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

November 30, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Nov-30 (PDF)

L129 - Thu 30 Nov 2017 / Jeu 30 nov 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 30 November 2017 Jeudi 30 novembre 2017

Orders of the Day

Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et plus juste (mesures budgétaires)

Safer Ontario Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour plus de sécurité en Ontario

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Government’s record

Mental health services

Energy policies

Health care

Mental health services

College students

Infrastructure renewal / Renouvellement de l’infrastructure

Child care

Public health

Student mental health services

Labour dispute

Energy policies

Northern Ontario Heritage Fund

Electric vehicle rebates

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et plus juste (mesures budgétaires)

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Feast of St. Andrew

Mark Awuku and Darren Cargill

Public transit

Housing policy

Home care

Variety Village

Yummies in a Jar

Community newspapers

Negev dinner

Petitions

Guide and service animals

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Environmental protection

Hydro rates

Environmental protection

Driver licences

Provincial truth and reconciliation day

Environmental protection

Gasoline prices

Environmental protection

Hospital funding

Provincial truth and reconciliation day

Private Members’ Public Business

Long-term care

Trans Day of Remembrance Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la Journée du souvenir trans

Affordable housing

Long-term care

Trans Day of Remembrance Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la Journée du souvenir trans

Affordable housing

Committee sittings

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et plus juste (mesures budgétaires)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 27, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 177,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 177, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 27, 2017, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Sousa has moved second reading of Bill 177,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The recorded vote required will be deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

Safer Ontario Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour plus de sécurité en Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 28, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 175,

An Act to implement measures with respect to policing, coroners and forensic laboratories and to enact, amend or repeal certain other statutes and revoke a regulation / Projet de loi 175, Loi mettant en oeuvre des mesures concernant les services policiers, les coroners et les laboratoires médico-légaux et édictant, modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois et abrogeant un règlement.

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

Mr. Joe Dickson: Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I’m pleased to speak this morning on Bill 175. I thought that before I got into the nitty-gritty of the bill I would just mention a couple of quick things. I have the good fortune, as do a number of my colleagues, of going to the annual Durham Regional Police Service’s fundraiser with their staff and their volunteers. It’s an annual fundraiser and an acknowledgement of the very special work that our Durham police do on a daily basis.

I’ve gone year after year after year, and lo and behold, this past year it fell on the same night as the Cardinal’s Dinner. So we have two great events and both of them draw large audiences. Both of them raise money to help the community, and it’s on an ongoing basis. I did buy my ticket for the police services, and I want to tell you that anybody who has never gone should go.

I also just want to talk about a couple of little things. I’m going to go to one of the police stations now so I can buy four of the Durham Regional Police Service’s dog calendars. I circulate them to a couple of our children so they can show their children. It’s just one of those things that brings the community a little closer, and brings the young people of the world out there to understand what a great job the police services do.

Ladies and gentlemen, supporting the sustainability of First Nations policing is major. It’s enabling First Nations to choose their policing service and delivery mode, including the option to come under the same legislative framework as the rest of Ontario, and ensuring that First Nations communities receive sustainable, equitable and culturally responsive delivery of police services.

The proposed legislation would also improve Ontario’s inquest system through changes to the Coroners Act; create a provincial accreditation framework for forensic laboratories to ensure consistent standards through the new Forensic Laboratories Act; and assist police in responding to missing persons occurrences where there is no evidence of criminal activity under the new Missing Persons Act.

What has changed?

—The complexity of crime has changed. The complexity of crime has increased dramatically, with issues like e-crime, online fraud etc. being driven by rapid changes in technology.

—Civil liberties and human rights issues: Issues relating to civil liberties and human rights are increasingly prominent and have led to strained relationships between police and some marginalized communities and populations.

—Changing demands put on police officers: I think everyone knows that police are increasingly responding to socially complex calls where the first responder may not always need to be a police officer, such as interactions with persons in mental health distress. It’s on an ongoing basis, ladies and gentlemen.

I was just looking at how some of these changes may be funded, because you and I both know that the police get a call for everything. There’s a problem; call the police. It could even be a parking problem. Nobody stops to think that it’s a municipal bylaw parking problem and they should be referencing the municipality. But we have listened to our partners, and are ready to make the changes needed to support modern, effective and efficient policing to help communities develop solutions to local safety and well-being priorities.

This includes developing an outcomes-based funding model to better support our community partners as they implement local initiatives that address priority risks to prevent crime and help build safer and healthier communities. The development of this outcomes-based funding model involves the transformation of our current grant programs to ensure a focus on supporting collaborative partnerships that include police and other sectors such as education, health care and social services.

When we’re looking at outlining police responsibilities—as everyone knows but not everyone says so, but I’m proud to say so—we have some of the best-trained officers anywhere. Ontario continues to be one of the safest jurisdictions in North America. Since 2006, Ontario’s crime rate has dropped by 29%, and Ontario’s violent crime rate dropped by 27%. Since 2005, Ontario continues to report the lowest crime rate amongst provinces and territories. We are proud of these numbers and determined to maintain them and even improve on them. I am certainly proud of the police efforts that go on on a daily basis.

On alternate delivery privatization: I think we should be clear on this. Government is not privatizing policing. When you call 911 and you need a police officer, rest assured, a highly trained officer will be at your door.

The current Police Services Act outlines a number of public safety areas where alternatives to traditional police may be used. Furthermore, our proposed legislation prevents for-profit business corporations from delivering police functions except in highly limited circumstances. I want to make it clear that the Safer Ontario Act does not overwrite anything agreed upon through collective bargaining. Above all, the proposed legislation would ensure that any police officers with disabilities are accommodated as per or above the Human Rights Code.

There have been some issues mentioned on the floor; unfortunately, some of them were simply not true, but it’s not my fashion to talk about them or discuss them. I just hope people refute them in the future.

What has been a major issue for me on the street is that the current state of suspension with pay has raised a lot of concerns. I never thought about it that often because I have that much faith in our police services, but when people do raise the question with me they tell me that they are concerned and they can’t do it at work, so police officers should not be able to have pay benefits while something is in front of a judicial board of one type or another.

I see that clock up there. About two minutes? Am I good? Just two minutes, eh? Gosh, and I was going to read a couple of passages from the Bible.

I want to talk about two items in my area of the Durham Regional Police Service. One, have you ever seen a takedown?

Interjections.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I don’t know, is somebody down there talking? If they want to be quiet, I’ll finish.

Have you ever seen a takedown? One afternoon about a year ago, my wife and I decided to go and get something quick at midday in the week and just have—

Interjection.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Do I listen to him or is he supposed to listen, Madam Speaker?

Anyways, we were in what’s called the McLean centre plaza; it also has a commercial mall. We were in a little Chinese restaurant having some Chinese food. All of a sudden, I see a couple of police cruisers come up on the west side, and then I see a couple more cruisers go over to the southwest side. I noticed in the background an ambulance. I couldn’t quite figure out what was going on. I looked out the window, and I could see a police cruiser driving over to the large groceteria, stopping and then taking the car back to the parking lot, almost blocking, or protecting, a mother and a child taking their groceries back. So I knew there was something wrong.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I just want to finish. You never—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Mr. Joe Dickson: —police officer did, and I saw a takedown, and my gosh, I’m thankful for what we have there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments.

Mrs. Gila Martow: We’re speaking this morning on Bill 175, the Safer Ontario Act. I know that this is the first major overhaul of policing, coroners’ investigations, forensic labs, missing persons, so this is something that’s near and dear to all of us here in the Legislature. We’ve been talking a lot in the last couple of years about human trafficking, and I’m sure that we want to focus on that as we go through this bill.

I just want to say that there are a lot of different types of reasons why people call the police and have concerns and even call our offices sometimes with their concerns. I represent the riding of Thornhill, which is the most Jewish riding in all of Canada—not just in Ontario but in all of Canada. The report came out yesterday from, I believe, the RCMP saying that hate crimes against the Jewish community went up again; I believe 26% this time. It had gone up previously in 2016. B’nai Brith does their own research, and they see the same trends. So it’s concerning.

Actually, they said that it’s worse per capita in Canada than it is in the United States. That was, I think, a little bit shocking to many people.

People don’t quite know what to do and who to call. So I think that part of what we should be discussing here is what the role of police officers is—when we should call them, when we shouldn’t.

The member opposite mentioned parking enforcement, that that’s not really a reason to call the police and that each municipality has their enforcement.

We want to get this right. I know we’re all in a bit of a rush to see things improved, but we shouldn’t be rushed.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Gates: It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House, and in particular on this bill. The reason why I’m concerned about Bill 175 is that I had the opportunity to meet with the president of the police association in my office, with other officers from my area, from Niagara. He was very clear that there are 18,000 police officers, men and women, in the province of Ontario.

Something that seems to come up all the time when we’re talking with the Liberals—to make everything better, is to privatize. We saw that yesterday afternoon. We were talking about health care; we’re privatizing it. We were talking about hydro; we’re privatizing it.

Now, when we should be talking about public safety, and how we make sure that our communities, not only in Niagara but right across Ontario—northern, southern; it doesn’t matter where you live—the most important thing when you’re dealing with police officers should be public safety.

If you’re going to do a bill, you would think that the police officers and their police association would agree with the bill. What they are saying to us is if you go by this bill, it’s going to be less safe in our communities. It should concern every one of us, particularly those in Toronto and in some of the bigger communities, that they’re saying that they now want to privatize the police services. Think about that. You’re going to have private police officers, and you’re allowing communities to make those decisions. It makes absolutely no sense in this particular bill.

I’ll just read a little bit of what it says. The language surrounding the provision of police services permits the government to contract out the entire policing function on a province-wide basis, with no consideration for local needs. Equally important in this is local—

Hon. Chris Ballard: That’s not in the legislation.

Mr. Wayne Gates: It would be interesting if you’d just listen for a change instead of yelling. Let me finish, please, because this is the most important part. Maybe you should listen.

Local collective agreements: You’re going into their collective agreements as well, and that’s wrong in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to speak for a couple of minutes and respond to the member from Ajax–Pickering, who made some positive comments and gave some positive analysis, I think, of Bill 175.

What I will say, quite frankly, is what I said when I spoke to this bill before: I like to highlight the positive work that has been going on in my region, the region of York, in terms of moving from a purely reactive policing model to a community policing model.

I have seen, from the days when I was a young teenager—and the relationship that I and my peers had with police—an amazing change of the relationship between police in York region today and the youth in York region today. I would love to see that model—and that model is outlined in these changes—spread across the province, because it has made such a remarkable change in how police work with young people in my riding.

Obviously, the context around Bill 175 is that today, our communities are very different from when the policing act was last updated. The nature of policing, community safety—it has changed significantly. The Police Services Act was first introduced in 1990, for heaven’s sakes. The issues faced by police services and their members today are far more complex than when that act was developed.

There are police forces and police service boards and police officers all across this province that are getting it right, and we need to support them.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Good morning. I’m going to be speaking at greater length in a few minutes about this particular bill.

I think what underscores why we’re here today is the lack of consultation that took place more broadly with the Police Association of Ontario. That was exemplified at recent meetings that I had with members of the Durham Regional Police Association. There were four members that I met with, and I just want to share with you and the other members of the House what they told me. It’s their view that the bill puts public safety at risk by allowing some police functions to be outsourced to private security firms.

It also concentrates too much disciplinary power in the hands of the minister, and it puts unnecessary burden and red tape on police officers without additional funding to pay for it. This has been a long-standing issue.

The bill, in the estimation, again, of the members of the Durham Regional Police Service and others whom I have spoken to, also exposes, in their view, the government’s distrust, essentially, of police officers. That premise is based, in their view, on not a full and robust consultation taking place, as it should have.

As a party, we’re respecting the work of police officers in protecting our safety, not denigrating it. I’ll be speaking in greater specificity about aspects of the bill that need to be strengthened going forward. But I would hope that there’s a more robust consultation with the people who are looking after our safety in communities across Ontario every day, every month and every year.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from Ajax–Pickering to wrap up.

Mr. Joe Dickson: As we were in that little Chinese restaurant, I couldn’t help but notice that once that man ran down the street with part of a gun, you knew there was a criminal effort on his part going on. A giant, fast—faster than a deer—police officer took off after him and got him in midstream. Three other police officers were there; they came from nowhere. They picked him up and carried him to the ambulance. It was as if they were taking precautionary measures and doing all of the right things to help the citizens, and have a professional look at them.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention one item that I’ve gone to ever since I was on Ajax council: a very special day, what we call Durham Regional Police Service’s youth day. A constable, Deb Sabo, has chaired the Children’s Games for the challenged. It’s run by the association; it’s run by the volunteers. The city of Pickering contributed their recreation centre for the entire day. They did that 30-odd years ago. I guess I’ve been going the last 15 to 20 years.

But there you are: another perfect example of how great the police are, and all of the special efforts that they’re putting forth to help people in various communities. It’s just a joyous thing to see hundreds of students in various colours participate. To me, it’s just a special thing.

I was talking about the police service’s dinner that I went to, the Cardinal’s Dinner, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention chair Blair McArthur, co-chair Moe Pringle, of course the chief of police and all of the other volunteers who helped raise over $1 million. Of course, the cardinal—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Further debate.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to enter the debate on Bill 175, the Safer Ontario Act. As it’s the first major overhaul of the legislation in 20 years, it includes significant updates to police oversight and the complaints system. It’s based on recommendations that arise out of an independent police oversight review report headed by Justice Michael Tulloch. It was released earlier this year.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party believes that police officers take their oath of service seriously, and that you’re never unsafe with the men and women who serve us. It’s therefore unfortunate that the proposed measures in the Liberal government’s bill before us do not align with this belief. They certainly don’t align with that belief. I would point out that it’s not only the members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus who have serious concerns with Bill 175, but also the Police Association of Ontario and regional police associations, including mine in Durham region.

To illustrate this point, Speaker, on Wednesday, November 15, 2017, the Police Association of Ontario came to Queen’s Park, as you know. This gave members of the Legislature an opportunity to honour the good work that the association and its members do every day by keeping their communities safe, but it also gave the association’s members an opportunity to share their concerns and perspectives regarding Bill 175.

I’d like to read some portions of the background information provided by the Police Association of Ontario on that day. There’s no other organization better positioned to provide feedback to the Legislature on the proposed legislation before us. The Police Association of Ontario was highly critical of the proposed measures in Bill 175. “Unfortunately, contained in these pieces of legislation are some elements that will severely undermine”—Speaker, severely undermine—“the efficient and effective provisions of policing around the province.”

Further, in commenting specifically on the proposed measures related to the Police Services Act, the police association stated, “Put simply, passing the act as drafted would usher in a future where Ontarians may not be able to rely on policing services in the manner they do today.” On the proposed provisions in Bill 175 related to the Policing Oversight Act, the police association said this: “The legislation appears to presume there is a crisis in policing and oversight in Ontario that must be corrected. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Police are among the most trusted public institutions in Canada.... Evidence suggests, for the most part, [that] the oversight process is working, despite the need for optimization in some areas such as reporting and efficiency.” These quotes from the information provided by the Police Association of Ontario highlight the fundamental flaws in the proposed measures in Bill 175. The Liberal government clearly is risking the safety of many Ontarians through this proposed piece of legislation.

While the Police Association of Ontario was at Queen’s Park, I took the opportunity to meet with officers Jamie Bramma, Colin Goodwin and Tim Morrison from the Durham Regional Police Association, which represents approximately 900 police officers, men and women, who serve the region of Durham day in and day out. What I heard from them is that Bill 175 is disrespectful of the Durham regional police officers who put their lives on the line every day to keep Durham residents safe.

They told me that the measures proposed in Bill 175 potentially put public safety at risk by allowing some police functions to be outsourced to private security firms. Because Bill 175, as written, does not define the core functions of police officers, serious concerns have been raised about the possibility of outsourcing core duties that are normally carried out by police officers.

The representatives from the Durham Regional Police Association also said that the bill’s provisions would concentrate too much disciplinary power in the hands of the minister. Now, while the Liberal government claims to have consulted broadly in crafting this legislation, the reality is that they did not properly engage the people affected most by the proposed changes: front-line police officers. As a whole, Bill 175 exposes the Liberal government’s broad distrust of police officers.

But while the representatives from the Durham Regional Police Association and I discussed the many issues that would arise if Bill 175 is passed, as written, we also discussed a very serious and critical issue, and that is mental health. It’s no secret that individuals who work in policing are more likely to develop post-traumatic stress injuries than many other occupations in the province. The daily stresses of the job, the exposure to traumatic scenes and events, and the risk of serious injury combine to make policing one of the most mentally tasking occupations in our great province.

That’s why I was proud to see a commitment for mental health resources in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s platform, the People’s Guarantee, released last weekend.

Our party recognizes that we have to do more to help families and help those in need, particularly those with mental health needs. The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s commitment is to invest $1.9 billion over 10 years to mental health, the largest mental health commitment in Canadian provincial history.

Far too many people who need mental health support, including some police officers here in Ontario, are slipping through the cracks. Ontario needs a comprehensive approach to mental health. It should be treated no differently than physical health.

In fact, we’re already hearing from stakeholders across Ontario who are positive about the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s commitment to mental health in our platform. Rob Jamieson, president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, tweeted on November 25, 2017: “Great to see such a commitment to mental health. We need to invest more for those in crisis and those requiring adequate support.”

In closing, the proposed measures included in Bill 175 clearly are not respectful of police officers and the work they do on a daily basis in Ontario. The Liberal government should have consulted more thoroughly with front-line police officers, the regional police associations and the Police Association of Ontario, particularly given that the proposed legislation will significantly change the face of policing in Ontario.

At the end of the day, Speaker, this is an issue of public safety. All Ontarians deserve to feel safe.

In my riding of Whitby–Oshawa, which I have the privilege of serving, community members support our men and women in policing because they know that police officers are crucial to making sure their communities remain safe.

On September 25, 1963, when addressing the Senate government operations committee, the late former United States Attorney General Robert Kennedy said this: “Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on.”

Today, the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus and communities across Ontario are insisting that the Liberal government respect Ontario’s police officers to ensure that our communities remain safe today, next week, next month and every year. They deserve no less.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure to offer a couple of minutes of comments on the remarks from the member for Whitby–Oshawa with regard to Bill 175, the Safer Ontario Act.

I find it interesting listening to the debate from the members on my right over here. One of the concerns that they have consistently highlighted is about the outsourcing, opening the door to privatization of police services, that is included in this act. It’s interesting because we know that that is exactly what Conservatives do: They support privatization. They support outsourcing of services. They support transitioning things from the public sector to the private sector. And yet, here we see them standing up and criticizing the Liberals for doing exactly that.

I also find it interesting to watch what is unfolding in this Legislature, both in this legislation and also in other pieces of legislation that have come before us just in the last couple of months. Bill 160, for example, opens the door to the privatization of health services. We had a debate just yesterday in this Legislature—it has been an ongoing debate—about hydro and electricity planning in this province, and the Liberals continue to defend their decision to privatize Hydro.

The Conservatives, in their recent platform announcement, showed themselves to be completely fine with the privatization of Hydro, so frankly, Speaker, I take with a grain of salt what the members over here are saying about this bill, because the privatization agenda is exactly the agenda that they want to follow.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. James J. Bradley: I agree with the previous speaker that that’s exactly the pattern that we’ve seen over the years. This is a departure on behalf of the official opposition to take the new position they are in this particular instance, because they love privatization. All the time, they have loved it.

Anyway, I want to mention that I wanted to see some of the reaction to the bill. I was thinking, is there a Progressive Conservative candidate who has run for the Progressive Conservative Party, was endorsed by their leader and welcomed by others in the Conservative caucus who would agree with this bill? There is an individual who said, “What I’ve seen so far is positive; let’s give credit where credit is due”—André Marin, former Ontario Ombudsman and former PC candidate in Ottawa–Vanier.

Now, he had that attitude toward policing for many years—I think all of us knew that—yet he was a Progressive Conservative candidate in Ottawa–Vanier. It was interesting, because I wanted to see what did the Progressive Conservative candidate in Ottawa–Vanier think of this, and he thinks it’s a step forward.

However, in this discussion that’s going on, for about five years, there has been consultation going on on changes to the police act. I have met with people over the years who have said, “Here’s what we’d like to see changed in the police act.” I’ve met with others over the years who said, “Here are some of the things we don’t want to see in the changes to the police act.” So that consultation has been going on for five years, and I anticipate even further consultation as we go to committee and as we promulgate the regulations that go with this. I’m looking forward to that further consultation.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s interesting this morning, my friend on my left and my friend over on the other side spending more time talking about Progressive Conservatives than they are talking about themselves. There must be something in the air that has them both—

Interjection: It’s Christmas.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, it’s not Christmas—that has them very concerned. I think it’s something more about, perhaps, next year in June.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): It’s never too early to warn anybody. Let’s have a very healthy, respectful debate.

I will return to the member to speak.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m sorry I touched a nerve there, but apparently we get people worked up very easily in this place.

We’ve got the Wall of Honour out there for police, on these grounds, or just outside of them but still in the park. It honours every police officer that lost their life in the line of duty. Sadly, each and every year, names are added to that wall. I think we owe it to those people who have paid that sacrifice in serving and protecting us, and making sure that our province and communities are safe—we owe them something better than what the government has brought forward in this bill.

As my colleague from Whitby–Oshawa said, police are coming back with the reaction that this government is essentially publicly stating that they don’t trust the police. What kind of society could you have, what kind of safety and security could you have in your society if the government says they don’t trust the police and have to have further checks and balances on the police?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: It was interesting to listen to the member explain that he had had the opportunity to meet with some of the police representatives from his riding. I did the same thing on the same day that he met with representatives from his riding. I met with Joanne Sanche, Randy Buchowski and Jack Sivazlian. I must say that they really opened my eyes to the bill.

It is clear that in the bill there are provisions that will basically give what municipalities have been asking for for a long time: the desire to contract out professional police services to the private sector in the goal of saving money. We all know what that means. Once you open that door a crack, once the legislation allows for the contracting out of police services to the private sector—it doesn’t matter if the door is only open a crack. The legislation as it is written right now will allow this to happen. Once this door is open, there is no closing it again.

What we will see is that the level of protection that we now have and enjoy, because of the level of professionalism within the policing service, will go down. Is there money to be saved? I don’t know. Is there a risk to public safety? Absolutely.

When the police officers from his riding came and talked to him, I’m sure they gave him the same examples as they gave me. They gave me local examples of how the level of safety in my community will be put at risk. I don’t want anything to do with privatization. I’m with the NDP; you can be clear—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

I return to the member from Whitby–Oshawa to wrap up.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I thank all the members of the Legislature who responded to the 10 minutes that I had to debate Bill 175.

I want to re-emphasize a couple of aspects of my presentation and, to begin with, the consultation process. What was made very plain to me, both in meetings that I took that day with the Police Association of Ontario but more specifically the members of the Durham Regional Police Association was a general lack of consultation, a lack of listening very carefully to the recommendations that arose from those particular associations going forward.

Specifically, they fell into two key areas. One was the bill interjecting an unprecedented level of ministerial discretion into policing decisions, because in the view of the associations—those front-line police officers who are protecting you and me and our families on a day-to-day basis—it lays the groundwork for potential political interference and political decisions. The police officers find that very troubling.

They also spoke at both levels about the outsourcing of certain police functions to private organizations, including security contracts. They raised concerns largely because the details around what constitutes the core function of police officers would only be defined in still-to-be-written regulations.

The questions they ask me: “Why is this not more of a transparent process?” and “Why isn’t it reflected now in the legislation?” And last, the concerns that they expressed were that many of the changes would require significant funding to implement, and the legislation is silent on that aspect.

Thank you so much, Speaker, for the opportunity to sum up.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of my constituents in London West to speak to Bill 175, the Safer Ontario Act.

Throughout this debate, a number of concerns have been raised by the speakers from within my caucus who have addressed this bill. The concern that we have consistently highlighted is around the possibility of outsourcing police services. This act opens the door to the privatization of policing. It says that certain police functions can be outsourced to prescribed entities, including for-profit entities. Those functions that can be outsourced include a broad range of policing tasks. It includes crime prevention, crime scene analysis, forensic identification, canine tracking, collision investigation and reconstruction, physical surveillance, and breath analysis.

There is a wide range of policing functions that can now be handed over to a for-profit business to be involved in. That is a huge concern for our caucus and for people in this province, because when you call the police, when a crime scene investigator shows up onsite, you want to feel confident that that investigator will be acting in an unbiased fashion in the public interest. When that crime scene investigator is employed by a for-profit company, you don’t know where those lines of accountability are anymore. Who is that crime scene investigator reporting to? Is it their for-profit employer or is it the government of Ontario?

Ontario citizens would like to see that accountability, because that’s the whole purpose of this act. This act was developed in the wake of Justice Tulloch’s sweeping review of police accountability in this province. That is what is so frustrating about the approach that the Liberals have taken on this legislation and many other pieces of legislation.

There is a very clear and important purpose to be served by the legislation that they bring forward and yet within that legislation they include things that are highly problematic, that are red flags for many people in this province, not just the police association but citizens who want to feel secure and confident that the police services they rely on are truly acting in the public interest.

I represent the riding of London West. My community of London was the only city in this province that had asked our police service to scrap carding altogether. We are a community that had been highlighted as having one of the highest rates of carding in the province. Concerns, in particular, were raised about the carding practices of our police service because in 2014 the London police were carding at a rate about three times that of Hamilton and Ottawa. The people who were carded, whose identification information was collected, were much more likely to be black or indigenous than how those populations were reflected within our community.

This concern about carding led to provincial legislation, but it also led to those bigger questions about public oversight of police bodies. I want to do a shout-out to the London Police Service for the work they have done on carding and to be responsive to the community. In particular, the London Police Services Board passed a motion unanimously in May. When there were two additional seats on the London Police Services Board, they passed a unanimous motion that there be an appointment to one of those seats by an indigenous representative.

My community recognized that indigenous people are vastly overrepresented in the justice system. There is a legacy of colonialism and residential schools and other issues that have created significant distrust between the indigenous community and police services. So my community recognized the importance of having indigenous representation on the London Police Services Board.

The other seat that was created on the police services board has now been filled by one of our councillors, a black councillor, who spoke emotionally about his own experience of having been carded: Councillor Mo Salih. He is now the elected council representative on the London Police Services Board.

The other signal of responsiveness that has been demonstrated by the London Police Service is around unfounded statistics, which is another issue that has had high profile in the media relating to police activity in this province. London had been found to have one of the highest rates of “unfoundeds” with sexual assaults. Cases that are coded unfounded are considered not to have enough evidence to carry investigations forward.

In London, the unfounded rate had been 33%, one of the highest in Canada, but following extensive consultation with the community and a comprehensive review of these unfounded statistics, that rate was reduced to 6%, which is now one of the lowest in Canada. And the police service has committed, on an ongoing way, to completely change its approach to dealing with sexual assault and the classification of sexual assault.

I raise these things, Speaker, because I want to emphasize how much we value, in my community, the role of the London Police Service and the role of the London Police Services Board in being responsive to the concerns of the community and the priorities of the community.

Unfortunately, this legislation, while it does make explicit reference to the need to ensure that police services boards are reflective of the diversity of the community, it includes these other changes that are highly problematic: as I mentioned, the outsourcing, the privatization of police sources.

The other problematic issue, and we have seen this regularly in Liberal legislation, is with regard to the fact that much of the substance of this act is left to regulations, and we won’t know what those regulations are until after the act is passed and the regulations are developed and implemented.

Of course, the other concern, as always, is around resources. When you enhance, when you enlarge and expand the mandate of any bodies, you need to ensure that the resources are there in order to be able to implement that enhanced mandate. We haven’t heard a word from the Liberals about this massive influx of resources that is going to be needed to implement some of the reforms included in this bill. This raises the question about what the motive of this bill was. Was it actually to privatize police services in order to allow municipalities to save money? Was that the underlying motivation?

Because that is a legitimate question that needs to be asked. We know that First Nations police services, which are now contemplated in this legislation, will need significant resources in order to fulfill the mandate that will now be given to them.

With that, my time is up, Speaker, so I will conclude my comments.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to respond to this whole notion of privatization because it is certain that what the legislation does is look for ways to do policing smarter, to do it better. That means that we want to focus our sworn officers on doing real policing work, so that the legislation, for the first time ever, actually defines the core duties of a police officer.

What it also does is allow certain functions to be done by others, for example, special constables. Just because work is being done by a special constable, as opposed to a sworn officer, doesn’t mean it’s being privatized. Lots of the OPP folks that you see around here are special constables, not sworn officers. When I go to my cottage, lots of the people who are out on the lake in the summer doing marine patrol are special constables, not sworn officers. If you go back in the bush and you’re on a snowmobile trail and you run into somebody who is OPP, it’s usually a special constable, not a sworn officer.

There are all sorts of things that we already do. If I think of the “police” at the University of Guelph, they’re public employees, they’re University of Guelph employees. They are not really sworn officers, but there’s lots of work they can do at the University of Guelph to keep things down to sort of—you know, on weekends and various pranks and whatever, to deal with that.

We already in Ontario have all sorts of things that happen which aren’t done by sworn officers. If you have a call to your house, that you think you’ve got a break in or something, it’s a sworn officer. That doesn’t change.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: We’re just doing questions and comments now on Bill 175, the Safer Ontario Act. I was just reading Martin Regg Cohn from the Toronto Star this morning. I’m quoting him: “Police are like the press—exasperating but essential. Can’t live with cops, can’t live without them.”

What he was stressing is about our local high schools in the Toronto District School Board, not the separate school board but the public schools. They have voted to remove, I guess, sworn police officers, because we’ve just been hearing from the member from the government about the difference between special police and sworn officers.

There’s a lot more that can be done in our communities with community policing. I think we need to have that discussion about suicide prevention, preventing human trafficking and just visibly seeing—it doesn’t matter if it’s sworn officers, it doesn’t matter if it’s special police, it doesn’t matter if it’s campus police, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the high schools—that they’re there in our communities, in our schools, on our campuses, and that the kids feel comfortable going and talking to them and saying they have a problem; that I feel comfortable and you feel comfortable, Madam Speaker.

I think that’s really what everybody wants in our communities, whether it’s in the enforcement community or it’s in the political community, the business community, the school community. Everybody wants to feel that we’re all working together to make our communities safe because that’s really the whole point of policing. We don’t want it to just be that police are called after somebody is dead or hurt or injured or raped. We want it to be before that they are involved in keeping our communities healthy, strong and safe.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I want to talk to the member from Guelph really quick. I’m not saying this; this is coming from the police. On the privatization of the police services: Bill 175 opens the door to widespread privatization of police services. That’s coming from the police. It’s not coming from me. I just wanted to say that. Your argument was kind of interesting to me.

Then I took a look at the member—I’m not sure of the riding, but the member over here talked about a lot changing since 1990. I’m going to give him a lot of credit. Yes, a lot has changed since 1990. I’ve gotten older, for sure. But here’s what happened in policing, because policing has changed a lot since 1990. Our lives have changed a lot since 1990. Why is that? I take a look at what they’re saying to us. They’re talking about terrorism. Whoever heard of that in 1990? Very little. It wasn’t talked about. But today it’s talked about all the time.

And then you take a look at the other thing you talk about: mental health assistance—I’ll go back to that in my last 30 seconds. Cybercrime, identity theft, other modern ways that individuals make others less safe; yes, a lot has changed since 1990, but, I’m telling you, not for the better. The only way we’re going to make sure the public is safe is by making sure we don’t have private police officers in the province of Ontario.

There was a little bit of talk from the PC Party on mental health. I had the privilege to do a ride-out with police officers in my riding in Niagara Falls. We might have had 10, 12 calls that night; it was pretty busy. They were showing me the ins and outs of everything that’s done on the shift. Do you know what? Three of those calls were mental health calls. And then, do you know what happened the rest of the shift? They take that person to the hospital in the MPP for St.

Catharines’ riding, the hospital there, because that’s where mental health is, and they spend most of their shift in the hospital taking care of mental health things. I’d like to talk to that longer, but I’ve run out of time.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’m listening with interest as the members—for every bill in this House that we try to change or try to improve and make better, the issue of privatization comes up.

Madam Speaker, let me first acknowledge the great work that’s being done by police services all across Ontario, especially the one in Durham. I think we have the best police service in Durham, quite frankly. I have a good rapport with them, and we work together. We have a great, safe community because of the work they do, so I’m very appreciative of that and thankful for the work they do in our community.

We have some of the best-trained police officers anywhere in North America right here in Ontario, and we also have one of the safest jurisdictions because of that. Yes, things have changed: Our community has become safer; there is less crime over the last decade or so in this province, and it’s because of the great work that our police services do.

That doesn’t mean that we cannot look at things or we should just stand still and not try and change things and make things better and make our community even safer.

I drive on the streets. With the construction, thanks to our government, that happens, we have to look at if it is necessary to have a police officer standing at a road repair site. We’ve had to look at those things. We wouldn’t be doing our job as legislators if we didn’t look at things and cost savings, if it’s possible.

That doesn’t mean we are compromising safety or we are compromising the work of police officers. We’re just doing the correct thing as legislators, to make sure taxpayers’ money is well-spent.

So I’m surprised, coming from the opposition, that they don’t want taxpayers’ money to be properly spent in this province. That’s what we are doing, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member for London West to wrap up.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I appreciate the comments that were made by all parties with regard to my remarks.

I want to respond directly to the member for Durham about cost savings. Clearly, Speaker, this

section of the bill that opens up the option to contract out police services, as he has acknowledged, is a measure that was included to provide some cost savings for municipalities and possibly the OPP.

I have a suggestion, and this comes right from our own chief of police in the London Police Service. This is in regard to mental health. He says, “For many years we’ve said that this is a health issue, not a policing issue.” I’m talking here about police responding to mental health calls. He goes on to say, “We’ve always believed that an investment in programs related to mental health and addictions would reduce the cost associated with police having to respond.”

Speaker, the chief of police’s comments were made in response to statistics showing a 50% increase in calls that police are responding to, to deal with youth who are in mental health distress. That was a doubling of those calls in just six years, between 2010 and 2016.

We know that that doubling, that 50% increase in calls, is because there has been no significant investment in mental health services for children and youth in this province in more than two decades.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to rise today and speak on Bill 175, the Safer Ontario Act.

First of all, I wanted to say that I was very involved early this year in the overhaul of the Child Welfare Act. That also made a lot of changes to a lot of other acts, so I see a few similarities in the process—not in the discussions, of course.

In the child welfare overhaul, the government put forward over 300 amendments, so basically we were rewriting all of the legislation in committee. That was a bit of a mess. We have seen the government have to come back later on in other bills and fix some of the consequences, because that’s what happens when you have such a big overhaul. I’m not necessarily blaming the government when we are having to make all the changes, but when the government is creating 300 amendments for their own bill, that does raise some red flags and concern me.

We are seeing a lot of things in this act that are going to be affected, including policing, coroners’ reports, forensic labs, missing persons etc., and I want to try to touch on as many as I can during my time at the microphone.

First of all, they are trying to ensure that police officers will be able to apply for an order to get records—telephone and banking records, for example—to aid in finding a missing person. We see too often in our newspapers that somebody who has dementia, perhaps, or is having a mental health concern is missing from their home, their community, their job. Sometimes they are found frozen in a snow bank in an area where they’re weren’t seen, and people think, “Well, if only we would have been able to retrace their steps or follow their phone call records.”

We just heard from the member from London West that youth calls to police for mental health issues doubled in just six years. To me, all of this goes together: that the police are having to be counsellors, psychologists and first responders for things that maybe when they went into policing they weren’t perhaps expecting or trained to do. They are professionals, and they understand what being a professional is, but I think we need to give them the tools to carry out their own profession and to do it without overstepping the bounds of their profession.

Everybody wants to do what is the most efficient, expedient, less expensive; it’s easier to manage scheduling—it’s all very nice to say sometimes here in the Legislature that, whether it has to be special police or sworn officers or things like that—it also depends on who’s available and what area of the province. There are areas of this province where it’s very inaccessible, especially in the winter, and maybe we do need some discussion on that flexibility.

I would certainly prefer to see our police professionals sit down with the municipal partners, with us—and hash it out so that we are not having this war in the media or among ourselves, saying, “This is unfair,” or, “That is unfair.”

We want to work together to ensure that our first responders feel safe and that our community workers feel safe. We’re hearing of people who, if they have overdosed on fentanyl or some kind of opiate, if you just touch their exposed skin—and we’re not even talking about giving them mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, Madam Speaker; just touching somebody—and, obviously, if their fingertips touched a drug, that would probably be the least safe place. We’re hearing that if you touch their skin you could have a reaction to that drug and possibly die of consequences.

So what are we doing to ensure that our first responders are safe? What are we doing to ensure that people in the community—because there isn’t always a trained professional around. We’re counting on people in the community to help out, to learn CPR, to update their St. John Ambulance course—which I believe I’m due to do—to be able to feel confident that they can help somebody in distress, that they can help if there’s a missing person.

We spoke earlier about having a police presence in our schools. Unfortunately, again, I think that the discussion with the Toronto District School Board involved having the students answer a survey and say if they felt comfortable. All I can say is I try to drive within the bounds of the law, but my heart always skips a beat when I look in my rear-view mirror and I see a police car behind me, especially if it’s on the highway. I think I’m not the only one who feels that way sometimes.

So you can just imagine how high school students feel when they see a uniformed police officer, because we’re always kind of taken aback for that split second—“Did I do something wrong?”—then we calm down and we realize that we haven’t. And then we think, “Well, did somebody around me do something wrong? Am I in a safe place?”

We all have that sort of heartbeat second where we concern ourselves with what’s going on in our environment. I’m sure that the students oftentimes did feel uncomfortable having that police presence in their schools, but were there more pluses than minuses? I think the majority of the students felt that there were. I think it’s unfortunate if students aren’t exposed to police professionals in their life.

I was very fortunate growing up. My mother was a CEGEP teacher, which is a type of college in Quebec that was free—a real free college degree. She would often invite people from different communities over for dinner. We got to meet people from the Korean community, from all kinds of different religions and backgrounds, and different professions often as well, because college teachers, as we know, weren’t always training to be teachers the way elementary and high school teachers do. They come from so many backgrounds.

We live in such a multicultural and cosmopolitan community in the greater Toronto area that we want to ensure that as many of us as possible, starting from as young an age as possible, get to meet so many different professionals and different community members. That’s why somebody, in their brilliant wisdom, came up with the idea of job shadowing and taking your kids to work and things like that. For my kids, I think those were some really fantastic experiences that they had.

I wonder how many kids want to go to work and job-shadow with first responders. I’m sure it’s a difficult thing to allow them to do. I can’t imagine that too many of the first responder professions allow children to do job shadowing, but maybe that would be beneficial. Maybe we can come up with some kind of program. I know that we have volunteer youth firefighters in Vaughan. I think they have to apply through an essay-writing contest. They get to volunteer to be fire chief even or police chief for the day. They do come up with programs.

With day-to-day safety in the schools, we want the kids to be involved. We want them to be exposed to what our professional police do and the challenges of their jobs—and get to know them. I don’t think that the officers were just in the schools to look for crimes being committed. I think they were there to help the kids develop better understanding and better communication and to help prevent kids from getting into trouble with gangs or, perhaps, human trafficking.

I just wanted to mention very quickly that there were some concerns with mental health and addictions and how that—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it’s 10:15, I will be recessing the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today I would like to welcome my constituency assistant, Brian MacKay, and my office’s wonderful co-op student from St. Peter’s Catholic Secondary School in Barrie, Sophie Ashworth. Thank you.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to warn all members today that we’ve got some reporters in here who may scrum you as you leave. It doesn’t matter which party you’re in or if you’re a minister or if you’re not minister. We’ve got reporters from Valley Park and their VPtv. Do you guys want to stand up for a second? They’re doing a great job, and they’re going to be scrumming people today. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to welcome representatives from Anduhyaun: Lisa Powell and Jenne Finley. It’s an organization that supports indigenous women and children. They are here for our annual shoebox drive. Please welcome them. They’re in the east members’ gallery. I encourage all members to drop by room 340 at Queen’s Park to meet those representatives.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome several guests today. I’d like to welcome guests here from the Toronto Trans Coalition—Susan Gapka, Martine Stonehouse, Andrew Fraser, Davina Hader and Stephen Lauzon—and from the Toronto Trans Alliance, Boyd Kodak. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to welcome Lisa Powell and Jenne Finley from Anduhyan Inc., which is an indigenous women’s shelter here in Toronto. Lisa and Jenne are here as part of the members’ shoebox drive to support women who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. All members can bring their shoeboxes to the Speaker’s apartment today at 1 o’clock. I’m looking forward to having and seeing everyone there. Lisa and Jenne, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research to the Legislature today. They’re a national charitable foundation raising awareness to generate funds for research into all aspects of HIV infection and AIDS. Thank you for all that you do and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I also want to welcome Susan Gapka of the Trans Lobby Group. The minister has introduced the other groups. They will be here this afternoon for the debate. We’ll have a full gallery hoping to make Trans Day of Remembrance law for the first time in the world in this province.

I also want to welcome forthwith Andrew Stevenson, our page, his father, Graham Stevenson, and Stacie Thompson.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome my friend Susan Gapka here, whom I have had the great honour of working with on important issues around trans rights. I just want to thank Susan for her advocacy and all the great work she does.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Janet Spreitzer to Queen’s Park today—first-time visit. Welcome.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: On a point of order: I thought somebody might mention it, but last night I was at a soccer game in Toronto, and Toronto FC is going once again to the North American Soccer League finals—Ontario’s team.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome the players to the House. Further introductions?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of the member from Burlington, I want to welcome the family of page captain Sean Reynolds. Please welcome Sean’s father, Steve Reynolds, grandmother Marie Reynolds, grandfather Gerald Reynolds and friends Cathy and Dave Weutherick. They’re here in the members’ gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

I would like to introduce to you a guest of mine who has come from the riding. In the Speaker’s gallery, Mr. Bob Fraser is here with his son for a little lunch this afternoon. Welcome, Bob, and thank you for being here.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just got a last-moment point of order from the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear red ribbons in recognition of World AIDS Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Health is seeking unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear red ribbons in recognition of World AIDS Day. Do we agree? Agreed. Thank you.

Now it is time for question period.

Oral Questions

Government’s record

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Deputy Premier. For 14 years this government has played fast and loose with the rules, bending and breaking many of them. The fact of the matter is that this Liberal government is untrustworthy. The Wynne Liberals gave access to cabinet ministers and strong-armed companies that do business with Ontario for the benefit of the Liberal Party. They reward those donors by granting them expensive contracts and corporate handouts.

Mr. Speaker, will the Liberal government stand with the People’s Guarantee and support the fact that we have to stop ministers from fundraising off their stakeholders?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’ve been talking about the so-called People’s Guarantee a lot this week, and I think we’ll continue to be talking about it, because there is a lot to discuss. So far, what we’ve learned is that this is a party that cannot be trusted. They will say anything to anybody to try to fool them, to get elected. The people of Ontario know better. They know who you are. They know what’s in your DNA. They know you will cut the services that people rely on. The proof is in the fine print: over $12 billion in cuts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Deputy Premier: It doesn’t matter what the Deputy Premier says. Clearly the untrustworthiness of the Liberal government goes far and wide. We’ve seen this revolving door of Liberal insiders to government lobbyists over the last 14 years. Just look at the time the Minister of the Environment let his right-hand man go right to a job with Tesla. The People’s Guarantee will restore trust by closing that loophole.

Why won’t the government lock this revolving door, the one that opens in the minister’s office and closes in the lobbyists’ office?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what the People’s Guarantee will do is guarantee a cut of $6 billion in programs and services and another $6 billion in programs that support lower energy costs and GHG reductions.

But that’s not all. A signature promise in the People’s Guarantee is a 22.5% cut in income taxes. It simply is not true, Speaker. It is not true. Cutting one bracket by 22.5% does not mean a 22.5% cut in income taxes. It is simply not true. If the people of Ontario are looking for somebody to trust, they must not look there.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Again, back to the Deputy Premier: This government should know their role. It should be to restore the trust between the people of Ontario and this place, this chamber.

Our leader, Patrick Brown, and the Ontario PC Party will introduce legislation that will make government accountable. In that legislation, we’re going to restore government advertising oversight to the Auditor General. ORPP, climate change, hydro: There isn’t a government ad they won’t use for partisan purposes. It’s appalling.

Mr. Speaker, why won’t they restore the Auditor General’s oversight role? Will they continue to use government resources to campaign?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What we’ve got is a $12-billion cut and a promise to reduce income tax by 22.5%, which isn’t true. In addition to that, we have the proposal of a carbon tax that will add $1,200 to the cost of families in this province.

Speaker, this is a platform we’re happy to talk more about. As long as they want to talk about it, trust me, we want to talk about it. But just remember: It’s $12 billion in cuts, it’s a bogus cut on income tax of 22.5%, and it’s additional costs of $1,200 for every family without reducing GHGs one bit.

We’ve got a plan. It’s about fairness—

Interjections.

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

As I have done in the past, I’ll move to warnings, particularly for one side that was a bit noisier than the other.

New question.

Mental health services

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Health. The People’s Guarantee promises the largest investment in mental health in Canadian provincial history: $1.9 billion earmarked to build the most comprehensive and integrated mental health system in our province’s history.

From what I hear from the government, they’ll want to continue to attack us.

But let me be perfectly clear: We need a simple answer from this government. Will the government back a $1.9-billion investment in mental health? Will they commit to the same investment? And will the minister sign the People’s Guarantee?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, of course, to this government and this party, mental health is an—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll do it. The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, to this government and this party, mental health is an absolute priority. We view mental health and physical health as being two sides of the same coin. There can be no health without mental health. It’s that important. Our investments—including this past year, but going back to the beginning of our time in government in 2003—demonstrate how high a priority it is for this government.

We continue to make those important investments across the province in a variety of ways, including introducing the country’s first cognitive behavioural therapy program for individuals with mood disorders like anxiety and depression, creating youth wellness hubs across the province, and many other investments that our stakeholders, patients and clients are asking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That’s a lot of platitudes. The Auditor General even said that you haven’t improved the children’s mental health system in 13 years, but of course you’ll fight with her too.

The biggest gap in our health care system is the treatment of mental illness. I know that too well. Mental health should be treated no differently than a physical ailment.

Just look at some of the initiatives that the largest investment in political history could go to, directed toward—

Interjection.

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

The member from Beaches–East York is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Another comment? I’ll take it further.

Carry on.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —targeted investments in youth and children’s mental health. We could have supports for those on Ontario’s college and university campuses. We could have crisis outreach and support teams as a pilot project. We could invest in mental health services for indigenous populations through a preventive mental health system that provides culturally sensitive care.

My question is, will the Liberal Party match the commitment in the People’s Guarantee?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we are making unprecedented investments in mental health across this province.

I have to say, when it comes to the People’s Guarantee, I honestly was quite intrigued by the title and I wanted to see if in fact it had been used elsewhere. I wanted to understand the inspiration behind the People’s Guarantee.

I scoured the Internet high and low, far and wide, and I kid you not, I could not find a single reference to any other People’s Guarantee, until I went all the way back to 1893. Yes, it has all been done before. Here is their inspiration: the People’s Guarantee Savings Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, a fledgling group of conservative-minded people.

I’m happy to continue in the supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. A gentle reminder: When the Speaker stands, it stops—and it didn’t.

As I was about to say before everyone continued, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is warned, and I’ve got about five others that I’m ready to do right now.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I asked the Minister of Health for a commitment, and he took me on a time travel back to 1893. Do your job. We are asking for a $1.9-billion commitment into mental health.

David Lindsay, the president and CEO of the Council of Ontario Universities, had this to say: “Student mental health got a big boost this weekend when the”—Ontario PC Party—“platform included a $1.9-billion commitment to mental health.”

Kimberly Moran, CEO of Children’s Mental Health Ontario, added, “So pleased to see topping up elementary and secondary school supports for services targeted at improving mental health and well-being, including funding awareness....”

Addictions and Mental Health Ontario tweeted, “A potentially historic investment for the province.”

The question, Minister: Will you meet that $1.9-billion commitment, this historic commitment, or will you continue to play partisan politics?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: In 1893, Mr. Speaker, the People’s Guarantee Savings Bank of Kansas—

Interjection.

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

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, a fledgling group of conservative-minded people who just months earlier had earned the confidence of their constituents, who trusted them with their hard-earned money and their savings—until only months later, after earning that confidence, the People’s Guarantee Savings Bank completely ran out of money and were forced to shut their doors and close.

Promises and trust broken, Mr. Speaker, and lives shattered: The parallels are staggering. A platform that embeds a $12-billion cut is just as doomed to fail as the fledgling People’s Guarantee Savings Bank of Kansas City, Missouri. People, I guarantee it.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. The privatized Hydro One recently redesigned people’s hydro bills to include a message from the Liberal Party about the impact of their $40-billion borrowing scheme. Clearly the Liberals still have enough sway over Hydro One that they forced the company to include campaign messaging on people’s bills. Why doesn’t the Acting Premier use that sway to direct the privatized Hydro One not to install prepay hydro meters that will hurt families struggling to keep up with their skyrocketing electricity bills?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I’m pleased to rise and to reiterate what Hydro One has said when it comes to prepaid meters: that none of this will be forced on to customers. No customer will be forced to take a prepaid meter. It will be their choice, if—and that’s a big if, Mr. Speaker—the Ontario Energy Board brings forward and allows the application brought forward by Hydro One to actually come forward.

As Hydro One has said numerous times in the media, as Hydro One has said numerous times out in the community and as I have said in this House many times, this would be, if it passes, an opt-in program for customers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Society of Energy Professionals came out against any further privatization of our hydro system. Scott Travers, president of the society, said this—and I agree with every word of it: “Privatization is a bad deal for ratepayers, a bad deal for taxpayers, and it puts the security of a life-and-death necessity in the hands of a corporation accountable only to its shareholders.” Why won’t the Liberal government listen to the experts, stand up for the people of this province and reverse their decision to sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The broadening of ownership of Hydro One has generated $9 billion through the IPO. The government still remains the single largest shareholder of Hydro One, and rates will continue to be regulated by the Ontario Energy Board.

But let’s look at what we were able to do with the money that we were able to generate from that, Mr. Speaker. I know that we kept the Minister of Transportation quite busy with that, because we started off with $13.5 billion in the GTHA with GO regional express, looking to quadruple the number of weekly trips to 6,000. Keeping the Minister of Transportation even busier: $5.3 billion in the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. I know that $1 billion is also going into the great city of Ottawa to help them with LRT as well, plus $43 million in Waterloo regional transit. We were able to find ways to continue to build Ontario up.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Mr. Travers also said—I’m going to quote him again: “Privatizing a natural monopoly is never in the public interest.” I couldn’t agree more again.

The private Hydro One has undertaken partisan political advertising on people’s bills, applied for multiple rate increases, invested in dirty coal-burning American companies, and is proposing to install prepay meters. This Liberal government sold off our vital public utility with no mandate and against the wishes of 80% of Ontario families, and now they’re turning their backs on the damage that this company is doing to our province.

Will the Acting Premier explain why her government continues to stand by this sell-off when we know that it was the wrong decision for families and businesses?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The only wrong decision, Mr. Speaker, was made by that party in the opposition voting against the fair hydro plan, which brought forward a 25% reduction for all families. Those Hydro One customers have seen reductions anywhere from 30% and 40%, and all the way up to 50% possibly. Those are the things that we’ve actually done to help families.

Want to talk about helping families? We are building Ontario up. We’re creating jobs right across the province by building infrastructure. I know that I talked about some of the programs that have kept the Minister of Transportation busy, but I know that we’re also tripling the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund to $300 million, and that’s keeping the Minister of Infrastructure busy. We have made sure that the dollars that we have made, the billions of dollars, have been invested in making sure that we can look at programs, we can look at infrastructure and continue to build Ontario up—something the opposition parties continue to vote against.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Our hydro system should be putting people first, not private profits, and the same is true in our health care system. The NDP will put forward an amendment to Bill 160, the Premier’s health care privatization bill, to mandate that private clinics—or, as the Liberals now call them, community health facilities—be operated on a not-for-profit basis. Will this government support the NDP amendment or will they just continue to support private for-profit clinics, just like the Conservatives?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that the legislation is being discussed in committee as we speak, over the course of this week. I look forward to being able to continue the debate here in the Legislature, including

schedule 9, which is the aspect that the leader of the third party has referenced, which calls for greater oversight, greater accountability and greater transparency and plugging any gaps that might exist where the level of oversight or the level of accountability is insufficient for those health premises that exist outside of the hospital environment. Of course, we’re not talking about family health teams or community health centres; we’re talking about places like X-ray facilities, where they do radiology.

It’s critically important that we have a regime that Ontarians can have confidence in and that provides that necessary oversight so we can be assured of the highest quality of care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Privatization of our health care system is not in the best interests of Ontarians. But Bill 160 makes it easier for companies to open private clinics in Ontario. That’s what Bill 160 does. That’s why we are calling it the Liberal health care privatization bill.

This government refuses to support our NDP amendments to make sure that all private clinics are not-for-profit facilities. People should not be profiting and companies should not be profiting on the health care of Ontario families.

Why is this government clearing the way for more private for-profit clinics instead of improving the public health care of Ontario families?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would welcome the leader of the third party to show me precisely where in

schedule 9 it does, according to her, make it easier for the establishment of private clinics. It does not, Mr. Speaker, and it eliminates the possibility of any future private hospitals. We have had a moratorium, in this government, for many, many years on the establishment of any out-of-hospital for-profit entities, including clinics, the alleged private clinics that the member opposite purports to be so concerned about. In fact, since 2011—I don’t have the data going back further, but in 2011, there were only five licences provided for out-of-hospital premises, all of them not-for-profit.

That’s less than one a year and all for not-for-profit. So I’m not exactly sure—I suspect that it is, additionally, her efforts to fearmonger about our health care system across Ontario.

We are not changing our approach: We’ve had a moratorium, we’re eliminating the possibility of any future private hospitals, and we’re bringing all these regimes under a common, highly accountable system.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Whether the health minister wants to acknowledge it or not, there are now 1,000 private for-profit clinics operating in the province of Ontario because of decisions that Conservatives and Liberals have made over the last number of years.

Bill 160, the Premier’s—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is warned.

Carry on, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Bill 160, this Premier’s health care privatization bill, is another huge disappointment for the people of Ontario. Despite everything they say, when this government has a chance to stop for-profit clinics and support not-for-profit care, they won’t commit to doing it.

Why is the Liberal government working so hard to expand privatization in health care, just like they did in our hydro system, instead of improving health care for people who need it?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think it’s interesting that, earlier in this week, including yesterday, the leader of the third party was concerned about the establishment of private hospitals—but, obviously, she had another look at our legislation, she talked to her stakeholders, including the Ontario Health Coalition, and realized that she was wrong. We are absolutely clear in our intent to ban any future private hospitals. So now she’s moved on to something else—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We have defended universal health care in this province since coming into government in 2003. We will continue to defend universal health care.

Schedule 9 provides for higher quality care, higher oversight, more accountability and more transparency of all of those facilities that do exist outside of our hospital system, many of which, by the way, were created by the NDP or licensed by the PCs.

Mental health services

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Health. My colleague and my friend, the member for Nepean–Carleton, asked you a very serious question about mental health in the province of Ontario today. And you came back with some ridiculous story from 1893.

Minister of Health, I want an answer—we want an answer: Do you believe that mental health in the province of Ontario needs the support now, not in 1893?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Our record on mental health proves that it has been a priority for this government since we came into office in 2003. We have increased our funding for mental health and addiction services by—we almost doubled it since coming into office. Our plan is to increase funding by an additional $220 million over the next three years. We have provided support and investments that provide for more than 50,000 additional children and youth to have access to mental health and addiction services. We are creating youth wellness hubs which provide wraparound supports.

We have created, in the last two years, over 2,000 new supportive housing units for individuals with mental health challenges, and the first-ever-in-this-country cognitive behavioural therapy program for Ontarians. There’s a long list, and I think probably every one they opposed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: You turned a question from Lisa MacLeod into a joke. You laughed. You were not taking it seriously. I don’t know why. Why? Because she asked the question? Because you don’t think that we understand that mental health is a crisis in the province of Ontario? You were dismissive and you were rude, and you need to apologize.

Interjections.

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

Just to remind members: ridings, and speak to the Chair—third person, to the Chair. There’s a purpose for that.

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: That party was talking about their platform, and I was talking about their platform.

I created a minister’s mental health and addictions leadership advisory council as Minister of Health. More than 25 individuals—the most exceptional individuals, including many of them with lived experience, and advocates and experts across the hospitals, in the communities, academics—everyone imaginable that would be able to provide the best possible advice to this ministry and to me as minister, and we listened. Every year they produce an annual report.

In fact, the next one is due shortly, in the coming weeks, and every year we respond in a tangible way to the advice that they provide us: 2,000 more supportive housing units, youth wellness hubs across the province. Cognitive behavioural therapy, which was their number one ask, we introduced.

We are making unprecedented investments. There can be no health without mental health.

College students

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. With the December 5 deadline for college tuition refunds fast approaching, the chaos and confusion continue. Faculty concerned about students achieving required competencies in a shortened semester are being suspended. Students who want a fresh start and their tuition refunded risk losing their program entirely. Students are being forced to jump through impossible hoops to access the hardship fund. The College Student Alliance said this week: “We’ve been in contact with the [government] daily, shooting questions almost non-stop because there is so much left unanswered.”

Will the minister take responsibility and clarify options for students so that college students can make informed decisions about their futures?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very happy to report that students are back in the classroom. Of course, had the NDP been in office, they would still be on strike. Overwhelmingly, programs are up and running. Students are in the midst of completing their semesters. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate and thank the faculty members who have made this possible.

There is an opportunity—if students wish, if they do not feel confident that they can complete, they can withdraw. They will get a full tuition refund, and there will be no academic penalty for doing that.

We did, for the first time in history, establish a fund for students who have experienced exceptional hardship as a result of the strike. We will know more about that in coming days.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Again to the minister, who could have acted long before the five-week mark to get the colleges back to the bargaining table: My constituent Angelica, a student at St. Clair College, emailed the minister asking about this very issue, and would really appreciate some answers.

Angelica was part of a work-study program. She specifically chose work-study because these programs are very accommodating for students. But when she went to her financial aid office to receive compensation for lost wages under the hardship fund, she was denied.

When anyone, student or otherwise, is hired for a job, there’s an expectation that in the event of a layoff, the employee will be compensated. Angelica was actually quoted in a CBC

article as saying, “I feel like I’ve been forgotten by the Ministry of Education.”

Will the minister respond to Angelica’s email immediately? What plan does this government have to make sure that Angelica and hundreds of other students will get the compensation they deserve?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There are obviously many situations that we are dealing with on a daily basis. The CSA, College Student Alliance, does have a specific point person in my office. They have been communicating daily. The vast majority of the questions have been answered. We have worked very closely with students through this whole strike, to make sure that they are front and centre.

I would suggest to the member opposite, if there’s a specific concern about a specific student—first of all, they must work with their college. That is who is distributing the funds. If my office can help, we would be more than happy to do that.

Infrastructure renewal / Renouvellement de l’infrastructure

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Infrastructure, the Honourable Bob Chiarelli.

Speaker, I’d like to appreciate the minister’s 2011 long-term infrastructure plan, Building Together, and the diligent work that has been proceeding. This includes a $400-million expansion, in my own riding, of Etobicoke General Hospital, which will eventually quadruple the floor space.

The 2017 long-term infrastructure plan is entitled Building Better Lives and, of course, it embodies a number of the government’s core values. These developments shape who we are and help the people of Ontario live life to the fullest.

This includes, by the way, a $2-billion expansion of the Finch LRT, with eight stops in my own riding. The Minister of Transportation was in my riding yesterday and, together, we made a related announcement.

I know a number of details of the current plan, Building Better Lives, and I’d ask the minister to please detail some of those.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Thanks to the member for the question. Our new plan builds from a position of strength: $190 billion, the largest infrastructure investment in the province’s history, averaging $12 billion per year.

We have carried out 100 major hospital projects, with 35 more in plan or under construction. We’re investing almost $20 billion in GO Transit expansion. For smaller and rural municipalities, we tripled OCIF to $300 million annually and invested $490 million in broadband. In partnership with the federal government, we are delivering 600 transit projects and 1,300 clean water and waste water projects. And we are the first Ontario government to invest in rural natural gas expansion, with a $100-million program, which the Conservatives have cancelled in their plan.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll have more details in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I commend the minister on that array of projects that he has listed. In particular, I think it’s important that folks across Ontario have access to broadband, so the broadband strategy and the related community pilot projects, I think, will have a material impact on the quality of life for people across Ontario.

I know as well that the long-term infrastructure plan also includes measures to make infrastructure greener as well as keep community needs at the heart of decision-making.

The plan is going to guide our unprecedented investment in public infrastructure and make sure that we’re building the right thing at the right place at the right time for the right reasons.

Speaker, this is, as you might imagine, more important than ever as Ontario faces climate change, destructive technologies and an aging population.

In my own riding, as I’ve mentioned, whether it’s the hospital, the college, the infrastructure, roads or highways, we have an extraordinary amount of development. I’d like to thank the minister personally.

My question is: Est-ce que le ministre peut élaborer sur le travail et les mesures que notre gouvernement fait?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, our infrastructure investments support 125,000 jobs per year. And it’s much more than bricks and mortar; it’s an investment in people and is about building better lives.

Our new plan announces a new broadband strategy and expands community benefit programs. It will phase in life cycle assessment to reduce our carbon footprint, and the sale of surplus property will include a social purpose analysis.

In their last year, the Conservatives invested just $1.9 billion in infrastructure, not even enough for maintenance of existing infrastructure, and invested next to nothing in the energy sector. They promise billions in new spending, and buried on page 76 is $12 billion in cuts that they’re promising the people of Ontario. Those are just the cuts they’re being upfront about. Speaker, all of that is sleight of hand by the Conservatives.

Child care

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the minister responsible for early years and child care. The minister is obviously very close with Martha Friendly, the founder and executive director of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Yesterday, Friendly said that delivery of child care relief is a “waste of taxpayer money.”

We here on the PC side profoundly disagree with Martha Friendly. That’s why the People’s Guarantee refunds up to 75% of a family’s child care expenses or up to $6,750 per child. Supporting families isn’t a waste to us.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister disavow Ms. Friendly’s comments that child care relief is a waste of taxpayer money?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I really want to thank the member opposite for this question because it gives me a chance to talk about the amazing work that we’re doing when it comes to child care in this province.

I want to start out by saying that band-aid solutions are not a solution. What we are working on here, on this side of the House, are real solutions, solutions that are going to transform the way we deliver child care in this province. That starts by building a solid foundation, which is what we’re doing.

So we’re not doing these cash grabs—“Here’s money upfront.” What we’re doing, essentially, is a deep dive into those changes that need to happen when it comes to fees, when it comes to quality, when it comes to affordability. The plan coming from the other side of the House does none of those things. They’re not doing anything to reduce fees. They’re not doing anything to build quality spaces. They’re not making child care more affordable. They’re not doing anything for the workforce.

We need 20,000 more early childhood educators. We have a plan in place. We’re doing everything we can to ensure that we’re building a solid system. We’re not just saying that we’re going to give people a certain amount of money upfront and that’s it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Gila Martow: Back to the minister: I noticed the minister didn’t comment on Ms. Friendly’s comments, but respected economist Kevin Milligan did. He said, “Martha Friendly gets many of the policy details wrong.” Let me repeat that: wrong. This is coming from someone who is close to a government that says facts still matter.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell her friend Martha Friendly that she is wrong and that child care relief is not a waste of taxpayer money?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Speaker, I’m not going to get into an argument about which person said what and which comment is more on track than others.

What I will say is this: When it comes to child care and affordability, we know well enough on this side of the House to trust the experts in the field. That’s why I have a table that actually informs us. It’s called MEYAC. It’s made up of 60 different organizations, or more, that are really experts on many different levels, that are informing us about what they think should be happening.

The reality is this: The plan that the PCs have put forward doesn’t do anything when it comes to building the system. We know, in fact, that what they’ve chosen to do is recycle Stephen Harper’s infamous child care scheme, one that saw rich families benefit while middle- and low-income families were left behind.

Where is this funding coming from that they’re talking about? They’re going to cut $12 billion out of the system. We are putting money into the system because we get it. Investments are how you build.

Public health

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Acting Premier. After years of frozen hospital budgets, this government just keeps on cutting health care. Niagara public health now expects its provincial funding to be frozen for a fourth straight year. Funding has been frozen under this Premier since 2015 and, as a direct result, Niagara public health is being forced to lay off crucial public health workers. As Mayor Dave Augustyn from Pelham says, this Liberal government has “cut to the bone and now we’re cutting bone.”

Why is this government forcing Niagara public health to lay off workers who keep our families healthy and our communities safe?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We absolutely value our public health units, the hard-working health care professionals and all staff that work within those entities to provide critically important care, especially on the prevention side, but also help us when we are facing public health crises like the one we are facing with opioids today. In fact, Niagara public health received substantial new funding this year so they could hire more full-time workers to work specifically on the opioid crisis.

We have dramatically increased our funding for public health since we came into office; in fact, an increase of roughly half a billion dollars, more than doubling our contribution, and we continue to make those important investments because we believe so strongly in the work that they do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Speaker, we all know public health is incredibly important. They provide exceptional support for everyone from new moms to little ones to health and safety inspections to emergency dental care for our most vulnerable. I agree with my local medical officer of health that public health deserves to get more funding, not less. But for four straight years, this Premier has frozen public health funding, forcing cuts of almost 2% per year, cuts that our local councillors in Niagara call disturbing.

Will this Liberal government stop acting like the Conservatives, stop cutting public health in Niagara and save the jobs of our public health workers and the services that our families in Niagara count on?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We increased public health funding last year and we increased public health funding this year. I’m a public health doctor myself. I understand just how critically important that work is to our province.

We’re making the requisite investments: Healthy Smiles Ontario, where almost 400,000 children benefit each year, is 100% funded by the province; our 180 infectious disease control staff across the province through our public health units, 100% funded by the Ministry of Health; our Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy, where our public health units are critically important in that work, 100% funded by the provincial government.

We fund 147 nursing positions, including chief nursing officers, infection prevention and control nurses, and public health nurses. We provide 100% of that funding.

We will continue to make those important investments.

Could the minister please tell us what this government is doing to support this worthy goal?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Davenport for her very important question this morning. Key to the foundation of a sustainable, resilient society, of course, is a strong economy. Our government has taken several steps to ensure our economy is fuelled by people with diverse skills and talents.

The education standard in particular will meet a serious and growing need in our educational system. With close to 400,000 students in Ontario who are identified as having disabilities, being exceptional or receiving special education programs, the significance of this new standard is clear. I look forward to providing more information in the supplemental.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Last month, the federal Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, the Honourable Kent Hehr, indicated that the federal government has decided to accede to the optional protocol in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. My question for the minister is: Will this government commit this House to joining our federal counterparts in adopting the optional protocol in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Student mental health services

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the Deputy Premier. In It Together, a report co-authored by Colleges Ontario, the Council of Ontario Universities, the College Student Alliance and the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, highlights the mental health crisis on post-secondary campuses throughout Ontario. This report clearly documents the critical need for mental health supports and services for students.

That is why Patrick Brown and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party have committed $1.9 billion over 10 years to implement mental health services and supports across the province. Speaker, will the Liberal government match today the Ontario PC Party’s commitment for mental health services and supports?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I think we all agree that the demand for mental health services on campuses is increasing and we must be there to support students who are facing mental health challenges. That’s exactly why we added an additional $6 million annually on top of the $9 million we were already investing, to bring the total investment in campus mental health to $15 million.

I have to say I was very supportive and very happy to see that those four organizations joined together to create one report that really shines a light on the importance of investing in mental health services for people on our campuses. I’m proud of that initiative, but I know there is more to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Back to the Deputy Premier: Speaker, I’d like to share a quote from a leader in Ontario’s post-secondary education sector. Here’s what she had to say: “We’re very pleased to see the commitment by Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown to increase funding for mental health services for post-secondary students. This is a huge priority on our campuses.” Who said that, Speaker? The president and chief executive officer of Colleges Ontario, Linda Franklin.

The Ontario PC Party will make the largest mental health investment in Canadian provincial history: $1.9 billion. Speaker, will the Liberal government agree to match the PC Party’s commitment today and address the mental health crisis that exists on Ontario’s post-secondary campuses?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said, we’re absolutely committed to improving mental health services on campuses, in addition to what we’ve already done. One way that we are reducing stress on students, Speaker, is by taking financial burden off their shoulders through the new OSAP. We know that money can be a real mental health stressor. This is an important step towards easing some of that burden.

But I have to come back to the $12 billion in cuts that party has put inside their platform—$12 billion. It is impossible to find that kind of money without cutting health services, including mental health services. So yes, Speaker, these are guaranteed cuts.

Labour dispute

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier. Members of the Sudbury community, particularly the francophone community, are experiencing hardship and the loss of the services they need due to the prolonged labour dispute at the Sudbury Counselling Centre. Twelve members of USW Local 2020—all of them women—have been on strike for seven long weeks. I visited the picket line on Friday and Mr. Tim Worton came to talk to me. Mr. Worton is a survivor of serious trauma and a client of the centre. He’s having a really tough time right now. He needs access to care and he has nowhere else to turn.

Why is this government leaving people in my area, like Mr. Worton, without the care they need for seven long weeks?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Attorney General.

In the meantime, we are mindful and we are concerned as well that those important services aren’t disrupted, and we are hopeful that they can resume as soon as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The workers at the Sudbury Counselling Centre provide counselling, psychotherapy, employee assistance programs, partner assault response both for men and for women, counselling for women experiencing domestic violence, and assistance for male survivors of sexual violence. They even counsel some of our youngest citizens—little kids—before they need to sit as witnesses on the witness stand before a judge and jury. Nine of those 13 programs they provide are unique. They are not available anywhere else in our area.

Can the minister please explain why he’s leaving some of Sudbury’s and Nickel Belt’s most vulnerable residents and the people who depend on them literally out in the cold?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that very, very important question. I was in Sudbury just last week with the Minister of Energy and obviously this was an issue that came up as we toured through the community.

I can tell you that in the province of Ontario, Speaker, about 98% of all collective agreements are reached without having to resort to a strike, without having to resort to a lockout. The labour relations regime in this province is second to none.

From time to time, unfortunately, sides cannot come to agreement. That’s where the staff from the Ministry of Labour come in. The mediators and arbitrators we have on staff are amongst the best in the world. We have a number of mediators that are working on this case and I’m pleased to report to the House that the sides have agreed to return to the table in early December.

We know that the best agreements are those that are reached at the table. Negotiating, by nature, is tough. It’s supposed to be tough. We hope that, if cooler heads prevail here, we can get an agreement that serves the people of Sudbury.

Energy policies

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Ontario is well known as a leader in the field of innovation and new, emerging technologies, especially clean and sustainable technologies. Just a few weeks ago, the long-term energy plan made a solemn commitment to Ontarians to continue building an affordable and clean electricity system in which customers are given more choices in their energy use, like with net metering. That demonstrates that Ontarians and their families continue to be at the centre of our plan.

The plan also talked about how innovative technologies have the potential to transform Ontario’s energy system.

To keep up with these changing technologies, Ontario has relaunched the Smart Grid Fund. It will support the growth and advancement of the province’s electricity grid in as smart, clean and sustainable a way as possible.

Will the minister please provide more information to the House about the Smart Grid Fund and how it is helping Ontario innovators and our energy system as a whole?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank the member for Beaches–East York for his constant advocacy for hydrogen and many other instances that help us with our Smart Grid Fund.

Mr. Speaker, the Smart Grid Fund was launched in 2011 to support innovation in Ontario’s electricity sector. Ontario’s innovation has produced a wide range of technologies, such as home energy management; grid automation; energy storage, which is a game-changer; micro-grids; cyber security; and electric vehicle integration. Through this fund, Ontario companies have solved problems on distribution grids, and utilities have increased their understanding of how the smart grid can benefit the system and their customers.

Just last week, NRStor secured funding from the Swiss-based SUSI energy storage fund to roll out innovative behind-the-meter energy storage solutions at commercial, industrial and institutional sites in Canada. I want to congratulate NRStor.

I look forward to adding more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thanks to the minister for the incredible work he is doing to help transform our electrical system into the best it can possibly be into the future.

Through the Smart Grid Fund, our government continues to support jobs, growth and innovation. There are tremendous opportunities, as the minister noted, with hydrogen technologies and other power-to-fuel technologies, particularly around areas like smart electric vehicle chargers—and there’s more.

A number of the previously successful recipients of the Smart Grid Fund and the products that they have developed are now gaining traction in foreign markets, including N-Dimension Solutions, a cyber security firm which can boast over 100 utility companies using their services in North America. Utilismart’s distribution system is a monitoring software that has been installed by over 140 utility companies. And there’s a new transformer sensor, which is manufactured in Ontario by GRID20/20, and it has been tested in 11 countries.

Would the minister please inform the House as to how the government will continue to support local innovators through the Smart Grid Fund?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, thank you to the member for the question.

As part of our government’s grid modernization strategy, now is the right time to build on this success by renewing and enhancing the Smart Grid Fund. That is why our 2017 long-term energy plan, entitled Delivering Fairness and Choice, committed $60 million in new smart grid funding, and we intend to launch a call for applications before the end of the year. This will continue our government’s strong support of Ontario’s innovation sector and help overcome barriers to electricity grid modernization.

An enhanced Smart Grid Fund will focus on encouraging a culture of innovation within the electricity sector that explores new solutions for integrating technologies, tests new business models, incorporates electricity and other energy resources, and generates new ideas for advancing grid modernization. I’m very pleased to be able to launch this program.

Northern Ontario Heritage Fund

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Mr. Speaker, in March 2015, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund gave $4 million to California-based Rentech to convert two sawmills in Wawa and Atikokan into wood pellet manufacturing plants. It sounded like good news. It was projected to create 60 jobs in these communities.

In February of this year—less than two years later—Rentech closed the Wawa plant, and now they have the Atikokan plant up for sale. News coverage says the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund is asking the company to pay $2.5 million back, but Rentech seems to believe they have complied with their commitments.

Will the Deputy Premier please tell Ontarians how this government is going to make sure this company doesn’t leave Ontario without repaying the money?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m always pleased to rise and talk about the great work that’s happening in northern Ontario and a lot of the accomplishments that are happening thanks to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund. The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund is continuing to invest in creating a diverse economy in northern Ontario, and one that’s creating jobs.

Just last week in my riding of Sudbury, when I had the Minister of Agriculture and small business and the Minister of Labour with me in Sudbury, we talked about some of the programs that the NOHFC has been bringing forward to help mining companies, to help forestry companies, to help the movie sector. We are creating more film and television programs in northeastern and northwestern Ontario. That is creating over 1,200 jobs. We are making sure through our due diligence that northern Ontario is continuing to grow and prosper thanks to the investments that this government is making to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Norm Miller: The minister didn’t seem to understand my question. This is not the first time that the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund has invested in companies only to see them leave before their commitments were fulfilled. Earlier this year, Great Lakes Graphite left Ontario just 10 months after the government gave the company $400,000.

Our leader has committed to penalize companies that take advantage of government programs and then leave town.

What has this government done to ensure future Northern Ontario Heritage Fund grants don’t go to companies that are not committed to staying in northern Ontario?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I’m very pleased to stand and talk about the $100-million-a-year investments that we are making to ensure that the priorities of northerners are being met. Since 2003, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund has invested $1.2 billion, which has directly created over 32,000 jobs across northern Ontario, helping northerners live, work and build careers in the north.

Let’s talk about a few of those things: We’ve expanded broadband to 100,000 more people in northern Ontario—$32 million of that has been invested to support the expansion of broadband infrastructure into 21 remote First Nations communities; $6 billion invested since 2003 in our northern highways program. Keeping the Minister of Transportation busy, we’re continuing to finish the expansion of Highway 69, making our roads safer and bringing more economic development to northern Ontario.

Electric vehicle rebates

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question this morning is for the Deputy Premier. Good morning.

The Liberals grabbed the headlines with a rebate for people buying new electric vehicles, fuel-efficient vehicles. Here’s a new headline: The Liberals Are Deadbeats. They’re not paying their bills. Some new car dealers are owed as much as half a million dollars. I have a dealer in my riding who is owed $300,000, a small business fronting these guys over here who aren’t paying their bills. Dealers front the rebate off the top. They file the paperwork to get it back, and it takes seven months or more for that to happen—seven months or more. Sometimes they’re told, “Oh, you made a mistake in the form. Start all over again.”

In the spirit of being open and transparent, when will these deadbeat Liberals start paying the rebates to new car dealers in a timely fashion?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, good morning, and to the Minister of Transportation.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Windsor for his interesting question.

Obviously, our government is very proud of the fact that we provide generous incentives through the Electric Vehicle Incentive Program for those individuals who are both purchasing or leasing—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West is warned.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I was saying, we’re very proud of the fact that through the Electric Vehicle Incentive Program, both for the purchase and lease of vehicles and also to support the purchase of home-based charging infrastructure, our government provides very generous incentives.

The member is right: There have been some challenges within the processing of payment for those, in some cases dealers and in some cases individuals, to receive their rebate. I can assure the member that the government and the Ministry of Transportation are working very hard to fix some of the challenges. I anticipate that the individual or the dealer that he’s talking about will receive the rebate soon.

I will also point out really quickly that all of this really and truly underscores how successful these programs—

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

Visitors

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

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to introduce the family and friends of today’s page captain, Sean Reynolds, from my riding of Burlington: Steve; Marie Reynolds and Gerry Reynolds—I think, grandma and grandpa; Cathy Weutherick and Dave Weutherick. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I’d like to welcome David Sweanor, who is a big contributor to the University of Ottawa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Deferred Votes

Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et plus juste (mesures budgétaires)

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 177,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 177, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1140 to 1145.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All members, take your seats, please.

On November 20, 2017, Mr. Sousa moved second reading of Bill 177,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Bradley, James J.

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sousa, Charles

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Forster, Cindy

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Horwath, Andrea

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Natyshak, Taras

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Romano, Ross

Sattler, Peggy

Smith, Todd

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 46; the nays are 39.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of th