would suspect I would have the support of the people of the province of Ontario on that time allocation motion, not the 40-some time allocations that I have been witness to in this chamber since this government came into office. One more time allocation motion is what we need, and that’s to time-allocate this government’s time in office.

They preached against time allocation over and over again when they were in opposition. I won’t have enough time to go through them all, but the member from St. Catharines, the chief whip, who sat in various portfolios as a cabinet minister as well in his over 40 years in this chamber, used to rail against the use of time allocation when another party would invoke it. He just railed against it, the injustice and what an affront to democracy it was and how absolutely wrong it was to invoke that and end the opportunity for members of this chamber to debate.

He called it a “guillotine,” and now he’s the man that pulls the lever on the guillotine. He and the House leader are the ones that pull the lever on the guillotine, cutting off the head of the chamber in debate.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Here he is right now, the member from St. Catharines.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Here he is, the guillotine man himself. Of course, he was the House leader for a long period of time too, and I tell you, it was just amazing. He could bring in that motion and, on the other side of the House, look so innocent, as if, “Oh, I’m doing the right thing.” My God, he must have had himself twisted in knots sometimes, writing out those motions for time allocation.

But Speaker, to the bill itself—and I want to give credit to my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, who has probably done more in her time in opposition to prod and drag the government, kicking and screaming, to advance the cause of women than anyone else. What would we have done in this chamber on the issue of human sex trafficking if not for the work and the initiatives of my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock?

She has forced the government to focus on it and start to change their tune and recognize what an absolutely universal crime it is across this province and how much it affects people born right here in the province of Ontario, which was not considered to be the norm in the past. But by putting that pressure on the government, they’ve actually brought in some new legislation and also put some money to the task forces and the police forces themselves to try to combat human sex trafficking.

I know that there have been some high-profile cases and high-profile snares, if you want to call it that, where some people who are involved in that sick crime of human sex trafficking have been caught and are being brought to justice. The more we can do to combat that, very much the better.

But she also talked about the pay equity situation as well, and she has got a handle on this that the government doesn’t seem to have. You know, the members opposite don’t seem to understand what the pay equity challenges really are. The reality is that this bill does nothing, and for the past 15 years this government has done nothing. She pointed out how their own panels have had their recommendations ignored by this government, and now, at the eleventh hour, they bring in a bill which the critics have said is nothing more than a skeleton—nothing more than a skeleton of a bill. And they now are pretending that they’re doing something on the issue of closing the gender wage gap?

As my colleague said, she offered to work with all parties to set up an all-party select committee to sit through the summer, to find out how they could help the Pay Equity Commission enforce the legislation that exists today. As she said, 30 years ago this chamber unanimously voted in favour of pay equity legislation—unanimously voted in favour of pay equity legislation. Today, they’ve got, my colleague says—oh no, we won’t even get into the pay disparity between different chambers. But pay equity legislation has advanced little.

They’ve done nothing to advance the legislation, and are doing nothing to enforce the legislation that exists. But now they bring in a new bureaucratic bill that’s going to be really enjoyed by the bureaucrats because there will be all kinds of new bureaucratic positions created, but it’s not enforcing the legislation that exists today.

As my colleague said—I might get this wrong—the gender wage gap working strategy group has basically been ignored by this government in making recommendations on how they would improve and close that gender wage gap much more quickly. I mean, that really is kind of an admission of failure, that 30 years after you pass legislation on pay equity, we still have such a gap. Why is that? Well, it can only be because governments—successive governments, but this government has been the government for half of that 30-year period.

Let’s understand, Speaker, that in the early stages of pay equity legislation, there were all kinds of legal issues and court issues; nothing gets off the ground like that. But after 15 years had passed, when this government came to office, there were all kinds of opportunities and all kinds of progress that should have been made. This government has capitalized on none of it.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Not like maple syrup.

Mr. John Yakabuski: “Not like maple syrup,” my friend from Peterborough says.

Now, why, for 15 years, when they had all kinds of information and expert advice telling them that these are the things that you need to do to close the gender wage gap, have they sat on their hands? They basically did nothing. But now, as I said, when they like to say “care and opportunity,” I say “opportunity and care.”

Another one of the favourites of this government is an opportunity to take care of themselves. When they see what they perceive as an opportunity to purport themselves as the champion of a social-justice cause, which pay equity could certainly be considered, they take it, because that’s what they want to go out there and say. They are going to go on to campaign on this and say, “Look what we’re doing.”

But their own critics are saying, “This bill actually does nothing. Enforce the legislation that exists and you will do more to close the gender wage gap. Accept the recommendations of the people that have been giving them to you for years and you will do more to close the gender wage gap.”

No, what they want to do is bring in a piece of legislation that says, “We want access to your pay equity plans. We want to be able to go into your place of business, inspect your books and look at your pay equity plans.” Well, that’s going to be a great opportunity for somebody who will be hired by this government, probably a very Liberal-friendly person: “You’re the new pay equity inspector. You’re the new Inspector Gadget, going into these businesses. You’re going to look at their pay equity plans and look at the books.”

That’s going to be small consolation to the people who are still being paid less for the work that they do. But I’ll tell you, those Liberal-friendly people that get those jobs are going to be paid very well. They will be paid very well to go in there and drive all around the province, burning fuel at high gas prices—no problem. More emissions in the environment? No problem. Let’s make a trip up here and there and all around the province. Lunches on the road, hotels—no problem; let’s run up the bill and send it back to the people of Ontario.

Do you know what we will accomplish? Nothing. We have been accomplishing nothing for 30 years. Why would we want to accomplish anything more? But man, it’s a good life: travel around the province, spend all this money, more emissions in the atmosphere and no progress on pay equity. All they had to do was enforce the legislation that currently exists. But what an opportunity for a big splashy press conference and a big splashy news item. Bring in the cameras, and the Premier and the minister for women’s issues would be there, and the labour minister would be there, and they’d say, “We’ve got it now. We’ve been working on this for some time and we’ve got the answer.”

The answer was right in front of their faces all along. All they had to do was look at the legislation that’s in place. Could that legislation itself be improved? Could more be done to strengthen the legislation so it had the teeth required to ensure that that gender wage gap would narrow and at some point, hopefully in the near future, would be closed completely? Yes, it was sitting there right in front of their faces.

But that doesn’t create the opportunity to care for themselves or their Liberal friends. As I said, opportunity and care. What they are constantly looking for, this party, is an opportunity to care for their friends and themselves. It’s about time that they took the opportunity to care for the people of Ontario, because the people of Ontario are not being hoodwinked anymore. They’ve got it. They’ve figured it out. They looked at this throne speech, they looked at this budget and they said, “Methinks I’m being bribed with my own money.”

I’m looking at this spending, when they froze hospital budgets for five years, and now, on the eve of an election, there’s money to spend. “But we’ll have to run a massive deficit in order to do that.” In the history of this province, or any other jurisdiction in western democracy, it has been traditional at times to run a deficit when there needed to be some impetus put to the economy—or small deficits—but not to go from a so-called balanced budget—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, we’ve hit a nerve. Bragging only weeks ago about balancing the budget—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order is a good thing.

I will now return to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. Sometimes I can’t hear myself in here, and that takes a lot.

They go from bragging about balancing the budget once in eight years—helped along by the sale of Hydro One—and telling us only weeks ago that they’d have balanced budgets through 2022 because of their great fiscal management, and all of a sudden, again, they saw that opportunity to care for themselves and table a budget with a deficit of almost $7 billion, which over the next four years will add about 20-some billion dollars to the debt. We’ll be chasing $400 billion in debt before these guys run their time, if we give them that time.

The people of Ontario say, “It’s time to time-allocate the Liberals. You’re gone.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m not going to say that it’s a pleasure to speak to time allocation because it really isn’t. Where I find it meaningful and valuable, as the MPP from London–Fanshawe, in bringing my concerns for the people I represent is when we’re actually having debate on legislation and we can bring those concerns forward. Time allocation does nothing to facilitate that. Time allocation shuts MPPs’ voices down, because we only have a small amount of time to really hold this government accountable in this Legislature when we’re debating legislation, and time allocation doesn’t allow us to do that.

One of the fundamental features of the pay transparency legislation is that it requires employers to disclose the wages to prove that they are complying with the existing legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Pay Equity Act. That’s one of the fundamental pieces in the bill. Then, at that point, we’re talking about that it’s actually transparent, that we know what employers are paying the employees. That’s a good first step, right?

But all of us are not going to be able to comment on this bill and talk about, yes, there are some small steps that we see that are addressing transparency under pay equity, but the effectiveness of how to have the act be implemented and enforced isn’t in this bill.

Bill 3 is slow in implementation. It begins with the public service, then it extends to employers with over 500 employees and then it goes to employers with 250 employees, and those requirements don’t even match the current obligations that Ontario employers have under the Pay Equity Act, which applies to all employers with 10 or more employees of this province. That’s a bit of a contradiction.

I understand that there’s a phase: “Let’s deal with the public service, with the 500-employee sector and then the 250,” but it’s not dealing with the actual obligations that employers have under the Pay Equity Act, which applies to all employers with 10 or more employees in this province. Those are things that would have been helpful for us to continue to debate in this legislation.

The requirements of Bill 3 don’t come near to matching an employer’s requirements under the Ontario Human Rights Code, which obligates every single employer in this province not to discriminate on the basis of gender. It is important because, fundamentally, a gender-based wage gap is a human rights issue.

The Ontario Equal Pay Coalition has studied this issue intensively, and they have prepared a document titled 12 steps to closing the gap, which I urge all members to read. This document puts forward a comprehensive strategy to actually close the gender wage gap.

I think part of the government’s failings in much legislation is that they go through the motions. They go through the motions of the Legislature. They go through the motions of committee. They don’t actively allow the participation of MPPs who bring forth amendments that will strengthen and help this government make the legislation a better working document for the people whom they are representing.

The first step in the Ontario Equal Pay Coalition’s strategy is to consider that pay equity is not a privilege or a frill. It is the law. And we talked about it being the law. It was legislation that was passed in this House 30 years ago, under, I have to say, an NDP government. That is something that is core to our values, that if people are working in an environment where they are doing the same job, they should be getting the same salary, the same pay.

The Pay Equity Office reports that 54% of employers have gender pay gaps contrary to the Pay Equity Act, and the government reports that the pay gap has only closed by 6% in 30 years. So it hasn’t been working the way it was intended. That’s my point. If pay equity was passed 30 years ago, why has it not been implemented so that it’s effective, so that we’re not discussing something that actually helps people and that was enacted 30 years ago? Yet here we are today.

Like I said, the fundamental piece of this bill is the pay transparency piece, where legislation requires employers to disclose the wages they are paying so that they can prove they are complying with the existing legislation and legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Pay Equity Act. That’s really the fundamental piece of this bill. They’re going to put it on their website and people will be able to know what they are being paid, so that the co-worker beside you who is doing the same job is being paid equally. That’s one constructive piece that we see in this legislation.

Doing this would benefit all vulnerable workers. From Statistics Canada and the census data, indigenous women face a 57% wage gap. Women with disabilities face a 46% wage gap. Immigrant women face a 39% wage gap. Racialized women face a 32% wage gap. Effectively, the pay transparency legislation will at least result in the public becoming more aware of employers’ gender-based pay discrimination. That’s what it’s going to do. It’s going to allow us to see that.

This act does contain important anti-reprisal protections and new posting provisions requiring employers to advertise the salary range for a position, and it prohibits asking about prior salaries. Again, that’s a good step forward.

We believe that the pay transparency legislation is overdue for this reason, and we want to support the government’s attempts to make progress on this issue. We certainly do. There’s no doubt about that. But when we time-allocate something, it really doesn’t do justice to pay equity. I understand the government right now is in a hurry—

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Sorry, what was that?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I just said “desperate.”

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: “Desperate,” yes; that’s a good word too. I said “in a hurry”—they’re desperately in a hurry to get this legislation passed.

Today is a significant day because it’s pay equity day. People are here today wearing red, symbolizing the struggle for pay equity in our society, and that we need to do better and make sure people are getting paid for the work they do, especially women. Dynamics of families have changed so much over the years. Many households are women supporting their families. We need to make sure that they have the tools to do that and provide for their children and their families and their partners and even their senior parents. Women’s roles today are not just in a box.

We are so diverse and versatile; we’re even looking after our elderly parents while we’re looking after our young children. There’s a lot of responsibility.

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: And everything else in between; exactly. There’s so much responsibility on the shoulders of women.

One thing we can do to get it right is to have legislation that’s effective and enforceable so that we can have pay equity in our society. We haven’t been doing that in the last 30 years. There hasn’t been a lot of teeth around that. The member from Windsor West alluded to that, of course. We’ve had workers come from developmental services telling us that they are not getting pay equity in their workplace. They’re looking after vulnerable people in our society and they’re not getting pay equity. That doesn’t seem right.

When this government then time-allocates bills for their own purposes—today is the acknowledgment of pay equity day. Some of us are wearing red. Some of us remembered and some of us didn’t, but I know all of us here, including me, support pay equity. So it just seems a little suspect when we have time allocation on that day to rush this legislation through.

The Minister of Labour has taken the first tentative steps in this direction, but, again, I urge the Liberal government to also implement the amendments that the Ontario Equal Pay Coalition is calling for and give this legislation more than symbolic weight.

Speaker, we all know that there is an election coming up. The writ is, I think, May 3.

Interjection: May 9.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Or May 9, someone has said. I look at May 3 simply because of the private members’ bills. The last ballot date item is May 3, but it could very well go to May 9.

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It does. It’s official, May 9?

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, that would be nice to know. We said the first week of April and we’re really not sure—pin that down. I’ve heard May 9, and I’ve heard May 3.

There is a reason for this government to try to expedite their agenda in this House. Let’s face it: They prorogued the government to bring forward their budget platform. What a great way to highlight everything you’re going to be promising in the next election. But promises are cheap. When there isn’t delivery—we know this government has made a lot of promises, and people have stopped believing those promises; they really have. They’ve become so cynical and hard. I’ve gone to the doors and people are upset about the way this province has been run for 15 years. This is not a cliché.

Sometimes this government thinks that when we are in question period and we’re asking these questions, that somehow we’re exaggerating some of these things that are happening. That’s exactly what the member from Windsor West said.

I remember the Minister of Health said I was fear-mongering about long-term care. That’s the furthest thing from the truth. I am not going to come here in this Legislature and take someone’s personal story and exaggerate it. Are you kidding me? When I hear these stories, it really gives me goosebumps to think this is even happening and that I have to bring their whole private life and let this government know how bad things are. And then the response is, “You’re fearmongering”? Oh, my gosh. We’re in a public enquiry under long-term care.

Again, we ask this government to take it to a level where they’re going to find things that are wrong, because there are things in every workplace, in every sector, in life where we need to look at what’s going on and we need to make solutions. We need to find the problems, fix the problems and work together with the people involved, from front-line workers, from loved ones who have people in residence, from the CEOs to the RNs, to the RPNs, to doctors. That’s how you’re going to get a full solution. And then, once you get that solution, once you find those problems and you fix those problems, your job is not done. We forget that we have to revisit those things and find out what’s working.

Let’s look at this legislation, or any legislation that we create: What’s working with it now? Let’s take an inventory. What’s not working? Let’s tweak it. Because then we don’t get to this point where there are crises and things; we’re not getting to the point where we’ve neglected that for so long that now there’s that hospital hallway medicine, overcrowding.

Mental health is huge in London—it’s huge. I’ve been talking about mental health since I got into this Legislature. The Legislature acknowledged that mental health is an issue. They had an all-party select committee that travelled this province for I think it was 18 months. They had a report in 2010. I brought that report forward and said, “Let’s look at this bill and let’s look at these recommendations and take these things seriously.”

That is the kind of work that we need to take into account when we create legislation: An all-party select committee, a non-partisan compilation of people goes out and listens to people and then they come back. They listened to mothers and fathers and people with lived experience of mental health and mental illness. They listened to the doctors, all the agencies and organizations, not-for-profits. They travelled the whole province and they listened to all of these recommendations. That would inform good legislation, like I said. And then after that’s done, you go back—I’d say you go back after three years and you talk about—and I see the member nodding. That’s good practice; right?

Because when you have legislation that was implemented 30 years ago under an NDP government—which was so futuristic, really—about pay equity, and then we’re all saying that it’s not being enforced—how does that happen? Good intentions are great, but we need to have actions from those intentions, and we need to make sure that the people we represent see hope the next day. Whether the government likes to hear this or not, people are not seeing that. It’s a very tough time right now for people, with all that’s going on globally, and we need to make sure that we do things properly.

This is an opportunity under the pay transparency legislation here to actually give it some teeth. So if the government does want to do that, I say listen to the Ontario Equal Pay Coalition and really examine those 12 steps and figure out which steps you can really work with.

Again, it’s about getting together and understanding what the needs are, what you can bring to the table to help those needs, and if everything isn’t met, because sometimes you can’t do it all, you look back in the next three years and you find out, “Okay, from the needs that we’ve created, what’s working? What’s not working? What can we implement that we didn’t before?” Taking that approach, a proactive approach, a productive approach, we’re not going to get into a climax situation or a crisis situation—and I’m going to talk about long-term care.

I asked that government, I asked the minister at the time, “I don’t want any credit for the second enquiry where you find and fix the problem. Just go ahead and do it. You can take the limelight. You can do the media,” because ultimately we’re all here not for that purpose. So today, when we’re talking about time allocation, you get the sense that that’s what it’s about. The member talked about it—I can’t remember; Mr. Yakabuski—that it feels like a photo op, a media opportunity about this.

Those are things you should capitalize on when the work is being done, when the legislation actually meets the requirements of the people you’re representing. By all means, have that media so you can educate people on how it’s working—not just the facade, not just the fakeness of putting legislation into place, and then it actually doesn’t work.

I’ll give a really small example of it. When we were discussing renovations for seniors in their homes, we said we were going to give them a tax break. The government said, “This is a wonderful piece of legislation. If you spend $10,000 on renovations in your home to remain in your home”—to help people who are aging to have accessible facilities in their home—“we’re going to give you back $1,400.” That was a tax break that we were going to give them. We said, “That’s good, but it isn’t going to work for the majority of the population. It’s not effective. It isn’t what people are able to use. It sounds good.”

I remember that, in my office—they had pamphlets printed out. I put them on my counter so I could encourage people to use this legislation, to use this tax break, to remain in their homes as long as possible. Shortly after it was passed, do you know what happened? They repealed it; they took it away. They took away that legislation because there weren’t enough people using it.

It always sounds good, but people are tired of it now. They don’t want to just hear about how good legislation is; they want to hear about how effective legislation is and that it’s working and that when they want to use it, there is enforcement to those pieces.

When we’re here today talking about time allocation, I think this government does a disservice to itself and a disservice to the democratic process in this House. Every MPP who’s here who is going to bring the voices of their constituents forward—I think that’s the reason we’re here. We have to change the culture of this Legislature and understand that when we bring those voices of our constituents in this Legislature, we’re actually trying to help this government acknowledge that there are problems.

There are problems in health care, there are problems in education and there are problems in the workforce, but they’re not insurmountable. There are solutions to those things. We are here to help with those solutions. We’ve given many examples of ways to help and the government has adopted some of those, but again, it doesn’t take it to the full level. It just touches on it and makes it sound good and then it hopes that people won’t pay attention.

They get a lot of media coverage over it, but in the end, it’s not helping people who are looking for some relief, who are looking to have—and dental care is huge. It’s a big one with seniors, specifically. I’ve been hearing that for years: that when you retire and people don’t have benefits that follow them into their retirement, they allow their teeth to be neglected because they do not have the money. They’re on fixed incomes. They don’t have extra money to add in to fixing their teeth.

Time allocation, Speaker: I understand it’s a tool that the government wants to use, but it has been using it far too often. If they could use it in tools that would actually have legislation to speed up things, to make things work better for Ontarians, I think we’d be on board with that. But when it’s legislation that sounds good and it’s just kind of frilly and there is really nothing to it, then that’s when we have an issue with time allocation.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It’s now 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, in particular the OHBA president, Peter Dufresne, and the CEO, Joe Vaccaro, who will be here a little later. The OHBA is here on their annual Queen’s Park day and will be holding their reception tonight in the dining room. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park and sharing their #homebeliever pledge.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to welcome Jeff Cornett. Jeff is the executive director of the Canadian Cancer Society of Ontario; Kelly Gorman is the senior manager, public issues, at the Canadian Cancer Society; and they have three volunteers with them: Larry, Pamela and Marietta Carriere. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to introduce the aunt and uncle of our page captain, Rowan, today: Kashyap and Maya Majmundar. It’s a pleasure welcoming you to the Legislature. Take care.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce Ms. Deb Robertson, director of district 4 for the Ontario Society of Medical Technologists. She’s from my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. I’m sure she’s in here somewhere; if she is, just wave. Anyway, thank you. Welcome.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome Olympia Morfetas, who is the mother of our page, Ryan-Michael Harding.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to welcome Pauline George. She’s from Pickering–Scarborough East, my riding, and she’s here today with the Ontario Society of Medical Technologists. Welcome, Pauline.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Jade McMeekin, a registered massage therapist; Steve Kenny, whose birthday it is today—they’re both from the great city of Owen Sound and Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound—and Heather Hill, a constituent and the director of district 6, Ontario Society of Medical Technologists. Welcome. Happy birthday, Steve.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to introduce Tania Toffner, from my riding of Hamilton Mountain, who is here today with the Ontario Society of Medical Technologists. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to welcome to the Legislature the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. Some of their members that I’d like to introduce are current president Pierre Dufresne, past president Neil Rodgers, first VP and incoming president Rick Martins, and second VP Bob Schickedanz.

Speaker, I would like to remind members, as well, that there will be a reception this evening—somewhere in the building, sometime this evening—that I hope will be attended by some of the members for part of the show.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to introduce my wife of 42 years. Gale Simko-Hatfield is here, with my daughter, Lacey, as well as two grandchildren: Katana, the first-born, and—we’re always looking for a little clarity here—little Clarity is here today, as well.

Speaker, I told them Poppy works in a castle with a kind king, who’s a good ruler of his castle.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Somebody doesn’t want to get warned today.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have two very special people to introduce. First of all is my constituency assistant in our Mississauga–Streetsville constituency office, Mr. Ran Zhou.

Also, representing the riding of St. Paul’s, page Joseph Berman is entertaining his mother here, Pearl Gropper Berman. She will be in the public gallery this morning. Please welcome them.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to welcome Robert Scheuermann of the Ontario Society of Medical Technologists and also from the great city of Woodstock in Oxford county. We had a meeting this morning and I want to thank him and his colleagues for coming to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’m proud and I’m humbled to introduce a fantastic and dedicated group of road safety advocates today.

We have Pat Brown, road safety advocate and vulnerable road users coalition leader; Melissa Dowrie, the executive director from Bike Law Canada; Albert Koehl from Bells on Bloor; Kerry MacLean from the Brain Injury Society of Toronto; Meredith Wilkinson, victim and Friends and Families for Safe Streets advocate; Tanya Jewell from the Ontario Brain Injury Association; Alan Wayne Scott from Hoof and Cycle; Anthony Smith, victim and Friends and Families for Safe Streets advocate; Jessica Spieker, steering committee, Friends and Families for Safe Streets; Heather Sim, victim and Friends and Families for Safe Streets advocate; and Margaret Harvey, who is a victim of road violence.

Also, a special welcome to Heather Caron from Waterloo region—she is a Kitchener-based lawyer and cycling advocate, and she is with her friend Sandy Spiegelberg in support of the vulnerable road users legislation today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mississauga–Brampton South.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mississauga–Brampton South.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my pleasure to welcome a group of lawyers and paralegals from Pace Law Firm who specialize in immigration and personal injury. They are Andy Semotiuk, an author, prominent lawyer and a very close family friend; Khrystyna Yankovska; Victoria Synytsya; Rachel Brown; Jasmine Companion; and Alex Voudouris. Please help me in welcoming them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Fraser: Today, representatives from the Canadian Cancer Society join us in the gallery to observe question period and to kick off their annual daffodil campaign during the month of April. Please join me in welcoming Jeff Cornett, executive director of the Canadian Cancer Society of Ontario; Kelly Gorman, senior manager; Marietta Carriere and Larry and Pamela Carriere. Marietta has been a volunteer with the association for a long time.

Hon. Laura Albanese: It is a pleasure for me to introduce the family of page Eric Albishausen. We have Eric’s mom with us today, Janet Churchill; Eric’s dad, Dirk Albishausen; and Eric’s grandfather Bob Churchill. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome the Ontario Society of Medical Technologists and their executive director, Michelle Hoad; une francophone de Timmins, M me Aline Letourneau; and Corinne Atkinson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Il me fait bien plaisir d’accueillir le père, le papa de notre page d’Ottawa–Orléans, M. François Dufault, qui est avec nous, et de remercier son fils qui est avec nous pour les prochaines semaines : M. Maxime Dufault, notre page extraordinaire d’Ottawa–Orléans.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased to introduce some family members of page William MacDonald: grandparents Beverley and Peter Baulch—I hope I said that name correctly—brother Robert MacDonald and cousin Natalie Doughty. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to introduce today’s page captain, Abinaya Chandrasegaran, and her mother, who is here, Umahsekari Chandrasegaran. I would like to welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Peter and Beverley Baulch with their two grandkids Natalie and Robert. They are all from Port Hope and they are here to visit their other grandson, page William MacDonald.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a warm welcome to Ronnie Gavsie and Rachel Levy from the Trillium organ donation foundation; as well as Colin Beale from our IT department; as well as the principal from Queen’s University, Daniel Woolf; and Craig Leroux from the government relations department, also of Queen’s University. A warm welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. James J. Bradley: I would like to introduce Corinne Atkinson, director at large, Ontario Society of Medical Technologists. She is from St. Catharines.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m really excited that Rowan Watchmaker is the page from Ottawa Centre. She is the daughter of good friends of mine: Prashant Watchmaker and Lisa White. Today in the gallery are Rowan’s great-aunt and great-uncle Maya and Kashyap Majmundar. We welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’d like to introduce a fantastic young fellow, Matthew Acheson, who is a co-op student in my constituency office. He’s from St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic High School in Aurora. Welcome, Matthew.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I just became aware that today is a very special day for my seatmate; it is her birthday. Happy birthday to the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It gives me pleasure to introduce the members of the Clean Economy Alliance who are here at Queen’s Park: Keith Brooks from Environmental Defence; Cara Clairman, who is with Plug ‘N Drive; and Sarah Petrevan from Clean Energy Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Jennifer Hamilton, mother of page Sophie Hamilton from my lovely riding of Durham, who is in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I would also like to welcome Durham Region Home Builders Association president Manuel DeSousa, as well as Victor Fiume, who are constituents of mine from Durham. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I would also like to welcome John Milne and Garnet Northey from Peterborough and The Kawarthas Home Builders Association to the Legislature this morning.

Special report, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: the 2018 Energy Conservation Progress Report, Volume One, from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We also have some guests in the Speaker’s gallery today, friends of mine. Today we have, from the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation’s elected council: Chief R. Stacey LaForme, Councillor Veronica King-Jamieson, Calvin Jamieson, Councillor Stephi L. LaForme, Councillor Erma Ferrell, and a respected elder and former chief, Carolyn King, a good friend. Welcome.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nickel Belt on a point of order.

M me France Gélinas: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members of this House be permitted to wear a daffodil in recognition of cancer care and Daffodil Month, in the month of April.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nickel Belt is seeking unanimous consent to wear the pins. Do we agree? Agreed.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I believe that we have unanimous consent that all members of this House be allowed to wear green ribbons in recognition of organ donation month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kingston and the Islands is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon.

Dave Levac): Seeing no further unanimous consents, I would ask us to please assemble for the legislative pages who are serving in the third session of the 41st Parliament to be introduced: Abinaya Chandrasegaran from Scarborough–Guildwood; Amelia Wendling from Welland; Colin Robinson from Kitchener Centre; Curtis Metcalf from Huron–Bruce; Dwight Gross from Dufferin–Caledon; Ekroop Walia from Mississauga–Brampton South; Émilie Hominuk from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell; Eric Albishausen from York South–Weston; Faraaz Jan from Nepean–Carleton; Hannah Arsenault from Etobicoke Centre; Harsaajan Dhillon from Brampton West; Joseph Berman from St.

Paul’s; Madeline Buss from Cambridge; Maxime Dufault from Ottawa–Orléans; Rhys Hoskins from Trinity–Spadina; Rowan Watchmaker from Ottawa Centre; Ryan-Michael Harding from Toronto–Danforth; Shivanshi Patel from Oakville; Sophie Hamilton from Durham; Stephanie Shen from Markham–Unionville; and William MacDonald from Sudbury.

These are our pages for this session of the Legislature.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please reassemble.

It is therefore time for question period.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. When Ontario’s credit rating agencies saw the 2018 budget, they gave a stark warning. The rating firms stated, “The fiscal plan set out by the Liberal government ... would harm the province’s credit profile over the long term.”

Moody’s said, “The planned return to deficits is credit negative as it will raise borrowing requirements, adding to Ontario’s already elevated debt burden.”

DBRS said, “It demonstrates in the clearest terms that the province is not committed to disciplined ... fiscal policy.”

What that means is the Liberal government is putting all of Ontario at risk with their reckless spending. Mr. Speaker, is it really worth risking Ontario’s future to try and win this election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Today is Equal Pay Day. What that means is that from January until today, basically, women in this province have worked free because of the gender wage gap.

This morning I was with the Minister of the Status of Women, and we were talking about our investment in free preschool child care. The number one thing that we can do as government is to provide child care—accessible, high-quality, affordable child care—for families so that women can get into the workforce. That is economic policy; it is social policy; it is fiscal policy. Having more women involved will mean that the economy will grow. That is why we are making the investments that we are making: to see this economy grow with everyone included.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: We’re also seeing the harmful effects of this Liberal budget on Ontario’s bonds. When Quebec and Ontario offered up their bonds last week, the market told this government what they thought of their budget. The market picked Quebec’s bonds, making Ontario’s bonds more costly.

We are getting a raw deal because this government can’t control their spending. As our costs go up, front-line services are crowded out. We’ve seen this from the Liberals: nurses fired and hospital beds closed.

Mr. Speaker, why are the Liberals risking Ontario’s future, reducing front-line services, just to try to win an election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe deeply that the future of this province depends on its people. That is our advantage. We have people who are hard-working. They deserve to have the supports that they need to be able to care for themselves and to care for their families.

When I talk to businesses in other parts of the world, they look to Ontario for a strong, educated workforce, and that’s what we have. If we do not make these investments in people, if we do not invest in child care, in tuition so that everyone can go to post-secondary, if we do not make sure that people have the supports that they need to be able to thrive—having balanced the budget is a great accomplishment; it is a very important accomplishment. But, Mr. Speaker, the party opposite would have us put the future at risk by not investing in people. We’re not going to go down that road.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: In a remarkable business turnaround, Quebec and Ontario are literally trading places. Referring to the fact that the market paid a cheaper price for Quebec bonds, Brian Calder of Franklin Bissett said, “No way, nohow did I ever think we would see Quebec trading through Ontario....

“Simply put, Quebec has been better behaved.”

Quebec outlined their plan to deliver five consecutive balanced budgets, pay down debt and lower taxes. In contrast, Ontario will plunge us into six years of deficits, add billions in debt and increase taxes. A decade ago, what was unimaginable is reality in Liberal Ontario. More nurses fired—100 in my own community. More hospital beds closed—60 in my own community.

Do the Liberals really want to put Ontario at greater risk?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Here’s the reality: Ontario’s debt-to-GDP outperforms Quebec’s. Furthermore, Ontario has $30 billion in liquid reserves right now because investors have oversubscribed on the bonds issued by the province of Ontario, outperforming Quebec. We have more liquidity in our bonds, and it trades well. Furthermore, Quebec receives $11 billion from the federation. Ontario is a net contributor to the federation, always has been, even when we qualified for equalization, to the tune of $11 billion.

We support all of Canada. We’re the engine of Canada, and they are talking down the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

After round one, clearly indicated to me, we’re in warnings.

New question.

Taxation

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My new question is for the Premier. Almost a year ago, on May 5, 2017, a Canadian Press headline read, “Ontario Prepared to Lower Corporate Taxes ... in Response to the US.”

It has been almost a year. Will the government lower taxes to help grow and attract businesses?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We did, Mr. Speaker. We reduced taxes for small business by 22%, and our corporate income taxes are already the most competitive in North America.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The United States recognizes that they need to be competitive, and they’re trying to catch up to Ontario’s rates.

Interjections.

Hon. Charles Sousa: They’re laughing again at the province’s prosperity and the growth that we’ve intended. We have been a top destination for foreign direct investment for a reason: because we are competitive. We’ll continue to be. We’re going to take the respective actions that are in the budget.

Chapter 2 talks all about remaining competitive and providing supports for businesses, to continue to become one of the best provinces and jurisdictions in North America.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Last year at this time, the US was talking about dramatically cutting corporate taxes. Our former economic development minister then said, “We’ll do whatever we need to do to maintain our competitiveness.” A year later, the US did indeed drastically reduce their corporate taxes. How does the Liberal government respond? They are doing exactly the opposite of what they said they were prepared to do and of what this minister just said. Yes, in the budget, they are raising taxes.

Between personal income tax and new taxes on business, the government is raising your taxes by almost $2 billion. While the US cuts taxes to become competitive, why is Ontario raising our taxes?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m going to pass on a supplementary to my colleague from economic development and trade. But let’s be clear: The member opposite is talking about the closure of loopholes, tax avoidance measures—things that the federal government is doing, and every province has to emulate some of those practices. But what the member is also saying is, “Let’s cut programs”—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member knows that almost 87% of personal tax filers are not being affected. In fact, 700,000 tax filers are receiving tax cuts. The member opposite would like to portray something that is going to continue to harm the very investors that he’s speaking of.

Ontario has the lowest tax rates and the lowest tax revenues compared to other provinces, including Quebec. We will continue to be competitive. We’ll continue to be the leanest government in Canada, while providing and safeguarding the programs and services that the people of Ontario rely on.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: In the US, taxes go down; here in Ontario, personal income taxes are raised, 1.8 million people have a raise in their personal income tax, and tens of thousands of businesses are also taxed. This is a government that says one thing and does the complete opposite.

The minister said, “The competitive edge is important to Ontario’s economy,” and he wants to “assure the business community”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is warned. I have about four more that I’m waiting for you to have one more chirp.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we lost our competitive edge years ago under this Liberal government, and it is only getting worse. The government has been told that they have made Ontario the most expensive jurisdiction in North America in which to do business.

Why are the Liberals raising taxes instead of making Ontario more competitive?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: The members opposite make it abundantly clear that today in Ontario, if you’re a Doug Ford Conservative, the truth is not your friend or your ally. We know, with a trumped-up question like the one that just came from the acting Leader of the Opposition, that they actually seem to specialize in talking down our province. The people of Ontario have every reason to feel hopeful and optimistic about the future, and all of the statistics point in that direction: the lowest unemployment in 17 years, lower than the national average for nearly three consecutive years. We see job creation month over month, week over week.

On this side of the House, we will continue to invest in our people, we will continue to invest in our infrastructure and we will continue to invest in a hopeful and optimistic future for the people of this province, because that’s what they expect and deserve.

I would caution members opposite that it’s most important for us to work together, to collaborate to build the province up, instead of consistently talking it down.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Hospitals in Ontario are overcrowded and underfunded. Who is responsible for years of frozen hospital budgets and overcrowding?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party was pleased last year when we increased hospital funding by $500 million. I’m sure that she will be pleased. I’m sure, given the question, that she will support the budget that increases hospital funding by more than $820 million.

We recognize that the health care system has been undergoing a transformation. More people want to be in their homes. There have been billions of dollars that we have invested in home care, and there is more that is needed on that front. But we also recognize that the changes that hospitals have made require that we make a substantial investment this year, as we did last year, in the operations of hospitals, so that people can get health care faster in the hospitals, as well as in the community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This problem didn’t appear out of nowhere; it was completely predictable. The Liberals froze and cut hospital budgets, and the result is that people are treated in hallways, shower rooms, bathrooms, waiting rooms, broom closets.

Over 30 days from December 15 to January 15 of this year, Trillium Health Partners ran 316 beds in hallways or unconventional spaces. In fact, there were only two nights during that month, during that 30-day period, when someone wasn’t in a hallway. Those two days happened to be Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. That means, if it wasn’t Christmas, people were being treated in a hallway.

Who does this Premier think is responsible for that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to comment, but I just want to say that the people who work in our hospitals deserve our utmost support and respect. It is hard work.

The reality is that we have pockets of the province where the population is growing, but all over the province we’re seeing an aging demographic and that means there are pressures on our hospital system. Every single budget we have brought in, since I’ve been Premier and before, has increased the funding to health care, including increasing funding to hospitals.

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I recognize there have been transformations that have happened, meaning there are more people getting care in their homes, in the community, as they wish. We recognize there is a need. We have included more than $820 million in this budget directly to hospitals.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Gee, Mr. Speaker, I thought the Premier was just going to say she was sorry that she made such a mess of our hospitals. That’s what she should have done.

One night in January, Trillium had 193 unfunded beds. From December 15 to January, they had 4,555 unfunded beds. The occupancy rate never once, for a single day, dipped below 99%. To remind the Premier, Speaker, the safe level of occupancy in our hospitals is 85%.

This problem didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It is the completely predictable result of years and years of cuts and underfunding. Will the Premier own up to a hallway medicine crisis that she has created in our province?

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

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: Hospital operating funding in Ontario has increased by more than 65% since 2003, to almost $19 billion. In the past two years alone, we’ve increased operational funding to hospitals by almost $1 billion. Of course, the investment we’re proposing to make in this year’s budget—and I hope, obviously, that we will get support from the third party for our entirely progressive budget this year. We’re making a historic investment of an additional $822 million in Ontario’s publicly funded hospitals.

The types of quotes we are getting from various hospital CEOs are incredibly impressive. From Eric Vandewall, president and CEO of Joseph Brant Hospital: “I would like to thank the provincial government for their investment in quality health care. The provincial government’s funding announcement for Ontario hospitals is very positive news for”—

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

New question.

Dental care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Every three minutes someone in Ontario ends up in a hospital or a doctor’s office because their mouth hurts so badly. Last week, I met with Vanessa Giuliano, director of Operation Sharing. Operation Sharing helps raise money so families can see a dentist, because, for 15 years, the Liberals have ignored the fact that too many people can’t see a dentist. Telling a mom or dad that they have $300 to split between medication and a visit to the dentist isn’t going to fix that problem. Organizations like Operation Sharing will still have to do their important work. The Liberal scheme will not fix the problem, Speaker. Why not?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say that the leader of the third party and I do not disagree that there is a challenge in terms of dental care and pharmacare in this province, and, I would suggest, across the country, Mr. Speaker, because when medicare was introduced in the 1960s, those were two areas that were not covered. I think if we can agree on that, then we can agree that if we were building a medicare system today, we would include pharmacare and dental care. We would find a way to do that.

What we are doing here in Ontario is we’re taking great steps forward. The OHIP+ program is already covering free prescription medication for 4,400 medications for kids from their birth until their 25th birthday. We recognize that we need to expand that, so next year seniors will have free prescription medication. And we recognize that everyone in between needs some support as well, and that’s what the dental and pharma plan is about, and I’ll speak more about that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Cindy Blair and her 17-year-old son live in Cambridge. Cindy works three jobs, and none of them have benefits. Fifty bucks is not going to get her son’s teeth looked after; it wouldn’t pay for half a filling.

The PCs don’t have a plan, except for over $6.1 billion in cuts.

Under my plan, Cindy could look her son in the eye and say, “It’s going to be okay.”

Fifty bucks is not enough for children’s dental. Why doesn’t this Premier care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I do care. In fact, if it’s a mom and one child you’re talking about, it’s $450. If you’re talking about a family with two adults and two children, you’re talking about $700. That $700 can be used to offset costs. Whether it’s pharma costs or whether it’s dental costs, that can be used to offset those costs. But if it’s pharma costs and if it’s a child, that child will already have their prescription medications covered—all 4,400.

I know that the third party is putting forward their plan. Under the NDP’s pharma plan, people with certain allergies would have to pay for drugs; there would be a lack of choice for mental health drugs; women would lose choice on the contraceptives they choose to take; and there would be less coverage for therapies for conditions like cystic fibrosis or Crohn’s or colitis.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take lessons from the leader of the third party on how to put—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, here’s a lesson for the Premier: Families who can’t afford dental care don’t have 700 bucks to pay up front, to then get it refunded by this Premier’s inadequate plan. This Premier is completely out of touch with the families of Ontario. Her plan is completely inadequate and everybody knows it.

Here’s a story about Steve. I met Steve in Oshawa. Steve is 60 years old, and he is able and ready to retire. His 80 factor plan has kicked in, he’s ready to go, but he can’t retire. He can’t retire because he needs $21,000 in diabetes medication, and he doesn’t have the $100,000 in his pocket that he’s going to need over the next five years to pay for his diabetes medication. He needs pharmacare, and he needs it today. The Premier thinks he should wait five more years. Doug Ford probably thinks Steve shouldn’t have any pharmacare whatsoever.

Can the Premier explain to Steve why she doesn’t care that Steve has to postpone retirement for five years because he needs a prescription drug plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I can certainly agree with the leader of the third party on what the Conservatives might think about this, but the leader of the third party does not have the corner on caring.

The reality is that the budget we have brought in is absolutely focused on providing those supports for people so that they can care for themselves and care for their families.

I do not disagree with the leader of the third party that we need to have a comprehensive national pharmacare plan and that everyone needs to be covered by that. I agree with her on that, which is exactly why, for years, the Minister of Health in this province has been advocating at the table with the other Ministers of Health and exactly why I have been advocating with my fellow Premiers that we need a national pharmacare plan. We’ve been very clear about that.

So there’s no disagreement here. The only disagreement is that we’ve moved forward and put the OHIP+ plan in place. We’re going to continue to move forward. We’ve made the biggest expansion of medicare in a generation, and we’re going to keep going.

Taxation

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is to the Premier.

Last fall, I called on the Premier to condemn the federal Liberals’ massively unpopular tax hikes on small business, but she refused.

Well, the 2018 budget from her government shed new light on why she wouldn’t stand up for Ontario small businesses, and it’s because she had plans to pile on.

Speaker, the Ontario government announced in their budget that they will put 20,000 employers on the hook for $100 million more in employment health tax over the next three years. Some businesses will also be phased out of the small business deduction, resulting in an additional $350 million in new taxes in the same time frame.

Why is this government taxing away the jobs of the hard-working people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s be clear, Mr. Speaker: The member opposite is talking about tax loopholes that the federal government is trying to close. We are actually targeting the employer health tax to benefit more businesses. Many more businesses are actually going to see benefits as a result of the measures we’ve taken in this budget.

The member opposite is saying, “Yes, but those companies that are big umbrellas and they’re big conglomerates that subdivide themselves into little pieces so they then skirt the ability to pay the employer health tax for their employees and for the benefit of Ontarians”—they say that’s okay. The federal government is closing those loopholes and all provinces are being aligned with it.

The members opposite may want to make tax cuts so they can support even further taxing and the cutting of programs; that’s up to them. In the end, they’re going to have a huge hole to fill.

We want to protect the people of Ontario. We want to protect our universal health program to ensure that it’s well funded.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: These tax changes are new salt in the wound for small businesses and job creators already struggling to cope with dramatic labour reforms, the minimum wage hike, high energy costs and increasing pressure from international competition.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has been clear that these changes will hurt our local businesses. Chamber president Rocco Rossi has a message for this government: “We need government to reduce the ... burden, not add to it.”

Our economy depends on small businesses. Why do the Liberals continue to punish small business in Ontario by raising taxes?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s be clear: Once again, many small businesses are going to benefit from the targeting of these effects. They’ll be targeted through the EHT to provide greater exemptions for those small businesses. Some are taking undue advantage of that loophole and that’s what’s being closed.

It’s not small businesses that are doing it; it’s big businesses that aren’t paying their fair share. It’s a matter of equity, it’s a matter of being transparent and it’s about being simplistic in terms of the way it’s being created. That’s all that’s being done.

We’ve increased the R&D tax credits. We’ve provided for increasing the innovation tax credit. We reduced taxes for small business by 22%. We’re providing apprenticeship programs up to $17,000 for individuals in those sectors. We’re allowing $2,000 for every new employee that is a youth.

They’re voting against those very measures that will ultimately benefit small business. We will continue to help small business.

Pay equity

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Today is Equal Pay Day and women across Ontario are wearing red to signify how far into the next year a woman must work to earn what men earned the previous year.

In 15 years under this Liberal government, the 30% gender wage gap has barely budged. Today, the actions that are finally being taken to close the gap are more symbolic than real, half measures like a child care plan that ignores the needs of women who require infant care. At the same time, this government is engaged in a lengthy legal battle at the Human Rights Tribunal to oppose women like midwives who are fighting for equal pay.

Will the Premier show some leadership, do the right thing and settle these human rights cases?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I remarked earlier in question period that it’s Equal Pay Day. This is a really intractable issue that governments have been dealing with for many years. It was a Liberal government in 1987 that introduced pay equity legislation, and we recognize there is more that we have to do.

It is not coincidental that the number one recommendation of the group that we asked to give us advice on the gender wage gap—the number one recommendation—was to provide affordable, high-quality child care—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: How about when they need to get back to work when they’re infants?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is warned.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The bulge of children and families who are looking for child care is at two and a half years. That is exactly why the plan that we are introducing starts at two and a half years to four years. That builds on the full-day kindergarten that is already in place in this province. That is wonderful for kids. It gives them a great start, but also saves families $6,000 a year per child.

Mr. Speaker, we’re taking a great step forward, and it is about those kids, and it is about those families and those women who want to get back into the workforce.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Premier: Speaker, the Premier knows that front-line workers in the community and social services sector are overwhelmingly female. These workers deliver important public services to Ontarians in nursing homes, in developmental services and other community agencies, but they typically earn $3 to $8 an hour less than their comparators in hospitals and municipalities. These workers have been waiting decades to achieve pay equity. It didn’t happen when the Conservatives were in government, and it certainly hasn’t happened under 15 years of Liberal government.

Will the Premier show women the money? Will she agree to fund pay equity wages for the women who work in community and social services agencies?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I stood in the gym at St. Helen Catholic School with the MPP for Davenport and the Minister of the Status of Women—

Mr. John Yakabuski: For another photo op.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member for Renfrew talks about a photo op. It was an unusual photo op, Mr. Speaker. It was five women standing on a stage making a very significant announcement about child care and about closing the gender wage gap in this province. I’ll be the first to say that it should have happened 25 years ago; it should have happened 30 years ago. We should be farther along. We should have closed the gender wage gap.

Mr. Todd Smith: Why didn’t it happen five years ago?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, why not five?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned. Someone else was close.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I came into this office as Premier, we immediately put increases into early childhood educators, developmental support workers and personal support workers because they were at the bottom of the wages, and we knew that that was important. We made that increase. We’re introducing a pay grid as part of the child care changes.

I know the best time to have done this would have been 50 years ago. The second-best time is today, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Pay equity

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Today we recognize Equal Pay Day in Ontario and across Canada. Today serves as a symbolic reminder of the extra time each year that it takes a woman, on average, to earn as much as a man. We are recognizing the pay gap that still exists between men and women and the work that still remains to close that gap. It reminds us of the work that remains to be done. It is 2018 and it should not take 15 and a half months for a woman to make the same as a man did in just 12 months. The women of our province deserve better.

Minister, can you please tell us on Equal Pay Day what you have done to close the gender wage gap?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member from Barrie for what is a very, very important question on Equal Pay Day. I’m proud to speak about the government’s strong commitment and the work we’ve done on the gender wage gap.

We began this process about four years ago. We brought together representatives from equality advocacy groups, labour organizations, HR professionals and business, and we formed the gender wage gap steering committee. I believe we may even have a few members of that committee with us here in the House today, Speaker. I’d like to thank them for the positive work they’ve been able to do to advance this. They went around the province, they held extensive consultations and they developed a report that gave us some great recommendations.

We took immediate action on some of those recommendations. Then we brought together a similar group to talk about the implementation. They discussed the steering committee’s report and they provided very practical input. Based on their expert advice, we’ve taken some very concrete steps that are before the House today. They need to get through this House to be put into action.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister. When I look around the Legislature I’m very proud to see so many women working hard for their communities and for all the people of Ontario. We know that while women are present in all industries and sectors, there are still barriers that remain to prevent their full participation in the workforce. Most notably, women continue to earn 30% less, on average, than men. That gap is larger for racialized women, and even larger for women with disabilities.

This is unacceptable. It is time to close the gender wage gap. It’s time for a comprehensive plan that recognizes that women’s economic empowerment isn’t a quick fix, and it isn’t one-size-fits-all. We know that increasing women’s economic participation is the right thing to do, for the sake of equality and for the good of our economy.

Minister, what steps are you taking to close the gender wage gap right now?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you again to the member for the supplementary.

We’ve invested in child care; we’ve invested in health care; we’ve raised the minimum wage; we’ve brought in measures such as equal pay for work of equal value and equal pay for equal work.

We know there’s more to be done. We have introduced—and as I said, it’s in the House today—the pay transparency legislation. We’re the very first jurisdiction in all of Canada to introduce a comprehensive package of measures that are going to increase pay transparency and workforce composition aggregated data.

The legislation is going to be a new tool in our toolkit that’s going to promote workplace equity. It’s going to help put some sunlight—shine a light—on pay inequities and biases that already exist.

It’s not clear where the official opposition stands on this issue. It’s disappointing and it’s surprising.

Speaker, women’s economic equality should not be a partisan issue. The best day is today—

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

New question.

Health care funding

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

Speaker, a few weeks ago, it was brought to my attention that MobilityFit Physiotherapy, located in St. Thomas, will no longer be taking on clients.

When I contacted both the LHIN and the Ministry of Health on whether they knew of the fact of this closing, I received the same set of talking points. Both were unable to confirm if the clinic was closing. This runs contradictory to both a Facebook post and voicemail from the clinic itself, indicating they are no longer taking on clients.

My question for the minister: Are both the ministry and the LHIN unaware of the closing of MobilityFit, or are they knowingly letting this potential gap be created in Elgin county?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, we know that providing patients with access to physiotherapy helps them to stay healthy and to stay at home longer, where they want to be.

This is why, across the province, we do have a very comprehensive program for community and primary care physiotherapy. We introduced this five years ago as part of our ongoing commitment to improve our health care system over the time that we’ve been in government.

From time to time, we know that there are changes. I believe this clinic is a private clinic. Of course, we expect our LHIN in the southwest to be working very closely with this clinic so we can ensure that patient care is provided where it is needed and when it is needed, in a timely fashion. We’ll continue to work in this regard.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: The closure of MobilityFit Physiotherapy and the complete lack of action on the part of both the ministry and the LHIN is going to have devastating consequences for the people in Elgin county and St. Thomas.

This closure leaves only one clinic to serve a large population of my constituents. If the government continues to ignore this issue, wait times will continue to climb and many will go without proper treatment. I already have the orthopedic surgeons on red alert, knowing that this clinic will not be available to them.

It’s unfair for this government and the South West LHIN to expect my constituents, especially those who have just undergone surgery, to travel to London to search for treatment. They should not be treated as second-class citizens in this province.

My question to the minister: What is the ministry doing today to ensure there is OHIP-covered physiotherapy in my riding for all the residents of Elgin county and St. Thomas?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: The LHIN has informed us that there is actually no indication that this particular clinic is closing. There’s rumour and innuendo, apparently, out there in the community. Obviously, our LHIN is going to be working closely with the clinic to look at the particular circumstances in this case.

Our goal is always to ensure that people receive the appropriate health care that they need, including physiotherapy. Clearly, it’s very important, post-surgery, that this be available, and we will continue to work in this regard.

Road safety

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Premier, each year, thousands of people are seriously injured or killed while using our roads. One of those people is a cyclist named Anthony Smith. While Anthony was cycling in Barrie this past October, the driver of a pickup truck suddenly swerved left across his path and Anthony became trapped under the truck. Anthony’s spine was fractured. He has undergone two surgeries. He has spent weeks in the hospital. He has gone to nearly 100 medical appointments. The driver of the pickup truck was only charged with hiding his licence plate. He received a $125 fine.

Why is it acceptable in Ontario that a driver who seriously injures a vulnerable road user—a pedestrian or a cyclist like Anthony—only receives a $125 fine?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to thank everyone who joined the member from Kitchener–Waterloo this morning in sharing this story in the media studio. As a former trauma ER nurse, I very much can relate to having to manage not only the victims who came in from accidents and collisions on the road but also the families. I had to make some of those calls and to sit and care for the families afterwards. So nothing is more important to me, as Minister of Transportation, than road safety.

This past fall, our government announced our bold plan to keep our most vulnerable road users safe. It came in direct response to what we heard from road safety advocates, but also those who have been personally impacted by the loss of a loved one or a friend on our roads. In particular, I want to reference the President of the Treasury Board, who has been one of the strongest advocates for changing our laws for careless driving.

The new charge of careless driving causing death or bodily harm comes with up to a $50,000 penalty.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Premier: Thousands of vulnerable road users like Anthony or Heather, Meridith, Margaret, Jessica or Albert are put in danger every year because Ontario’s laws do not hold drivers accountable when they seriously injure or kill. A driver can kill or seriously injure a cyclist or a pedestrian, and most of the time the driver will likely just receive a fine of maybe a few hundred dollars. They do not lose their licence, they are not required to take driver training, and they do not even need to attend court to hear the victim impact statement and face the consequences of their actions.

Does the Premier agree that drivers should face meaningful consequences when they seriously injure or kill? And if she does believe this, why hasn’t her government passed a vulnerable-road-user law like the one that was tabled in October and that I will have to table today?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I stand; you sit. Thank you.

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: In direct answer: We passed it last spring. It’s a new charge of careless driving causing death or bodily harm. It comes with up to a $50,000 penalty, up to two years’ imprisonment and a licence suspension for up to five years, making this the toughest penalty in the Highway Traffic Act. It is among some of the toughest penalties in Canada. Ontario was the first in Canada to introduce the penalties. It has yet to be enacted; they are continuing to do the work to do that. But we passed that law last spring.

We continue to ensure that the new charge provides the law enforcement—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Let me be clear: It’s a penalty that was not previously available to our enforcement officers, who have been asking for this. This new charge provides them with that strong tool, and one that enforcement officers have asked us to respond to for many years.

Climate change

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique, the Honourable Chris Ballard. Speaker, my question is on cap-and-trade, or, as some may have called it, “cap and invest.” But in addition to asking about specific details, I’d like to know specifically from the minister: Does he have a written plan, and are its many details too long and too elaborate to fit on a bumper sticker or a label?

Speaker, we know that climate change is one of the most serious problems we face today, both globally and here in Ontario. Broad consensus, of course, exists that the best way to deal with climate change is to put a price on pollution. In Ontario, our cap on pollution from businesses guarantees reductions in pollution, and it does so at the cheapest price possible for Ontario businesses and residents.

Can the minister please explain to the House how this government is continuing to take action on climate change by putting a price on carbon?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke North for a very important question. I can assure him that Ontario has a very comprehensive plan to fight greenhouse gas emissions. Our Climate Change Action Plan has some 90-plus points. I’m sorry that we can’t fit it on a bumper sticker, Mr. Speaker, but it is exceptionally detailed.

We are proud here in Ontario to be recognized as a leader in the global fight against climate change, and the medical doctor from Etobicoke North knows this. He knows, as well, that a report released yesterday by the Clean Economy Alliance said, “Ontario is a leading jurisdiction when it comes to efforts to fight climate change.” That report also noted that since 2005, carbon emissions in Ontario are down by 20%.

We’ve taken real leadership. We’ve done things like shutting down dirty coal-fired plants, we’ve introduced our cap on pollution, and we’ve achieved—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I appreciate the minister’s reassurance of having a full and detailed and elaborate climate change plan, unlike the party opposite, which to my mind is running on empty—no plan, no juice, just pitches and one-liners.

Speaker, while the opposition seems to be supporting the current US President and looking forward to “Trumping” Ontario, we, of course, welcomed Al Gore, the former Vice-President of the United States, very recently. Do you know what he said about Ontario? He said that when he travels to other parts of the world, he points to our province and our Premier when he talks about climate leadership and action. When leaders of governments across the world ask him where to look for models of responsible leadership and action, he says, “I always point to Ontario.”

I’d like to ask the minister, first of all, will he answer this question; and will he also present himself for questioning and scrutiny, or will he prefer to hide from the press and not come out of the basement?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Speaker, I’m delighted that the member from Etobicoke North talked about basements, because I can tell you that here in Ontario, one of the serious repercussions of climate change is flooding in our basements. You have to look to Windsor, you have to look to Burlington, you have to look to Toronto—multiple basements across the province where Ontarians see first-hand the price they’re paying for climate change. They average $45,000 to $50,000 per cleanup in those basements.

I am delighted to be transparent and open and talk about what this province is doing when it comes to climate change. I will say right now that protecting Ontario’s basements by fighting climate change is at the top of what we’re doing. I—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Protect the basements. Protect the basements.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I let the first one go, but not this time. The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned.

Wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Speaker, we’re appalled to see that the PCs are refusing to take any action on climate change, and I know Ontarians will hold them accountable.

Hospital funding

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The minister is aware that Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare is considering the futures of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital and South Muskoka Memorial Hospital. Just last week, MAHC’s task force released descriptions of the three models they are considering, saying they will be making a recommendation this spring. The three options they are considering are: two acute sites, maintaining the existing hospitals and services; one in-patient and one outpatient site; and a one-site model.

Speaker, the people of Muskoka and Almaguin have been very clear: They want their two hospitals maintained. Will the minister encourage MAHC and the task force to listen to the people who rely upon these hospitals and recommend maintaining two hospitals?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: The member opposite is obviously a well-known advocate for his community. We’ve heard from the Muskoka Algonquin CEO on a number of issues in relation to plans for the future.

I really do want to commend the way the Ontario Hospital Association has stepped up to the plate in assisting us in looking at how we move forward with looking at efficiencies and centres of excellence, and yet providing care as close to home as possible. All of these pieces are very much in the mix. It’s really quite remarkable how our advisory council, chaired by the Ontario Hospital Association president, has looked at the whole spectrum of hospitals in this province: academic health science centres, psychiatric hospitals, rehab hospitals, all the services that are provided through small hospitals, large hospitals etc.

I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Minister of Health: One of the challenges facing Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare and other small and medium-sized hospitals is that their funding has not kept up with their costs. Many of these costs are not things the hospitals can control. In fact, some, like hydro costs and collective bargaining agreements, are things the province controls. The province has increased hospital costs without increasing funding to cover these costs. As a result, some hospitals have run deficits for many years.

In the lead-up to the June election, the government has been touting the 4.6% increase they are supposedly giving to Ontario’s hospitals. But MAHC received only 1.4% and West Parry Sound Health Centre has been told they will receive approximately 1%. Will the minister explain why these hospitals in my riding are not receiving the full 4.6% increase in funding?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We made it very clear that our increase, the $822 million this year, would provide an average of a 4.6% overall increase to hospitals in this province. Clearly, in some communities, high-growth communities such as ones that I represent, the need, the increase in population and the increase in acuity is greater than in some other areas of the province. This is precisely why we consult with the Ontario Hospital Association as well as the local health integration networks as to the distribution of these funds. It’s based on evidence; it’s based on need.

In particular, in this situation, I know that my predecessor, the former Minister of Health, met with the city council and asked them to come back with a unified plan for the hospitals in the member’s riding. We look forward to that. We’re awaiting that kind of community decision to inform us, and we’ll move forward in that regard.

Labour dispute

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, 3,000—and yes, I said 3,000—York University contract faculty, teaching assistants and other part-time academic workers are still on the picket line this morning. They’re continuing to take a stand against the insecure academic jobs that have become pervasive throughout the sector.

The underfunding of post-secondary education that caused this will be one of the legacies of the Liberal government. The recent changes to labour laws under Bill 148 did nothing to change that fact. These workers want to get back to the important work that they do supporting students.

The member from London West already recently raised these issues with the Premier in the House, as have many of my colleagues. Will the Premier show some leadership today and ask the publicly funded administration of York University to quit stalling and get back to the bargaining table?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. On this side of the House, we want to see our students back in the classroom as soon as possible. The best path to that resolution is at the bargaining table, so we are urging both sides to get back to the bargaining table. It might require some compromise on both sides in order to do that, but we have to keep the interests of the students first in this situation.

I know that there has been support from the Ministry of Labour all the way through this process. We’re strongly urging both sides to do that right thing, get back to the bargaining table and start talking to each other. Yes, it might require compromise on both sides but this is all about the best interests of our students. We want to see them getting back to the classroom so that they can resume their studies, without interruption, as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Speaker, this is not unique to York University. We know that recently Carleton was out on strike. For 10 years, since 2008-09, Ontario has been the lowest of all provinces in university funding per student. This downloads the costs onto the students, onto their families, creating record student debt, and has led to the explosion of precarious contract work.

Students know what the problem is. The contract, part-time precarious faculty know what the problem is. New Democrats know what the problem is. My question, Speaker: Does the Premier?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to say that the situation at Carleton has been successfully resolved. There was a settlement at the table that was voted on and ratified by the members. That is the collective bargaining process, and we can see where it has worked. That is what we want to see with respect to the situation at York. We want both sides to come together with a focus on a resolution so that we can prioritize the needs of students and they can resume their studies.

The member opposite talked about funding for post-secondary education, and I want to say no government in the history of this province, under the leadership of this Premier, has funded post-secondary education for students as it relates to the new OSAP program—235,000 students are now attending post-secondary education for free—tuition paid—because of this program. Access has increased—

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

New question.

Pay equity

Mrs. Cristina Martins: As you know, today is Equal Pay Day, and it was my pleasure to welcome the Premier and Minister Malhi to my riding of Davenport this morning to mark this day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To whom?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of the Status of Women.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That comes first.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Today is the day to reflect on the value of equal pay for all workers in our province. It is a day where we measure just how much more men are paid for the same work as women. In Ontario, we know that the gender wage gap sits at about 30%, and we know that this pay gap is even greater for racialized, indigenous, LGBTQ+ women, women living with disabilities and newcomer women. Equal Pay Day acknowledges the work we still have to do, work that will create a better future for young women and girls.

Women in Ontario continue to face challenges and barriers to achieving full economic participation. Can the minister please tell this House how the government is helping to close the gender wage gap and ensure women are given equal opportunity for access?

Hon. Harinder Malhi: I want to thank the member for the question. I’m very pleased to rise today in the Legislature to recognize April 10 as Equal Pay Day in Ontario. The gender wage gap is real and far too many women in this province are being held back in the workplace, passed up for leadership roles, and working multiple jobs to make ends meet. But we are all working to change that.

Last summer, my ministry consulted province-wide to create Then Now Next: Ontario’s Strategy for Women’s Economic Empowerment. Working wi