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

February 21, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Feb-21 (PDF)

L068 - Thu 21 Feb 2019 / Jeu 21 fév 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 21 February 2019 Jeudi 21 février 2019

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Notice of reasoned amendment

Introduction of Visitors

Grey Cup

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Health care

Human trafficking

Indigenous health care

Police services / Services policiers

Autism treatment

Sexual assault crisis centres

Consumer protection

Autism treatment

Police services

Autism treatment

Hospital funding

Autism treatment

Amateur sport

Visitors

World Thinking Day

Visitor

Birth of member’s child

Notice of dissatisfaction

Private members’ public business

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

International Mother Language Day

International Mother Language Day

Public transit

Affaires francophones

Health care

Building Bridges event in Guelph

Black History Month

Indigenous affairs

Ed Stafford

Events in Peterborough–Kawartha

Introduction of Bills

Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Right to Repair Electronic Products), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur (droit de réparer les produits électroniques)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Human Trafficking Awareness Day

Visitors

Order of business

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Student work experience

Fish and wildlife management

Mental health and addiction services

Fish and wildlife management

Services for persons with disabilities

Autism treatment

Veterans memorial

Mental health and addiction services

Mental health and addiction services

Public transit

Mental health and addiction services

Health care funding

Child care workers

Private Members’ Public Business

Hydro rates

Right to Timely Mental Health and Addiction Care for Children and Youth Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le droit des enfants et des jeunes à des soins de santé mentale et au traitement de la toxicomanie en temps opportun

Noah and Gregory’s Law (Transition to Adult Developmental Services and Supports), 2019 / Loi Noah et Gregory de 2019 (transition vers des services et soutiens à l’intention des adultes ayant une déficience intellectuelle)

Hydro rates

Right to Timely Mental Health and Addiction Care for Children and Youth Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le droit des enfants et des jeunes à des soins de santé mentale et au traitement de la toxicomanie en temps opportun

Noah and Gregory’s Law (Transition to Adult Developmental Services and Supports), 2019 / Loi Noah et Gregory de 2019 (transition vers des services et soutiens à l’intention des adultes ayant une déficience intellectuelle)

Hydro rates

Right to Timely Mental Health and Addiction Care for Children and Youth Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le droit des enfants et des jeunes à des soins de santé mentale et au traitement de la toxicomanie en temps opportun

Noah and Gregory’s Law (Transition to Adult Developmental Services and Supports), 2019 / Loi Noah et Gregory de 2019 (transition vers des services et soutiens à l’intention des adultes ayant une déficience intellectuelle)

Visitor

Orders of the Day

Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 20, 2019, on the motion for time allocation of the following bill:

Bill 48,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to education and child care / Projet de loi 48, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’éducation et la garde d’enfants.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: Of course, I’m very pleased to rise today. This week is basically my fifth-year anniversary of being here in the Legislature and representing the people of Thornhill. It’s an honour; it’s a privilege. It has been a big learning curve. I didn’t have a background in law. I didn’t have a career that involved a lot of public speaking. It has been a challenge at times, but it has also been very rewarding.

One of the things I learned very early on is that there is a lot of terminology here that we don’t normally use in everyday life in most professions. One of those terms is “time allocation.”

Time allocation: It can almost sound like it’s meaning the opposite of what it actually means. Basically, we want to get moving on a bill so quickly that we’re discussing whether or not the bill should be moving forward quicker than the standing orders normally suggest. We want to get things done.

We’re talking about making our classes safer—a safer place for children, obviously, but also a safer place for all the professionals and staff in schools—and making parents feel comfortable as well. That’s not something we want to delay.

It’s obvious that we had one of the longest and most thorough public consultations on our education system, basically on the curriculum that we’re trying to make improvements on. The consultations went from September 28, 2018, all the way until December 15. The NDP and some of their constituents, their supporters, their volunteers, and even their staff, professionals that they interact with—I’m sure that they participated in those consultations.

So I think we’ve basically given everybody in Ontario—and because it was online, I’m sure some people outside of Ontario managed to weigh in as well, to give us their opinions and their suggestions. I think that’s probably the most rewarding part of this career: to represent residents and to hear from them what their concerns are, but also what their suggestions are. That’s sort of what we learn to do after we’re elected.

We’re always hearing peoples’ concerns and complaints, but I think we learn very quickly to say to them, “And what are your suggestions?” It’s very easy, as we all know, to complain and to have concerns, but, “What are you going to do? What are you going to recommend? How are we going to move this forward? How do we have your support?”

One of the things that disturbed me that we don’t discuss very often here in terms of our public school system is that parents sometimes, when either they are not comfortable with the curriculum or they are concerned about their child’s safety in the school or something like that, choose to take their child out of the school. That’s their prerogative. They can choose some type of private school. There are a lot in Ontario; unfortunately, some of them are even thriving because of parental concerns. But some parents cannot, obviously, afford that option and choose to home-school their children.

Now, if that’s the parents’ choice and they had always planned to home-school their children, and maybe one of the parents has even a background in teaching, like the Speaker who’s sitting in the chair today, that’s one thing, if that was their plan. But when I hear that there were hundreds and possibly thousands of children pulled out of our public school system to be home-schooled, all because parents didn’t feel consulted and didn’t feel comfortable, then that’s a big problem for me.

I know it doesn’t exactly correlate to that discussion, but I can remember my father saying to me that he wanted to rent and maybe think about buying some kind of country house or cottage. In Quebec, we called it a country house, a “chalet.” He said to all of his four children, “Well, that means you won’t go to overnight camp, because obviously we’re not going to pay for you to go to overnight camp for a month in the summer and then have this cottage sitting here without any children at it.” I would answer the loudest and the quickest: “Forget that idea.

I would rather be at summer camp with my friends than at a cottage with you.” It was a little bit tough for him to hear. He would try again year after year for a number of years to convince me it was a better idea.

When I think about children being home-schooled, I’m very supportive. I certainly understand that parents have that prerogative. I’m sure that they interact with other families and ensure that their children have some kind of extracurricular activities. But when some parents don’t plan to home-school, don’t want to home-school, but are doing it because they weren’t comfortable and didn’t feel consulted, I have a problem with that, because if you don’t want to be doing something, we know that chances are it’s not going to be an ideal situation.

I like to hear of kids being involved with their families in the public school system. I think that my kids benefited because I was a bit involved in their schooling. I think it’s important for parents to feel involved in the school, to know who the teachers are and to participate if there are events at the school. I think we’re all very aware that some schools have a thriving parent network, and that benefits the children.

We heard just this week—I want to quote the minister and compliment Minister Thompson, whose bill we’re debating time allocation on. She said in a tweet just this week, “Bill 48 passed second reading yesterday. Thank you to all members who voted in favour of better access to service animals in schools, supporting teachers to be better prepared to teach the fundamentals of math, and zero tolerance for sexual abuse towards students.” I think that sums up the main aspects of what we’re trying to improve here.

It’s challenging. There are always going to be sort of little unintended bumps in the road. There are unintended consequences that we all have to deal with, but I think that we recognize, moving forward, that we have an amazing province. We are very fortunate to all live in one of the best provinces in one of the best countries. Nothing could not use a second look or improvements. There are some concerns that we’ve heard from various sectors, not necessarily just educators.

Various sectors have weighed in on our public school system, and I’m sure that some of them participated in those 72,000 responses we got when we did our vast, vast public consultation. We heard from students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, unions and community agencies.

I bet that there were a lot of business community members who also weighed in, and they have their concerns. We specifically hear often that our students aren’t getting the background in math that they need to do the STEM courses—to do the science and technology courses that we need them to do in order to do those high-tech jobs of the future. We want our students to have meaningful employment and meaningful careers. The best way to do that is to start with good foundations in terms of their schooling and their education.

We want our students to be healthy. We want our students to be happy. We want our students to be safe, and we want our students to feel part of a community. I think that that’s our challenge—as we have the urban centres that keep growing and growing—to have that sense of community.

I don’t have to remind everybody here that in the last election, people overwhelmingly in Ontario felt that we were taking the wrong direction and entrusted a new government to take us in the right direction. That’s exactly what we’re doing. I have to say that I hear from many residents in Thornhill a lot of words of support on almost everything we’re working on. People really appreciate that we got out of the gate and we got to work really quickly. Obviously, everybody has a difference of opinion every now and then, but there’s overwhelming support for the vast, vast majority of what we’ve been working on here and what we’ve been discussing here.

We know that math is a big concern. I was an optometrist; I mention it often when I’m speaking here in the Legislature. My father was a meteorologist, which was a master’s of engineering at that time, and my mother was a chartered accountant, which was almost unheard of for a woman in the 1950s. She was the only one to graduate that year. I think I’ve said it here before: She had her picture in the newspaper because it was such a big deal in the 1950s. So, obviously, there’s a lot of math background in my family, and I had a lot of support at home. I was very lucky. I had great math teachers. I had great teachers in general.

If I can say that something was lacking in my education that would have been nice, it was to learn Latin. My parents learned Latin when they were in school. A lot of times when I would be struggling with my spelling—I’m a terrible speller, Madam Speaker. I’m so lucky with technology and spell-check and all that. It’s a little bit challenging sometimes when you have all the technology and you don’t have to remember things like phone numbers anymore.

But a lot of times with spelling, I would say to my mother, “How did you know how to spell that?” It was such a complicated word, and who would have thought that it had to have a C and a Q put together? She would quote the Latin root word. That’s how she always held onto that really solid education.

Our students: We want them to learn French, if they’re able. We want to encourage that in Ontario.

If I can test how much coffee our translators had today, I just want to switch to a little French. I know that’s a little challenging sometimes for people.

It’s the projet de loi, dont on parle ici aujourd’hui, pour des écoles sûres et axées sur le soutien. Aussi, je veux dire merci à la ministre Thompson, qui a travaillé très, très fort sur toutes les nouvelles réglementations sur cette loi dont on discute aujourd’hui. On veut commencer tout de suite à travailler parce qu’on sait qu’on a fait des séances de discussions téléphoniques, un formulaire de soumission ouvert et un sondage en ligne avec 72 000 personnes.

C’était des élèves, des parents, des enseignants, des administrateurs de conseils scolaires, de syndicats, d’organismes communautaires et plus, madame la Présidente, qui ont parlé et discuté des nouvelles réglementations pour aider nos administrateurs dans les écoles et nos enseignants.

One of the things that came to me yesterday, I’ll just say very quickly, is a video and an

article about dance classes. The parents are very concerned about some of the costumes and some of the dance moves that are being done. It reminded me of coaches. We have coaches outside of school settings and we have coaches inside school settings, and there’s a lot of concern about coaches being better trained in Ontario. I think the ideal situation is when teachers are involved and parents are involved, because we all know that when adults work with children and they have too much access to children on their own, it’s a bit of a recipe for disaster.

We have to ensure that our students understand consent, understand their safety and understand that their coach is there to guide them, to help them and to teach them a sport, to help them to develop into future adults who are stable and don’t have any health care problems because of a teacher they had or a coach they had. I think that most of us here understand that.

I look forward to hearing the debate, but most importantly, I look forward to seeing Bill 48 passed and seeing us getting on the road to having a better community, strong schools in our communities and more family involvement—if I can appeal to people to get involved in your children’s schools.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m pleased to speak to the time allocation motion before this House.

I want to start by just pointing out that the government talks now about there being this urgent need to move to committee very quickly, to only have a few hours of time in committee for discussion of this bill. This bill was introduced in October of last year. It was quite surprising to me, given the apparent urgency of this legislation to this government, that it wasn’t a priority enough for this government, in the fall, to get to second reading before the break. We could have used that time before the House came back to have some real, deep conversations about some very important issues.

This government continues to point out that these are very important issues being addressed in this legislation—and this sense of sudden urgency, which is being used to argue that we can only have a limited amount of debate and discussion on this very important bill—yet they had months and months and months to bring this through this House. It was quite astonishing. I actually have to admit: I wondered whether or not maybe the government had found something in the bill that they thought needed to be addressed before, and maybe they needed to make some changes, because it was clearly not a bill that has been given a lot of thought. There are a lot of issues in this legislation.

We were pleased to support the bill in second reading because we want it to have that kind of deep consideration because we know that some of the issues that this bill is trying to address are important issues. But unfortunately the legislation is weak. It is just very weak, and that is what we are hearing from stakeholders. We know that it needs careful consideration and debate and discussion, and I know that this government wants to create good legislation. I believe that’s what we’re all here to do. We want to create good laws, laws that really work, Madam Speaker, for our communities, and in this case for our children, for our young people, for our education system.

It was very concerning to me that this bill came back very suddenly again, and then that this government would choose to time-allocate this bill so that we have very limited discussion. I also want to point out, Madam Speaker, that because this bill was rushed through this week and because this government for some reason seems to really desperately want to get over the debate at committee very, very quickly, there will be no opportunity now for those committee hearings to be advertised in papers, for example.

What’s going to happen, and just for those who may be watching this, is that at about 1 o’clock, presumably—around 1 o’clock, let’s say, if this time allocation motion has passed—there will be something electronically posted on the website letting people know that they have until 5 p.m. today to register to come and speak to this bill. That is not consultation. I just listened to the member from Thornhill talk about the need for consultation, and I’m astonished.

Also, I want to just point out that the government’s so-called town halls or consultations or all these surveys that the government claims they’re seeking so much input from the public on—well, that wasn’t wrapped up by October 25. These issues weren’t even on the table for discussion. So I don’t know what they’re talking about in terms of consultation having taken place. There was no consultation on this, and this bill deserves that. It’s important legislation.

If you want it to work, then that means taking the time, albeit—absolutely, if we could have gone through the committee hearings over the holidays or in the fall after this was introduced—I don’t know why the government thought it was okay to delay it for months and months and months. Don’t lay this on the opposition, I would say. Don’t lay this on us.

People out there will not have had a chance to hear about this legislation. They might have real concerns.

I’m going to give you an example. We talked about service dogs—great issue; a very interesting issue; a very important issue: service animals being allowed into schools. I wouldn’t say that this legislation opens that door necessarily, but it allows for the conversation to happen. There are advocates on that issue who have been working on this issue for years who were shocked when this legislation was introduced. They had not heard it was coming and they are unhappy with the way that it’s framed in this legislation. These are people who actually support that.

So you’re getting something wrong. The members opposite—the government—is getting something wrong, and they don’t seem interested in fixing it, which is what I find really hard to understand as someone, like all of us here, who was elected presumably to make good government, to create good laws. We don’t want laws that are weak. We don’t want laws that don’t hold up. If you’re serious about this, give it some legs. Get us in the room and let’s talk to the people who really have a lot of knowledge to impart.

I also just want to note that when you rush this kind of thing, you make mistakes, and we’ve all seen that. We’ve all seen that, in legislation introduced under the previous government, and the government before that. If you rush through legislation like this, you’re going to make mistakes and it’s not going to be good for anyone, because we are talking about our children; we’re talking about protections for our children; we’re talking about building a stronger public education system.

If that’s what you’re concerned about, I cannot understand why you would want to rush this part of the conversation through, especially the part that involves careful consideration of input from members of the public—the people that this government likes to talk about so often.

The government ragged the puck here and delayed the debate, actually, for months—months. They pushed it off well into the new year. Here we are in February, and now suddenly it’s urgent again.

What is this legislation really all about? It’s not about the people, because if it was, we would be going out there and we would be seeking the input of people across this province—not just here in Toronto, by the way. Why don’t we go a little further north, just for example, or a little further west or a little further east? But no, apparently this government is really only interested in hearing from people in Toronto. Okay, fair enough; I’m a Davenport MPP. I represent the wonderful riding of Davenport in beautiful downtown west-end Toronto. I think we should be hearing from folks in Thunder Bay. I think we should be hearing—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mushkegowuk.

Ms. Marit Stiles: There we go. Why not? Why can’t we hear from those folks? What is it about them that they don’t matter as much to this government, that their opinion doesn’t matter as much?

We know, as I mentioned earlier, that there are advocates out there, including the service animal advocates, who have not been consulted on this issue. We’ve spoken to them. They have not been consulted. They were not consulted when this legislation was developed. It came out of nowhere. There is not going to be much opportunity for their input now. We do not see any of the changes that they have recommended reflected here.

I want to also talk about the College of Teachers review, because that’s also in this legislation. What there is is the opening up of the possibility to make changes to the College of Teachers. This is really important because—not everyone will know this, necessarily—the College of Teachers has been under a very significant governance review. This raises lots of important questions, especially for teachers, since it is the College of Teachers. The College of Teachers review had not even been received by the College of Teachers when this legislation was introduced, so it has been introduced in a vacuum.

Even more interesting, the government has since received that review very recently. They’ve received the report from the committee that was reviewing this. The College of Teachers’ board itself will not be meeting until February 28 to look at that review recommendation, just to even consider it. So, this is extraordinarily premature. I can tell you, the College of Teachers is concerned. I think they’re going to come next week and probably share these concerns. If they don’t, I will make sure that I ask them about it.

There are going to be concerns there that this legislation, again, is premature. If you were to have listened to what they had to say or paid any attention—if the government was to pay any attention to the timelines of this review—then you would know that this wasn’t going to be discussed until February 28 by the college, and that they won’t come forward with recommendations to the government until after that, in which case, why wouldn’t you want to see what they have to say before you design legislation to address their concerns that you haven’t heard? It is really quite bizarre, Madam Speaker. I think it speaks again to these questions around why suddenly this is so urgent.

I wonder sometimes, when things come up like this, and they try to pass things through really quickly, if it has a little bit more to do with what else is going on out there. What else is happening out there right now that you might want to—oh, I don’t know—change the channel on, maybe change the channel a little bit? Like, for example—oh, I don’t know—devastating cuts and changes to the Ontario Autism Program? Could that have anything to do with it, do you think? I wonder. Because it really does seem like there is something else behind this, some urgency suddenly, which didn’t exist until this week.

So, there are many, many unanswered questions in this legislation. It is very weak. It is very weak legislation, and I say that coming from a place where I think some of what it’s trying to achieve is important. We need to make it good and work, but it is shockingly weak. We think it needs work.

It’s unfortunate again, because it purports to address some issues that are very, very serious and I really think deserve the best response possible, the best solutions that we can come up with, the finest thinking and the most attention, the greatest and the broadest consideration, and the greatest consultation, hearing from the parents, certainly, but also hearing from the folks who are the experts in these areas, which is important, because we’re talking about our children and our children’s education.

I am not an education expert. I am an MPP. I’m a parent. I’m not an education expert. I’m not an expert on math tests for teachers. This is not my forte. I didn’t go to school to learn about that, but I know people who have, and I’d like to talk to them. I’d like to hear from them before this government imposes something that is not going to achieve anything and could even make things worse.

Part of the problem with this legislation is, it’s a muddle of issues. It’s coupling protecting children from predators—I think there’s no one here who would ever disagree that that should be a priority—with things like setting up math tests for teachers. This is an omnibus bill on education, and it’s throwing a whole lot of things together that are really unrelated. That is also very unfortunate.

I think the government’s intention here—I’m just going to speculate—may have been that you throw something like a math test in, which you think is going to be such a hit with parents, to distract from some other stuff that’s going on in there, or make it difficult, for example, for teachers to say, “We’ve got a problem with this legislation, because you’ve thrown in this stuff about the math test and the College of Teachers issues, but you’ve also got all of this language to protect children from sexual predators, and we don’t want to seem like we’re opposing that.” You’ve made it a little difficult for them, and the government knows they did that.

That was intentional. The government has a majority, and they can do what they want here, apparently, but the problem with it is, it doesn’t allow us to separate those issues and give them the consideration that they’re due. They each deserve careful consideration. That is a disservice to the people this government purports to represent—who are, by the way, all the people.

This government was not elected just to represent their people or the people, as the member from Thornhill mentioned, who home-school their children or the people who oppose the sexual education curriculum or the big CEOs who are getting lots of tax cuts. No. They were actually elected to represent all the people, as we all were.

I just want to mention, on this issue of the math tests—I want to go back to that for a minute, because, again, we’re interested in having this conversation. We want to understand what the government wants to achieve here. It has been very unclear what the government is hoping to achieve here. It’s a very bizarre concept, actually, suddenly putting in place a math test—not anything else, just that. Who’s going to decide who designs that math test? What’s in it? There are so many questions that everybody has.

When I went with some of my colleagues to be briefed on this legislation after it was introduced—which, again, was back in October—we met with the Deputy Minister of Education and a number of ADMs. It was quite an impressive crowd. I asked: “Can you explain to me where math tests for teachers have been used, if by other jurisdictions? Can you show us where there has been success? Is there any information about that? We’re trying to understand how this works and what the government is basing it on. Clearly, this is an idea that couldn’t have possibly come out of thin air.

It has to come from somewhere.” Surprisingly, these civil servants who have worked their whole lives in education had not the foggiest clue. They couldn’t tell us anything. They couldn’t point to any evidence in any jurisdiction anywhere that this has been introduced or that this has worked or improved—and this is the really important part. Ultimately, what we’re trying to do, I assume, is not cause anxiety for teachers or for teaching students. What we’re trying to do is, presumably, to improve the math performance of our students. So wouldn’t you want to see what works? Wouldn’t you be interested in that?

Yet somehow that never seems to have entered the equation, and I know this because I’m talking to the highest level of civil servants in this government.

Again, I’ll go back to this issue of good legislation. If you want to talk about good legislation, you need to make sure those folks are on board and that they understand that they’re working hard to make it work for the students, not for political purposes.

So that was really shocking to me, I have to say. I was kind of disturbed that we had gotten to this point where legislation had actually been introduced and clearly there was no—based on thin air, on nothing.

The minister and the civil servants can’t answer how this is going to be administered. They can’t tell us who will establish this test, who is going to write it, develop it, what it’s based on, or how it’s going to be assessed—which is very important. There are so many unanswered questions.

I think, when you look at the state of our schools in this province, you have to wonder how it is that when you’re looking at improving the state of our children’s education and how well they learn, you wouldn’t be thinking about—oh, I don’t know—for example, the fact that they have to go to school wearing hats and mitts in winter because it’s so cold in their classrooms because there’s a $16-billion capital repair backlog that many, many members of this government signed a pledge to fix, including the Minister of Education. Have we heard one peep? No. In fact, those funds have been frozen.

Interjection.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Ironically, frozen.

So you have kids sweltering in the spring and the fall. You have kids freezing in the winter. You have kids already in classes that are too large with not enough supports, for example, for students with special needs, which I’m going to get back to in a few minutes. And then you’re expecting them to focus on math or, frankly, anything. I think the fact that that hasn’t been addressed by this government—the actual state of repair of our schools and the learning environment in which our children find themselves every day; and our teachers too, by the way—why isn’t that being addressed? Why isn’t that a priority? Why aren’t you rushing that through?

I want to just take one moment to talk a little bit about something else that the member from Thornhill said. She talked about, again, “We’ve done so much consultation,” and the role of parents. I know that parent choice is a big deal for this government. You know? I’m a parent. I like to have some choice. I like to have some say in how my kids—they’re teenagers, so I have very little choice right now, sadly.

Just to put all this in some context here: The government didn’t consult with anybody before they hauled modern sex education out of our classrooms. Not one person. There was no consultation under way before they rolled that back. They rolled it back—and this is the problem. They rolled it back and then they said, “Oh, now we’re going to consult.” Do you know what? No.

The member from Thornhill just mentioned the importance of learning consent, which I thought was an excellent point, especially as we see, increasingly, these issues emerge around people in positions of responsibility. This legislation is trying to address sexual predators in our schools and be tougher about that. Well, that is very important. This is an issue close to my heart, I can tell you, as I’m sure it is for many of us.

You say that, and then you’re talking about the importance of having consent, therefore, in the schools discussed so that we can teach our kids this. And yes, parents need to talk about those things too; absolutely. But not every parent is going to do that, I’m sorry to say. It’s true; not every parent is going to do that. And a lot of parents, frankly—people get busy. It’s like, “Oh, do I not have to have that conversation with my kid? Great, because that’s awkward.” I think this does happen. Let’s be realistic.

Not only did they take consent out of the curriculum—consent is not being taught right now; those kids are not learning consent. Not only did they take consent out, but in making that really rash decision—this goes back to this time allocation motion, rushing things through—guess what else you left out? Concussion education. Concussion education is no longer being taught in our schools. Why? Because this government pulled the sex ed curriculum out—the health and physical curriculum. Let’s be clear; it’s not just about sex ed. They pulled the whole thing out without talking with anybody about it. You can tell me, “Oh, well, our consultation was the election.” Oh, come on.

I’m going to wrap up by saying that I think this government is making a big mistake here. You’re going to pass legislation, with all due respect, Madam Speaker, that is going to be faulty and flawed. It’s not going to be the tough legislation we all want. I have to say, I really hope the government reconsiders this time allocation motion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 30 relating to allocation of time on Bill 48,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to education and child care. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(c), the member for Timmins has filed with the Clerk a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 68,

An Act with respect to community safety and policing. The order for second reading of Bill 68 may therefore not be called today.

Orders of the day? I recognize the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. No further business.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Tories don’t want to work.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order, please. Order. The member for Timmins will come to order.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0941 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

M. Gilles Bisson: Bonjour, monsieur le Président. J’aimerais reconnaître qu’avec nous aujourd’hui est le Parlement des jeunes, des élèves du secondaire d’à travers la province de l’Ontario. J’aimerais qu’on les applaudisse et qu’on leur dise bonjour et bienvenue à notre Assemblée.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to welcome Josh Underwood from my riding of Oxford to the Legislature today. He is here because he helped organize a group of young leaders who are here today to learn about Ontario politics. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Josh.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to welcome Eleanor Jones Hannon, a family member of one of my staff, all the way from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Welcome, Eleanor.

M lle Amanda Simard: J’aimerais souligner la présence aujourd’hui de personnes très spéciales de mon comté de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell qui sont ici pour le Parlement jeunesse. C’est Olivier Laurendeau, Alexis Martin-Daigneault, Joshua Diamanditiz, Clovis Girard, Kenny Jacques, Joshua Lalonde, Jean-Michel Tweed et Kassandra Simard. Bienvenue.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Good morning, Speaker. I’d like to welcome Dr. Doris Grinspun and the members of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario who are visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome, and we hope you enjoy your day.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is my pleasure to welcome Betty Oldershaw, RNAO region 1 board of directors representative for RNAO members in southwestern Ontario, and Crystal Hepburn, RNAO Windsor-Essex

chapter president. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Il me fait plaisir d’accueillir, moi aussi, des jeunes parlementaires du Parlement jeunesse 2019. Je suis fière d’accueillir, de la plus belle circonscription de l’Ontario, Orléans, José Barragán, Credo-Lys Iriho, Sacha Kayijuka, Jemima Kekumba et Lydia Philippe. Et aussi, we were very happy this morning to share a good breakfast and a very good conversation with our friend from RNAO, someone who is on the board of directors, Linda Vu, who is here today. Welcome. Bienvenue à vous tous ici à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my honour today to introduce four incredible ladies from the great riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington: Betty Oldershaw, region 1 member of the board of directors; Sula Fong, a student at St. Clair College, Thames campus in Chatham; Kate—believe me, Kate, I’m going to get it right—Kate Shchepanouskaya. There you go. How’s that? She is a nurse at CKHA. And Anita Purdy: Not only is she a supervisor at CKHA, but she is a nursing professor at St. Clair College. Welcome.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Moi aussi, je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue aux jeunes parlementaires francophones, mais en particulier, deux étudiants de ma circonscription : Miguel Dillon de Hearst et aussi Marc-André Dumais de Kapuskasing. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park the family of the Whitby page, Shumyle Shahid. I have Maleeha Shahid, I have Shahid Chaudry and I have Ayaan Shahid. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Good morning. Meegwetch. I’d like to welcome Paddy Dasno, Carol Wood and Carol Maxwell from Sioux Lookout, as part of the RNA delegation.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It is my absolute pleasure to welcome the RNAO team that is here today and for all of the great work, Doris, that you and your team do on behalf of patients in Ontario. I had a great breakfast this morning with Lhamo Dolkar, Sonia Chin, So-Yan Seto, Alicia Moonesar, Erin Kohlmetz and Selvi Krishnadasan, who is actually from Scarborough–Guildwood. I want to say thank you to all of the east Toronto and Scarborough nurses who are here today, and welcome.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’d like to introduce Jonathan Sher, Erika Fifield, Cherie Durksen and Amanda Fountain with the RNAO. We had a great breakfast as well. Welcome.

Mr. Jamie West: I’d like to welcome the members from Sudbury from RNAO and the members from Sudbury from the young francophone parliamentarians. Also, I’d like to welcome Braelyn Guppy, who is our OLIP intern, who is doing an amazing job in our office.

M me Gila Martow: Je veux donner un accueil au Parlement jeunesse francophone de l’Ontario aussi. Merci d’avoir chanté « Notre Place » hier soir ici à la législature.

Also, I want to welcome Doris Grinspun. We had a nice conversation in Hebrew at the RNAO table 11 for Thornhill. I want to welcome all of those RNs as well: Alex Sakhnovich, who was my high school co-op intern. Everybody watching at home: Apply. You get two credits and join us in our constituency offices or down here at Queen’s Park.

Ms. Doly Begum: I would also like to welcome Barbara Chyzzy; Lhamo Dolkar, board of directors from region 7; Isolde Daiski, Selvi Krishnadasan, and Sonia Chin from region 7 of the RNAO. Thank you so much for all of your hard work and dedication. I had a great discussion this morning about the work you’re doing in long-term care, so thank you so much.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I’m pleased to welcome Wil Husnutdinov to the Legislature today. Wil is here with a group of high school students to learn about Ontario politics. Please join me to welcome this young leader from my riding of Richmond Hill.

I would also like to welcome my good friend Mr. Tim Schindel, who has come all the way from BC. Welcome.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. It gives me great pleasure to welcome into the Legislature nurse practitioner Natalie Fawcett, who is also a very good friend of mine and a nurse practitioner in Toronto Public Health; as well as my constituent, another RNAO member, Laura McBreairty. Thank you so much for being here today and sharing your issues with us.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: J’aimerais, moi aussi, accueillir à Queen’s Park Ali Al Moussawi de l’école l’Alternative et du beau comté d’Ottawa–Vanier. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I want to welcome two young leaders from York region and Niagara region who are with us today: my friends Alex Giordano and Jack Fazzari, who are making a great difference in their communities. Welcome to the people’s House.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to welcome Sharon Talaskavic Richard and Chelsie Gibouleau, who provided me with some great information from RNAO this morning. Both of them are from the great riding of Algoma–Manitoulin.

Et puis, M me Désirée Eisner, originaire de Chapleau, et puis, Dany Raymond, l’extrême, du Parlement jeunesse, de la FESFO: bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I just want to say that this morning I had a wonderful conversation with Opal Robinson, who is sitting right ahead of me. I was absolutely amazed at all the things that she has done as a nurse in her time. It was very, very impressive, and the conversation was great. Thank you so much, Opal.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today the Niagara region and St. Catharines team from the RNAO. Thank you for coming for breakfast this morning and for the breakfast.

I’d also like to recognize Mahoganie Hines.

The member from Niagara Falls will be recognizing the others from Niagara region.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: I would also like to welcome my colleagues from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario: my mentor, Dr. Doris Grinspun; president Angela Cooper; and my friend Piroshka. I’m so proud that today is our annual lobby day and of all the work that they are doing on behalf of patients and nurses in Ontario.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome RNAO members from Niagara: Holly Rogers and Nathan Kelly. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: With the RNAO from North Bay today, we have Catherine Ewers, Cathy Morris, Colleen Scanlan and student Brad Manuel.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I also would like to welcome all the members from RNAO today, but especially Kelly from London and Megan and Adrian Laan from Kingston. Thank you for coming today and giving us wonderful information about our health care system at the breakfast meeting in the dining room.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: I would like to welcome Sara Casselman and Nicky Carswell from the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Waterloo Region, also known as SASC. Sara is the executive director at SASC. She has worked in the anti-violence-against-women sector since 2002. Nicky is the coordinator of the anti-human-trafficking program, which represents a piece of the Ontario strategy to combat human trafficking.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to welcome two wonderful, caring nurses from London West who were here today as part of the RNAO breakfast: Farnaz Michalski and Janet Hunt.

I would also like to welcome two parents of children with autism who are here from London West: Brandi Tapp and Sarah Farrants.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I’d like to also welcome the members of the RNAO who came here from Niagara today: Nathan Kelly and of course Mahoganie and Holly, who I’ve met with many times in my office.

I also wish to welcome to the Legislature Jack Fazzari, who is a VP with Brock Campus Conservatives and is here today in the Legislature to watch question period.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’d like to welcome a new legislative page from my riding, Cameron Harris, his mother, Lisa, and his grandmother Agnes, who are here in the gallery today.

M me Mitzie Hunter: Au nom du caucus libéral, nous aimerions souhaiter la bienvenue à tous les jeunes parlementaires du Parlement jeunesse. Bonne session.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I would like to introduce, from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, whom I met with this morning, from my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Jill Staples.

I also met with Betsy Jackson and Angela Cooper Brathwaite and a nursing student, Lauren Allison.

It was great to hear your views, as a fellow nurse.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to give a warm welcome to: Martha McGroarty, who is a mental health advocate; my constituents Beverly Swerling; John Mohler; Ann-Marie Mohler, who is a faith community nurse; Sergio Arangio; David Morales, who is a student from George Brown doing a placement in my office; Dechen Tenzin, who is my constituency assistant; Gillian Smith; Alvine Flor; Bri Gardner, who is a friend and youth activist from Etobicoke–Lakeshore; friends from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario; and also my friend Ashley Davis.

Mr. David Piccini: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I would like to welcome to the Legislature this morning a young university student who helped me on my campaign, Minnie Chen.

In addition to a fantastic breakfast I had with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, I have a local constituent, Kathleen Pikaart, here and Regina Elliott from Durham as well. I had a great breakfast with them this morning. Thank you for coming.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’d like to welcome two constituents from my riding of Toronto Centre who are here with the RNAO today, Carolyn Edgar and Sarah Quinto. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce RNAO members from both Sarnia–Lambton and Lambton–Kent–Middlesex here with us today: Kaitlyn Green, Marisa Hartford, Kristie Butler and Charlene McMahon. They’re all here to join us on their lobby day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to thank the RNs from Hamilton. I had a very productive meeting with them this morning, and they brought forth a lot of important issues that I hope the government is going to deal with.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I believe that concludes the time we have available for introductions this morning. I appreciate the patience of the members. We have a lot of guests. We’re delighted that they’re here. I think that the introductions are the most pleasant part of the morning, so we’ve allowed them to continue way past the available time.

Grey Cup

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order: the leader of the official opposition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent regarding the city of Hamilton’s bid to host the 2020 Grey Cup championship.

Interjection: Go, Ti-Cats, go.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Oskee Wee Wee.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Sorry, I apologize. Could you please repeat your request?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I seek unanimous regarding the city of Hamilton’s bid to host the 2020 Grey Cup championship. I move that the House endorses the city of Hamilton’s bid to host the 2020 Grey Cup, the biggest game in Canadian football.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to endorse—not to move a motion. It would be helpful if I had it in writing, I would say that. Seeking unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Guelph on a point of order.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I seek unanimous consent to ask a question in place of the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Guelph is seeking unanimous consent of the House to ask a question in place of the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell: Agreed? Agreed.

Are we ready for question period?

Interjections.

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Yesterday, parents from across Ontario came to implore the Ford government to help their families with treatments for children with autism, treatments that can cost as much as $80,000 a year. They are at their wits’ end, unsure of how to cope with the government’s changes.

Last night on CTV News, the minister responded by suggesting that they could use the woefully inadequate government support to buy an iPad. Is that the Ford government’s idea of a treatment plan, Speaker: an iPad?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Our plan is built on choice, and if parents think that a technological aid will help advance their child, then I want to support them in doing that.

Let me read from some of the parents who have written to us about this program. Monica, a mom of an autistic teen, appreciates the new plan offers services to a range of children. “My son was always deemed too high-functioning to receive funding, but he needed OT. I ended up taking OT classes at the University of Toronto Scarborough and doing it myself.” All of this plan will help her son.

I understand that there are a lot of parents who are concerned about this plan, but there are a lot of parents who are going to be relieved with this plan, because 23,000 children were languishing on a wait-list, and my obligation is to support all children, not just 25% of them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After the Premier promised families so much, this Premier has done nothing to offer anything to parents. The promises were big, but the result was nil. All they’ve done is given the families of this province who have children with autism the expectation to have no hope. That’s what they said yesterday: Give up hope. There’s no hope left for you. In fact, that’s literally what the minister said: “No parent should have any hope.” Meanwhile, parents who joined us yesterday are planning to sell their homes, cash in life savings, just to provide the supports that the Ford government has yanked from them.

When her party needed those parents’ votes, the minister was happy to offer hope, Speaker. But now that she has the minister’s office, she has nothing to offer at all. How can she justify that?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate that the leader of the official opposition wants to play politics and score political points off the backs of vulnerable families.

There are 23,000 children in this province who have gone without support. We have increased funding in this ministry. The budget used to be $256 million; I have increased it—during a time when the previous Liberal government left us with a $15-billion deficit—to $321 million. During that period of time, Speaker, I made a commitment to the parents who were currently receiving service that we would continue their funding throughout Christmas and had to go to Treasury Board for an emergency $102 million so that the 25% of the children who were receiving support could continue to receive support.

But if the member opposite is suggesting that I should do what the previous Liberal government did and ignore 75%—three out of four—of the children in the province of Ontario with autism, think again.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, what I wouldn’t expect from a minister of the crown is to tell parents to just forget about having any hope for the future for the services and treatments their kids need. That’s what I would not expect from a minister of the crown.

Parents from across Ontario feel they’ve been betrayed by this Ford government. Yesterday, the Premier removed the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston from the government caucus for insulting parents with rude and dismissive comments. Frankly, Randy Hillier’s insulting comments didn’t hurt families as much as the minister’s heartless scheme. His comments weren’t nearly as offensive as a minister who threatens autism advocates when they refuse to endorse her changes.

Does the minister agree with the Premier’s decision to suspend the member from caucus, and if so, why doesn’t she think she should also be resigning from cabinet?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask the minister to respond, I’ll remind the House that we refer to members by their riding names or by their ministerial title, depending on the situation.

Minister, respond.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much, Speaker. Thanks again to the member opposite for her question. I remain resolute in the fact that three out of four children in this province have been denied service from their Ontario government, which is why I went to the treasury and asked for an increase in funding during a very difficult time in this province’s financial history.

We have now increased the budget to $321 million. We are doubling our investment in diagnostic hubs so we can get quicker diagnoses for children at a much earlier age. We believe in early intervention, which is why we are going to front-end a lot of money for children between the ages of zero and five, where we know support will help them the best it possibly can. We’re going to a direct-funding model so that parents can be enabled and empowered to choose the best services for their children.

Speaker, when I hear the member opposite trying to play politics with these families in a very difficult and emotional file, I am very disappointed with them, but I remain resolute and I remain committed to implementing this government’s plan.

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. The parents who joined us here yesterday and today aren’t demanding the impossible, Speaker. They simply want the support that their children were promised by the Premier.

With therapy and treatment, children who seem to be in their own worlds are able to communicate. They’re able to feed themselves. They’re able to tell their own parents that they love them. No parent should have to choose between selling their home and denying that to their children. But the minister is not only doing that; she’s telling parents that they should be happy. Does she think that’s acceptable, Speaker?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Let me tell you a little bit about Sarah, who wrote in to Autistics 4 Autistics. She said, “What the province had available under the old OAP wouldn’t be useful for my daughter. I paid out of pocket for everything.” She’s anxious to see what the new program will offer. Why? Because we’re empowering parents with choice. Whether that is with behavioural support, whether that is with technological aids, whether that is with caregiver training or respite support, we are offering choice.

But more importantly than anything, we are looking at the 23,000 children who are languishing on a wait-list with endless no hope in sight or support for them. We are going to lift them up and provide them with support by investing in diagnostic hubs, doubling that investment, ensuring that we have more support for northern Ontario, and ensuring that they have a direct fund so they can choose what works best for their child. I won’t apologize for that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will please take their seats.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it doesn’t empower people when you take away their choices, and that’s what this government is doing. The choice they’re leaving these families with is to sell their home to provide treatment. The choice they’re leaving these families with is to cash in their RRSPs to provide treatment for their kids. The only people who have choice are the wealthy, who can afford to provide the services for their children. We don’t ask them to provide cancer services for their kids, do we, Speaker? No. And we shouldn’t ask them to provide autism treatments for their kids either.

She seems to be more interested in the support that families can provide her than supporting them. Whether it’s threatening a group of behaviour analysts with “four long years” if they don’t publicly support a new funding system, or claiming to have the support of organizations from which they don’t have support, the minister has made it clear where her priorities lie.

Why is she more interested in delivering positive headlines for herself and her government than delivering results for children with autism and the family members who love them?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I get she’s angry; the whole place here gets that she’s angry.

But I’ll tell you something that angered me was the fact that three out of four children in Ontario were denied support by their Ontario government. That’s what angered me. That’s why I’m acting. It’s those 23,000 children who are languishing on a wait-list, who are being ignored by the New Democrats, who were ignored by the Liberals. They are my focus. I’m clearing the wait-list—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: If you can’t do the job, get out of the way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Essex, come to order.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: —increasing diagnostic hub support. We’re going to directly fund parents so that they have more choice for their child.

Let me be perfectly clear, and I say this to the member opposite: If you think it’s fine to ignore 75% of the children in this province who have autism, that’s your prerogative, but this government will stand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I’ll remind all members once again, this is the provincial Parliament of Ontario. You make your comments through the Chair, even in question period, at all times.

Start the clock. Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it looks like the minister mistook my disgust for something else.

Parents are desperate for the treatment and therapy that their children need to thrive. That was clear yesterday; that’s been clear for years and years and years. The sad thing is this minister knows it. Treatment and therapy that the vast majority of them couldn’t dream of paying for themselves—and she knows that as well, Speaker. Treatment and therapy that they are selling their homes and remortgaging and going deeply into debt in order to provide—and she knows that too.

Instead of offering help, however, the Ford government tells parents that there is no point in having any hope.

Yesterday, an MPP was booted from the government caucus for insulting parents, but my question to the minister is this: Isn’t it more insulting to tell these parents that they should give up hope and settle in for four long years?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I understand she wants to portray a certain narrative, Speaker. The problem is, however, when I saw the wait-list of 23,000 children, there was no end in sight.

We increased the budget for this program from $256 million to $321 million. We are doubling our investment in diagnostic hubs at CHEO, Erinoak, Holland Bloorview and other places including in the north. We are going to enable and empower families to have a childhood budget where they will work with Autism Ontario, which we signed a $700,000 contract with to help navigate the system so moms and dads can best utilize that support.

We’re going to provide choice. Parents say that sometimes ABA doesn’t work for their child but they would like a technological aid such as those I’ve seen across the province as I toured children’s treatment centres.

Speaker, please understand this: This is a very important priority for this government. That’s why this plan will be implemented and that’s why we’ll clear the wait-list in 18 months.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Minister of Health—but I do have to say that this is not about a narrative; it’s about children with autism. Look in the mirror over there, Minister. Look in the mirror.

Patients across Ontario are worried about the Ford government’s plans to create a mega-agency with a mandate to privatize in our health care system. Can the minister tell us what front-line health staff she’s consulted as she’s developed this plan, or is she still denying that the plan exists?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I can absolutely tell the Leader of the Opposition that we are not looking at privatization. What we are looking at is strengthening our public health care system.

You know and I know that there are concerns, there are gaps, there are problems in our public health care system as people are transitioning from hospital to home care or to long-term care. First of all, we know there aren’t enough long-term-care spots. There are 30,000 people in Ontario waiting for a long-term-care spot. We have 1,200 people every day in hospitals across Ontario who are receiving care in hallways and in storage rooms in hospitals, and we know that there are thousands of people waiting for mental health and addictions treatment.

What we are looking at is a transformative plan, but it is to strengthen our public health care system, where people will continue to use their OHIP cards to pay for their services.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Of course, today we are joined in the Legislature by registered nurses from across Ontario. Many of the members in the chamber introduced them this morning and we’re very pleased to have them here.

These nurses provide the sort of care that makes a real difference for patients. Their focus today is not on creating a new health mega-agency or more for-profit care in our health care system; it’s investing in primary care and calling on government to fill the 10,000 nursing vacancies in Ontario hospitals.

The Ford government has found money to pay Rueben Devlin to help sell privatization plans. When will they listen to nurses and start investing in front-line staff for our hospitals? We need them desperately if we’re going to tackle hallway medicine.

Hon. Christine Elliott: As I indicated to the leader of the official opposition, we are intending to strengthen our public health care system. We are continuing our consultations with health service providers and with patients and families. Those consultations started the day that I was declared and sworn in as Minister of Health and those conversations continue to this day.

I have also had the opportunity to tour a number of our hospitals and speak with the health care professionals who are providing care on the front lines. They don’t want to be taking care of patients in hallways. That’s not what they were trained to do. It’s putting incredible stress on them as well as on the patients and families who are receiving care.

We want to end hallway medicine. We want to make sure that we can get people timelier access to treatment and we want to make sure that people continue to feel connected to their health care system throughout their lives. That is what we’re working on and that is what we’re going to deliver to the people of Ontario.

Human trafficking

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Last month, I hosted a community awareness night about human trafficking in my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington. Despite the subject matter being heavy, the event was a success, with over 600 in attendance. My motive was to keep my community safe from these predators, as I’m sure it is for all of us here in the Legislature.

Attendees were shocked to hear from local police, social workers and survivor support networks about how deep the crisis of human trafficking runs in Ontario and how young women and girls of all backgrounds, some as young as 12, are being forced into sex work.

Given that tomorrow is Human Trafficking Awareness Day, can the minister explain how our government plans to bring awareness to this issue?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I really appreciate the dedication the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington has put into this issue and I was very impressed that he had 600 people attend his public meeting. I’m looking forward to going back into his community to continue to support the work that he’s doing.

Obviously, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the great work that the labour minister, Laurie Scott, did in opposition to ensure that we have this day enshrined in Ontario’s Legislature. There have been a number of other members in this assembly who have been doing some great work.

Let me start with what we’re going to do. We made a historic investment into violence against women prevention just before Christmas, $174 million that we are investing not only to support violence against women prevention, but also to eradicate sex trafficking in our communities. I held a round table with the member from Renfrew, who is our natural resources minister. I’m working with the federal government at a task table.

I’m very excited—and I’m going to be mentioning this more tomorrow—that today the member from Cambridge and member from Mississauga Centre will be embarking on round table discussions throughout the province in order to eradicate this.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary? The member for Cambridge.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: I want to thank the minister for her response and for taking such a strong stance against sex trafficking, ensuring that our government works to educate Ontarians about this horrific practice. The sad reality is that this is a crime that impacts children. About a quarter of victims of sex trafficking are under the age of 18.

It even impacts our most vulnerable, including the homeless, who are targeted because they are particularly unguarded. Traffickers exploit their vulnerabilities and trap them in a cycle of abuse. Even when these girls manage to escape, the effects are long-lasting. It’s a crime that doesn’t discriminate. It can happen in our biggest cities and our smallest towns.

Speaker, my question is twofold. First, what is the minister doing to ensure young girls across Ontario are safe? And second, what actions are being taken for those fleeing violence in rural areas?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: That’s a very important question. I want to congratulate the member from Cambridge, who is my parliamentary assistant, as well as the member from Mississauga Centre, who will be embarking on round tables across the province, meeting with law enforcement but also with victims and survivors and those who are working in this space.

I’m really excited that, as we lead into human trafficking—or sex trafficking, as I call it, because it is Ontario’s dirty little secret. We are looking at girls as young as 11 who have been trafficked and coerced and having their lives ruined, and we need to do more. That starts with awareness, which is what we’re going to build on tomorrow from that important work that was done by Minister Scott over a year ago. We’re going to continue to support those efforts, and I’ll continue to work with the federal government so we can make sure that we have support across all jurisdictions.

In terms of our rural support, Speaker, thanks to the male members of this caucus from rural communities across Ontario who have seen violence against women, we have invested $1.5 million just for rural initiatives for communities like hers across this province.

Indigenous health care

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Oji-Cree.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. On January 16, Cat Lake First Nation declared a state of emergency due to black mould. Some 87 out of 128 homes are uninhabitable. I visited Cat Lake two weeks ago to see the state of the community for myself. What I saw was very shocking. I saw young children and babies covered in rashes and was told about elders with serious lung infections. One parent told me about his 12-year-old daughter, about a rash on her face and neck so bad that she wouldn’t leave her bedroom. The mother was worried about her mental health.

Mr. Speaker, two days ago the community lost a mother, grandmother and wife. Nashie Oombash passed away in Thunder Bay, seeking treatment for pneumonia and breathing problems that her doctor said were likely caused by the mould in her home.

Let me remind you, everyone: Ontario is a signatory to Treaty 9, and as such has a legal obligation to all First Nation communities in the territory, including Cat Lake. I would like to know how the Deputy Premier plans to honour Ontario’s treaty obligation to Cat Lake in relation to the mould crisis in the community.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I think I speak on behalf of all my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party that we’re deeply saddened to hear of the loss of Nashie Oombash from Cat Lake First Nation. We take the safety and well-being of all our communities, in particular isolated and remote First Nations communities who are more vulnerable in certain circumstances, as a top priority.

I’ve had discussions with the chief and council. We’re coordinating our efforts with respect to their declaration of an emergency response. We continue to help them find solutions for their housing crisis. We call on the federal government to live up to their responsibilities. I’ve been in that position before, where we’ve helped communities build new suburbs, build housing so that their folks can have safer, cleaner environments to live in.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have committed to visiting and helping Cat Lake, but this is not the same as living in these conditions, day to day, for an entire lifetime. The mould crisis in Cat Lake is now a public health emergency. Health in First Nations communities is the clear responsibility of the provincial government.

With urgency, will the Deputy Premier send a community health assessment team to Cat Lake First Nation immediately? A 12-year-old girl in the community of Cat Lake cannot wait.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the member for his question. As I said earlier, we continue to work in a coordinated manner with all of our stakeholders and partners under the declaration of an emergency.

I’ve had a chance to live and work in Cat Lake over the course of a number of years. As I said before, our discussions with the chief and council were very productive. We shared our profound disappointment for the federal government’s responsibility for housing, for ensuring that they have safe, affordable, clean housing. We will continue in our efforts to support Cat Lake First Nation.

Police services / Services policiers

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: My question today is for the Attorney General. We, on this side of the House, have a deep respect for the important work done by law enforcement professionals. We know that they are heroes keeping our communities safe. Yesterday, the Minister for Community Safety and Correctional Services introduced a very important piece of legislation: Bill 68, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act.

Speaker, the Liberals also had a piece of policing legislation: Bill 175. It was, plain and simple, the most anti-police legislation in Canadian history. I know that our hard-working minister and the Attorney General listened to our men and women in uniform and worked tirelessly to get this bill right. Our police deserve nothing but respect for the work that they do.

Would the Attorney General please tell us what front-line officers are saying about this government’s proposed changes?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga Centre for her question. Our legislation will, if passed, provide transparency and clarity to police officers, police chiefs and to the people of Ontario.

I’d like to let you know, Mr. Speaker, what Rob Jamieson, the president and CEO of the Ontario Provincial Police Association has said: “The work OPPA members do every day keeps the people of our province safe. Unfortunately, challenges in the current legislation make it more difficult for the police to do their jobs. The changes proposed by the government ... intend to empower police across Ontario to ensure community safety.”

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to keeping our communities safe and to giving our front-line officers the tools that they need to do their jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me Natalia Kusendova: Merci, madame la Ministre. Je suis heureuse d’entendre que notre gouvernement pour la population a écouté les préoccupations des agentes et agents de première ligne. Je pense que cette nouvelle législation est équilibrée, respectueuse et équitable. Monsieur le Président, je sais que les agents de première ligne dans ma communauté et à travers l’Ontario seront heureux de ces changements.

J’étais préoccupée hier en entendant ce qui a été dit au sujet des enquêtes dont les agents peuvent faire l’objet s’ils ne réussissent pas à arrêter une tentative de suicide ou s’ils tentent de leur mieux de sauver une vie en administrant les premiers soins. Je songe aux courageux agents qui ont répondu à la fusillade tragique sur Danforth.

De ce côté-ci de la Chambre, nous savons que nos agentes et nos agents sont hautement entraînés et risquent tout pour que nous puissions vivre en sécurité. Est-ce que la procureure générale pourrait expliquer comment les changements aux enquêtes de l’UES vont améliorer les conditions pour les agents?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je voudrais être claire : notre gouvernement sait que les femmes et les hommes en uniforme sont des héros de tous les jours.

Pour fournir la transparence et la clarté à la population et à la police, la législation va clarifier le mandat de l’Unité des enquêtes spéciales. Si elle est adoptée, cela concentrera les ressources d’enquêtes là où on en a besoin, sur les activités criminelles, au sein d’un système de surveillance policière qui est transparent, équitable et efficace.

La législation rendra finalement clair pour chacun les cas où il y a l’obligation d’aviser : tels les cas où l’utilisation de la force, la garde, la détention ou les poursuites en véhicules motorisés ont eu pour résultats des blessures graves ou un décès; ou lorsqu’une arme à feu a été déchargée en direction d’une personne; ou dans un cas rapporté d’agression sexuelle. Le projet de loi répond également à presque toutes les recommandations du juge Tulloch contenues dans son examen indépendant des organismes de surveillance de la police.

Autism treatment

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Last week, I attended a rally at the MCCSS office in Windsor, alongside almost 100 parents and workers who are disgusted by the Conservative government’s changes to the Ontario Autism Program. The new plan leaves all children with autism to make do with less. They will have access to less funding, which means fewer hours of vital therapy and treatment. It means children will not be able to reach their full potential. And when they turn 18, they will be cut off altogether and forced on a wait-list for adult support that is several years long.

Will the Deputy Premier show some leadership and change this disastrous autism plan?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the member opposite bringing those concerns to the assembly. I know she has a private member’s bill later on today about developmental disabilities, which we are pleased to offer our support for in government.

I also wanted to clear up a misconception she may have, because it appears that they’re talking about wait-lists of several years and people aging out of programs. The real issue here is the 23,000 children who have been denied service by their Ontario government. Three out of four children in Ontario are on an endless wait-list with no light at the end of the tunnel. That is our motivation. That is why we are moving to a direct-funding model. That is why we are increasing funding in diagnostic hubs and encouraging more investment in northern Ontario.

We are going to continue to support this program. I think it’s important that the members opposite understand that this is the plan that will be implemented.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The real issue is that the minister thinks that their autism program is actually making it better for people in this province, and that she actually thinks that 14,000 to 16,000 adults with developmental disabilities sitting on a wait-list for four to five years for support is not a problem. That’s the issue with this minister.

Back to the Deputy Premier: In 2016, autism families fought tooth and nail to get the Liberal government to recognize that autism doesn’t end at five. Now these families are fighting like hell again because not only is this government forcing children with autism to go without necessary therapy; they are exclusively focused on Ontarians with autism under the age of 18. The Deputy Premier needs to understand that autism doesn’t end at five; it doesn’t end at 18, either. In fact, there are many developmental disabilities this government must recognize need additional supports: Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, fetal alcohol syndrome, and many, many more.

Would the Deputy Premier pass my private member’s bill, Noah and Gregory’s Law, ensure that it actually makes it through committee and back into the House, support it at third reading and demonstrate that adults with developmental disabilities actually deserve this government’s support?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I guess she can’t take yes for an answer. I said in the first question’s response that, yes, the government will be supporting her private member’s bill this afternoon with respect to inclusion. I did send her a note earlier in question period to let her know that we would be supporting the legislation. Unfortunately, I have a speech that I have to give in Cobourg so I can’t lend my support this afternoon, but you have it this morning, and you’ve had it in writing, so there’s that.

Christine, a mom of an autistic 11-year-old child, said, “Under the OAP, we had to pay for his therapies because they weren’t ABA. Why? These therapies were totally amazing for my son, but the OAP seemed to think there was only one way to learn how to brush your teeth. Maybe the new plan will allow families to choose what’s best for them.” I’m proud to stand here today, Speaker, and say, “Yes, that’s what we’re doing.” We’re also going to make sure that there are going to be more supports in our school system.

I expect the member opposite to have a word with her member from Ottawa Centre, who basically said yesterday that we need to rethink the program because it will ruin our public school system. Does she believe that autistic children should be included in our school system? Yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. Joel Harden: You’re better than that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa Centre, come to order. The member for Windsor West, come to order.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Shame.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: You should be ashamed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Windsor West, come to order.

Next question.

Sexual assault crisis centres

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Attorney General. Rape crisis centres provide essential services for women who need life-saving and life-affirming help right now. The need for these vital services is on the rise. Many centres operate at 1990 staffing levels, yet your ministry has frozen a promised funding increase that rape crisis centres desperately need right now.

Minister, when will you release this funding so front-line workers can deliver the services women in crisis need and deserve?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask the minister to respond, I’ll say once again: Please make your comments through the Chair.

The Attorney General.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for his question. Let me be clear: Our government has zero tolerance for sexual assault, for harassment and for any form of violence against women or against anyone in our communities. Our government stands with victims of crime, and all Ontarians deserve to live free from violence. That’s why we’re committed to providing victims with the services and the supports that they need.

My ministry, along with the Minister of Community and Social Services, is working hard to review the programs that our province offers and the funding commitments that the previous government made to make sure that we are supporting victims of crime in a way that meets their direct needs in their communities where they live, and to do so in a sustainable way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Mr. Speaker, I think we all stand with women in crisis, but we can’t stand behind a funding review and deny rape crisis centres the funding they need right now. The government was able to find money to give a tax cut to the 1%, but they’re not able to find money to help women experiencing sexual violence who need help right now.

I know that rape crisis centre staff have met with the ministry. They’ve asked for a timeline of when funding will be released. So through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, can the minister today let Ontarians know when the ministry will have an answer on whether these funds will be released?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Let me be clear: The previous Liberal government had 15 years to address the increase that these sexual assault centres and rape crisis centres were dealing with, and they chose, on the eve of an election, to promise much-needed funding to these centres without attaching funding to that promise.

Mr. Speaker, we take the needs that these centres are facing very seriously and are working closely with those centres and with victims across the province to ensure that we are meeting the needs that they have, and to do so in a sustainable way.

Consumer protection

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Yesterday, the minister announced plans for our government to reform Tarion. For most Ontarians, buying a home is the most expensive decision they will make in their life, but it’s not just about expense. Every Ontarian should feel safe and secure in their home. Too many Ontarians have told me that this is not the case. I have been told and I have heard a number of stories from many of my constituents and across the province about the stress and frustration they felt while dealing with Tarion.

Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Could you tell us what steps you are taking to deal with the problems faced by too many Ontarians when dealing with Tarion?

Hon. Bill Walker: I’d like to thank the honourable member from Mississauga–Erin Mills, Sheref Sabawy, for his excellent question. I too have heard stories of stress and frustration across this province. For our government, one thing is clear: Tarion is broken. That is why I was happy to announce yesterday in Port Hope, with my colleague the great member from Northumberland–Peterborough South, David Piccini, that our government for the people is transforming Tarion.

Our government is establishing a new, separate regulator from Tarion for new home builders and vendors. We’re also exploring the feasibility of a multi-provider model for new home warranties. We’re introducing new initiatives to better inform and protect purchasers of cancelled condominium projects and, Mr. Speaker, we intend to introduce proposed legislation that, if passed, would require Tarion to make executive board compensation publicly available, to rebalance the board based on a broader skills matrix. Through these actions, we are cleaning the mess at Tarion in order to put the people of Ontario first.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to thank the minister for the action he is taking to bring relief to countless Ontario families.

I want to lay out some of the most common complaints I hear about dealing with Tarion. First, Tarion is unresponsive, difficult to deal with and not transparent. To make matters worse, Tarion is responsible not only for home warranties but also for regulating builders and vendors in the ministry. The Honourable Justice Douglas Cunningham even addressed these issues in his 2016 independent report.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain how his plan addresses these concerns as part of our plan to strengthen consumer protection in this province?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you very much again to my colleague the honourable member for Mississauga–Erin Mills for his excellent question.

Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government did very little with the Honourable Justice Douglas Cunningham’s report. Noted in Justice Cunningham’s report is an inherent conflict of interest in the current structure of Tarion that leaves new homeowners vulnerable. Establishing a separate regulator from Tarion for the new home builders and vendors program will address this conflict of interest that currently exists and start to return trust to the people of Ontario.

Our intent to introduce proposed legislation that, if passed, will make executive compensation at Tarion publicly available and rebalance the board for a more equal representation will create transparency and accountability at Tarion. We will be consulting about the viability of a multi-provider model for home warranties as well as listening to all those affected by issues with Tarion to ensure our reforms deal with the root of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, these are just the first steps on the road to reforming Tarion and strengthening consumer protections in this province. We will continue to move forward with strengthening consumer protection for the people of Ontario.

Autism treatment

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Deputy Premier. London parents of children with autism are united in opposing the changes to the autism program, whether they are on or off the wait-list. Two of these London parents are at Queen’s Park today.

Brandi Tapp’s five-year-old son Henry was diagnosed with severe autism at age two. Henry is a beautiful little boy who is non-verbal and incontinent. After three years on the wait-list, Henry started the autism program and has already made progress in just two months. His parents are heartbroken that the changes to the program will rip Henry’s therapy away from him.

Speaker, how can this government justify a plan that will deny Henry and thousands like him the intensive supports he is finally receiving?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks to the member opposite for bringing Brandi here today. I appreciate her concern.

We are trying to bring forward a plan and we are going to bring forward a plan that is fair and equitable and sustainable. There were 23,000 children in Ontario being denied support from their Ontario government. What we have done is put a plan in place that will clear the wait-list for diagnosis by doubling the investment into diagnostic hubs; and we are going to directly fund parents so that they can have choice, whether behavioural therapy works for them or whether technological aids work for them. We are going to empower parents’ choice with a direct-funding model.

I am resolute in the fact that we must support every child, not just 25% of them. Ignoring and turning a blind eye to three quarters of the children who are on a wait-list is unacceptable to me. I think it’s important that the member opposite is truthful with her constituents and allows them to understand that that wait—

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Deputy Premier: Sarah Farrants is also here today from London and her son is on the wait-list. Sarah is the mother of another beautiful little boy, three-year-old Mason. Mason is non-verbal, can be aggressive with others and runs off at any time. After two years of desperately seeking answers, Mason was diagnosed with autism in October and is now on the wait-list.

The estimated annual cost for Mason’s therapy is $80,000 but the new program will only cover a tiny fraction of these costs. Without the therapy that Mason needs, Sarah can’t find a daycare spot for him and she is terrified for his safety if she sends him to kindergarten in the fall.

Speaker, how can this government justify a plan that will deny Mason and thousands like him who are on the wait-list the intensive therapy he is waiting for?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take their seats.

Minister, response?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The member opposite has been in this House for the past three days, where I have been very clear that under the old plan, the wait-list was endless. For her to suggest to Mason’s parents that he would get off a wait-list at any point in time is unconscionable, because she understands that that is false hope, which is why we had to change the program. We were not supporting three quarters of children like Mason in the province of Ontario because they were languishing on a wait-list.

This way, within the next 18 months, Mason will be off the wait-list. Mason will be eligible for direct funding and Mason’s parents are going to be able to choose how he best gets support, whether that’s behavioural therapy, technological aid, caregiver training or respite care. We remain committed in this House to clearing that wait-list in the next 18 months so children like Mason will get a fighting chance.

Police services

Mrs. Amy Fee: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Our government for the people has remained committed to public safety across this great province. The daily duties of a police officer are dangerous and the brave men and women of our police services deserve our respect and support.

The previous Liberal government’s legislation, Bill 175, represented a significant step backwards. It was a step backwards for policing in Ontario at a time when the government, the police and the people should have been partners in the name of public safety. It demonstrated to the people of Ontario that the previous Liberal government did not respect the work that our police officers do to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please let us know how our government’s Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will better provide support for police officers and keep people safe in my riding of Kitchener South–Hespeler and across Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: To the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, you have been a very busy parliamentarian and I very much appreciate your interest in Bill 68.

You and I and many members of our caucus have seen the incredible work our police do each and every day to keep our families safe. So much of this work is silent, preventive and unseen but sometimes it requires them to put themselves in harm’s way and occasionally it requires them to make difficult life-or-death decisions in the blink of an eye.

Every day our police officers can be counted on to protect us. They have always had our back. Mr. Speaker, it’s about time they have a government that has theirs.

Last fall, our government announced changes to protect police officers who attempt to save a life by delivering naloxone. Our government’s Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act is based on this same principle. The police should not be punished for keeping us safe and Bill 68 will ensure that that is the case.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you for that response and certainly for all the work you are doing for our police officers across this province.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of this government for the people, I am proud to stand here today and know that we have kept another promise that we made to the people in Ontario. This proposed legislation will make good on our government’s promise to fix the policing legislation the previous Liberal government broke.

By proposing the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, our government is acting on its commitment to restore the relationship between the government and the police to one of mutual respect and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister highlight now for us some of the other key aspects of our proposed legislation?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I thank the member for her question. It’s time to put public safety first. Our government for the people is listening to police, and our proposed legislation delivers rational solutions to fix the issues plagued by the previous Liberal government’s Bill 175.

The Liberal bill included a laundry list of police services that could be privatized. This created a fear that if you called 911, someone other than a police officer would show up at your door. If passed, our legislation will restore trust that, in an emergency, a police officer will answer your call.

The previous government’s legislation did not consider the principles of fairness or due process for our police officers. Not only was this unfair, it was disrespectful to the police officers who risk their lives to keep us safe. If passed, our legislation will make the disciplinary process fair to police officers. Police will no longer be treated as if they are guilty until proven innocent.

Autism treatment

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Premier. Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting Andrea and Erik, the proud parents of five-year-old Henrik. Henrik is autistic and was non-verbal before he began IBI therapy. After three years of therapy, Henrik now attends kindergarten, has friends, makes eye contact and calls his parents mom and dada.

Consistency and repetition are fundamental for children with autism, but this government’s changes to the autism program put Henrik’s growth in jeopardy. Access to consistent therapy is necessary for Henrik to build on his progress.

Parents tell me this government’s new program will steal their children’s smiles, rob their words and take away their friends. Under this government’s plan, Henrik won’t receive the 30 to 40 hours of therapy per week he has so greatly benefited from. Appropriate support is not false hope.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government forcing parents like Andrea to do more with less?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to say thank you to the member opposite for bringing Henrik’s story to the Legislative Assembly. He sounds like an amazing child, and I’m glad that you are an advocate for him.

Let’s be perfectly clear, and I hate to sound like a broken record: We have 23,000 children who are being denied support by their Ontario government today. When I assumed office six months ago, the first issue I was briefed on was the long wait-list in the autism program, as well as the fact that it was bankrupt.

I understand and I appreciate the passion from the member opposite, but I have an equal passion to ensure that every single child in Ontario who has autism has access to support from their Ontario government. That is why we are going to clear the wait-list, why we doubled the investment in diagnostic hubs, why we’ll be sending more support to northern Ontario, and why we are going to introduce and empower parents for a choice for services that they believe are best suited for their child.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary? The member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Maria Desa is a constituent of mine who has an eight-year-old son with autism. Maria has said that the government’s plan will only support her son for two months. She is a seasonal worker with no health benefits. With services being so expensive, she is thinking of selling her home just to make sure her son still receives the therapy he deserves.

She told me, “My son cannot speak out against this. He is non-verbal. I need to be his voice. This is going to be terrible for our family and others.”

Maria wants to know, why won’t this government commit to providing services for children like Maria’s son and the support they need and deserve?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much to the member from London–Fanshawe for bringing her constituent’s concerns to the floor of this assembly. I do appreciate Maria being an advocate for her child. If I held the same beliefs, I would probably be in the same boat.

But my commitment is to ensure that every single child in the province of Ontario who has autism has access to service from their Ontario government.

I don’t understand why the NDP supported the previous Liberal plan that excluded three out of four children in the province of Ontario with autism. I also don’t understand why they don’t stand up and defend those 23,000 children who are on an endless wait-list with no end in sight.

We are standing on this side of the House and part of that side of the House to ensure that every child has a fighting chance and that their parents have the support they need to provide their child with the best possible outcome.

Hospital funding

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

Speaker, just recently, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, as well as the Minister of Infrastructure, visited Hotel Dieu Shaver Health and Rehabilitation Centre in Niagara to announce a $500,000 planning grant for the proposed expansion of rehabilitation services. I’ve heard from many of my constituents who are grateful that our government is making the investments necessary to build a health care system centred around the patient.

I want to thank the ministers for their commitment to the people of Niagara, as well as the incredible staff at Hotel Dieu Shaver, such as many of the nurses who are in the Legislature today, for their great service to so many who have benefited from their care.

Can the minister please explain why these projects are so important not only for the region of Niagara, but also for the province as a whole?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to thank the member from Niagara West for his question and also for welcoming me and the Minister of Infrastructure to Niagara.

As many of us know, there is an increasing demand for rehabilitation services in Ontario. Patients want to know that the care they need will be there for them when and where they need it. That’s why I was proud to visit Niagara to announce a $500,000 planning grant for the proposed expansion project at Hotel Dieu Shaver.

Our government is determined to ensure that everyone in Ontario has access to high-quality, reliable public health care that they expect and deserve.

This is one of the many essential health care projects we are proud to be investing in as we remain committed to building a public health care system that is centred around the patient.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you, Minister, for your answer.

Speaker, after 15 years of Liberal waste, neglect and mismanagement, patients across Niagara know that they need and deserve better health care. Providing support for better facilities is vital to improving rehabilitation services for my neighbours, and I know my constituents appreciate the work of the ministers and their commitment to meeting the needs of the families in the region.

Can the minister please explain how this planning grant aims at providing the best possible care for patients in Niagara before the first shovel even goes into the ground?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I want to thank the member for Niagara West for welcoming the Deputy Premier and me to his region this month.

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure is more than steel, bricks and mortar. Infrastructure is about the people that it helps; it is the facilities like the Hotel Dieu Shaver, where people with complex care needs get better. It takes a lot of work to make sure good infrastructure is built in our province. That’s why I’m so pleased that our government for the people is investing in the early planning work for this proposed rehabilitation expansion at Hotel Dieu Shaver.

People have told us that investing in health care infrastructure is a top priority.

I’m excited to see how the development of these projects’ plans helps to expand rehabilitation options for the member’s neighbours and the people all across this region of Ontario.

Autism treatment

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

Lori, in my riding, has a daughter who is about to turn 18. She was recently diagnosed with autism and also suffers from mental health challenges, but she has been unable to get access to the support she needs. Recently, Lori’s daughter tried to take her own life, and that may have been avoided had the support been there when she needed it.

Speaker, Lori’s daughter will age out of the Special Services at Home program and the Ontario Autism Program in September, likely without ever receiving any of the care that was promised.

Can the Deputy Premier commit today to releasing those funds so this young girl comes off the wait-list and gets the help it has been proven she so desperately needs?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Good morning to the member opposite. I thank him for the question and I thank him for bringing Lori’s story to the floor of this assembly. It’s stories like hers that motivated me to clear the wait-list in the next 18 months. We feel it’s unacceptable for children to languish on an endless wait-list without any level of support from their Ontario government, which is why we’re going to ensure that those three out of four children who are being denied support right now are given the support they need.

He also talked about Special Services at Home. I would be happy to meet with the member opposite after question period to get more details with that particular program and to have my staff work with his staff to see if there’s a way that we can support her once she transitions into adulthood. That is a very important issue that we are looking at.

I’ll continue to work with the member opposite to address these issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Parkdale–High Park, supplementary?

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Parents in my riding have been contacting me, furious and frustrated that the long wait-list to receive autism treatment continues despite the minister’s claim that the wait-list will be eliminated.

One such constituent is Lorena, the mother of a wonderful little boy, Bryan. Bryan has already been on the wait-list for almost two years. Lorena called the ministry after the government’s announcement, only to learn that the wait-list is still another 18 months. Nothing’s changed.

Speaker, can the minister tell Lorena why her son is being forced to wait years for a fraction of the therapy he needs?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: What a great question. I could have written it myself, Speaker, because the entire motivation for the plan that we announced two weeks ago was to clear the wait-list for Lorena’s son. That is what we want to do. Under the previous Liberal government, that wait-list could have gone on for 18 years. That is unacceptable. It’s unconscionable. It’s unfair. It’s inequitable. I’ll tell you something else: It was unsustainable.

What we have done is we have increased our spend in this ministry from $256 million, which was budgeted, to $321 million. We’re doubling the investment into diagnostic hubs. Once children are diagnosed, they will then have an ability to be directly funded from their Ontario government.

For the first time in the history of this province, every single child who requires support from their Ontario government will receive it. I’m delighted that she can go back to Lorena and let her know that within 18 months I’ll have that list cleared—because the Liberals didn’t get it done.

Amateur sport

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Mr. Speaker, to the minister: I was pleased to hear that you travelled to Red Deer, Alberta, last week with ministers responsible for sport all across Canada to meet with the federal, provincial and territorial leaders. I also understand that the minister attended the kickoff for the Canada Games while he was there.

As we all know, sport is a very big part of Ontario. It’s ingrained in our DNA when we are born, when we’re on the trails, when we’re running, swimming, hiking or biking. As we’ve seen with many files from the previous government, many things can be improved, so I wanted to ask the minister: Can you update this House on your meeting in Red Deer?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member: I’d like to thank you for that question. It was an honour for me to attend the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Sport meeting in cold, but beautiful, Red Deer, Alberta. While I was there, I also had the chance to see Team Ontario who were there for the 2019 Canada Games, which kicked off just this past weekend. Ontario is sending a full contingent of 350 athletes, 45 coaches and 52 other support positions, including managers and technical support volunteers, from 111 different municipalities across the province.

The Canada Games are an important part of the development of young athletes here in Ontario and across the country, showcasing their tremendous skills. I would like to take this time to wish Team Ontario good luck the rest of the way and to let members and those watching at home know that you can catch the games on Canada Games’s website and TSN until March 3.

Good luck to Team Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time we have available for question period this morning.

Visitors

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to welcome Liam Warren from St. Catharines, from the francophone youth Parliament, this morning at the Legislature. Welcome, Liam.

I’d also like to welcome my fellow co-workers from the Hotel Dieu Shaver, here to make sure the expansion funding and shovels do hit the ground.

World Thinking Day

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member from Toronto–St. Paul’s on a point of order.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Since we don’t sit on Fridays, I wanted to give a special shout-out to the Girl Guides of Canada national office, located in my riding.

Each year, on February 22, Girl Guides and Girl Scouts across the world celebrate World Thinking Day. It is dedicated to the group of girls who took the lead in 1909 and demanded that Lord Baden-Powell, who formed the Boy Scouts movement, create something for the girls.

This year’s World Thinking Day theme is “Leadership.” World Thinking Day is a special day to reflect on issues that are important to girls and women around the world.

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

Visitor

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome Angela Cooper Brathwaite, who is the president of RNAO. Welcome to Queen’s Park. It’s great to see you here.

Birth of member’s child

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Todd Smith: I just want to congratulate our member from Mississauga East–Cooksville, Mr. Rasheed. He and his wife, Sofiya, had a brand new baby earlier this week: Aisha Aleena Rasheed. We welcome her to the world.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Congratulations.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Kiiwetinoong has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Indigenous Affairs concerning Cat Lake First Nation’s declaration of emergency. This matter will be debated on Tuesday at 6 p.m.

Private members’ public business

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made in the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members’ public business such that Mr. Miller, Parry Sound–Muskoka, assumes ballot item number 85 and Mr. Babikian assumes ballot item number 67.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 30, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 48,

An Act to amend various acts in relation to education and child care.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1152 to 1157.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the members to please take their seats.

On February 20, 2019, Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, moved government notice of motion number 30 relating to allocation of time on Bill 48.

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

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Fee, Amy

Fullerton, Merrilee

Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda

Ke, Vincent

Khanjin, Andrea

Kramp, Daryl

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

MacLeod, Lisa

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norman

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael

Pettapiece, Randy

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Andrew, Jill

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arthur, Ian

Begum, Doly

Bell, Jessica

Berns-McGown, Rima

Bisson, Gilles

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Coteau, Michael

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Glover, Chris

Gretzky, Lisa

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Karpoche, Bhutila

Lalonde, Marie-France

Lindo, Laura Mae

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Singh, Sara

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

Vanthof, John

Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 66; the nays are 36.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess until 1 o’clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1201 until 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome the students from Ryerson and the University of Toronto who are here with us, and others will be joining us later: Abdifatah Kilas, Zeinab Mohamed, Maryama Ahmed, Safia Abdale, Ayoub Farah, Rahmo Noor, Amino Ali, Mohamed-Najib Farah, Sahra Hashi and Umalkhair Ahmed. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Members’ Statements

International Mother Language Day

Ms. Doly Begum: It is my absolute honour and privilege to stand here today and recognize February 21, International Mother Language Day. Here in Ontario and around the world, we celebrate today to promote awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity. For all of us, language is a part of our identity, a part of our development, a part of our culture. It connects us to our roots.

While today is marked as a celebration around the world, its roots are in Bangladesh. As the first Bangladeshi Canadian elected to public office in this country, today is a day I hold close to my heart. In 1952, students took to the streets of Dhaka to protect their right to speak and preserve their mother language, facing brutal violence, where many lost their lives. We must remember their sacrifice and the sacrifice of many throughout the years to protect their mother languages.

This movement to protect language rights is also critical in our province, especially as we stand with our francophone and Indigenous communities, who continue to fight the increasing threat to their mother languages. We cannot forget the cruel legacy of regulation 17 and residential schools, tools used by our own governments to suppress mother language rights. We must recommit ourselves to true reconciliation every single day.

As we celebrate International Mother Language Day, let’s come together and build a better future, one where everyone’s mother language is protected and celebrated.

International Mother Language Day

Miss Kinga Surma: I want to thank the member opposite. We’re speaking about the same thing today.

Every year since 2000, International Mother Language Day has been observed on February 21. I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge this day for promoting linguistic and cultural diversity and multilingualism.

Many of you will recall that prior to the break I presented a motion to recognize the international languages program provided by the Toronto Catholic District School Board. I fully support the study of international languages, and I thank all of the members of the House for their support.

We know that learning languages is incredibly healthy for the brain development of young children, but it goes beyond that. Mother languages are fundamental in preserving and developing our various heritages. They provide us with an identity, communication, social integration and cultural diversity. I truly enjoyed listening to other members share their stories about languages in the House.

Languages open the doors of opportunity. They keep traditions alive, evoke memories—and my favourite is the unique modes of thinking and expression within cultures.

We must make progress in mother-tongue-based multilingual education and understand its importance, particularly in early schooling, so that we can ensure that multilingual societies exist for future generations to come.

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: It took over 10 years for the subway extension to reach York University. One would expect that the 50,000 people who work and study at the university would be delighted by the subway’s arrival, but over 17,000 are so angry that they signed a petition demanding transit improvements.

Here’s what’s wrong. GO buses and York region buses used to travel to the centre of York University but are now being diverted to the Pioneer Village and Highway 407 subway stops, which is forcing commuters to make a very unpleasant choice: They have to pay two fares where originally they paid one, or they have to walk up to three kilometres to get into the centre of York University.

I believe this is very heartless and thoughtless transit planning. It is an injustice to force transit riders, who are already paying some of the highest fares in Canada, to pay up to a thousand dollars more a year just to ride a subway stop they didn’t have to ride before. It’s an injustice to further lengthen the travel that students and workers have to have, to have even longer commutes to do that unnecessary second trip. And it is cruel to force low-income people with mobility difficulties to choose between spending money they don’t have or walking up to three kilometres on icy sidewalks.

This government likes to say that it’s York University’s fault that the buses are not going to York University campus. I have a letter from York University saying they want the buses to come back.

Please fix this issue. Bring the buses back. Bring in proper fare integration so riders don’t have to pay twice. And properly fund transit systems so that riders, including York University students and workers, can get to work affordably.

Affaires francophones

En tant que membre de l’APF, je comprends bien la valeur que les jeunes parlementaires apportent à nos communautés. J’ai été vraiment impressionnée par les questions et les idées avancées par les étudiants lorsque j’ai parlé avec eux. J’ai beaucoup de confiance en leur capacité à accomplir de grandes choses.

Je suis également fière d’annoncer que je représenterai notre province lors de mon voyage au Vietnam la semaine prochaine dans le cadre d’une délégation qui participera à une conférence sur les affaires des femmes francophones. Je souhaite utiliser mon rôle directeur pour au Réseau des femmes parlementaires à promouvoir la participation des femmes à la vie politique. Le Réseau des femmes parlementaires est un forum qui réunit des femmes de perspectives variées et de toutes les allégeances politiques du monde entier.

Cet effort international permet aux femmes des quatre coins du monde de partager leurs expériences, d’échanger des idées et de collaborer pour réaliser un meilleur équilibre entre les sexes.

Health care

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to rise today and talk about health care.

Over the winter break, I posted a video to Facebook asking for residents to tell me what they thought about the government’s leaked document about potentially privatizing parts of our health care system. The video reached over—think about this—half a million people. Thousands took the time to comment, share and engage with the video, and one thing was very clear—Mr. Ford, this message is directly from the constituents who tasked me to be their voice in this Legislature: We say no to