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

April 24, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Apr-24 (PDF)

L018 - Tue 24 Apr 2018 / Mar 24 avr 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 24 April 2018 Mardi 24 avril 2018

Orders of the Day

2018 Ontario budget

Introduction of Visitors

Attack in Toronto

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Government accounting practices

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Landfill

Tenant protection

Natural gas rates

Labour dispute

Social assistance

Landfill

Contaminated soil cleanup

Post-secondary education

Government spending

Deferred Votes

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

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Volunteers

Ontario farmers

Armenian genocide anniversary

Health care funding

Labour dispute

London organizations

Sharon Temple

Attack in Toronto

Connect Youth

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

2297970 Ontario Inc. Act, 2018

2258733 Ontario Inc. Act, 2018

Tencrest Realty Ltd. Act, 2018

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Health care funding

Government services

Water fluoridation

Doctor shortage

Poet laureate

Water fluoridation

Great Lakes protection

Energy policies

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Landfill

Long-term care

Orders of the Day

Government Contract Wages Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur les salaires pour les marchés publics

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

2018 Ontario budget

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 23, 2018, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Good morning, Speaker. I am pleased to start this fine day with a 20-minute speech on the budget. I have waited patiently for a chance to speak on this budget, and here we are.

What is in the budget, what isn’t in the budget—these are conversations we’re having across our communities at length. I’ve had a number of fantastic chances, as I’m sure we all have, to connect with our constituents. We have hosted a number of round tables at our constituency office that have been inspired by the significant need in our community. We’ve had seniors’ round tables. We had a round table on developmental services. Goodness, we’ve had a dental needs round table. And this is just at my constituency office, bringing folks together to do our best to understand their needs and do our best to problem-solve.

Unfortunately, the budget that we have in front of us doesn’t do what it needs to problem-solve. It throws a couple of pretty words at these conversations but not the money, not the real investment, not the real intention that is deserved.

We’ve heard this before. There was a fair bit of lead-up to the budget. People were wondering, was this going to be a campaign budget? I anticipated that it was going to be. You know what, Speaker? It even fell flat for that.

This was a government that brought forward this budget because they thought they wanted to build themselves back up in the eyes of the community, but the community has been paying attention and knows that this is not enough, that this was not even stretch goals. They didn’t even commit fully to dental; it was just a little bit: “Here’s enough for a tooth, but only for you and not for the rest of your family. Here’s a bit towards your cleaning.” That’s not what a family can rely on. That’s not what people need.

So, it was clear that this Premier believes it’s more important for her to look good than for the people of Ontario to actually feel good. Certainly, when it comes to health, when it comes to wellness, this budget falls short.

I’d like to bring it back to dental because, of course, people were excited about the NDP dental plan; they continue to be excited about the NDP dental plan. Then out came the budget and the budget didn’t have any teeth—ha ha—let alone a significant commitment to dental. I got some cynical responses from my community but also some pretty sincere concerns, and I’ll share one here. This is a letter from a woman named Donna, one of my constituents, who’s in her thirties. She works full-time. She wrote to me:

“I do not have any benefits, I am employed full-time and I might have some friends with younger kids that benefit from OHIP+, but my immediate circle of friends and colleagues do not qualify. As a single-income earner I’m so excited about the prospect of an Ontario dental plan. I have voiced my concerns about this issue a few times and I feel like finally someone is listening. As a professional vocalist, my mouth health is so important, and often on display. I know how important oral health is to your overall health and I have had a lot of issues affording the dental care I need.

I currently am in need of over $400 of cavity work done. As a single earner it comes down to my teeth or my rent; my teeth or my rent, my teeth or my car payments and insurance. I hate that I have to go into debt to take care of my teeth. I hate that I will have [to] pay interest on something that should be under the provincial health care umbrella.”

Interestingly, she has shared that she needs $400 worth of cavity work done. Well, under the Liberal plan, $400 is all she would get, so I hope she doesn’t need a cleaning and I hope she’s not part of a family that requires any other work done.

Laughter.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Speaker, I find it interesting that the folks across the way think that the dental deficits here are hilarious, but anyway.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Oh, come on. You know that they were not even talking about you.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay. Sorry. They were laughing about something else. Maybe it was the lack of funding for health care; I’m not sure.

Another letter that I would like to share—well, it’s not so much a letter; it’s another case that I’d like to share. It’s from Darlene. I want to tell you a little bit about Darlene because Darlene is a firecracker. She came into my office and, like many who come to our constituency offices, didn’t come with just one need; she came with several.

Darlene came to see us. She is 72 years old. She’s a tiny little woman who is a firecracker and is a survivor and has a really special energy. She came to our office, unfortunately, just on that verge of crisis and really needed not just to be heard but needed help. We’re continuing to work with her but we’re finding it really challenging within this system to get her the help she needs. She’s 72; she has not been able to afford dental care since she turned 65 and she lost her benefits. She has 14 teeth left in her mouth. She’s developing gum disease. She is having trouble chewing and swallowing.

She told me that she hates to eat. She hates to eat because of the pain and because of her challenges. The hospital won’t do anything for her; they just send her home with antibiotics.

She’s not asking for anything fancy. All she wants is to have her teeth cleaned and she wants to have a cavity filled so that she can feel healthy. This is someone who, before she hit 65 and she got pushed off that seniors’ cliff where you’re on your own—she told me that she desperately wanted some kind of dental work done so she could keep the teeth that she had. She wanted some kind of appliance so she’d be able to keep chewing and eating past 65. She certainly didn’t qualify for that, certainly couldn’t have that and so now, one by one, she has been losing her teeth, and had a number of other concerns when she came to us.

We’ve had folks come to our office who have undergone cancer treatments, not for a mouth cancer, not for an oral cancer, but some of the side effects of the cancer treatments are tooth damage; again, something not covered. We need to have a fulsome plan that allows people to have that oral health that they deserve, because we know it’s connected to everything else.

For goodness’ sake, the government almost shouldn’t have touched it rather than just $400 and then another $50 or whatever it is; it’s piecemeal. The thing is, all Ontarians who don’t have enough money for dental and don’t have dental coverage—they know what it costs. They know that they can’t afford that $1,600 root canal. So when they see those numbers, it’s insulting.

We’ve talked at length—I would say that we’ve spoken ad nauseam in this room—about health care and the lack of the supports that people need in our hospitals and in our communities. I love being in Oshawa, but being in the Central East LHIN, we are at the very bottom when it comes to funding. We don’t have equity around the province. It depends on where you live—the amount of care that you can get.

My understanding is—and I’m sure that my Conservative colleagues will be happy to speak to this and correct me if I’m wrong: Back in the days of Harris, the funding for the LHINs was—I think it was reduced first and then frozen at that moment in time. The thing is, that was a snapshot of how things were at that time. Our area has grown and other areas have grown, but the funding has not been re-evaluated. We are frozen at that point.

Our LHIN is right at the bottom in terms of funding. We see that when it comes to our long-term care; we see that when it comes to our hospitals. It isn’t right. It isn’t fair. It shouldn’t matter where you live in this province; you should have access to the services that you need and the health care that you require and, of course, deserve.

I asked a question in this House a couple of weeks ago about Anna. Anna is someone whose adult children came to our office. They were very concerned because Anna was being held or stored or I don’t know how to put it—has been in ALC, alternate level of care, at the hospital. There is no space for her. Where she had been in a seniors’ residence, they could no longer meet her needs. There was nowhere for her to go, so she literally has been in holding in—rather than long-term care—long-term storage at the hospital, in our ALC beds, waiting for a space.

I’m glad that I pressed in this House. I’m glad I brought it up, because, interestingly, she has been moved. She has not been moved to where she will be permanently, but she has been relocated. I’m glad to hear that, but her family continues to advocate to get her into a space that is close to home so that they can continue to see her and spend time with her. They were so worried that, like many of the other people around her, two or three that they got to know personally over the months that she has been there who died in hospital, she was going to die in this holding bed in the hospital rather than a space where she was welcome and wanted and could spend time with her family with dignity.

Stories like this are all across the province. We hear them on a regular basis. We don’t see these issues addressed in this budget, and we should; we really should. We keep talking about how the government has had 15 years to do something about this. They’ve had 15 years to figure out the problems. I’ve only been here for four, but I know what the problems are, because I pick up my phone in my constituency office and I make appointments with folks and I listen to them.

So if I know what the problems are in four years because I’m doing my job, I’m going to trust that everyone else in this Legislature is doing their jobs: that they are answering their phones and that they are working with folks in their constituencies. So they’ve known.

We see right now with this budget and all of these announcements—the flurry of investments and, “You have a car, and you get a car, and you get a car, and you get a car,” and all of this stuff—they knew what was needed. It’s not just that it’s insulting, but that gets to the heart of it. If they knew how to fix it, then why wait? Why not address it? Why not be honest with the people of Ontario and say, “You know what? This might be too big for us to get accomplished, but we’re going to start.” Nope. It’s: “We’re just going to pretend it’s not a thing. We’re not going to own up to it. We’re not going to get working on it.”

Here we have—in how many days is it now, Speaker?—an election on the horizon. It’s not even on the horizon; it’s right around the corner. I think, in that election, there’s going to be a clear message sent. But I think what the message is—regardless of how folks vote; regardless of the outcome of the election—people deserve to live and work in a province where they don’t have to worry about absolutely everything.

In the last four years, first we’re dealing with the sell-off of Hydro One. This is something that will always mark my career: that I had to sit across from the government and watch them slowly sell off Hydro One and dismantle what we owned as a province. With Hydro One, you can’t get much broader than the ownership of everybody in the province. But they sold that off and got rid of the revenue stream that came with that.

They are underfunding our public services without even thinking about it: “Just sell it off; we don’t want to deal with it.” They’ve got friends who need to make a profit, and here we are. We don’t have enough money coming in. They don’t have a plan to bring money in; they just have a plan to spend it. At least, with the NDP and our platform—and we’re getting good reviews, Speaker; I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to check it out—our math checks out. We’re going to bring more money in and we’re going to be spending in places that are so desperately in need. People are fine with that.

People don’t want to go to the hospital and be treated in a hallway. People don’t want to have mouth pain and know that they can’t even get their tooth pulled until there’s an abscess; they have to have a disease before they can get treatment. People want what’s best for their kids. They want affordable child care. They also want affordable housing. They want to be able to look around their community and see that there is a way forward. We don’t see that in this budget, quite frankly.

Speaker, I’m going to shift because we haven’t had too much of a conversation about developmental services that I’ve heard in this room. I have had a number of meetings with folks who work in this sector, with families who are standing patiently in the Passport line, with management, and with the caregivers on the front lines. I want to share a little bit about that.

First, I had met with OASIS—when we’re looking at the management side of developmental services—and they are very concerned. They are concerned about the increased administrative burden, that they won’t be able to give the training that is needed, and that folks will not be able to provide that specialized, individualized care when they just can’t meet the staffing needs. The lack of funding to this sector means delays to infrastructure repairs, and the maintenance of homes is being delayed.

We’re just pushing this further and further down the field, like everything else, and we have not been investing in developmental services. If you can’t appropriately staff, then you can’t appropriately care.

What I heard from the front lines, from CUPE members in developmental services—they spoke at length about the complex needs, and they don’t have the training that they require. Sitting them down in front of computer screens and giving them an online workshop is not the same as appropriate training when the needs of our community members that they serve are increasingly complex. It’s far more demanding. You see increasing need and decreasing morale. Speaker, that is not what we should imagine when we think about our vulnerable community members who need strong and supportive developmental services.

I’m going to read some quotes from, like I said, the front lines, from CUPE members who are in developmental services. Here’s one from a direct support worker: “Basically, they’re cutting away all the extras. They’re leaving us enough time to feed, shower, clean—you know, the basic necessities—but all the extra stuff like going to hockey games, all the stuff that makes our guys part of a community, is being taken away slowly until they’re going to be housebound.”

Another one from a group home support worker: “The price of everything in group homes has gone up—food, hydro, heating, insurance, the cost of maintaining vehicles, taxes, health and safety equipment.... But the funding from the province for my agency doesn’t take any of this into account.”

Another one from a developmental services worker: “This work [with people with developmental disabilities] is all about consistency. But staff turnover here is high because the pay is so poor. We’ve been making the same hourly wage since 2007. Families would be appalled.”

And another one, because we’ve got the time and I’ve got an audience, and I’m so inclined: A vocational instructor said: “The employer’s financial inability to hire new staff, coupled with cuts in hours for part-time employees ... makes it impossible for us to provide the personal support that clients need. At the same time, employers are—at least ours is —looking at increasing the staff-to-client ratios in day programs.”

Lastly, from another vocational instructor: “[The agency I work for] is looking at expanding their services to include clients with mental health issues.... Mixing clients with a primarily developmental disability with clients that primarily have a mental health disorder isn’t good. The two groups require different kinds of support, and we are trained to support with individuals with a developmental disability, not mental health disorders. Nor will employers have the ability to educate us to work with mental health clients.... More clients and staff will be put at risk of violence.”

When it comes to providing the care with dignity and with resources, we are falling short in this province. We are falling short when it comes to developmental services. We are falling short when it comes to our classrooms.

I had met with CUPE 218 a while back, when it came to the issue of violence in our schools. I have spoken at length about this. When I met with the CUPE workers—there are an astronomical number of violent incidents that the front lines are seeing. Where is the commitment to hire and properly resource? When it comes to PTSD and stress-related leave, there need to be fewer appeals. We’re catching on that these are stressful work environments and that people are legitimately suffering and struggling.

In this budget, again, we don’t see enough. We see some funding, but how far will that go? Not far enough, when this government has chosen for the last 15 years to neglect all of our different ministries, all of our different care systems, be it developmental services, be it health care or dental care. Goodness, I didn’t even talk about pharmacare. But don’t worry, Speaker. I have a lot to say, and I’ll save it for another day.

When it comes to all of our care sectors, this government has chosen to neglect them, and now they are pretending that they care. They’re going to throw a couple of dollars at it, and they’re going to cut a ribbon and have a parade for it. Nobody is buying it. It is time for change; it is time for change for the better. People deserve a better Ontario. It’s not just that they want it; they know that it is possible, and they will have it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to the member from Oshawa, who I know is passionate about a range of issues. Some of them, she talked about; some of them, she didn’t get to talk about. But I appreciate her passion and her dedication to those issues.

I do have to disagree with her on the substance of the things that she said. One of the arguments that the member made, and that others have made, is that suddenly, the government awoke to the challenges that the people of Ontario are facing, and suddenly, in this budget, at the last minute, decided to invest in services that are important to people.

First of all, that’s not true. If we look back, the facts indicate that that’s not true. In the previous budget, we invested significantly in hospitals. We had the $7-billion booster shot for health care. We increased hospital funding. Over the past number of budgets, if you look at the amount of money we have invested in community care, that number continues to rise. It’s one of the fastest-growing parts of the provincial budget. The health care budget as a whole continues to grow, and so on and so forth.

We’ve invested in mental health. We’ve invested in infrastructure. We’ve invested in all of those services that the member opposite has been talking about, and this budget just continues along that trend.

Certainly, there are some new initiatives in this budget: pharmacare for seniors—I think that’s great news; funding to help people cover the cost of dental care; increases in community care funding; increases in mental health funding. The increase in mental health funding brings that investment to more than $17 billion over four years. How can anyone argue that this is something we suddenly started doing now? This is something we’ve been working on for some time.

I think there are some really important initiatives in this budget that touch on the issues that the member from Oshawa was talking about. I think it’s important for the member, and the members opposite of both opposition parties, to recognize that this is the continuation of a trend where this government continues to try to address the priorities of Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to provide just a few comments in response to the member for Oshawa’s address this morning on the budget. I want to thank her and her advocacy.

But the last government member really made me think about some comments on the budget. Last week, I was in my riding for a couple of days. We had the Ontario Volunteer Service Awards—two sessions in Elgin and one in Brockville—so we were able to recognize hundreds of volunteers in the community.

I also had a visit from my leader, Doug Ford, at rallies in Brockville and a whistle stop in Gananoque, and also two visits to two industries—two job creators in my riding—Northern Cables and Canarm. The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, as our labour critic, toured Northern Cables with me, and I know some of the concern that they’ve expressed with this government’s policies.

I look forward to the Auditor General—she’s going to be presenting her pre-election report—and I really hope that for a change this government embraces what she says and doesn’t wage war against her. There’s an incredible appetite for change. We saw it last week with Doug Ford’s visit to my riding. A lot of people are really looking for a government that recognizes and respects the taxpayer dollar and doesn’t just decide, after 15 years of waste, scandal, and mismanagement, that they’re going to look at voters in Ontario and say, “We’re not going to spend your money unwisely, and we really, really mean it this time.” It’s pretty rich, coming from this government.

I can’t wait to hear the Auditor General’s recommendations. Ontarians will be watching very closely. They’re going to be watching very closely to see how this government responds.

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: Oh, you want to wake up now? Just take a rotation and talk.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I think the member from Oshawa really went through a number of the files where this government has failed people. The evidence is there. The Liberal member talked about the continuation of a trend. That is exactly the problem, because the best predictor of future behaviour is, of course, past behaviour.

We have seen what you have done. That’s why the York students have been out for seven weeks, because this government continues, to this day, regardless of this better-than-free budget that you’ve tabled—it’s that you’ve created the conditions for tension and strife in our public services. The evidence is so very clear. That is why four students interrupted the Premier’s speech yesterday at the Canadian Club, saying that they cannot take it anymore. And why should our post-secondary institutions be—

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Why should our post-secondary institutions be—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Could I ask that you address the Chair, please.

Ms. Catherine Fife: —the precarious, part-time, contract work—why should our post-secondary institutions be leading the way on part-time, precarious, contract work? That’s the kind of record that you are proud of?

I know the member from Oshawa actually comes from the education sector. When you invest in education, the return on the investment is there. It’s there for the economy. It’s there for the health. It’s there for the future predictors of how we are going to grow as a province. So when she talks about health care and dental and education—

Interjection.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: You know, the biggest thing, I think—and I know that the back row is really feeling a little unstable these days. Quite honestly, I’ve heard what they are saying at the doors. The anger at the doors is real, but the chance for the people of this province to choose an option that actually works for them is also real in this election. You don’t have to choose between that side or that side; you can choose real change for the better.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: It’s always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Cambridge and North Dumfries township. I want to say good morning to my parents at home, Barb and Norm.

I also wanted to make a few comments on the member from Oshawa’s assertions this morning about some of the things that she was talking about in health care. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo just said that past behaviour is a predictor of the future. Well, I know, as a nurse in the early 1990s, that during their time in government, the NDP cut over 9,000 beds, 24% of acute care beds. They also cut 13% of the mental health beds—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Member from Barrie, come to order.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: They closed nursing school places and created a future that we know, as nurses, would create a health care crisis with too few beds, too few nurses and too few doctors in the system. Then, two successive PC governments also continued to cut, so when we came in in 2003 our number one priority was to ensure that we invested in hospitals and home care.

We’ve created now, years later, a system that has 30,000 more nurses in the province. We’ve spent billions in building up our health care system: added beds, hospitals, expansions, like Cambridge Memorial Hospital, which is just about to open its new wing. We resolved the doctor shortage.

We continue to invest in many different areas, including OHIP+. OHIP+ is helping children who can’t afford to have medication, so that reduces hospital emerg visits. We’re expanding that to all those over age 65 next summer. We’re continuing to invest in $19 billion worth of infrastructure so that we can have the hospitals and beds that we need. We’re adding long-term-care beds. We’re continuing to invest in home and community care, to ensure that seniors can stay in their homes if they choose to do that.

I’m proud of our budget. I know that we will move forward to ensure that we have what we need in the future years.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Oshawa for final comments.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I find it really interesting when the—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Yes, I can’t even hear myself.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please.

Okay. All right. If you want to have conversations across the aisle, I would suggest that perhaps you find another place to communicate. Right now the member from Oshawa has the floor. She’s finishing up. She’s communicating to us. I think it’s important that we all have that opportunity to listen to what she has to say.

Now I’m going to return it back to the member from Oshawa to finish up her final comments, and I would expect that everyone will listen. Thank you.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you, Speaker. Now that’s a fair bit of pressure. I’d better make it good. I appreciate the comments from those who actually got up and gave them formally. The back and forth was a bit much; but yes, thank you, Speaker.

To the member from Etobicoke Centre: I’m glad to hear that they recognize the passion that I have for the issues. To challenge the substance of my argument is—that’s fun because the substance of my argument comes from real people in my community. I will take his message back to Donna and Darlene, and Steve, who can’t afford to retire because the government won’t cover his pharmacare costs, and Wanda, whose daughter is epileptic and is concerned about her drug care. When it comes to substance, the substance is what’s in my community, so I’ll certainly pass that along, certainly.

To his point that they’re “continuing to try to address,” we’ve heard from the member from Kitchener–Waterloo that that’s the problem: the continuation to try or the continuation of this pattern. People need change.

To the member from Leeds–Grenville: I appreciate that he recognizes that there’s an incredible appetite for change; however, it’s an appetite for change for the better, not just change for change’s sake. Choosing between bad and worse and bad and worse and back again is nonsense, and people are tired of that.

To always talk about the taxpayer and the voter—every once in a while I’d love to hear them talk about a neighbour, or a real person with a name, or a child, or a grandparent. We need to think about what people need to be able to live with dignity in this province.

I wish that I could address the Minister of Transportation. I really appreciated her two-minute infomercial. Awesome talking points. Great job.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to speak about our budget, a Plan for Care and Opportunity.

I’m very happy to add my voice and to speak about the important work that is being done to support families and communities around the province. Time permitting, I will be focusing my comments on important initiatives as they relate to the justice portfolio that I’m responsible for. I’ll be speaking about things, like community justice centres, that the budget speaks about. Then, hopefully, if I have some time, I also want to highlight some of the important initiatives that are taking place in my community of Ottawa Centre as a result of a strong, progressive, bold plan that is outlined in this budget.

Overall, this budget recognizes the sacrifices families must make and the value of the care they provide, but it also speaks to how our government intends to improve the circumstances of the many vulnerable and marginalized people who come into contact with the justice system. Today, I would like to talk about how the province is continuing its efforts to transform and modernize the criminal justice system by developing an integrated strategy that brings together various sectors, including health, social services and the justice sector.

We know that many people in Ontario—people facing mental health issues, addiction, poverty and homelessness—will also find themselves in contact with our justice system. And far too often, these individuals will fall into a cycle that includes arrest, charges, court and jail. These are not isolated instances. They are the result of an intersection of complex socio-economic, health and historic factors.

As the Attorney General, Speaker, I would like to stand before you today and say that the justice system is well equipped to deal with all of these people, but that is not the truth, and the truth is not that simple. Although police officers and corrections staff, lawyers and judges do amazing work, they are hard pressed to manage issues that, at their core, are social and health issues.

It has become clear to our government that what is needed now is the increased integration of policing, justice and corrections services with health and social services. To be fair, community safety and well-being demands that we find innovative ways to hold people accountable for the harm they cause, yet we still need to address the underlying factors that lead to conflict with the law. That is why, in this budget, our government is investing in community justice centres. This investment is something I place a great deal of hope in.

Community justice centres will improve outcomes for offenders and their communities by working to address the root causes of crime and criminal behaviour. We know this because the model has proved effective in 70 communities around the world, communities that vary in size, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and even legal traditions. What works is the idea of placing everything in one place, a justice hub, putting restorative and therapeutic courts with culturally relevant, community-based triage and case management services.

That means having judges, crowns, duty counsel and probation workers on-site with social workers, nurses, and mental health and addictions staff, as well as indigenous court workers, in our communities.

Last year, I had the opportunity to travel to Brooklyn, New York, to visit the Red Hook Community Justice Center, a community justice centre that has been in operation for 20 years. It was incredible to see a former school building transformed into a place where an intake officer can guide a vulnerable offender to the services he or she needs most, where a judge can put an arm around a man’s shoulder and ask how his addiction treatment is going and how his children are doing. Speaker, I saw that first-hand taking place at the Red Hook Community Justice Center.

This particular community in Brooklyn, New York, at one time in the 1980s, was known as the crack capital of the United States, with drugs, drug-related crime, and the devastation of families everywhere, to the point where even once, in a gang rivalry, a school principal was shot and killed. That’s when the community, along with the New York government, came together and said, “We need to do something different,” and hence came the Red Hook Community Justice Center.

Since then, inch by inch, day by day, the community, along with the community justice centre, has been working to focus on individuals and some of the core health and social issues they may be going through, and to assist them—not just penalize them, but assist them to live a better life.

The result is that this community justice centre, this court, is thriving. Better services are being provided for people who may be engaged in low-level crime but actually are dealing with issues around social service safety networks, homelessness or poverty.

The community is thriving as a result as well. We did a walk-around in the neighbourhood. It was incredible to see businesses opening up. It was incredible to see people smiling and feeling safe walking on the streets. They were really proud to highlight that the largest IKEA in New York City has opened up in Red Hook, creating hundreds of jobs. They were really proud to highlight the first Tesla dealership in New York City has opened in Red Hook, creating jobs.

That’s the magnitude of the difference we’re talking about. It has taken them a couple of decades to get there, but nonetheless, it’s quite telling in terms of the right direction they are moving forward in. That is the essence of a community justice centre: to put people first.

The question we asked in my ministry was: Could community justice centres improve how we are delivering justice in certain communities in Ontario? Starting in 2017, a project team from my ministry embarked on a month-long needs assessment process in Kenora, in London and in Toronto’s Moss Park neighbourhood.

With satisfaction, I can say that my ministry received and continues to receive strong support for doing justice differently in these communities. These needs assessment meetings were successful. People came from all different aspects of service provision in terms of health and social services, education, justice—folks who work in the community day in and day out—to tell us how something like this can help their particular community and could result in better outcomes.

The investment put forward in this budget bill, if passed, will create three unique community justice centres in three different communities. At this moment, I would like to outline for the members present just how these three centres will operate.

In Kenora, the criminal justice system has quite literally become a holding place for indigenous peoples from the northwest who face multiple challenges rooted in intergenerational trauma and colonialism.

Our government’s response has been to work very closely with local indigenous organizations and First Nations leadership to develop a bicultural community justice centre. This centre would be the first of its kind in Ontario and would provide parallel criminal and indigenous restorative justice processes. By putting both processes in one space, this model will support access to culturally appropriate programs and services and could help to reduce the number of incarcerated indigenous people and remove barriers to accessing justice.

We are further extending the reach of the centre and exploring opportunities to establish satellite hubs in Sioux Lookout and Timmins to better serve the unique needs of those in remote northern communities.

Toronto’s Moss Park is not far from here and is a very different community than the one in Kenora. It is a vibrant neighbourhood, but this area of Toronto’s eastern downtown presents some of the city’s highest rates of crime and of priority calls to our police. The result: Area jails and emergency rooms have become holding places for community members with acute addictions and mental health needs.

To help local justice and social service partners address the contributing factors related to crime in this area, we will work closely with local health authorities and service providers to create an urban community health and justice centre. Through information-sharing and on-site coordinator services, the centre will seek to promote continuity of care, which means increased access to harm reduction and therapeutic justice solutions in order to address the complex factors that lead to criminal behaviour.

Moving on to southwestern Ontario, Speaker, London’s criminal justice system is also responding to a high-priority population: transition-aged young adults, those young people between the ages of 18 and 25 years old. In London, this group accounts for a disproportionate share of criminal charges. Compared to the rest of the province, London has some of the highest numbers of at-risk young adults. More often, these young adults are falling through the cracks once they age out of child protection or teen-focused social and health services.

By working with local youth service providers, we are creating a youth-in-transition community justice hub. This innovative centre will focus on preventative interventions aimed at building abilities and self-esteem, and creating purpose for young adults.

Speaker, as you can see, these are exciting and innovative solutions. But I do want to be clear that these centres will not replace the existing court system. Instead, they will work in conjunction with courts to provide holistic and targeted justice solutions while balancing public safety. This is the beginning of an important journey to bring criminal justice, social service integration and community together in a way that Ontario hasn’t seen before.

You can see, also, Speaker, that each one of these proposed community justice centres is unique. They are unique because their design is a result of looking at the data and looking at the evidence and the kind of challenges faced by that local community. They are designed by listening to the service providers, not just in the justice and law enforcement sector but other members of the community, who try very hard to work together, by asking them what challenges and gaps you see and how we can address them. All three of them then address the unique circumstances of the community.

That is, in fact, the beauty of community justice centres, that although the model or the principle is the same, which is to bring all service providers under one roof, the delivery is unique. There is no one model that fits all. The delivery has to be inspired by the community based on the data and evidence. I would suggest and recommend to members that if they are interested to learn more about the potential of community justice centres and how they will look and feel, there is a chart on page 48 of the budget book that outlines a sample.

There’s an infographic that outlines a model or a sample of the potential of a community justice centre and how different service providers are going to interact.

Speaker, I also wanted to quickly talk about the bail beds program that we started as a result of the last budget and in the response to the Jordan decision, to ensure that we are creating an opportunity for those individuals who are vulnerable or low-risk to be able to be released in the community. One of the things that we learned is that a lot of people do not get bail because they don’t have housing. They live in shelter space, they may have complex needs, and therefore they are not given bail.

So we created 75 bail beds across the province to create that opportunity where they could be out in the community, under supervision and getting support, but have housing to go to. Instead of being remanded in the local detention centre, they could be out in the community.

As I said, there are 75. Some 24 of them are in Ottawa: 12 for men, run by the John Howard Society of Ottawa, and 12 for women, run by the Elizabeth Fry Society. That model has been very successful. We’re seeing a great uptake of those beds. We’re seeing these individuals doing better, in terms of working on their needs, and they are getting to the courts to appear when their hearings come up.

This budget, Speaker, I’m glad to say, also speaks about expanding bail beds in northern, rural and remote communities to provide community-based supervision for higher-need individuals who would likely otherwise be held in custody pending resolution of their criminal charge. This is good news, Speaker, because now we’re targeting them even further in northern, rural and remote communities, where we know distances are even greater.

If you take the northwest, where you’ve got a lot of indigenous offenders being brought in to Kenora, for instance, they come from remote communities, from the Far North, and their home is not there. The only solution is that they will be remanded to the local detention centre. This would allow an opportunity for them to be in a community setting, in a supervised place, and getting care while they are dealing with some of the underlying factors.

Speaker, I know I have only a few moments left, but in the remaining time I would like to highlight another important initiative, and that is ending gender-based violence. If passed, this budget will build on our government’s commitment to create a province free of gender-based violence.

In March, we announced a comprehensive new strategy, investing up to $242 million over three years to help support survivors and their children, and to end the cycle of violence. At its core, this is a strategy to help build a stronger system so that those who have experienced gender-based violence and those who are most at risk will be safer and receive the help they need when they need it. My own ministry heard clearly that the justice system needs to be more survivor-centric and trauma-informed, and we responded. Let me just give you two quick examples.

In this budget, we are expanding a pilot project that provides free legal advice to survivors of sexual assault. Now any survivor, no matter where they live, regardless of how much time has passed, will have access to free legal advice when they are ready.

Also, because violence is most likely to occur at a time of family breakdown, Ontario is also increasing funding to help survivors navigate the Family Court process. This increased investment in the Family Court Support Worker Program will support survivors who may be at a heightened risk of violence.

Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the economy is changing rapidly and that many Ontarians are having a hard time keeping up. In this budget, we have made a deliberate choice to invest in programs that help these people, but also to invest in programs that help those who are struggling most: those vulnerable and marginalized people who have reached rock bottom and who come into contact with the justice system when they are at the lowest point in their life.

This budget sets before the people of Ontario our government’s plan for care and opportunity for each and every person living in this province. It’s a plan that, in my view, everyone should support; a plan that I am quite proud to stand by. It is really putting things like mental health care, child care, health care and long-term care right at the core, right in the centre of delivery of important programs by the government.

Day in and day out, these are the issues that we hear about from our communities; from my community of Ottawa Centre, where a lot of middle-class families live, a lot of the sandwich generation families live—very much like myself—whose parents are getting elderly and need more care and support, whose children are young and need an opportunity to get good care and education, and the rest of us in the middle trying to accommodate both while progressing in our own careers.

This budget speaks right to all those people, to make sure that we have all those supports in space. For that, investment is necessary, and we’re doing that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I wanted to rise and give comment to the Attorney General’s response to the budget. He brought up programs, he brought up models, especially in the justice system, about hubs and coordination of community services and helping victims. Certainly we are supportive of models like that. We have yet to see it really come to fruition, but it’s in the works and I appreciate that.

He spoke about gender-based violence at the end, and I do want to bring to his attention that there has been movement. In Durham it’s called Driven, and in my riding it’s called the Bridges of Kawartha Lakes hub. They are bringing together service providers for victims of gender-based violence and they coordinate services, which is what we like to see.

The government, under the former minister of MCSS—we worked a lot for the Rural Realities program. I don’t know if he exactly mentioned that program, but anyway, it is that format that we are encouraging. But the problem is that they push the communities, and rightly so, to create these hubs, but the fact is that now I’m getting letters that the hubs cannot survive. In fact, it’s now under threat by the government—I know it’s the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and the Ministry of Community and Social Services—that they’re not going to be able to sustain this hub model that the government had helped them initiate.

The services they provided have been wide-ranging. It’s effective. They need assistance for one full-time person. This is going to be province-wide. I’m giving you two examples right now, but that has been neglected. Again, to the government: You start programs, but there are no ongoing initiatives to continue the programs. You know violence against women is rising when one in six women is affected every day in Canada. So I say to the government: Start a program and continue it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m also glad to address the comments from the Attorney General. I appreciate that the focus of his remarks was on the community justice centres and the idea of more interconnected strategies and interconnected, hopefully, solutions, talking about the complex health and historic details of the needs in our community, and factoring those in, when we’re talking about an individual’s journey through the community and into our justice system. We need to look at those pathways. We need to look at the people and to make sure that we are putting systems in place that support them all the way along.

When we’re talking about increased integration, that’s wonderful. I just did a 12-hour ride-along with our DRPS human trafficking division, and it was excellent, because other folks on the ride-along with came from the social work sector. There was a fantastic woman from Bethesda House; she was actually interfacing and working with the women who are trapped in this net and trapped in this horrible nightmare. She is reaching in and helping those women to get out. The police are doing phenomenal work as well, but they are doing it alongside each other. This world was the most horrible thing I have ever seen, and yet I’m so hopeful because of that integration and the potential to help.

As long as we put the people first, as the minister said—but remember, this was a budget that didn’t even use the term “child poverty.” If we’re going to talk about putting people first, we have to look at their entire justice needs, from the beginning. We do need to talk about affordable housing. We need to talk about supporting our students in school all the way along. We need not just deterrence, but supports all the way so that folks cannot find their way into the justice system, or fewer folks do.

I understand that this is a massive undertaking. I’m glad that we’re talking about it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’m proud to respond to the Attorney General and comment on his remarks. The Attorney General spent a fair amount of his 20 minutes talking about some of the reforms in the justice system, and I know that a number of the members opposite have commented on that. I’m quite proud of the work that the Attorney General and the rest of the team have done in terms of reform in the justice system. That’s not to say there isn’t more work to be done—not at all, of course—but there is some significant progress that has been made over the last number of years.

I remember being with the Attorney General and a number of others, looking at how smaller and smaller numbers of young people are reoffending. A lot of that has to do with the reforms that we’ve put in place, where we’re no longer incarcerating young people as often as we used to. Instead, we’re trying to provide them with the supports that they need to be able to rebuild their lives, to re-integrate in society and to get the mental health supports that they need, if that’s appropriate. These are the kinds of things that the Attorney General and others have been leading, and I think that that is something to be very proud of.

When the members opposite question the commitment and question the progress that has been made, I think there is a lot of tangible progress that has been made if you actually look at the facts. I compliment the Attorney General on that work. I think it’s very, very important.

I would also say that when you look at this budget and you look at how we continue to make investments in those things that provide young people with the best possible start in life so that they don’t encounter the justice system, so that they have success, they achieve their potential in life and they’re less likely to be part of any kind of justice process—that means child care, that means a good start in life, that means education at the elementary and high school level, that means post-secondary opportunities and opportunities in the trades, that means good jobs, all of those things.

When young people succeed, they don’t encounter the justice system. When they don’t encounter the justice system, we don’t need to be as concerned about it. But the reforms have been great, and I compliment the Attorney General on that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to make comment on the address by the Attorney General. He didn’t speak much about the budget, but he talked about, essentially, a project.

On the budget, it’s interesting, the government today—the budget will exceed $150 billion in spending. In 2003, spending was $68 billion. I think the question that the people of Ontario are going to be asking, when you increase the budget spending by over two and a quarter times in the last 15 years, that the spending has gone up by that much—they are going to ask themselves, “Are we doing any better here in Ontario under this government in 15 years?” The reality is no.

But I’ll tell you who is doing better in Ontario: people like David Herle. David Herle is doing all right: sole-source contracts from the Liberal government to service them, and then he becomes the campaign chair and he is sent out to insult the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. So the people in Ontario like David Herle, who have been enriched by secret deals and sole-source contracts by the Liberal government, are doing very well.

When you start to add up the $150 billion in spending, the question that needs to be asked for those people who are hurting in Ontario—who they finally recognized after 15 years and are now trying to buy their votes by bringing in all kinds of programs at the last dying gasp of this government, trying to make a Hail Mary pass to try to survive. Now, they want to spend this money. But where has the money gone other than to the David Herles of this province in the last 15 years? That’s the question they should be answering.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Attorney General for final comments.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the members from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Oshawa, and Etobicoke Centre for their very thoughtful comments to the remarks that I made.

I take exception to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, whom I consider a friend. For his record—he may not have read the budget—I was speaking directly to the budget. I refer him to pages 45 to 53 that speak to community justice centres and gender-based violence. The funding is in the budget. I was doing my job while he did his political bluster. But I think he just made the point.

On one point, I heard the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock rightfully talking about how we need more investment in all these initiatives. These initiatives are the right ones, but we need to have sustained funding, which is exactly what we’re doing in this budget.

But on the other hand, the other member from the same party talked about how they are just going to cut those services. They’re going to cut those services because it’s more important for them to give tax breaks to rich, big businesses out there, to cut the minimum wage for hard-working people. That’s what they are going to do, somehow, because they think we’re spending billions of more dollars in health and education and that it’s unnecessary.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Yes, Speaker, we are proud of the fact that spending has gone up in this province from, what, the 60-or-some-odd billion dollars that Mike Harris used to spend versus what we invest in health care and education, because that is what the people of Ontario want. They want better health care. They want better education. That is what this Liberal government has done. What the Conservatives will do, what they have always done in the past, is cut those important services and give a tax cut to their—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please.

Back to the Attorney General. You’re finished? Thank you very much.

Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to the budget motion.

A budget is about setting priorities, so today I want to share the priorities of the people of the great riding of Oxford, especially the ones that the government missed in this budget.

I hear often from constituents, about issues that matter to them, in the mornings when I stop for a coffee on the way to Queen’s Park or on weekends while attending events. I would like to share some of those comments with the Legislature today.

Ontario families understand budgeting. With high hydro prices that continue to go up, and the increasing costs of goods and services, families know the importance of financial planning and spending within their means. Unfortunately, this government does not take that same approach with the taxpayers’ dollars and spends their hard-earned money recklessly. Ontarians are looking for real relief and a commitment to good fiscal management, but they can’t find it with the current government.

We know it’s an election year, and the government wants to make big promises to hold on to power. But their record of broken promises makes it hard to believe that they will keep any promise they make to the people of Ontario.

They promised all-day, two-way GO between Kitchener and Toronto by 2019. Now they say it won’t be feasible until 2024.

They promised lower car insurance rates by 15%, but rates continue to rise and now the Premier says, “Well, it was just a stretch goal.”

They promised to provide more affordable housing, but the wait-list continues to grow, meaning more seniors and families are unable to find suitable housing, and the current supply of affordable housing continues to deteriorate. In fact, the auditor found that so much social housing is in poor repair that the province is at risk of losing almost one third of its affordable rental units as current contracts expire and other units fall into disrepair.

On affordability, this government continues to miss the mark. In this budget, 1.8 million hard-working Ontarians will see their taxes go up, 1.8 million people who carefully save their money and work hard to earn a living and who will now have to fund government waste.

But it’s not just individuals who will be paying more to the government. Some 20,000 businesses will also see a tax increase, another burden added to them by a government that continually makes it harder and harder for them to operate in Ontario. Businesses cannot afford to continue to pay all these additional costs. That means that we all pay. Businesses can’t afford to hire more people. Prices go up. Our communities lose these important local resources that often help fund sports teams and community events.

To make things worse, even with these increased taxes, they are still running large deficits. They promised a balanced budget, but in this budget, the government breaks that promise with a $6.7-billion deficit this year, and deficits for the next six years—six more years.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, interest on the debt alone is $12.5 billion this year, more than $1 billion a month just to service the debt, with more debt being added annually if the government continues to run deficits.

In 2012, the Premier was on record as saying, “I think everyone here knows that eliminating the deficit is the most important thing we can do to move to economic growth.”

In 2014, she said, “I actually believe that fiscal prudence and a strong economy are connected. I think that they are absolutely connected, and that’s why we have remained committed to our elimination of the deficit by 2017-18.”

What has changed, that the Premier now thinks a deficit is the right answer for the future of Ontario? Why has the government decided to blow the budget this year, when, last year, they were boasting about balance? Is it because, in a few weeks, we’re going to have an election?

The people in my riding aren’t asking the government to run a deficit. Later this morning, a whole group of my constituents will be here to deliver a message to the government, and they aren’t here to ask the government to spend more money. They’re concerned about the waste in this province, both in the government and the waste being sent to landfills.

I’ve been consistently raising concerns about landfills in this Legislature through petitions, statements, questions, and in debate. However, the government doesn’t seem to be listening.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in my riding, there’s a proposed landfill in Beachville on fractured limestone near the Thames River and close to one of the town of Ingersoll’s main wells. Should this landfill be built, our water would be at risk of contamination.

There is nothing in this budget to address the waste problem in this province or to provide solutions that can ensure that landfills are not pushed on unwilling hosts.

Earlier this year, I introduced the Respecting Municipal Authority Over Landfilling Sites Act, which would allow municipalities to have a voice in the location of proposed landfills. If passed, my bill would ensure that landfills only go ahead when waste companies can earn community approval. This is about respect for municipalities and their residents. Ontarians are tired of governments forcing everything from wind farms to landfill sites down their throats. There is support for my bill across Ontario.

Last fall, the mayor of Ingersoll came to Queen’s Park to request this authority as part of the committee hearings on Bill 139, Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act. Following his committee presentation, I put forward an amendment that would have ensured that garbage from other communities cannot be forced on unwilling host municipalities, but the government, of course, voted it down.

In fact, over 30 municipalities have passed resolutions of support, and a further 150 municipal leaders have signed petitions demanding the right to approve landfills in their communities and are in the process of passing similar motions in their own councils. This is a priority for people, and yet there isn’t even a mention of it in the government budget.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, the Premier said that eliminating the deficit is important to grow the economy. Yet, despite all the job losses we’ve already seen in Ontario, they have introduced a budget in which they have deliberately chosen to run a massive deficit, and they are predicting deficits for six years. I’m concerned about the impact it could have on our economy, provincially and in my riding of Oxford.

Jobs and economic growth are a priority for the residents of my riding. Last year, 1,500 people were laid off as a result of businesses leaving Oxford because government policies made it harder to operate in Ontario. One business in my riding had been operating in Oxford for 81 years, but the government kept adding so many new burdens and costs that they made the decision to close the local factory and increase operations in one of their American facilities.

Last fall, 2,800 auto workers at the CAMI plant went on strike, trying to keep their jobs in Ontario, worried that the government was driving their jobs out of the province. That’s an issue that they think should be a government priority.

Residents in Oxford take pride in their local businesses and locally made products. In fact, in my recent newsletter survey, 96% of respondents said they shop local to support local businesses, something that I agree is very important.

In the wake of these layoffs and strikes, I launched a Shop Local, Buy Local initiative to highlight Oxford businesses and encourage residents to shop at their local stores and look for local produce and products. With a strong agriculture industry in my riding and many great shops in the communities all throughout Oxford, you don’t have to look very far to find what you’re looking for.

A number of municipalities in my riding also passed resolutions supporting my Shop Local, Buy Local campaign and encouraging the provincial government to support small, local businesses to make it easier for businesses to operate in Ontario. Unfortunately, this budget misses the mark. In fact, it puts part of that industry at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I’m concerned that this budget talks about high-speed rail but doesn’t contain a real commitment to a full and open consultation. The government is proposing a limited environmental assessment that won’t look fully at items like alternate routes. As you know, the proposed Toronto-Windsor rail corridor primarily runs through agricultural land and the proposed route would also mean the closure of many level crossings at country side roads that are important for the production and delivery of farm products and for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances to arrive at emergencies.

I’m supposed to stop because my time is consumed for today. I’ll be back next week.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank everyone for their active participation in the debate this morning.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is now 10:15. This House will stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome this year’s Don Valley West recipients of the Leading Women, Building Communities award. Barbara Gosse is here, joined by her husband, Wayne Gosse, and Jennifer Rajasekar is here, joined by her husband, Rajasekar Athiappan; Dorothy Robertson, joined by her good friend Carolyn Rumble.

I’d also like to welcome Afie Mardukhi, who runs my constituency office in Don Valley West. Thank you for all that you do.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, it’s not exactly an introduction, but I want to rise to wish our granddaughter Lilli a happy sixth birthday today and our grandson Wallace, who will be nine on Sunday, but of course we won’t be here. So happy birthday to both of you.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I’d like to wish my son Harsaajan a very happy birthday. He is also here with us today as a page during this session. I want to tell him his mom and I are very proud of him.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome the family of page captain Sophie Hamilton: mother Jennifer Hamilton, sister Hannah Hamilton, brother Jake Hamilton, grandmother Dianne Mott and grandparents Bridget and Doug Hamilton. They’re in the public gallery this morning. Welcome.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I have guests from the Trillium Party of Ontario here today. We have Bobby Turley, who is our candidate in Scarborough Southwest. We have Lionel Poizner, who is our candidate in Eglinton–Lawrence. And we have Esther Bentata.

Mr. Han Dong: I would also like to wish a happy birthday to my daughter, Emma Dong. She brought a lot of joy to our lives, and Mom and Dad and Yeye and Nai nai love you very much.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome and introduce to the House two constituents from People First of Canada: Kory Earle and Alice-Anne Paterson Collinge are here today.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Today I’d like to introduce Esther Weah Akerele. She is a receptionist and a personal support worker at a retirement residence, and she is also the mother of my wonderful staff member Toks Weah. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to introduce a number of participants in the basic income pilot who are in the Legislative Assembly today commemorating the one-year anniversary of the basic income pilot launch. They are Lance Dingman, Jayne Cardno, Rhonda Castello, John Mills, Dave Cherkewski, Wendy Moore, Alana Baltzer and Margie Goold. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to introduce Kory Earle, president of People First of Canada, and Alice-Anne Paterson Collinge, manager of Community Living Association of Lanark County. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce Ingersoll mayor Ted Comiskey, here today for the Demand the Right rally for municipal approval of landfills. Welcome, Mayor, and all those attending the rally here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today I have some guests in the Speaker’s gallery. We have three individuals from the riding of Brant. The first is my grade 6 teacher, who also hired me as a teacher and then hired me as a principal. He almost got it right. My friend—he was the director of education—Brendan Ryan. With Brendan are his granddaughters Ashley Ryan and Maddie Ryan, here to learn about politics.

Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Speaker, for the indulgence. I’d like to welcome two folks from my constituency office who are in the gallery today, Cleopatra Masinga and Robina Hafizy, who is a volunteer. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve been given the nod that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport has an introduction.

Hon. Daiene Vernile: I am delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park the parents and family of the page captain today, Colin Robinson. Here we have Brooke and Scott Robinson, sister Taylor, brother Layton, billet family Casey Hadaway and billet family Jeff Dobson. Thank you very much for being at the Legislature today.

Attack in Toronto

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence as a sign of this House’s condolences for the victims and families impacted by the devastating attack in North York yesterday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier is seeking unanimous consent to do a moment of silence to show a sign of this House’s condolence to the victims and the families impacted by the devastating attack in North York yesterday. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask everyone in the House to please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): God rest their souls.

It is therefore time for question period.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: To the Premier: PC leader Doug Ford and the entire Ontario PC family were all moved by the events of yesterday. Our thoughts are with the victims, the families and those affected at Yonge and Finch here in Toronto. We want to thank the brave first responders—

Applause.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We want to thank the brave first responders and the EMS teams who continue to work tirelessly on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier like to share her sentiments with the House?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that everyone in this House joins with the families of the victims, friends of the victims and all of the people who are affected by this—and, I would say, we all are.

Let me just read the update that I gave to the media this morning. I said this morning that, as the city wakes up, there are family and friends of this horrible tragedy and the victims themselves who have survived whose lives will never be the same. Our hearts reach out to them and we desperately want to give them some comfort. As Mayor Tory said last night, that desire to comfort can perhaps help us all in Toronto and beyond to be a bit kinder and a bit more gentle with each other today and in the days to come.

In my role as Premier, it is my responsibility to ensure that any provincial resources that are needed to cope with the ongoing investigation and security measures are available. I want to report to Torontonians and Ontarians that that is happening.

I was briefed again first thing this morning. Our provincial security officials continue to work hand in hand with federal and municipal officials. The OPP is in constant touch with the RCMP and the Toronto Police Service officials who are involved in the ongoing investigation. The people who are involved in the identification of victims put extra teams on duty last night to move that processing along, to help families get information sooner and to help ease those painful hours of waiting.

I spent the afternoon yesterday with Mayor Tory in North York. I have nothing but the deepest admiration for the Toronto police officers, firefighters and paramedics who responded so quickly.

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: They responded so professionally, so compassionately to the tragedy that unfolded. These are brave, highly skilled men and women who deserve our heartfelt thanks.

I also had the opportunity to spend some time last night at Sunnybrook hospital, the hospital that received the largest number of victims. Again, we want to thank every one of the paramedics, nurses, doctors and all of the health personnel who responded so professionally and so well. CEO Andy Smith emphasized the sad reality that his team is prepared for a situation like this because they practise and train for such a day, hoping it will never come. But when it did, and calls were made to off-duty nurses and personnel to come in, they were already on their way. They knew exactly what had to happen.

Thank you to each of the professionals, each of the neighbours and passersby who helped an injured person. Thank you to each and every person who lent a hand.

I heard a question on the radio this morning about whether our city, our province and our country will be changed because of this senseless act of violence. The lives of the families and friends of the victims are changed forever. But our collective job now is to find a way to grieve, to acknowledge that pain and stand with those who have lost so much, and then to make sure that the life of this vibrant, good city and province goes on. We are capable of deep compassion and understanding in Toronto, in Ontario and in Canada, and we will be called upon to summon all of that in the days ahead.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Given the unique circumstances, it is my decision that when the third party comes for their first question, I will allocate and give some time for them to make a comment as well.

I would come back to the leader to offer him an opportunity, if he so chooses, to say a few words. Then we’ll move into question period, as we have to. Leader?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. First of all, I want to thank the Premier for that update. I think that was a thorough and respectful update. We genuinely appreciate the work of the first responders and the EMS teams that are out there. There are many questions that will be answered over the coming days, and we look forward, Premier, to continued updates as the province and the municipality learns them. Our hearts ache for the families and for the victims.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, these types of things are never things that we think are going to happen in our backyard but, unfortunately, we do find out that we live in a world where unfortunately things unfold in ways that are not pleasant for many who are directly affected, and for those not affected directly.

I think there are a couple of things, and the Premier summed them up well. Our police forces and the way that they acted yesterday make us all proud—that their reaction was in order to calm the situation down and do what was right when it came to apprehending the individual. I think we can all be proud of that because I think it speaks volumes to the training that we do with our police. To the ambulance people, the paramedics, the fire department and everybody else who showed up: again, kudos. I think the Premier summed it up quite well, along with the leader of the Conservative Party here in the Legislature: They acted totally professionally.

The other thing that I think we are all impressed with is how the public reacted. Those people that were there on the sidewalk, those people that were there on the streets—they were there doing what they could in order to make things better and to try to administer first aid. In fact, a good friend of mine, David Sword, happened to be on-site when it happened, I found out after. We haven’t talked about it yet because he’s probably still going through some of that trauma.

But I want to let you know that Andrea Horwath and New Democrats stand tall and proud with our police forces and emergency services and what they’ve done, and with the citizens of this province. Andrea is actually on-site there this morning. She thought she would go and pay respects directly on-site.

Our party’s, along with our leader’s, congratulations go out to those who were on-site, and we grieve for the families, quite frankly, that have been so devastated by what happened yesterday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I appreciate all of the comments and your latitude to allow me to make sure we all have a word to say.

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will now, then, return to the Leader of the Opposition for his supplementary question, and recognize that this place is unique and we need to ask some questions of the government, and that will take place.

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker.

I’ll now speak in my role as the interim leader of the official opposition and continue our duties in that respect.

So back to the Premier: Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers want answers. When did the Premier become aware that Hydro One gave their CEO a $6-million salary and a $10-million severance?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased to rise and respond to the question put by the leader within the House from the Conservatives. When it comes to the executive salaries at Hydro One, we recognize these are high compared to the vast majority of Ontario salaries. We’ll continue to remain committed to work with Hydro One on their regulation, accountability and transparency through our government’s involvement as a majority shareholder.

I know we will continue to work with Hydro One because we have seen a change in that company. The executive team has found $114 million in savings. They’ve entered a voluntary winter disconnection program before we, as a House, had to implement that. We’ll continue to monitor.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Does the Premier approve of both the Hydro One CEO’s $6-million salary and his $10-million severance?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When it comes to costs, the board—the Ontario Energy Board that is, Mr. Speaker—sets rates, so by talking about firing the CEO of Hydro One, that doesn’t take anything off anyone’s bills. The board is the energy sector’s independent regulator with a mandate to protect ratepayers, and that is how it’s going to continue to deliver on that mandate.

For instance, last fall, the Ontario Energy Board capped the portion of executive compensation Hydro One electricity customers are required to fund at 10% of base salaries, saving ratepayers $30 million over this year and next. The Ontario Energy Board will continue to monitor. We’ll continue to work with Hydro One to help them become a better company.

Government accounting practices

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is to the Minister of Energy. In speaking about the Auditor General’s comments on the Liberal hydro scheme, the Minister of Energy had the following to say: “Our plan has been approved by her peers at some of Canada’s top accounting firms, KPMG, E and Y and Deloitte.” The Auditor General has said that’s not true. Did the accounting firms mentioned approve the plan?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: What we have here are two world-class accounting firms, and I will outline what they had to say in statements about rate-regulated accounting within the public sector accounting standards. KPMG said, “On the basis of our extensive research, deliberations and an opinion from another major accounting firm, we believe that the accounting policies adopted by” the Independent Electricity System Operator “are in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.” That’s Deloitte, Mr. Speaker.

They “concluded that any regulatory assets and liabilities recognized through the appropriate application of these policies would meet the criteria for recognition” under the Canadian public sector accounting standards. Additionally, Ernst and Young is OPG’s financial auditor and is consulted on this on an ongoing basis.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Minister of Energy: It’s interesting that he uses those phrases, which have nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

In regard to KPMG, Ernst and Young, and Deloitte, the Auditor General has said, “The sum of all of this work” the minister was just speaking about “does not equate to approval of the accounting” of the hydro scheme.

To the minister: Is the Auditor General correct?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I don’t believe I need to reiterate and reread what the accounting firms have said, because I know the honourable member has just heard those.

But they do talk about—and I will say it again: As KPMG said, these “accounting policies ... are in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.”

Deloitte: They “meet the criteria for recognition” under the Canadian public sector accounting standards.

I know we’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: It was a policy choice made by this government. We made this policy choice to ensure that we continue to have a clean, reliable and affordable electricity system for the ratepayers of today and the ratepayers of tomorrow. The fair hydro plan keeps the cost of borrowing within the rate base, not on the tax base, because that’s the logical thing to do and how it has been done in the past.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Minister of Energy: The minister has said, “Of course, we’ve worked with KPMG; we’ve worked with” Ernst and Young; “we’ve worked with Deloitte.... All of them agree that the accounting standards are accurate,” except the Auditor General has said that’s not true. They didn’t approve the books.

So, will the Minister of Energy come clean?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’ll reiterate once again. Here is what KPMG said in a public statement. On the basis of their extensive research, deliberations and the opinion from another major accounting firm, KPMG stated, “We believe that the accounting policies adopted by” the Independent Electricity System Operator “are in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.”

The policies and the implementation of this process for the fair hydro plan were designed and extensively reviewed by senior bureaucratic officials from my ministry, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Finance, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Office of the Provincial Controller, Cabinet Office, the Ontario Financial Authority, the IESO and the OPG, and we worked with those third-party accounting firms.

We will continue to look at and monitor implementation options, to ensure that due diligence was completed.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to start by saying I regret that I wasn’t here to hear the comments from the Premier or from the parliamentary leader of the official opposition or my colleague Gilles Bisson. I was at the memorial at Yonge Street and Finch. I just want to say that it was a very emotional scene. All I can say to everyone here is that I believe that, together, we need to mourn, and we need to seek justice, and then we need to help each other heal. That’s all I can say, Speaker.

I’m going to start my question by asking the Premier this: The Premier has underfunded hospitals every single year that she has been in that office. I want to ask if she’s surprised that, after years of underfunding, it has created such a crisis in hallway medicine in our province.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate that the leader of the third party was at the memorial. I’ll be heading up shortly.

But she wasn’t here when I said how excellent the service in our hospitals is. I was speaking about the response of the doctors and the nurses and all of the personnel at Sunnybrook specifically. But I can speak for hospitals across this province that have responded to needs in their communities year after year, month after month.

We have supported them. We have worked with them. We have increased the number of nurses, increased the number of doctors and increased the funding. We recognize that there is more to be done, which is why on top of the $500 million in last year’s budget, there is $822 million that will go directly to hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After 15 years, Ontario has the fewest number of hospital beds per capita in the entire country. Since 2015, the Premier has fired 1,600 nurses. As bad as it is, Doug Ford says that he would cut 4% from everything. That would mean 32,000 nurses over four years. If firing 1,600 nurses means that this crisis has occurred, imagine how bad hospital overcrowding would be with Doug Ford firing 32,000 nurses.

Will the Premier admit finally that she has created this crisis?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I assume that underlying the question from the leader of the third party is that she doesn’t believe that our health care system functions well. She doesn’t believe that when people go to a hospital or they go to a doctor or a nurse practitioner, to a clinic or a community health centre—of which we have built dozens across the province—people get good care.

I would say to the leader of the third party that that is absolutely not true. People in this province know that they can count on their health care system. They know that, in their hospital, their clinic led by a nurse practitioner, their community health centre, they are going to receive excellent, excellent care. They know that, because we have supported the health care system and we will continue to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the Premier forgot to talk about is hallway medicine, Speaker, the crisis that she has created in our hospitals. That’s the concern that New Democrats are talking about.

The good news is that people don’t have to choose between the Liberals who created this crisis by underfunding health care and the Conservatives who would make it worse by cutting even further and privatizing our health care system. As Premier, I will fund hospitals properly. I’ve made that commitment. We will end hallway medicine. New Democrats have made that commitment.

Why can’t the Premier admit that the Liberal government is responsible for Ontario’s crisis in hallway medicine? Why can’t she just admit it? Everyone can see it, Speaker.

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

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As the Premier has said, we have continued our investments every year. I want to address the issue of nurses in our health care system, because the leader of the third party did refer to some imaginary cuts in this regard. Since our government took office in 2003, more than 30,000 nurses have begun work in Ontario. That is a 27% increase. Even just recently, there are 1,200 more nurses employed in Ontario compared to last year.

These are substantial increases year over year. In fact, there are almost 10,000 more nurses working since 2013. These are the facts. We’re increasing our wonderful, excellent nursing staff, as well as so many of the components of our health care system.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Hallway medicine has reached such a crisis that London Health Sciences has had to develop a new “hallway transfer protocol.” The vice-president of London Health Sciences says theirs is “not the only hospital (affected by gridlock). We’re seeing more and more of this because our system is stretched from a capacity perspective.”

Now, is the Premier still denying that there is a hallway medicine crisis in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not going to deny that there is a need for continued and increased funding in our health care system. There is an aging demographic, particularly in areas of growth. There are real concerns about the need for more support, which is exactly why we’re investing an additional $822 million in hospitals directly. That’s an overall 4.6% increase, and that’s in addition to the 3.2% increase that we put in place last year. It will increase capacity, decrease wait times and improve access to care for families in Ontario.

But Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we are investing in home care. We are investing in mental health. We are expanding OHIP+ to cover seniors. We recognize that there has been a transformation in health care, that people want care at home, which is why we have been investing in home care. We will continue to do that, as well as to invest in hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, there was a real need for funding and a real need for support for the 10 years that this Premier froze budgets or increased them below inflationary levels. There was need for it then too. For years, the NDP has been telling the stories of everyday people who have found themselves in a hospital hallway or a bathroom or a lounge room or TV room. The staff do their very, very best, but the lights are always on in those places. People have no privacy, and the resources that they need are simply not there.

In London, it won’t just be hallways. The new protocol will see people put anywhere that isn’t in front of an exit or a stairwell, or near a hazardous item. This is Ontario in 2018—

Hon. David Zimmer: Shame on you, Andrea. How could you do this on a day like today? Shame on you.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll take care of it.

Hon. David Zimmer: The minister is from Willowdale.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation is named.

Mr. Zimmer was escorted from the chamber.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Disgusting tone over there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is warned.

The leader may finish her question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Is the Premier still denying that there is a crisis in hallway medicine in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s clear that feelings are running high today, and I think we all can acknowledge that.

I’ll just say again to the leader of the third party that we have consistently increased funding to hospitals. We have also, year over year, increased funding to home care and to other parts of the health care system that need to be in place because people are asking for care in different ways.

I think that what the Minister of Indigenous Relations was responding to was that at a time when we know that our health care professionals are among the best in the world, we all need to be supporting them. We need to be recognizing them for the excellent, excellent professionals that they are.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Four years of freezes, zero increases: That’s exactly what this Premier did. She can paint it in any terms she wants, but the facts are the case. A zero increase doesn’t mean that they increased the hospital budgets; it means that they froze them for four years.

Doug Ford said he’ll privatize everywhere, including in our health care system. The Conservatives would cut and privatize, and the Liberals have given us the hallway medicine crisis that we have right now, so we can’t trust them to fix it. But there is hope on the way, because I have a plan to fix hallway medicine, to provide hospitals with stable funding that will end the crisis and add 2,000 beds immediately. Why can’t this Premier just admit that she has created a hallway medicine crisis in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, the allegation that the leader of the third party is making is just not true. We have increased funding to hospitals year over year. I recognize that there is a need for an increased investment; that’s why there is a 4.6% increase in our budget: $822 million.

I would say to the leader of the third party that, as the Premier of this province and as the government, it is our responsibility to look at the entire health care system, to look at all of the different parts of the health care system, and to make sure that we respond to the evolution of people’s needs in the province.

We have an aging demographic. People have said, “We want to be at home. We want more home care. We want health care delivered differently.” That is what we have done, Mr. Speaker, as we have continued to hire more nurses, more doctors, and increased funding to hospitals.

Landfill

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. Speaker, it has been a month and a half since the Premier spoke briefly with opponents of the ED-19 mega dump in my riding. Media reported that she would speak to me and get my views on the dump, which is actually quite strange because I’ve been very clear: No mega dump should be built in my riding with 20-year-old approvals.

She hasn’t honoured her commitment, but I’ve just got one question for her today. Does she agree with me, the area residents, the township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal, and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Grand Chief Benedict that it’s wrong to open a mega dump with 20-year-old environmental approvals: yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you for the important question about the dump. I know this is a very sensitive issue and I understand that where dumps are placed, how dumps are located and how big they are can be very sensitive. Granted, no one is happy if they’re having a dump placed in their community.

I will say, Speaker, that we do take the placement of these dumps quite seriously, the landfills quite seriously, and we go through a rigorous monitoring and evaluation process before permissions are given around any of these landfall sites.

I’ll speak more about other efforts that this government is making to deal with waste.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, this is the same minister who mocked my constituents’ legitimate concerns by telling me in this House that one person’s garbage is another person’s treasure. I can assure you, Minister, that this garbage is no treasure to those forced to live with it.

When the Premier was in my riding she told opponents that they have a compelling argument. No kidding. Her own Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change says no dump in Ontario has ever opened with such stale-dated permits. They told me that dumps usually proceed within one to eight years of getting a permit; ED-19’s have been sitting on the shelf for over 20 years.

Finally my question: Will you join me today and take a stand and pledge that no mega dump will go on this site without a full environmental assessment, consultation with the Mohawks of Akwesasne and a willing-host declaration from township council?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Speaker, I think the member opposite needs to understand a little bit more about the government’s circular economy act and about our Waste-Free Ontario Act, quite frankly, but I won’t talk about that right now.

I will say that ED-19 remains valid under a number of conditions only if the proposed landfall is to be constructed as it was originally sited and designed. While the current environmental assessments and compliance approvals are still valid, the ministry is going to require a new assessment if changes are made to the project in regards to expansion, monitoring or leachate collection under the Environmental Assessment Act. The ministry requires a new assessment if the county’s proposed an expansion of the service area of that project.

Tenant protection

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Acting Premier: Recently we learned how five tenants living at 795 College Street in Toronto were forced from their apartments so the landlord could complete renovations. The landlord ignored the tenants’ right to reoccupy the units after the renovations were completed and instead rented the apartments out to new tenants at three times the rent. It’s called a “renoviction.”

Last year, the Premier had an opportunity to support NDP amendments to Bill 124 that would have closed loopholes that allow unethical landlords to use renovictions to force out tenants so they can jack up the rent. Why didn’t the Premier support these amendments?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Housing.

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to thank the member for Toronto–Danforth for the question. In fact, our government made substantial changes to expand rent control for all Ontario tenants. Previously, about a quarter million Ontario tenants did not enjoy the protection of rent control. We brought that change in.

As part of our fair housing plan, we wanted to make sure that tenants receive the protection they require. We expanded the rent control system. We recently brought in the standard lease, which takes effect as of April 30, in a few days’ time. That will also give more protection to all Ontario tenants and make it clear what landlords’ obligations are and what tenants’ rights are.

I’m happy to address more of this issue in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, you didn’t protect these tenants.

Back to the Acting Premier: Landlords are using pressure tactics to push tenants out so they can raise the rent to whatever level they want. In February, tenants in Parkdale claimed that their landlord neglected basic repairs, but then installed upscale amenities that the low-income tenants were supposed to pay for with above-guideline increases. These tenants were basically being forced to either finance the gentrification of their own units or face renoviction. Instead, they decided to go on a rent strike.

Why must tenants go on a rent strike to keep their homes safe, properly maintained and affordable? Why?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’m not able to speak to specific cases which might be before the landlord and tenant tribunal, but we do have a strong Residential Tenancies Act that does have enforcement measures when a landlord breaks the law. I know in some of these cases, the rental enforcement unit of the Ministry of Housing is investigating. If there are charges that are warranted, they would be laid following a proper investigation.

If a landlord attempts to have expenses put on an above-the-guideline increase, the landlord and tenant tribunal can stop that and can mandate that only proper expenses are passed on to tenants. Where there’s a situation where a landlord tries to illegally evict tenants, there are remedies to protect tenants, Mr. Speaker.

Natural gas rates

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is to the Minister of Finance. Many people in this province rely on natural gas to heat their homes and run their major appliances. When the Liberals and NDP brought in the cap-and-trade carbon tax, they made life expensive for millions of people in Ontario.

In 2017, the cost of cap-and-trade on natural gas bills was on average an extra $80.50 per year. But shockingly, in 2020, according to the long-term forecast commissioned by the Ontario Energy Board, it could cost an extra $336 per year. That’s an increase of 317%.

Speaker, how much is this Liberal government prepared to make families pay for natural gas?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. I will give the supplementary to one of my colleagues.

Let’s be clear: We’re talking about a cap-and-trade system, a wholesale product, that is enabling us to provide up to $2 billion more to reinvest in new economies and in a new green energy program, which enables us to build our economy and increase our GDP.

Furthermore, we are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As you can tell, I’m in the mood—and I’ll use it.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Furthermore, we’re now increasing natural gas into those communities that do not have that opportunity. That only happens because we do have a program in place to enable those capital infrastructure programs that the opposition would vote against.

They’re cutting back on the things that matter to Ontario, including the expansion of natural gas to all communities across the province, and, furthermore, a new economy and greater growth in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Minister of Finance: When the Liberals and NDP brought in the cap-and-trade carbon tax, they knew it was going to hit families where it hurt—from keeping their car on the road to keeping their home heated through winter. It makes everything in the province more expensive. Not only is the cap-and-trade carbon tax hidden on natural gas bills, it also has HST on top of it.

Is this government willing to hike the carbon tax on natural gas from $80.50 per year to $336 per year?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased to rise and talk about cap-and-trade and, of course, the decision that was talked about earlier, when we talked about consumers’ bills.

Cap-and-trade and the decision on how to present that on consumers’ bills was made by the Ontario Energy Board, and that’s an independent, arm’s-length regulator for the province’s energy sector. It did so based on extensive consultations with consumers, utilities and environmental stakeholders, including over 40 written—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds—sorry, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings; you’re trying to hide behind him. You were behaving yourself, I will admit that.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: In their decision, the Ontario Energy Board highlighted that cap-and-trade costs are part of doing the business of delivering natural gas to homes and businesses. To quote the board and the OEB’s view: “Separating out cap-and-trade-related costs as a line item on the bill is inconsistent with the manner in which all other ongoing costs of operating the utility are reflected on”—

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

Labour dispute

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Caesars Windsor casino labour dispute is nearly three weeks long. Some 2,300 workers, members of Unifor Local 444, are ready to negotiate. They’ve been ready since day one. But it takes two to bargain, Speaker, and Caesars management has shown that they are anything but a willing partner in this negotiation process. In fact, they just cancelled all programming at the casino today, up until May 19.

This isn’t just any business. Casinos in Ontario operate in partnership with the OLG, a division of this Liberal government. These 2,300 workers make possible the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that the casino takes in. They deserve respect and a partner in the negotiation process, not someone that won’t engage in bargaining.

Will the Premier direct Caesars management to live up to its responsibilities and get back to the bargaining table?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for their question about the Caesars strike.

The province of Ontario—I’ve said this over and over again—has got one of the best dispute resolution records in North America. When people are collectively bargaining in this province, in about 98%—

Ms. Catherine Fife:

Schedule 14—

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: —of the cases we reach a collective agreement without having to resort to a strike or to a lockout. That is something we should be proud of.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Waterloo is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Currently at Caesars, we’ve got just over 2,000 employees. They’re members of Unifor 444. They’ve been on strike since April 6. At the time of the strike deadline, they did reach a tentative agreement, and it was not ratified by the members.

I’ll follow up in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: A reminder to the Minister of Labour: It takes two parties at the bargaining table, and Caesars is not bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: Nobody is asking the Premier to interfere with collective bargaining. We are asking her to make sure that management at Caesars Windsor comes to the table in good faith. That’s all. Caesars Windsor’s management hasn’t even reached out to Unifor to

schedule dates. They are not willing to talk to the front-line workers who provide the services that make Caesars Windsor profitable in the first place.

The Premier needs to know that losses to Windsor’s economy are estimated to be in the millions, and climbing.

Speaker, workers can’t bargain with themselves. They need a partner who is also committed to reaching a fair deal. Caesars’ unwillingness to come to the table isn’t just on them; it’s on the Premier, because she’s responsible for OLG and all government-owned casinos.

When will the Premier do the right thing and make sure that Caesars’ management gets back to bargaining?

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

As I said, we have an excellent record of dispute resolution in this province—some of the best arbitrators in the country, some of the best mediators in the country—and we bring them into situations like this. We offer them to the parties.

In this case, an agreement was reached at the table. The agreement was sent to the membership; the membership did not ratify it. As a result of that, on April 18, we had our mediators back into the situation.

I agree with the member: It’s the responsibility of the employer and the union to make every effort to resolve their differences at the bargaining table.

I don’t know how the member is asking me, as the Minister of Labour, to interfere in this dispute. We don’t do that; we provide assistance. The best deals are those that are reached at the bargaining table. We would urge both sides to return to the table and strike a deal.

Social assistance

Mr. Ted McMeekin: My question is for the Minister of Housing.

Speaker, in our 2017 budget, this government committed to creating more fairness across Ontario. Part of that commitment was the introduction of the Basic Income Pilot. This pilot aims to determine how a basic income can expand opportunities and job prospects while providing greater security for people living on low incomes. The pilot was launched in four sites, including my home riding of Hamilton, and studies both a randomized control trial and a saturation trial. I’ve been happy to see the early and positive results.

Our innovative Basic Income Pilot is also receiving international recognition. The Basic Income Pilot was recently chosen as a finalist for Fast Company’s annual World Changing Ideas Awards.

Could the minister please update the House on the status of the basic income program?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to thank the member for the question and for his life-long advocacy for social justice.

Mr. Speaker, on the first anniversary of launching the Basic Income Pilot, I’m pleased to announce that it is fully subscribed. Four thousand people are now receiving payments from the three-year pilot, and 2,000 people have been placed in the control group, which provides the pilot’s evaluators with crucial data on vital outcomes.

Participants in the study are telling us already how it’s transforming their lives. They’re able to pay the rent, buy groceries, buy new clothes, and it’s helping them get back to school. It’s helping them turn their lives around.

Ontario’s Basic Income Pilot is part of the government’s plan to build everyone up in this province. Whether it’s increasing the minimum wage, or providing more housing, medicare or other health care, it’s important that we support our people.

The BI is showing that our government invests in care, as opposed to a government that would cut benefits for Ontarians and call it “efficiency.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Speaker, I know that my constituents in Hamilton and the surrounding region enrolled in the project are already beginning to see the difference that a basic income is making on their lives.

Alana is from Hamilton and is on the pilot. She and several other participants are in the Legislature today to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the launch of this government’s Basic Income Pilot.

This group and many others are preparing to share their basic income experiences at the upcoming North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress, to be held in my beloved Hamilton this May. We’re looking forward to hearing their stories and perspectives.

Speaker, I’m proud, on this side of the House, that we continue to look for innovative ways to support low-income Ontarians.

Can the minister please tell this House what the next steps are for the basic income program?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I would like thank the member for the question and also welcome the advocates and supporters who are here today joining us in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we’re going to continue to evaluate and test how the basic income can support vulnerable workers and improve health, education and housing outcomes for people on low income.

However, our government understands that more needs to be done to support all low-income Ontarians. That’s why in our 2018 budget our government announced historic investments to social services. Mr. Speaker, $2.3 billion over the next three years will increase social assistance rates, change earning exemptions and eliminate ineffective rules.

I’m finally happy that the NDP has a plan to invest in social assistance, but the real threat to social assistance in the province of Ontario is the Conservatives who, in the last administration, cut social assistance by 22%.

Landfill

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Currently, only the Ministry of the Environment is required to approve the location of a landfill. Municipalities aren’t given a say despite the significant impact landfills have on their communities. From Mattice-Val Côté to Sarnia, councils are passing resolutions demanding the right to have authority over landfills.

Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs believe that municipalities should have the authority over actions taken in their communities?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member opposite for his advocacy around this issue. We’re taking his bill under careful review.

Our first priority is to keep waste out of landfill through existing waste diversion efforts. We’re keeping approximately three million tonnes of waste out of landfills every year. Through our Waste-Free Ontario Act—which, I regret to say, the member opposite voted against—we’re committed to doing even more.

Our new model is going to shift more of the burden of reducing and reusing waste to producers. We expect this shift is going to save municipalities across Ontario about $120 million a year.

Still, Speaker, we recognize that we have to have solutions in place for waste that can’t be diverted.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: I recently introduced Bill 16, Respecting Municipal Authority Over Landfilling Sites Act. It’s

an act to give municipalities the respect they deserve and give them a say over the location of landfills, and ensure that they are willing hosts. It’s about respecting municipal authority in their communities.

Will the minister support my bill giving municipalities the authority to have a say, or will he continue to deny them that right? I would like the Minister of Municipal Affairs to answer the question as this is a municipal issue.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I seem to recall from my time on a municipal council that there is nothing in the act that prevents a municipality around this issue right now. But I will leave that to the member opposite to debate.

I can tell you though, Speaker, from this portfolio, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, any decision regarding a landfill requires independent, non-partisan staff with the Ministry of the Environment to consult widely through thorough consultation with the public, stakeholders, indigenous communities, municipalities and others.

Through this consultation, ministry officials are able to identify and find solutions for any potential negative effects of proposals before decisions are made. We remain very committed to working with municipalities and communities to ensure that all projects are protective of both the environment and public health.

Contaminated soil cleanup

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, the community of Attawapiskat on the James Bay, like many other communities that are without roads, had their electricity generated for years by way of diesel generators. Unfortunately, in Attawapiskat—like other communities, but in this case, Attawapiskat—there was a major diesel spill over a period of years that contaminated ground underneath what is now the daycare centre, what is now the hospital, what is now the ambulance garage, nurses’ residence and other buildings in and around the Vez site—Vez site being where the tanks used to be.

There was an allocation made by your ministry of about $1.6 million to clean this up. The Ministry of Energy was the other one, because Hydro One had to pay part of the bill. But when we cleaned the spill at the hospital, because of another spill, we utilized that money to pay for it. My question to you is: Have we made a new reallocation of funds in order to get this project back on track and clean up the Vez site?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member for this question. I am not familiar with the particular circumstances of this particular event that happened at some point in the past. I will certainly commit to the member that I will look into it in more depth.

But I would like to say that our government is absolutely committed to the health of our First Nations communities. I think we’ve demonstrated this type of commitment with the signature last year—the former Minister of Health made an agreement with the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Health Canada, outlining a path to transforming the health care system for our First Nations.

This is a health care facility. I certainly will look into the circumstances and provide the member with a further response in the near future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: But to be clear, Minister, your ministry made the allocation, so the responsibility has already been accepted by MOH, because much of where the spill is happens to be on MOH property under WAHA, which is the hospital.

The community is concerned. When I was there the other day meeting with them, they were concerned that everything has ground to a halt after we utilized that money to clean the spill that happened later on under the WAHA hospital in Attawapiskat.

What we need is a commitment to make sure that the dollars that are supposed to be allocated for the cleanup—which were, five years ago, worth about $1.6 million, so it will obviously be more than that today—are reallocated so that the community can do the cleanup and make sure that kids and daycare centres, nurses and nursing residents, ambulance attendants and ambulances and people in the hospital are not at any risk, and the community is cleaned up.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As I’ve said, I certainly will look into the situation and get back to the member.

But I think it is a good opportunity to talk to some of our recently announced new initiatives. We are providing funding directly to each of the 133 First Nations communities in Ontario to strengthen access to culturally appropriate home and community care services—and, in this case, if there is some interruption, obviously we wish those vital services to be continued.

We are creating 16 new or expanded indigenous-governed and community-driven interprofessional primary care teams across Ontario, providing culturally safe primary health care services and programs to over 70,000 indigenous peoples.

I have visited some fly-in communities myself. I understand the issues on the ground. I will certainly look into this particular situation.

Post-secondary education

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Speaker, as you will appreciate, Ontario’s economy is growing, and well-paying jobs are being created daily. We lead the G7 in economic growth and, as you will know, we have the lowest unemployment rate in two decades. Of course, that kind of economic growth will be accompanied by demographic growth in many of our communities.

By the way, I would like to thank the minister for presenting herself at West Humber Collegiate Institute in Etobicoke North for a recent educational announcement.

Brampton is one such vibrant city, the second-fastest-growing community in Canada. Its youth population is expected to grow by 20% by 2035. There’s much to offer in the city of Brampton, like a strong economy, a stable marketplace, a growing transit system and, of course, an inclusive community spirit.

Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, could she explain in detail more of the access to education initiatives that her ministry is executing for young people?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the very dedicated and hard-working member of Etobicoke North for this question. We know that we have great communities and a great education system. We have a classroom of students here today, and it’s important that we give them hope for the future.

Our government recognized that Brampton is a city that is really, at the heart, a great city. That is why, with the leadership of our Premier, we made a commitment to the people of Peel region. We promised that we would build a university campus. We asked universities and colleges in Ontario to partner so that they could bring this vis