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

February 26, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Feb-26 vol. Array (PDF)

L147 - Wed 26 Feb 2020 / Mer 26 fév 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 26 February 2020 Mercredi 26 février 2020

Notice of reasoned amendment

Orders of the Day

Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun

Members’ Statements

Lunar New Year

Long-term care

Wildfires in Australia

Education funding

Anti-bullying initiatives

Durham Region Hospice–Clarington

Education funding

Job creation

House sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Home care

Education funding

Education funding

COVID-19

Government advertising

Children’s mental health services

Nuclear energy

Public transit

Prescription drugs

International trade

Education funding

Mental health and addiction services

Education funding

Job creation

Mental health and addiction services

Home and community care

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

Sikh Genocide Awareness Week Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la Semaine de la sensibilisation au génocide des sikhs

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Black History Month / Mois de l’histoire des Noirs

Anti-bullying initiatives / Prévention de l’intimidation

Black History Month

Anti-bullying initiatives

Black History Month

Anti-bullying initiatives

Petitions

Education funding

Access to justice

Veterans memorial

Agri-food industry

Education funding

Agri-food industry

Emergency services

Home care

Education funding

Ontario economy

Orders of the Day

Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la confiance envers les services immobiliers

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 74(b), the member for Nickel Belt has notified the Clerk of her intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 175,

An Act to amend and repeal various Acts respecting home care and community services. The order for second reading of Bill 175 may therefore not be called today.

Orders of the Day

Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 25, 2020, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 171,

An Act to enact the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 and make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 171, Loi édictant la Loi de 2020 sur la construction plus rapide de transport en commun et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to rise in this House and debate the issues of the day, and today is Bill 171, the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020.

Before I focus on the bill itself, I would like to focus on something that feeds into the transit act and that’s basically our provincial road system. It’s very important because without the roads you wouldn’t have people on transit.

Interjection.

Mr. John Vanthof: We could use more connecting links in Ontario too, the former Minister of Transportation reminded me of that; the connecting links are very important in rural Ontario.

But I would like to just mention that often in my riding—

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Snow clearing.

Mr. John Vanthof: —snow clearing is also very important. The heckling from the government is helping me with my notes. I don’t pretend to be an expert on urban transit, but I’m an expert on getting to urban transit.

There is one

section of highway that many people use in our part of the province. It’s called the Field cut-off—Highway 64 from Highway 11 to Verner. It used to be that the biggest danger on Highway 64 was moose. Now, the biggest danger on Highway 64—and I kid you not, Speaker—is potholes. I think the potholes are bigger than the moose. That’s why I’m raising it in the Legislature. It is truly a safety hazard. What’s happening is, there’s a lot of truck traffic on Highway 64 that doesn’t get picked up at any scale—a lot of it. It’s called the Field cut-off for a reason.

So I’m urging, as I have this opportunity to speak—and I don’t have the opportunity to speak very often—that we should look into doing something on highway—

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Are they avoiding—

Mr. John Vanthof: No, for the trucks coming from Rouyn to Sudbury—

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

Mr. John Vanthof: And thank you to the former minister for giving me some—

Interjection.

Mr. John Vanthof: They’re not avoiding anything. It’s the shortest route from Rouyn to Sudbury. There’s a lot more truck traffic on 64, I think, than people realize. It’s treated as a secondary highway; it’s a major transportation route. We’re going to lose small cars in it soon. I kid you not. I’m just putting that on the record.

But the purpose of the bill today: The Ford government, the Progressive Conservative government, wants to build transit faster.

I’m not from the city, Speaker. I live in the city six months a year, since 2011, because of this job.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Because of the people.

Mr. John Vanthof: Eh, because of this job. Some of the people, like the minister who heckled me across the way, I could live without. No, actually, we’re pretty good friends.

I have come to realize, in my part of the world, quite frankly, many don’t understand the amount of people here that need to be moved. Urban transit is a necessity. As an Ontarian, I am very in favour of increased urban transit. This city and the cities around it need urban transit.

I am not the biggest user. Actually, the first subway I ever used—I think I’ve used the subway in Toronto maybe five times.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: And you don’t have Presto.

Mr. John Vanthof: And I don’t have a Presto card. But the first subway I ever used was the subway in Paris. The subway in Paris is incredibly interesting for a layperson because the way it’s set up—Toronto couldn’t do this, and I’m not saying they should. Because Paris has so many very famous—like the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, those things. You can get on the subway and want to go to the Eiffel Tower, and you can just see that you can go from the Eiffel Tower to the Arc de Triomphe to Napoleon’s tomb. So every time you get out of the subway, you’re—whoa. It’s an incredible experience.

I recommend it to anyone. It’s an easier system to navigate than ours. I’m just saying that from a layperson’s perspective.

The one thing that wasn’t easy to navigate—we took the train to Versailles. We had a kind of pass for the subway. We thought that the pass probably wouldn’t work to Versailles, because that’s quite a ways out, but it really wasn’t clearly laid out. Luckily, we found the ticket counter, and we paid extra. This was years ago. My wife and I were on the train to Versailles, and there was a British couple behind us who obviously didn’t find the ticket counter. Halfway to Versailles, the conductor went by for the tickets. Here, if you don’t have a ticket, they usually allow you to pay.

At that point, they were ejected off the train. It was not, “Welcome to France.” I was quite shocked, and I hope that never happens here. It was a jarring experience.

But getting back to the bill: I think everyone in this House is in favour of improved transit, of more transit, of quicker transit. The problem with the bill—the purpose of the bill is quicker, faster, more, but many of the things in the bill—the government is removing checks and balances. I know this government isn’t a fan of regulation—no one’s a fan of regulation—but checks and balances are what protect our system.

An issue that’s facing the Ministry of Transportation right now, for example—it’s a big safety issue—is licence plates. I’m not trying to make a joke with this, but there obviously were no checks and balances on the licence plate issue. I read in the media that the whole cabinet was in favour, so I don’t know if you passed the plate around and all went “yay”—

Hon. Jeff Yurek: We made them.

Mr. John Vanthof: Maybe if you had made them they might—but maybe you all went “yay,” and perhaps some of you were thinking, “I wonder if anybody has actually shone a light bulb on these things.” But where were the checks and balances?

What makes this bill so galling, in a way, is that this government has failed to implement checks and balances on something as simple as creating a new licence plate—which really didn’t need to be created. There is total failure of the checks and balances to have a licence plate that can be seen with light on it—total failure; capital F.

Now you’re saying, “We’re going to build this faster, and we don’t need checks and balances. We can just expropriate. No right of appeal, because we have all the answers.” You know what’s going to happen, guys—people. Sorry; fellow colleagues. What’s going to happen is the licence plates are going to be the least of your worries—because the reason you need good regulation and the reason you need proper planning is to make sure that things actually work when you start building them.

There is an old saying in carpentry—now, I don’t pretend to be the greatest carpenter. Like, nine fingers; I’m not the greatest carpenter, but “measure twice and cut once.” I have a fear that in your hurry to get this done, in your hurry to rip up plans that were already there, because they had something to do with the previous government—who had a lot of problems; I’m not saying they didn’t—you’re prepared to cut three or four times and then go, “Oh, wait a second. Perhaps we should measure,” and that’s actually going to slow the construction process down. It’s actually going to cost a lot more money. Due diligence is very important here—very important.

The reason I’m focusing on something like the licence plates is that it was so simple, and it became so complicated simply because the process wasn’t in place to make sure it was done right. And here, you’re potentially creating this, times a billion, times multiple billion dollars. The licence plates can be fixed—we all know that—but there could be things that happen here that might not be fixed. In that, take heed.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I appreciate listening to the member opposite on that question. I don’t agree with his comments that there’s going to be stuff missed through the process with what this government is doing if this legislation passes actually streamlining the process. I think the member opposite would be the first to be jumping up and down yelling and screaming at us if these projects were delayed. We’re seeing that with their caucus now.

They can’t have it both ways. They can’t complain about how it’s always delaying the process and we’re always falling behind and paying extra, but when the government moves to prevent that from happening—the first government in the history of Ontario that’s actually making the changes necessary to make sure this happens—they’re upset about that change too. I don’t know what they want. I know they’re going to be in opposition in perpetuity—but let’s get these projects built.

Can the minister tell me: What would you like, delayed projects or projects delivered on time? Please let us know.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I return back to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane for response.

Mr. John Vanthof: I appreciate that the minister referred to me as a minister; I’m working on that, but we haven’t really got that far yet.

Our goal as opposition is to have projects done right and done on time, and when criticism needs to be given, we will do so.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions?

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I want to thank the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane for his words. We just heard the minister say they want to fast-track to build transit, but something that’s always missing is—they forget the north. I’d like to hear from him how this government could improve or fix transit or transportation up north.

Mr. John Vanthof: I think that’s known as a friendly question—

Hon. Bill Walker: Lob ball.

Mr. John Vanthof: —which the government is used to, because they do that to themselves all the time.

We don’t have a lot of transit in the north. One thing that would link the north to the urban transit system—and we have committed to do it, as the government. We’re hoping that in the next budget there will be a chunk of money set aside to bring passenger rail back to northern Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Niagara West for a question.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: The member opposite gave a very interesting speech. Often, the NDP criticize any actions that the government takes and seem to find fault with them no matter where we’re going with things.

I just want to pose a question to the member opposite. I know that he wants to see faster transit built, as well, and that he wants to see transit built fast and safely. What would he do, if he was in government right now, to make sure that those timelines we want to see enacted are met without making the changes that are being brought forward in this legislation?

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you very much to the member across the way.

One thing we wouldn’t do is rip up a planning process that has been in the works for years, environmental assessments that have already been approved. We would perhaps use what’s already there.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is really on the same line of the kind of waste that we see from this government, despite them talking about being fiscally responsible. In my riding of Hamilton, we have had planning that was 10 years in the making—approvals were in place, property has been expropriated. We’re talking about penalties in the hundreds of millions of dollars, with no real evidence from the government as to why they’re doing that. Can you speak a little more about not only the costs when good plans are ripped up on the whim of the government, but also about the impact that it has on people’s trust and reliance that this government knows what they’re doing.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to thank the member for that question.

The Hamilton issue is a very good example. I believe a billion dollars was committed by the government, and then the government backtracked and cancelled and said, “The costs are going to be much higher than anticipated,” which is an answer. But when the opposition did their job and asked for the numbers behind that, the explanation behind the cost, that was not forthcoming. The answer was, “Trust us.” Well, we don’t. To make a decision based on relevant information is credible. If you make a credible decision, you should have no problem showing us the information on which that decision was based.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Hon. Bill Walker: I’d like to commend the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, who brought in one of the most ambitious transportation plans in history for our province.

The member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay was talking about northern Ontario. I think he should ask the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane why he supported the budgets of the Liberals each year he was here and all the damage they did to northern Ontario, and particularly our First Nations communities.

The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane—who I quite enjoy; he is a good guy—was talking a fair bit in his remarks about some of the fallacies of us in power. I’d like to ask him how they missed a minor little thing like $7 billion in their election platform, and yet he can criticize us about trying to move transit. At the end of the day, Timiskaming–Cochrane, my good friend, can you just tell me about the small little thing that you overlooked? And maybe ask your leader in question period one of those lob questions today.

Mr. John Vanthof: I quite enjoyed that line of questioning.

A person who is very near and dear to me, the Minister of Agriculture, once told me, when I asked him why the government never answered questions during question period: “John, you have to realize that this is question period, not answer period.”

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, so that’s what you’re doing now. You’re not going to answer that.

Mr. John Vanthof: I learned from the best.

But getting back to what the minister is trying to do, because I did focus on—I used an example of something very simple that could go wrong and that, when you’re dealing with something very complex, how that could be amplified. He asked something about complex issues, and I return with: With all the smart people there, how did you get the licence plate wrong?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I appreciated the remarks from my colleague the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane. I heard him reference the licence plate debacle in his remarks, and also just now in his response to that question. I wanted to hear more about his thoughts as to whether the government’s mismanagement of the licence plate fiasco inspires confidence in this government’s ability to undertake the transit planning that is outlined in this bill.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you for that question.

Specifically, on public confidence on something as simple as the licence plate issue: If you will recall, when that issue first came up, the government’s first response was to deny—“there’s no issue”—even though people couldn’t see the plate. The second response was: “Even though it doesn’t work, it’s still much better than the previous government’s plate.” Up until that point, I didn’t know that licence plates were a partisan issue. I really didn’t know. Because if I recall, the original plates were white and blue. Am I wrong?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: You’re right.

Mr. John Vanthof: Right, white and blue—so more blue. And then the party of business, supposedly, what they do then is throw this company under the bus. They throw 3M under the bus, saying that it’s 3M’s fault. Well, 3M built what the government wanted. You can’t claim to be—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Time has expired.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): You’re welcome.

Unfortunately, we don’t have enough time for questions and comments. Therefore, further debate.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: As always, it’s a real privilege to be able to stand in this House on behalf of the good people of Niagara West and speak to legislation that comes before this chamber. Today, I have the great privilege of speaking about the Building Transit Faster Act, and making sure that we’re able to get things done here in the province of Ontario.

I represent a mixed riding, one that’s always a little difficult to describe. I tell people that it’s mixed rural and urban. It’s not truly suburban, it’s not truly urban, but it’s also not truly rural. We do have five municipalities with quite dense urban cores in some of the areas. I’m sure many of you have had the chance—I know many of my colleagues over the weekend had to visit Niagara Falls, and as you drove through the Niagara region, you would have passed by Grimsby.

Of course, we’re seeing construction there now at an unprecedented level: 18-storey towers are going up in Grimsby along the waterfront, across from where the GO train will be going. We’re seeing incredible growth in Beamsville as well, which is an area with a significant amount of new people moving in. I believe we had over $200 million in building starts, new construction starts, last year in the area.

The reason this matters, Speaker, is that as we all know, Toronto once upon a time was also a little town—a little farming village, in fact. The town of York didn’t have a lot of transit to its name back in the day. It was, of course, very muddy. It was considered to be a bit of a provincial town, in the pejorative sense. The reason I say that is because the consequences of our actions in legislation such as this today are far-reaching and consequential for generations in the future.

I had the privilege as I was planning this speech this morning of looking at some of the other historic routes not just across North America, but across the world. Some of these, obviously, have had a great history, going back to the 19th century for subway systems in Europe in portions; for example, the London Underground.

But I want to just provide a few statistics for the sake of this House and understand a little bit of context for why this is such important legislation, and why we need to move forward and get transit built. Speaker, there are more than 150 metro systems across the globe. The top 10 largest systems by number of stations include: New York City with 468 stations; the Shanghai metro with 337 stations; the Beijing subway with 319 stations; the Seoul subway, 311; the Paris metro, 303 stations; the Madrid metro, 300; the London Underground, 270 stations—the list goes on, but the sad

part is where we see the city of Toronto, with 75 stations.

I want to go by length of track, because we know, as well, that stations don’t mean everything. You can build a lot of stations on a very short line; that wouldn’t be the only metric.

The top 10 largest metro stations and systems by length of track include the Shanghai metro at 548 kilometres; the Beijing subway at 527 kilometres; the London Underground at 402 kilometres; the New York City subway at 373 kilometres; Seoul at 332; Moscow, 328; Madrid, 394—the numbers go on, Speaker, but the number again that I find concerning as someone who has the great privilege of serving in this city at Queen’s Park as the elected representative for Niagara West being sent here is that there are, in fact, only 77 kilometres in the subway of Toronto.

The reason this matters is that in our plan, we plan on expanding by over 30 kilometres of additional subway lines. That’s a significant amount of construction, something we haven’t seen in decades here in this city, something that matters.

Again, to go back to my earlier comment about the growth happening in Niagara, Beamsville and Grimsby, including up the mountain in Smithville, where I live, where we’re seeing urban expansion, as well as towers now moving in: These sorts of infrastructure projects don’t just matter for us today. It’s about generations going into the future and making sure that as we look and move towards a carbon-neutral economy, as we move towards more sustainable forms of transportation, ones that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that we have the services in place to make sure we’re able to reach those targets. I know that’s something that matters a great deal for people here in this House.

As you know, our government also made historic announcements with regard to the GO train. Prior to taking office, the GO train went into Niagara approximately a few times a week. We saw on the weekends that there was at first just weekend service in the summer, but what then happened under the watch of our Minister of Transportation—and I want to give a shout-out to those who have served as Ministers of Transportation, including the current Minister of the Environment, who came down to Niagara and announced four years ahead of

schedule that the GO train was going every single day, once in the morning, once in the evening, in and out of Niagara. It’s an absolutely incredible boost for the ridership and the regional interconnectivity of our transit systems in the Niagara region. That’s just one step in the puzzle.

Of course, now in my local riding, people are starting to have conversations about busing. They’re starting to have conversations about the need to build transit connected to that GO network, which, as we saw recently this fall, is now also expanded to weekdays, so every single day of the year we have trains going in and out of Niagara—except for right now, of course, due to unfortunate situations with the illegal blockades.

That being said, the reason this type of legislation matters is that for far too long we’ve played catch-up. For far too long, we’ve played the role as government—not this government, but as a government in Ontario—that has said, “Transit matters, but we’ll do it next decade. Transit matters, but we’ll do it after this subject.” Speaker, that time is over.

This is now a government that not only speaks the words of commitment to building transit and not only provides the funding for building that transit, but takes the actions to remove the regulatory burdens and cost barriers that drive up not only the time of building subways and building transit, but also the associated costs that go along with that time. For we know time is money, in particular when it comes to construction. This legislation really guarantees that we’re able to move forward with the priority projects that we’ve talked about, including the Ontario Line and expansions across the GTA.

This is really only the beginning, Speaker, because as we see this growth—as we saw Toronto, Muddy York, turn into a global, metropolitan city—we need to ensure that infrastructure exists. But as we see other cities growing in this province, including of course neighbouring municipalities, but also moving down into the Niagara region, that growth that is now being sustained there means we need to think proactively about what sort of measures need to be in place to remove those regulatory burdens that currently stop the construction of meaningful transit projects.

I’m not too worried about having a subway in west Niagara any time soon. I don’t think that’s something that I’ll likely see in my lifetime. I frankly hope we don’t. I hope that we retain much of our small-town agricultural feel. But we are moving towards a more integrated transit system when it comes to buses and when it comes to innovative models of transportation. Our municipalities are working together in very remarkable ways.

But the reason I bring that up is because for far too long we have seen politicians and governments, including the members in opposition, pledge lip service to actions such as becoming carbon-free or carbon-neutral without taking the necessary steps. This is the conundrum I see on this side of the House when we look at not only the opposition but parties in the past, including the former Wynne Liberals, who claimed to want to increase public transit. All they did was address the demand side of the equation.

All they did was focus on trying to encourage more people to get onto the trains or onto the buses or onto the subways—the demand side of the equation—but they didn’t actually look at the supply side, which ensures that there’s adequate access to the places people need to go through transit.

That’s of course the work that our excellent Minister of Transportation as well as her parliamentary assistant are now bringing forward with this legislation. It’s a key enabling piece to that proposition of a truly world-class transportation system, including a subway system that we can be proud of and that will be here not just for today, but for future generations, for those who come after us.

Before I end, I want to include in the record a quote from the Toronto Region Board of Trade:

“Construire plus rapidement les transports en commun est une priorité essentielle, non seulement pour les entreprises mais aussi pour les résidents. Il est essentiel de lever les obstacles inutiles pour garantir que les principaux projets de transport en commun soient réalisés dans les délais et dans le respect du budget.”

These types of endorsements, Speaker, matter.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Questions?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thanks to the member from Niagara West.

I think that it needs to be perfectly clear that we understand the need to build transit in this province. We understand that, again, from the point of view of Hamilton, where we’ve lost the LRT. This government callously cut the LRT plan. We’re disappointed. So I want to make sure we understand that we are very, very committed to this.

But this bill, Bill 171, isn’t just streamlining the process; it’s steamrolling the process. As we’ve seen before with this government, you take these bills and give the government and the government’s friends and the government’s connections inordinate powers, beyond what should be considered due process.

I wonder if the member could explain to me why it’s deemed necessary that the minister is given unilateral power to enter people’s properties and that they have been given unilateral power to expropriate properties without a hearing and, in effect, give that power to Metrolinx.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Niagara West for response.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I want to thank the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for the questioning with regard to particular aspects of this legislation. I will get to her point in a moment.

One of the key pieces I want to mention, though, is that she talked about the LRT. The reality is—I know they don’t like to talk about it—they’re still getting a billion dollars in Hamilton. They’re still getting the billion dollars that we committed to.

The reality is, we’re not going to put their taxpayers on the hook for north of $3 billion, if not more from numbers that I have heard—with regard to that cost on the backs of the taxpayers, including those who can’t afford that. That is really why we’re moving forward with these types of actions in areas that are important.

But I want to say, whether it is a property owner or a municipality, our first and preferred approach is always negotiation and partnership—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Further questions?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I listened intently to the remarks from my colleague the member for Niagara West. Like him, I’m also not a member who is actually from Toronto or the GTA. I hail all the way from lovely Ottawa West–Nepean. And while we in Ottawa like to tease Toronto occasionally—tease them for being the only NHL team to have lost to a Zamboni driver—we do also love and appreciate Toronto, and we recognize how critically important this city is to our provincial economy. I’m always stunned to read that Toronto is now the fourth-largest city in North America. That’s an impressive statistic for all of us to know.

As I live in Toronto now, I get the chance to use the subway, and I recognize the importance of getting that built.

I’m curious if the member for Niagara West can elaborate on just how important this bill is not just for the GTA, but for all of Ontario and all of our communities?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Absolutely. Thank you so much to the member for Ottawa West–Nepean for his contribution and for the question.

I think the numbers speak for themselves. I went into a bit of a background earlier in my address with regard to some of the lengths of kilometres on different tracks as well as the various stations, but I think it’s very important to also talk about the ridership. These are people who are not driving vehicles in that situation, they’re not emitting more carbon—as well as the fact that the convenience and the affordability disproportionately help those with low income and who might be less privileged in our society.

Thank you to the member.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I find it interesting that the member from Niagara West is assuring the people of Hamilton that we’ll be getting a billion dollars, but we are not getting a higher-order transit system. Apparently, we’re going to get a billion dollars, but we’re just going to have to trust this government, because that decision is being made in private, behind closed doors, by a group of people that was appointed by the government. This proves my point exactly. This is a government that takes power to themselves, makes decisions in private, and doesn’t consult with the community.

Again, my question would be, what does this member have to say to a business owner when, if their property is expropriated by Metrolinx, by the province, they have lost the right to compensation if they hinder or obstruct or interfere? How in any way is that business-friendly?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I know what I can tell the member opposite and I know what I can tell the people of Hamilton they’re going get: They’re getting reduced taxes. They’re not going to be put on the bill for $7 billion, $8 billion worth of tax increases on their property rate.

We’re seeing that they’re going to have more money in their pocket with measures such as the low-income family tax credit to make sure that it’s easier for them and their families to get ahead. We’re seeing moves on the relief from child care expenses tax credit.

As we approach tax season, I know the people not just in Niagara West, but the people in Hamilton, right next door, are going to be taking advantage of these initiatives to make it easier for them and their families to get ahead.

I want to address the specifics of the question and assure the member opposite that for an obstruction removal, the legislation requires that notice be provided in writing and include the following information:

—the work to be carried out;

—the date by which the work must be completed;

—that the owner shall be negotiated with in good faith to further the work;

—that if agreement has not been reached during the period ending on the day that is 30 days after the day that the notice was served, the minister may carry out an obstruction removal;

—the entitlement to compensation—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Further questions?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’d like to thank the member from Niagara West as well as the minister and the associate minister for working on Bill 171.

As we all know, gridlock costs the greater Toronto area $6 billion a year and is projected to hit $15 billion within the next decade.

This bill gets transit projects moving faster.

My constituents in Mississauga–Lakeshore really appreciate this bill. Can the member tell us what his constituents are saying about Bill 171?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Niagara West for a response.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I want to thank the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore for his question and, of course, his advocacy on behalf of the people of Mississauga and the greater Peel region. You do fantastic work, and it’s a privilege to be in this House alongside you.

To the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore: What I’m hearing from my constituents is similar to what I’m sure you’re hearing. The reality is, many of our constituents have experienced the frustration of snarled congestion in the GTA. They have seen how difficult it can be to get from Niagara to Oshawa, or Mississauga to Oshawa. Any of these types of commutes become that much more difficult as we see tens of thousands more cars on the road every single year. Unfortunately, under the former government, we never saw investments in it.

So they’re very pleased to see this that government is taking it seriously, that we’re moving towards resolving some of the issues stopping subways from getting built, and they want to see other transit projects move forward expeditiously, as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: This bill is not streamlining a process; it is steamrolling a process over the rights of individuals, over the rights of businesses, over communities, not to mention the environment. This is a bill that does not even take into serious consideration the environmental assessment impacts of this project.

But most disturbing of all is the immunity, the excessive powers, that this government is giving to Metrolinx. Right now, in public accounts, we’re considering the Auditor General’s report that’s looking at the political meddling that took place under the previous government with Metrolinx.

So my question is very simple: When Metrolinx has already shown itself to be not immune from political meddling, when it is a P3 system of building transit that is being shown to be the most expensive way to build transit, why is this government giving all the powers, the keys to the castle, to Metrolinx?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Niagara West for a response.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you, again, to the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for her question. I appreciate the chance for some dialogue this morning with regard to my address on the Building Transit Faster Act.

I want to be very clear to those listening, those who may have heard the member’s question. Her assertion that our government is not taking seriously the environmental concerns associated with building transit projects is invalid. The reality is, we are taking those concerns very seriously, but we’re saying, let’s be reasonable when it come to the timelines associated with that. It doesn’t mean that you’re not protecting the environment or that you’re doing anything harmful if you’re—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s an honour to stand up here today and talk about Bill 171. I have a number of concerns. I think the general intention of the bill, to build transit in this city, is absolutely right. We absolutely need more transit built in this city. The problem with this bill is, it’s going to be done through a P3, which will cost us a lot more money and download costs onto future generations. It runs roughshod over the rights of municipalities and individuals and communities. It runs roughshod over the environmental assessment process. And it doesn’t measure community impacts. Ultimately, this act will not build transit faster.

I’m actually here today because of Mike Harris. When Mike Harris was in power, my kids were in elementary school. He kept making cut after cut to schools. I was so frustrated I joined a group called the Toronto Parent Network, and we organized press conferences to raise awareness of what was happening in schools. We organized protests out on the steps of Queen’s Park to protest against the cuts to schools.

Just one example of some of those cuts: the maintenance backlog in the schools in Ontario was $6 billion when the former Conservatives were booted out of power—that was increased to $16 billion by the Liberals—so I was always frustrated with Mike Harris’s approach to education and his lack of funding for education.

As a resident of Toronto for the last 40 years, the other thing that I really hated about the Harris government was their decision to cancel the Eglinton subway. The NDP had already started building a subway line on Eglinton Avenue, and the Conservatives spent $10 million filling in the hole. They spent $10 million just filling in the hole so that the subway wouldn’t get built. And the reason that I’m so frustrated with the Conservative government’s decision to cancel this Eglinton subway at the time is that transit—because the traffic gridlock in this city costs us $6 billion a year—

Hon. Jeff Yurek: We’re trying to fix it with this bill.

Mr. Chris Glover: I don’t think you’re going to fix this. If you were going to fix this, and if I had confidence in this government in fixing the traffic gridlock—I’ll just give you a brief example of how bad the traffic gridlock is in this city. I was taking my kids to the CNE. I was driving to the CNE—my daughter, her friend and my son. I wanted to turn left on King Street—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please. I’m having difficulty hearing the speaker from Spadina–Fort York. I would ask that the members keep their comments to a very, very dull roar. There will be an opportunity for questions and for responses. At that time, if you do have a concern, you will have an opportunity to ask the member. But until then, I would like to be able to hear the member speak, and so therefore I would ask that we remain parliamentary in our approach to debate.

Now I turn it back to the member from Spadina–Fort York to continue.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

So we’re driving to the CNE, and I wanted to turn left on King Street. I wasn’t able to turn left on King Street; I couldn’t get over. So I thought, okay, I’ll just go up around the block: three rights and make a left when you’re driving, right? It took an hour and 15 minutes to get around the block. At one point, my daughter and her friend got out of the car, walked up to Tim Hortons, got some coffee and doughnuts for us and brought them back. We drank them and ate them in the car while we were still waiting to get around the block. That’s how bad the traffic gridlock is in this city.

I was a school board trustee with the TDSB before this, and for every construction project that the TDSB has in this city they have to pay a premium on the construction cost because of the time delays for trucks getting to and from the construction site. That’s just the TDSB; that’s just one entity within the city.

So does transit need to be built? Absolutely. But if you’re going to spend $29 billion on transit, you better do it in the best way and you better have the best plan. What I have not seen from this government is a cost-benefit analysis of their plan versus any other plan, and that’s absolutely essential. If you’re going to invest $29 billion of taxpayer money into a transit plan, you should be able to say, “Well, look, the reason we’re building this particular plan versus any other is that this will move the most people for the least cost.” I have yet to see that from this government.

The other transit plan that was cancelled by the Conservatives: When the Fords were in power at the city, the first thing they did was to cancel the Transit City plan. If they had let that go ahead, Scarborough would have a seven-stop LRT functioning right now. Instead, 10 years later, they still have nothing. There is this plan for at some point in the future to have a three-stop subway to replace the current five-stop LRT. For that $5 billion—this is why I would like to see that cost-benefit analysis—you could build a 24-stop LRT in Scarborough. But because the Fords, when they were at the city, cancelled the Transit City plan, Scarborough is waiting an extra 20 years to have transit.

The other thing I want to mention about the reason that it’s so important to build transit is that there is an estimate by HDR Decision Economics that says there is a 12.5% return on investment in transit. But it has to be the right transit, and it has to be provided in the right way and financed in the right way. One of the concerns about this current plan is that it’s going to be financed through a public-private partnership. The Attorney General has said that public-private partnerships cost an additional 28% over the—

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Auditor.

Mr. Chris Glover: The Auditor General. Thank you. I thank the government for correcting me there.

The Auditor General has reported that it would cost an extra 28% to build any infrastructure through a public-private partnership, as opposed to just financing it directly. What the public-private partnership allows you to do—or this government to do—is to hide the costs and pass them on to future generations, but it gives the public far less control of what is built, when it’s built and how it operates. We’ve seen an absolute disaster with the public-private partnership transit project in Ottawa. P3s, public-private partnerships, cost more and deliver less.

The other concern about this bill is that it runs roughshod over the rights of municipalities and individuals. This is a deep concern. The government is taking the power upon themselves to expropriate property and to go on to property without due process. They are eliminating that due process. That is a real concern for the municipalities, it’s a concern for the utility companies and it’s a concern for individuals.

This bill and the government’s intentions do not measure the impact that this will have on communities. I’m deeply concerned about that because the zero track, which is a track on the east side of Union Station, is to be built within 15 metres of some of the residences in my riding. When this was being planned, it was originally planned as GO Transit—GO train—but it’s been cancelled and now it’s going to be coming back. But with this bill, you won’t have to compensate the communities for the construction. You won’t have to compensate the communities for the impact on their lives.

The final thing I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this process runs roughshod over the environment. It changes the environmental assessment process so that companies can start construction while the environmental assessment is still being done. It makes a mockery of the environmental assessment process.

A draft proposal outlines a new project-specific, streamlined environmental assessment process for the Ontario Line that would allow Metrolinx to proceed with early works before the EA for the overall project is completed. Early works would still be subject to their own assessment processes, like mini environmental assessments, within the larger environmental assessment. But these early works, what the construction company will be able to start without the environmental assessment, are not defined. So, basically, the environmental assessment process is completely null and void. It loses all of its meaning.

The final thing I would like to say is, will the community impacts even be studied? This is a question to the government: Will the community impacts even be studied as part of this process?

My concern with this bill is that it’s not streamlining the process; it’s steamrolling the process. It’s creating red tape for municipalities and for utilities. We need collaborative planning with municipalities, with communities, in order to build better transit. This will not build transit faster.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Time for questions.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: It’s been interesting listening to the member opposite speaking about the plans to get transit built faster in the GTA. As we know, the best prediction of future behaviour is past behaviour. I have to say to the member opposite representing the party that the one time that they were in government, back in 1994, they sold the entire rolling stock of GO Transit to a holding company in Bermuda, owned by a US bank. The one-time revenue of $425 million reduced the deficit heading into the 1995 election, but 12 years later we had to buy back the whole GO Transit from this company.

Could the member explain why anyone should take them seriously when the one time they were in government they mismanaged everything?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Response?

Mr. Chris Glover: That’s an interesting question you’re asking. You’re asking why we would sell GO Transit to a private operator, and that’s exactly what this government is doing. They have got a request for proposal out to privatize the entire GO Transit operating, the expansion of GO Transit and the maintenance of GO Transit. Why would you be privatizing GO Transit when you’re criticizing the NDP for selling off or privatizing a small portion of it 25 years ago?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Spadina–Fort York for his comments. Just drawing upon what the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore said in talking about indicators of future behaviour, the member from Spadina–Fort York quite rightly mentioned the billion dollars Mike Harris stripped from the education system and how dividing administrators against educators has really caused a rift that has never healed. We all know what Snobelen had to say about creating a crisis in education.

My question is, why does this government prefer using P3 models, public-private partnerships such as the one found in Bill 171?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: There is no responsible economist who would say they should be doing a P3, that this government should finance the expansion of transit through a P3, because the private companies that will be borrowing money to build the transit have to pay a higher interest rate than the government would have to pay. Ultimately, those costs will be downloaded on to taxpayers and future taxpayers who will have to pay for that. That’s why the Auditor General has said that it costs 28% extra to build public infrastructure through a P3 rather than through the government directly doing it themselves.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. David Piccini: I just wanted to briefly comment on this, just to address my colleague’s comment about past behaviour.

I think it’s important to look at the last year. I know, being from a rural riding just east of Toronto, that over the past year we’ve seen an increase in GO Transit by 25%, drastically improving commuting for residents in Northumberland–Peterborough South, specifically on the Clarington portion. That’s been huge for our riding.

Specifically, the Ontario Line here—getting this done faster benefits folks in my riding of rural Ontario, too, who are trying to get in for a ball game. People are trying to get in and through the GTA.

It’s Dairy Farmers of Ontario day today. I know farmers go through the GTA a lot to get their products to market, to get to the food terminal in Etobicoke. I know when we’re taking people off the roads and getting them on to public transit faster, it’s better for folks in rural Ontario and my riding as well.

Secondly, on P3s, it’s not surprising to see the NDP is unaware that already 80% of the network is private, but they’d be against it because they’ve never met a project where they wouldn’t dip deeper and deeper into the public troughs for more and more money. These are innovative partnerships, and it’s better for the taxpayer.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: I don’t quite understand the question. You’re saying we would dig deeper and deeper into the public trough, but that’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re making taxpayers pay a 28% premium on the cost of this transit expansion by having it financed through a P3 rather than if you did it directly as the government. I don’t quite understand the question.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Under Bill 171, the minister claims vast new powers to resolve disputes over expropriation, corridor management, road closures and many more things.

I’d like to ask the member from Spadina–Fort York, through you, Speaker: In your opinion, do you think this sets the government up as a nanny state?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s deeply concerning the way this government completely disrespects the democratic and property rights of the people of this province, and I’ll give you an example. Last year, in the summer of 2018, the government unilaterally decided to change the rules of Toronto’s municipal election in the middle of the election campaign. Then, when they were initially turned down by the courts, who said that wasn’t allowed, they brought in the “notwithstanding” clause. They threatened to withhold the constitutional rights of the people of this province to get their way.

So when I see what they’re doing with this bill in overriding the municipal and property rights of the people of this province, it’s not something that they haven’t done in the past; it’s something that they continue to do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks for delivering your speech today in debate. We don’t really agree on that. You’re making mentions of previous Premiers; you only have to look back to the one time NDP served in office here—Premier Bob Rae, who ran out of the people’s money halfway through his mandate. He even shut down the Legislature for over a year because he had no money to budget for it. He even went forth with his social contract, which caused people to work for free or stay at home and not get paid, costing them wages. Do you know why? It’s because they didn’t have a financial plan.

It’s interesting. The member is talking about costs here,

whereas in health care he wants to double spending. In education he wants to triple spending. No offence to that—I’d love to do that too—but you have to do it under a fiscal plan that moves forward. You don’t have a plan.

This is the party that voted against the Northlander in northern Ontario, this is the party that’s against our southwestern transportation plan, and now this is the party against the Toronto expansion of subways. Why are you against transit expansion in this province?

Mr. Chris Glover: We are absolutely for transit expansion in this province, because it’s absolutely necessary. It’s necessary for people, for convenience, and it’s also necessary for the growth of our economy.

But if you want to talk about previous records, the other thing is that this government is just stuck in this ideological mindset where privatization—you think it’s going to create better outcomes, but it creates disastrous outcomes. When you talk about the previous Conservative government, when they privatized water treatment, seven people died in Walkerton and 2,500 were poisoned. When you privatized, when you sold off the 407 to a Spanish conglomerate for a hundred-year contract there—we are continuing to pay the cost of that 407. The Conservatives sold it for $3 billion; it’s now worth $33 billion. So privatization is not the solution.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: To the member from Spadina–Fort York, through you, Speaker: We hear this government drone on about their municipal partners, yet you quite rightly said how we saw this government meddle in municipal elections, going nuclear with the “notwithstanding” clause. Why do this government’s words not match their actions when it comes to dealing with municipalities?

Mr. Chris Glover: I can’t speak to the actions of this government, but the other action they took was that they were going to upload or take control of the Toronto subway. The quote from the bill that they had was to do it “with or without compensation,” so they were going to take control of all of the property of the Toronto subway system with or without compensation, in complete defiance of the property rights of the municipality and the taxpayers of Toronto who actually paid for that subway system.

So I have no idea. I cannot answer for this government. I disagree with the approach that they’re taking. I agree that we do need transit, but not through a P3 and not without environmental assessments or without respect for the rights of municipalities or individuals.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions? I recognize the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, and we have very short time.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Okay. Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to join debate today.

What I can’t understand about the NDP is that they’re never happy. I wonder, from the member opposite, why they cannot just get behind what every level of government in the province is getting behind, which is this particular project. I think, Speaker, that we have a tremendous opportunity, and as Minister of Tourism, I want to know: Why do they want to continue to have bottlenecks in the city of Toronto, our largest city in the province?

Mr. Chris Glover: We absolutely need to get transit built in this city. I gave the example of the gridlock in this city, and that it costs $6 billion a year—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. The time for speed dating—sorry, I mean speed debating is over.

Now I turn it over to the member from Whitby for further debate.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thank you, Speaker. I’m happy this morning to talk about our proposed legislation, the Building Transit Faster Act, and how it will get people moving in the greater Toronto area, including Whitby.

In the discussions I’ve had with constituents in Whitby, it’s no secret that transportation has been neglected throughout our province. What is also clear is that investment hasn’t kept up with demand and, as a result, there is gridlock, aging infrastructure and overcrowded, outdated transit systems. From Ottawa to Windsor to Kenora, it simply takes people too long to get around, and that’s why our government is making transportation a priority, as it should. We have a plan that will make it easier for people to get around no matter where they live.

Right across Ontario, we are investing in infrastructure to fight congestion, connect people to communities and jobs, and spur economic activities. Whether it’s adding bus service to connect rural and northern communities, improving major highways to fight congestion or building transit infrastructure, our foot is on the gas. And, of course, our commitment to delivering four new rapid transit lines in the greater Toronto area is a significant part of that plan. Nowhere is the need to get people moving more apparent than in this region.

I hear from a lot of people about the challenges they face getting to and from their work in the greater Toronto area—as recently as a meeting I had with the advocacy committee at the Whitby Chamber of Commerce. People are frustrated and that frustration came through in that meeting with the advocacy committee at the chamber. They are stuck in traffic, wasting hours of their lives sitting on congested highways trying to get in and out of the city, or they’re crammed into overcrowded stations and trains that are often delayed.

Anyone who has been at Yonge station during a subway delay, as I often am, taking a GO train into Toronto and up to Queen’s Park, knows what I mean when I say it’s putting people in dangerous situations.

Speaker, when you’re worried about your personal safety or missing appointments or being late for work, it weighs on you, and I know you understand that. The transportation experience has such a profound impact on a person’s quality of life. We need to do better, and we are doing better with this proposed legislation. Our government is going to give it to them. People are suffering because greater Toronto area transit takes way too long to build.

I’m happy to say that our government is taking action. We’ve committed to four exciting new projects for riders, and we’re doing it in record time—the first as early as 2027. Building transit is what our government campaigned on, and we’re delivering on our promise to build a public transit system that the people of the greater Toronto area so desperately need and deserve. People need to get home to their families quicker, and everyone deserves to enjoy all that the greater Toronto area has to offer.

Our subway plan now endorsed by the province, Mayor Tory and city council is realistic, attainable and deliverable. It will bring subway infrastructure to new neighbourhoods across Toronto, Markham and Richmond Hill. That plan includes:

—the signature Ontario Line, delivered as early as 2027, that will bring rapid transit to neighbourhoods such as Liberty Village and Flemingdon Park. It will also address dangerous overcrowding on the TTC’s Line 1 and at Bloor-Yonge station;

—the Yonge North extension, delivered by 2029-30, that will extend the TTC’s Line 1 to major employment centres in Markham and Richmond Hill;

—the Scarborough subway extension, delivered before 2029-30, that will finally bring a subway line for the residents of Scarborough;

—the Eglinton Crosstown West extension, delivered by 2030-31, that will improve connectivity along Eglinton Avenue and enable future access—and this is an important aspect—to Pearson airport.

Speaker, our government is committed to working with the city of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission to get shovels in the ground, lay the tracks, buy the trains and deliver more transit for more people, all within accelerated timelines. Those projects and timelines are ambitious, yes, but can we really afford not to be?

I often hear from people—and I spoke about the meetings that I’ve had with the advocacy committee of the Whitby Chamber of Commerce, but I also hear it from major sectors in my riding as well, from people who are thinking of moving away from Toronto because of the congestion and lost time that has just become too much. It has just become too much for them.

By 2030, there will be over one million more people in the greater Toronto area, bringing the total population to over eight million people. By 2045, that number is expected to hit 10 million. What’s clear, Speaker, is that our existing transit network is already overburdened. Clearly something needs to change. We need more infrastructure and we need it immediately. Building transit faster is critical to unlocking the gridlock, relieving congestion and generating long-term economic and employment opportunities in the greater Toronto area.

Speaker, more transit relieves overcrowding, connects more people to places and shortens commutes, but it also has a ripple effect on the communities and roads around it. More people on transit means fewer people on the roads. In the greater Toronto area today, the average commute to and from work is 48 minutes both ways. For many, it can be much longer. Not only is it a significant inconvenience to our daily lives, but it costs our province hugely in loss productivity.

I want to cite a couple of research reports. The C.D. Howe Institute has said that our region loses $11 billion in productivity each year as a result of gridlock. According to the Toronto Region Board of Trade, gridlock adds $400 million to the cost of goods in our region. Speaker, just think about that for a moment. Those figures, taken together, are staggering, absolutely staggering, and that’s just today. Looking at those figures, these problems demand action. The greater Toronto area needs more transit to cope with the gridlock of today and the growth of tomorrow.

Simply put, we’re out of time. We must address our transit capacity as quickly as possible. To do that, Speaker, the status quo is no longer an option. You understand that. Others in this assembly understand that. People who live in the greater Toronto area understand that. The current approach takes too long and doesn’t produce transit infrastructure. Changes need to be made. We need to clear the way of roadblocks and commit to doing things differently, and that is exactly what this legislation is all about.

I know I’m running out of time here, so I’m going to wrap up a bit. If passed, the Building Transit Faster Act will cut bureaucratic red tape and break down the silos that have held up projects in the past. It will help us meet our ambitious timelines for our priority subway projects and deliver the transit network that people desperately need.

Now, Speaker, I know there has been a lot of collaboration with Metrolinx—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, the time for debate has expired. I will add, though, to the member that there will be an opportunity for questions and responses the next time that this bill is brought forward.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Therefore, it is now time for members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Il y a au moins 50 francophones à faible revenu qui attendent depuis un an pour faire valoir leurs droits linguistiques.

Lunar New Year

Mr. Billy Pang: As many of us may know, on February 8, the Chinese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Korean communities gathered to celebrate the end of the lunar new year, as we welcomed the year of the golden rat.

Before I continue, it’s important to note that the rat is perceived quite differently in Chinese culture. The rat is held with high regard, as it is considered to be quick-witted, resourceful, versatile and, more importantly, kind. Anyone born in this year should be proud to be a rat, including myself.

On February 8, MP Bob Saroya and I hosted a successful lunar new year celebration in our riding to ring in the year of the rat. I was filled with immense joy, as we had many members of our community come out and celebrate even though, back home, their country is working hard to contain the coronavirus. To those impacted, I applaud and admire your strength and your ability to overcome adversity. Our community will continue to stay united and stand with you as we continue to combat the coronavirus. It’s events such as these that bring our community together, while celebrating the strength that our province finds through diversity.

A special thanks to the members Lindsey Park and Lorne Coe, the deputy mayor of Markham and city councillors who came out to celebrate the year of the rat with the community of Markham–Unionville.

Long-term care

Mr. Jeff Burch: I rise today to speak on behalf of 97-year-old Paul Lapointe, who lives in a small, shared fourth-floor room, in a hospital bed, at the Welland County General Hospital. Paul and his family are desperately trying to get him placed into the francophone long-term-care home in my riding, Foyer Richelieu.

Paul and his family wrote a letter that was shared widely in Niagara. He was told he can no longer return to his retirement home, as he requires more care than they can provide. His family has been told by the province that he might face as much as five more years on the waiting list he joined in late 2018.

Paul has a message for this government. “Our government needs to build more nursing homes. They need to take care of their elderly. We were all once very active members of society. We worked hard all our lives and paid our fair share into society.”

When contacted by media, the member from Niagara West stated that over the next decade, Niagara will get 300 new beds. The wait-list for long-term care in my riding is almost 3,000. The 96 beds for Foyer Richelieu included in that number were promised in 2007 by the Liberals.

Seniors like Paul are stuck in the hospital with no alternative options. Niagara has the second-largest aging population in the province. I urge this government to treat this crisis with the urgency that it deserves. As Paul told me when I met with him at the Welland hospital, today’s seniors are being treated as the forgotten generation.

Wildfires in Australia

Mr. Mike Harris: It is with tremendous honour that I rise today to highlight the great steps our government has taken towards combatting wildfires in Australia. The impacts that these fires have had on Australian families and the environment are absolutely heartbreaking, Mr. Speaker. Over 18 million hectares of Australian countryside were engulfed in flames last year. These flames consumed roughly 2,800 homes, displacing countless families. And it’s not only Australia’s human population that has felt the effects of these fires, either; millions of animals are reported to have died over the past year as a result.

Australia needs Ontario’s help, Mr. Speaker, and I’m proud to say that we have their back. Since December 3, 35 fire management personnel from Ontario have travelled to assist Australia in their firefighting efforts. These fire management personnel range from operations and logistics chiefs to helicopter base managers. I would encourage everyone to keep the people of Australia in their thoughts during this difficult time.

In this vein, on a lighter note, our family has recently added a new addition, a bearded dragon, a native species to Australia, and we have affectionately named her Bondi. She now shares a name with one of Australia’s most popular destinations, Bondi Beach, which I have had the pleasure of visiting.

Australia is truly a treasure and I’m proud of the work our government is doing to support them.

Education funding

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I want to read part of a letter from Lesley Scherer, a mom from Newcastle, to the Premier:

“Dear Mr.” Premier....

“Tonight I had to call 911 because my 12-year-old son with autism ran away from home.

“He ran into traffic....

“My 12-year-old wanted to die.

“Now I know from your past that you aren’t a big fan of people with ASD—may I remind you of your own words, ‘My heart goes out to kids with autism. But no one told me they’d be leaving the house.’ Disgusting yes, but they are your words, sir.

“Let me tell you something, Mr.” Premier. “My son is one of the sweetest, most imaginative, and loving people in this world. He is bright and he is caring and he makes the world better by being in it. He thinks in ways you can’t imagine and his memory is extraordinary. He is inventive and generous. He has good days and he has bad days, and tonight was the worst he’s ever had.

“You see, Mr.” Premier, “my son is out of routine. He missed several days of school last week because his teachers are busy fighting for his future....

Mr. Premier, “you are so busy making cuts to education, mental health services and autism supports in my son’s school ... that you are literally cutting every service that my child needs to succeed!

“You are cutting the supports he needs in school to learn not only the curriculum, but also the most important thing, how to live! You are cutting the supports that help teach him social skills and how to be a productive member of society.... Your cuts to special education, planned increased class sizes and mandatory e-learning are quite literally stealing my son’s future. And while his teachers are fighting for these things my son is mentally falling apart!

“And I blame you....”

Anti-bullying initiatives

Mr. Michael Coteau: Today is Pink Shirt Day, and I’m so happy to be here today in the Legislature and to see so many of my colleagues wearing pink. We know that in 2007, in Nova Scotia, there were two young people, David and Travis, who stood up for a fellow classmate who was being bullied for wearing pink.

I was proud to be part of the government that brought forward the Accepting Schools Act in 2012. It was the first legislation of its kind in Canada to protect students.

I just want to say, considering it is Pink Shirt Day and it’s an expression of anti-bullying, today I have a young person who is actually joining me, Nate Manis, and I hope we can all put on a very good show and demonstration that we can work together.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Durham Region Hospice–Clarington

Mr. David Piccini: Providing compassionate end-of-life care is the right thing to do, and hospice beds that do this are critical to addressing the challenges facing our health care system. I’m pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that on February 6, Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier and Minister of Health, joined me, MPP Lindsey Park and MPP Lorne Coe for an announcement of $800,000 in additional one-time capital funding to support the construction of four additional beds at Durham hospice, Clarington.

With the recent announcement of these four beds, Ontario is investing a total of $1.8 million in capital funding to support the construction of nine beds. It has expanded hospice bed coverage. Through this coverage, our government is ensuring that Durham hospice, Clarington, will be able to provide even more residents with the compassionate end-of-life care that they deserve.

I’d like to congratulate the entire Durham hospice, Clarington, team for their work to make this a reality, including the board of directors: Melodie Zarzeczny, Guy May, Terry Hofkirchner, Rev. Deb Foster, Kirk Kemp, Debbie Lodge, Anita Mazzara, Rod McArthur, Marlene McCall, Jill Richardson, Marian Timmermans, Willie Woo.

All of our residents and families deserve access to dignified end-of-life care that respects the wishes of patients and their loved ones. I’m pleased to say, in Clarington region, that’s happening.

Education funding

Mr. Wayne Gates: On Monday, the Premier told us that he won’t stop his vicious cuts to the education system. He claims that parents are telling him that they agree with him and support their kids’ education being slashed, but the Premier won’t show us any proof of any of these messages.

So I asked the people of Niagara what they think, and it turned out that their message was a lot different than the Premier’s. Instead, they overwhelmingly said no to firing thousands of teachers, no to Alabama’s failed e-learning, no to cutting services for children with special needs, no to slashing funding for children with autism and further decreasing their school supports, and no to increased class sizes, in some cases as many as 35 kids in class. These parents aren’t alone.

If the PC Party hadn’t been hiding inside the Scotiabank centre on Saturday in Niagara Falls, they would’ve seen 5,000 people—the largest labour demonstration in Niagara’s history—standing shoulder to shoulder with every education worker across the province as they say no to cuts to education and yes to their children’s future.

I come from a background in bargaining. I can tell you very clearly, 98% of all negotiations end in collective agreements. The parents of Niagara and the 5,000 supporters who came to Niagara Falls from all over Ontario are wondering: Why is this government in the 2% that can’t get a deal done when 98% of collective agreements settle without a strike?

Ce projet n’aurait pas vu le jour sans le leadership et le travail sans relâche de la ministre des Affaires francophones, qui a travaillé étroitement pendant 16 mois avec Dyane Adam et son équipe pour que ce rêve devienne une réalité. Avec l’appui du premier ministre et du ministre des Collèges et Universités, notre gouvernement a finalement réalisé ce projet très important pour les francophones en Ontario, ce que les libéraux étaient incapables et refusaient de faire pendant 15 ans.

L’UOF a maintenant un lieu pour prendre racine. Ce dévoilement aujourd’hui n’est qu’un début pour les mesures positives que prendra notre gouvernement pour les francophones en Ontario. Bravo à tous les gens qui ont travaillé sur ce projet.

Job creation

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Our government has been working hard since day one to make Ontario open for jobs. While the previous government lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs, we’ve created the conditions for over 307,000 new jobs since June 2018. Thanks to the actions taken by our government, Ontario is once again the economic engine of Canada. In fact, demand for talent is so strong that more than 200,000 jobs are going unfilled every day.

However, while there are many jobs without people, there are also people without jobs. This is because previous governments poured taxpayer dollars into employment services that delivered incredibly poor results. In fact, the Auditor General concluded that only 14% of job seekers were finding work in the field that they had trained for. This is unacceptable.

While the opposition defends the status quo, our government has launched an open and comprehensive process to select the best managers for employment services. Beginning in three communities, including mine, the region of Peel, these managers will be driven by the only result that matters: people finding long-term and stable employment in quality jobs.

Speaker, jobs give people a sense of dignity, and I’m proud that we are doing everything we can to help people succeed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time we have available for members’ statements. Now we’re going to do introductions of visitors.

House sittings

Hon. Paul Calandra: I rise on a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware and as my colleagues know, there is a large snowstorm, apparently—a large snowstorm by southern Ontario standards, I appreciate—that is going to hit tomorrow morning, so I’m rising to notify the House that, pursuant to standing order 9(f), no government business will be called tomorrow morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): As a result of the government House leader’s announcement, when the House adjourns today it will stand adjourned until 10:15 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Introduction of visitors.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Jim Wilson: I have a number of people here who helped with the cystic fibrosis media conference this morning: Chris MacLeod, Dr. Elizabeth Tullis, Sasha Haughian, from my riding, Jamie Larocque, from my riding, Madi and Beth Vanstone—everybody knows Madi—and Lynn Nichol, from London. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the privilege of welcoming to the Legislature today a constituent from Wainfleet, a dairy farmer, Albert Fledderus. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to welcome to the people’s House Danielle Weil, who is representing Brantford’s cystic fibrosis community.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to welcome all the members from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario here with us today.

I would also like to recognize Josh Underwood, who is sitting in the gallery. He’s from the great riding of Oxford.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to welcome Kelly Grover, president and CEO of Cystic Fibrosis Canada. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Steve Clark: I’d like to welcome a constituent, a board member of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, who is with us here at Queen’s Park. Welcome to John Wynands.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It is my pleasure to welcome today Romeo Gordon, Evan Back and Janice Hayes of YouthLink from my great riding of Scarborough–Guildwood.

Mr. David Piccini: It gives me great pleasure to welcome two constituents of mine: Dan Kelly, from Port Hope, and Adam Petherick, board member at Dairy Farmers of Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I’d like to welcome Pat Sanagan, Claire Thornton and her adorable six-month-old to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the whole House an amazing dairy farmer from Bruce county, Mark Hamel.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: There are a lot of student parliamentarians in the House today. I’d like to welcome Yasden Nikoo, from Riverside high school in my riding, and all the other students who won’t have a chance to be introduced this morning.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: It gives me honour to introduce some constituency members from Pickering–Uxbridge. I’d like to introduce Stephanie and Demetrios Stavros. I hope you both enjoy your time here today, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I’d like to introduce Nate Manis, a grade 10 student, who is visiting today and shadowing me for the afternoon.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to welcome two young people who are here today from London West for the youth Parliament: Tyrus Kalanyos, who is also a member of my London West Youth Cabinet, and Loïs Mang-Benza. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I would really enjoy welcoming an amazing delegation from my riding of Kanata–Carleton, the Kanata North Business Association: Jamie Petten, Vicki Coughey, Guy Levesque, Grant Courville, John Luszczek, Martin Vandewouw and Patrick Ferris. Welcome.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to welcome, as a member of youth model Parliament, Archana Jagannathan, a grade 10 student at O’Neill CVI in Oshawa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Donna Skelly: I would like to welcome Tammy Strong and her father, Don Strong, to the Legislature. Tammy and Don are residents of my riding of Flamborough-Glanbrook. They are here today representing the cystic fibrosis community. Tammy’s teenage daughters Mikayla and Madison both live with cystic fibrosis.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome, from the Ontario Autism Coalition, Michau van Speyk, and all of the students who are here for youth Parliament.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Nancy Turner, a tireless advocates for cystic fibrosis from the great riding of Dufferin-Caledon.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to welcome Tegan Elliott and Kate Folsetter, who are here from Hamilton Centre for model Parliament. Welcome.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: On behalf of myself and the member for Etobicoke Centre, I’d like to welcome Reid Alexander and Sullivan Pearson here, from the ridings of Etobicoke–Lakeshore and Etobicoke Centre. Welcome to model Parliament.

Mr. Chris Glover: Here for a press conference from the cystic fibrosis community, I’d like to introduce my constituent Emily Lyons and her family, Gail Lyons and Ryan Clark. They are joined in their advocacy by Dr. Elizabeth Tullis, Erick Bauer and Stefanie Cali. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the members who have not had an opportunity to introduce their guests. On their behalf, I would like to welcome everyone who is here to the Legislature today and to thank you very much for coming.

I need to take a moment to explain my methodology this morning, because there were some members who were unhappy. Yesterday, I started recognizing people for introductions at this end of the chamber and worked my way down. We got everybody introduced, alternating on both sides of the House. Today, we started at the other end of the chamber and worked our way back. If that’s not fair and some feel that they didn’t get a chance to introduce their guests, I sincerely apologize. We’ll try better tomorrow.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The House will come to order.

We have with us in the public gallery high school students from across the province participating in the seventh annual Legislative Assembly of Ontario model Parliament. Please join me in warmly welcoming our future parliamentarians to the Legislature today.

Question Period

Home care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Acting Premier. It has been over 20 years since the last Conservative government announced their plans to mess with home care and introduce competition and more privatization, and we’re still living with the results today: private sector providers making healthy profits while personal support workers make little more than minimum wage and are leaving the field in droves for more job security, while wait times for home care services can stretch for years and years.

What patients heard yesterday was the same Conservative government using the same language that they heard before. Why would they believe anything would change?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member for the question.

The reason why we have introduced the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act is to make sure that people receive the care that they expect and deserve.

Right now, there is a disconnect between our primary care system and our home and community care system. We want to bring it together so that when people who require home care leave the hospital, they will know who is providing the home care, what home care is being provided and when it’s going to be provided. That doesn’t always happen now, and people end up back in hospital with complications.

We want to make sure that when people are discharged from hospital, they have the home and community care support that they need to get well.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, patients are still living with the broken home care system created by the Harris Conservatives and kept in place by the Liberals. The results speak for themselves. One study showed that nearly 80% of personal support workers were unhappy with the job. Yesterday’s Patient Ombudsman report said this: “Patients and caregivers often reported that they had no notice that services would not be available on a given day and they were left on their own to put contingency plans in place.”

Like the Liberals before them, the Ford government says that it will deal with the chronic shortage of personal support workers. When will patients actually see a change?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I appreciate that personal support workers are an important part of home and community care, but there’s a much bigger picture here.

However, let me just read a quote from Miranda Ferrier, the president of the Ontario Personal Support Workers Association: “The proposed changes announced for home and community care in Ontario will provide personal support workers..., patients and clients a new opportunity to work together to make Ontario Health Teams a success. Streamlining and modernizing the scheduling and funding process will offer Ontarians greater access to supports while also promoting continuity of care.” The association “hopes that these changes will work to stabilize and modernize the PSW profession.” We know that it will.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Hope springs eternal when it comes to the way Conservatives deal with our health care system.

I have to say that what the minister isn’t recognizing is that it’s the front-line workers who make all of the difference, and in this home care system, that’s the PSWs.

Last October, I asked the Premier about Maria Konopeskas, an Ottawa resident who has been living—literally living—in the hospital since 2017 because the personal support workers and home care that she needs aren’t available to her. She’s still in that hospital. She is still waiting. She’s one of many Ontarians who have been let down by a broken home care system that the Liberals had in place and that remains in place.

No one is fooled by the government’s plans for more for-profit operators and a new mega-bureaucracy. The simple question is this: When will patients like Maria get the support that they need?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would say to the member that should this legislation that was introduced in this chamber yesterday pass, people will see immediate improvement in the supports they will receive, because we are working on a number of fronts. The leader of the official opposition has indicated that personal support workers are an issue that we need to deal with. We recognize that. We are looking at the health human resource strategy across the board. My colleague the minister of personal care is looking at it in long-term-care homes. We are looking at it in hospitals and home support.

Let me just read you another quote with respect to one of the key players in this whole transition—Sue VanderBent, the CEO of Home Care Ontario: “Home Care Ontario welcomes the government’s move to modernize home and community care. Today’s changes will allow patients to better access the right care, at the right time, and in the right place. These changes will make the system work more efficiently, and ultimately will allow local health teams to better work together to keep people healthier”—

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

The next question.

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier, but I can say, if this government can’t get licence plates right, how are they going to get home care right?

Yesterday, the Premier insisted that real people backed his plan for education cuts and classroom conflict. Was the Premier briefed on the results of his own government’s consultation on education?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, it is the voices of parents and students that have guided our government in this negotiation. That is precisely why we have confirmed that we will keep class sizes low in this province for students in Ontario.

In fact, under our government and under the Premier’s leadership, we are keeping classroom sizes the smallest in the nation for the earliest years. We are doing that because we are listening.

What we’ve also heard loud and clear is that parents want us to stand strong to see more money in schools, not in entitlements, in benefits, in wages for educators, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last year, the Premier bragged that the Ford government consultations were the largest consultations in Ontario’s history. Yesterday, the result of that consultation went public. Among other things, the secret internal government report said there was “virtually no support” for larger class sizes.

How can this government claim that they’re on the side of parents, teachers and students when they’re literally doing exactly the opposite of what they were told by parents, students and teachers?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, we’re on the side of parents and students by ensuring that the best educators are at the front of the class. This government is on the side of parents and students by suggesting that more money entering the system ought to go in schools and ought not to go in a higher benefit ask by the teachers’ unions.

We respect our educators. We value what they do. We pay them well. But the priority of the government—listening, heeding the advice of parents and taxpayers in Ontario—is to put more money where it counts. That’s in mental health. That’s in STEM education. That’s in math. That’s in the priorities that people want. It’s what we’re going to deliver in this negotiation, Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier and the minister can’t have it both ways. While the Premier was standing here yesterday spinning tales about make-believe people who want cuts in the classroom, he was sitting on a government report that showed exactly the opposite. No one believes him anymore. No one believes the education minister anymore.

Will the government stop talking about their imaginary supporters, take the advice of parents, teachers and school boards—the advice that was given to them during the government’s own consultations—cancel the cuts and get to work on actually making a deal that works for our classrooms and our kids?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The deal that we seek is one that keeps kids in class, a good deal for students that puts their interests ahead of union interests. That’s what we believe is so important to advance in this negotiation.

In this negotiation, we’re going to keep classroom sizes low. We’re going to maintain, in writing, full-day kindergarten. We’re going to commit 100% investments in special education to help the most vulnerable kids in our schools. Speaker, this is a good plan for kids.

What you can’t have both ways, Speaker, is small classroom sizes or more investments in kids and heightened compensation. We choose not to raise taxes, to keep them low, and to invest the taxpayers’ dollars where it matters, and that’s in the success of our students.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is actually to the Minister of Education on a similar topic. Time after time, in committees and here in this chamber, we’ve asked this government to table the results of that education consultation, and now we know why they did everything in their power to stop it from coming to light. The Premier knew Ontarians opposed his plan. Before making a name for herself in the licence plate business, the former education minister knew as well. And the current minister knows it, too. People do not want more children jammed in fewer classrooms with less supports.

Will the minister finally admit that this plan has nothing to do with modernizing education and everything to do with saving money on the backs of the next generation of students?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: It is this government that is investing more in public education. That’s why we believe in the defence of education. But we also believe in getting more out of the system. We also believe that more money should be flowing in schools.

In this negotiation, let me just confirm what we’re fighting for with precision: We’re committed to keeping classroom sizes low for elementary and high school students in this province—in fact, the smallest classroom size in the federation for the earliest years. We’re committing 100% investment in special education to support those with needs in our schools. But we’re also committed to maintaining our position on a fair 1% increase in benefits and wages for our workers. We think that is in the public interest, to put our money where it counts in the success of our students, and that is precisely what we’re doing in this negotiation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, the only folks in this province benefiting from this government’s plans to cut classrooms are the private school companies with ratios of 14 to 1.

As the details of this top secret, apparently, consultation report come out, we’re hearing even more voices who told the government not to do this: school boards, the Black educators association, directors of education, superintendents, the list goes on. They made it clear that increasing class sizes was going to hurt our kids. Submission after submission said this would negatively affect courses available, increase safety issues, limit achievement and limit career pathways for our students.

Will the minister finally stop using our children as pawns in this bargaining game and reverse his cuts to education?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The government side has to come to order.

Restart the clock. Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, we went to the negotiating table on Monday to get a deal. We tabled what I believe to be positive proposals for students: keeping classroom sizes low, 100% investment in special education and, more importantly, a commitment, in writing, to maintain full-day kindergarten.

We also asserted that we will maintain the line on a 1% increase in wages and benefits. And what was the response from the union? They want higher benefits, and if we do not give in, they will continue to strike. That is unacceptable to the people of this province.

We’re going to hold the line in the defence of putting more money in schools, in our students. That’s what parents expect.

COVID-19

Mr. Vincent Ke: My question is to the Minister of Health. For months, we have seen news reports from around the world about COVID-19, the novel coronavirus. This illness has been spread within Hubei province in China, and other jurisdictions have been taking steps to protect their citizens.

Here in Ontario, we learned a great deal from the SARS outbreak in 2003, which saw the Toronto public health system put under significant strain. We have seen close relationships and co-operation between all of our health authorities as Ontario and the rest of Canada prepare to respond to this outbreak. Can the minister tell us more about Ontario’s approach to COVID-19?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member from Don Valley North for your question, which I know is important to all Ontarians.

Our public health authorities have responded to COVID-19 with all of the hard work and professionalism that the people of Ontario have come to expect. When dealing with an illness like COVID-19, co-operation and transparency are key. Ontarians should continue to look to public health officials for updates as the situation evolves. We are working with the federal government to ensure that our public health care system will respond appropriately.

I would like to thank all of our skilled health workers, who have brought their considerable experience and professionalism to deal with this situation. We all owe them a big debt of gratitude.

Protecting the health and well-being of the people of Ontario has been and will always be our top priority.

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

Mr. Vincent Ke: Thank you to the minister for the update. I would also like to thank our health care providers for the excellent care they provide in our communities each and every day.

Ontario is approaching this situation by prioritizing transparency and open communication. I appreciate the regular updates from public health officials providing accurate information to the public on this situation. Thanks to these updates, we know that there are many measures in place to help contain the virus. Can the minister speak to some of the other steps that have been taken to protect the public from COVID-19?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Since learning of the virus, Ontario has responded to COVID-19 by monitoring hospitals for potential cases of the virus in individuals with a travel history from some of the affected areas. Public health units have quickly and effectively taken all necessary measures to investigate, complete tests and prevent further spread of the virus. Emergency health services communication centres across Ontario have implemented enhanced screening protocols. The Ministry of Health has also met with hospitals, paramedics and public health units near Pearson international airport to provide further information on federal border screening measures.

We’re also continuing to collaborate with the federal government and, of course, with the other provinces and territories. Our government will continue to actively work with our health care partners to monitor for, detect and, if needed, contain any cases of COVID-19.

Government advertising

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Speaker, Ontario families are still waiting for answers from the Ford government about the shadowy Vaughan Working Families group and their advertisements attacking teachers. Global News Toronto reports that they have yet to receive a response to four simple questions put to the minister regarding recently appointed vice-chair of the LCBO, Quinto Annibale. Mr. Annibale, we now know, received the invoice for these dark money ads. He also joined the minister on his junket to India last year. I’d like to give the minister a chance to answer these questions on the record.

Did the minister or anyone in his office have any knowledge of Mr. Annibale’s connection to the ad campaign and any role in its placement prior to it being reported in the media?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Ontario businesses engage in a rigorous, open and fair application process whenever we lead missions overseas. In fiscal 2018-19, nearly 800 small and medium-sized enterprises participated in our government-facilitated business missions. Participating delegates are required to cover their own expenses, including flights, accommodation and delegate fees.

I have not had any contact with Mr. Annibale in regard to the education advertisements that appeared in newspapers earlier this month.

As my colleague the Minister of Education has stated, our government remains focused on keeping kids in the classroom.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It is clear that the minister had a relationship with Mr. Annibale, and a strong one at that, because it’s not every day that a newly appointed vice-chair of the LCBO gets invited to travel the world on a trade mission.

Did the minister have a relationship with Mr. Annibale while he was the mayor of North Bay, or at any point before this trip? And, if so, was it disclosed to any member of cabinet before his appointment to the LCBO?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: As I said in my previous answer, I have not spoken to Mr. Annibale regarding the advertisements the member is referring to.

As with any participating delegate on a business mission, all businesses are responsible for covering their own expenses, including flights, accommodations and delegate fees.

Speaker, we’re proud of the tangible events that came out of our mission to India, now that the member has mentioned it. VVDN Technologies announced they’ll be opening a new facility in Kitchener-Waterloo, employing 200 engineering jobs. I’m surprised the member hasn’t asked about the 200 new engineering jobs in Kitchener-Waterloo. VVDN Technologies is already located in Kitchener with their office, and they will be starting their hiring in the next couple of weeks.

Speaker, I can go on for hours about the success of the mission in India. We’re very proud of our record of job creation and leading the nation in job creation.

Children’s mental health services

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today, I’m joined by representatives from children’s mental health organizations. Our children and youth mental health care is in crisis. Over the last two years, we’ve seen a doubling of the wait-lists for child and youth mental health services in this province. We’ve seen rising suicide rates and an increase in avoidable hospital visits for mental health care.

Our youth are benefiting from decreasing stigma and seeking care in higher numbers for anxiety and depression. However, despite the Conservatives campaigning on matching federal mental health investments, they have not kept their word. Can the Deputy Premier explain why this promise to the youth of this province has not been kept?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Our government is delivering real action by investing an historic $3.8 billion over the next 10 years to build a comprehensive, integrated and connected mental health and addictions system, one that is evidence-based, data-driven and meets the needs of patients and their families. We’re committed to building a system where services are easier to access, high quality and focused on better outcomes for everyone, including children, youth and their parents.

Under the leadership of our Premier, our government has invested an additional $10 million annually in child and youth mental health core services funding in communities across the province; nearly $40 million targeting mental health supports for Ontario students; $6 million in intensive services for youth with addictions, including withdrawal management services and residential treatment; $3.5 million for early psychosis intervention services; and $1 million for a new provincial eating disorders prevention and early intervention program.

Our government is also providing $3.3 million over four years for a pilot to test an integrated youth services approach. Mr. Speaker, we are making—

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I thank the minister for his response. But Children’s Mental Health Ontario estimates that the investment we’re asking for today would pay for itself by saving thousands of dollars in avoidable hospital visits per year.

While this government is looking for savings on the backs of children and youth in this province, there is a real human cost to inaction. In the past 10 months, the University of Ottawa has seen five students die by suicide. Our kids can’t wait two and a half years on a waiting list for services and for supports.

Bibi, a student at the University of Ottawa, says, “I am outraged with the way that mental health has been handled on campus. It’s critical that institutions, especially government and universities, adopt meaningful and effective mental health policies and provide adequate resources to those in need.”

Speaker, I’m asking this minister to commit today to—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Thank you. Please take your seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Please take your seat.

The minister to respond.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Today, as you all know, is Pink Shirt Day, anti-bullying. It’s important that we recognize, as members of the Legislature, and support our students, our youth, because it is another issue that affects mental health as well. Bullying is something that’s very serious and affects many, many people.

Mr. Speaker, we inherited a system under the previous government that was plagued with issues. There are problems of accessing services. There is a fragmented system. There are barriers to accessing those services, whether you’re a child, a youth, an adult or a senior, for that matter. What we’re trying to do is look—and we’ve met with stakeholders. We’ve met with youth organizations. We’ve met with people with lived experience. What we’ve done is we’ve worked diligently to create, and soon we’ll be launching the mental health plan for the province.

We take the youth suicide rates very seriously. We are working to create—

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

The next question.

Nuclear energy

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Ontario is leading the way on small modular reactor development to create a more competitive business environment and a clean, reliable energy future. SMRs have the potential to generate clean, low-cost energy, and drive job creation, economic growth and export opportunities.

Can the minister tell this House how he’s promoting Ontario’s existing nuclear supply chain and experienced nuclear operators to support SMR development and deployment?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Whitby, part of the Durham four, who not only wear the coolest sunglasses and throw the greatest parties, but are big fans of the nuclear sector and this exciting next generation or

chapter for the nuclear sector, and Ontario is going to lead the way.

Last December, the Premier led the charge with a memorandum of understanding. We were joined by the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, who have raw materials implicated in this development, who have technology implicated in this development. Already we’re hearing from other provinces and territories who see real science and real opportunity for Ontario to lead the charge for this exciting technology.

I’m heading up to Ottawa for the next couple of days to join people with the Canadian Nuclear Association conference. We’re going to be hosting panels and talking about the exciting opportunity that Ontario has to move small modular reactors forward, lead the world and make safe, clean energy for this province, across this country and around the world.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I can see the importance in expanding our nuclear industry here in Ontario. Can the minister explain the benefits of this small modular reactor agreement to our local industry?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the member for that question.

Let’s start with some important statistics or facts here, Mr. Speaker. First of all, nuclear generation accounts for 62% of our supply in this province, but only 45% of its cost. Contrast that with wind and solar: a combined 9% of our electricity generation, but over 25% of its cost. It turns out the answer isn’t blowing in the wind.

It’s about investing in 76,000 people who are employed in the nuclear sector, with science, technology, engineering and mathematics backgrounds; a high prevalence of women leading the charge in this exciting sector; an opportunity for small modular reactors to be the solutions for off-grid opportunities, remote and isolated communities and resource projects in Canada’s remote parts.

Ontario is going to lead the way, and I’m so grateful that the Premier last December signed that memorandum of understanding so we have a clear path forward.

Public transit

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier threw away years of planning and hundreds of millions of public dollars when he suddenly cancelled the Hamilton LRT without warning. Hamilton chose an LRT as their transit priority. They want the Premier and the federal government to work together to find a solution.

If there is a deal to be made with the federal government to fund the Hamilton LRT, will the Premier agree to resume the RFP process and get the LRT back on track?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Transportation (GTA).

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much to the member for the question.

Our Premier, our government, this side of the House, have been very clear that we remain committed to providing Hamilton with $1 billion. We have formed a task force of very credible individuals who are working very diligently to make recommendations to our government, which the Minister of Transportation and myself are very eager and excited to review. They have asked for a small extension to lead into March, but we are very excited to look at the recommendations. Our government has been very clear: $1 billion to the people of Hamilton.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, it is the case, Speaker, that the Premier’s appointed task force is running out of time for a recommendation, and he may just be faced with a choice if they recommend what everyone already knows, which is that the investment that Hamilton needs and deserves and will see will come with an LRT. So he can continue on his current path, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in scrapping years of planning for the Hamilton LRT, or he can work with the federal government to find a funding solution.

Yesterday, the federal government said that they would be a willing funding partner, if only the province would make a formal request. Will the minister make a formal request for funding to the federal government to get the Hamilton LRT back on track?

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much to the member.

I want to be perfectly clear: It was the chair of the task force that requested an extension and, of course, our Minister of Transportation accepted and approved that request. We know they are working very hard. We support them in our efforts.

That being said, we have been very clear: We have committed $1 billion to the people of Hamilton. But transportation—we’ve made it very clear on this side of the House that it is a top priority for this government. The previous Liberal administration ignored transportation infrastructure for 15 years. We have shown our commitment. We are investing $28.5 billion to build subways in the city of Toronto, we are helping Mississauga build the Hurontario line, we are supporting Ottawa in building their LRT and we will support the people of Hamilton.

Prescription drugs

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Health. Speaker, 18 other countries have negotiated a deal with Vertex in order to allow patients with cystic fibrosis to access life-saving medication. Canada is the only industrialized country that lags behind. Ontario approved Kalydeco five years ago. People like Madi Vanstone from my riding, who received this medication, are now thriving. In fact, Madi hiked the Great Wall of China last year to increase awareness about the desperate need for these cystic fibrosis drugs.

Madi is proof that these medications work, and the only difference between her and other patients with cystic fibrosis is that they have a slightly different gene type, and therefore require a slightly different medication to treat the disease.

My constituents and many others here today want to know: Will the minister make a firm commitment that she will sit down and negotiate a deal with the pharmaceutical firm Vertex for these life-saving drugs, save these patients all the stress and despair they’re going through, save the expense on the health care system and do the right thing?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. I know that this is something that has been a very important issue for you and for many of your constituents for a very long period of time.

We take the struggles that cystic fibrosis patients and their families deal with on a daily basis very seriously. Like everyone else in Ontario, we hope that these new medications provide the promised relief. We recognize that access to new drug therapies is important, especially in less common diseases where there are significant health impacts and where there are limited treatment options.

We are in discussions with our health partners. We are in discussions with Vertex. We know that the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance has also been in discussions with Vertex, with a meeting having been held in January. This is something that all of us are actively working on. I know there are concerns with respect to timing, and I will deal with that in my supplementary answer.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to that question. In November, as you know, I made this House aware of two brothers from my riding, Andre and Joshua Larocque—their parents are here today—aged seven and nine. They have cystic fibrosis. One brother has access to a gene-modulating drug made by Vertex through a drug trial; the other brother does not.

When the two brothers had a cold recently, the boy on the drug trial was able to shake the cold like a normal child would; the boy who wasn’t on the drug trial was sick for weeks. He coughed non-stop for hours and days at a time. He coughed up blood and lost significant weight. His lung function dropped by over 20%. Every time this seven-year-old gets a simple cold, he loses more lung function. He will eventually become resistant to antibiotics and require lengthy hospitalizations, and he could, and very much probably will, ultimately need a lung transplant without drugs like Kalydeco, Orkambi and other gene-modulating drugs.

Minister, I guess my constituents—because we raised this; it goes back to 2014, when you and I chased around the former health minister under the Liberals on the same issue. Can you do everything in your power, with the Premier beside you, to speed up these negotiations and get these life-saving drugs to these people—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The minister to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: There are very significant health consequences here. We are certainly very well aware of that, and we are doing our best to move this forward. Part of the issue, as you will be aware, is that there are both provincial requirements that have to be completed and federal requirements in order for a drug to be approved to be put on the formulary and to be available to people.

One of my roles is as co-chair of the provincial-territorial-federal group. It is something that I intend to bring forward at our next meeting this spring, to see if some of these approval processes can be run concurrently instead of consecutively to speed up the process. We know that there are certain levels of safety and effectiveness that we have to prove, but it shouldn’t take years and years for this to be completed. I’m very concerned about the time frames as well. I do intend to bring this forward.

With respect to the specific drugs themselves, Orkambi, Symdeko and Trikafta: Orkambi is approved in pediatric circumstances in exceptional cases; Symdeko is still going through, as I understand, the CADTH—

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

International trade

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. On this side of the House, we know that being open for business and open for jobs means being open for trade. As the MPP for a riding that has an international border, free trade with the US is a key concern to my constituents. If Ontario were a country, we would be the third-largest trading partner of the US, with nearly $400 billion in two-way trade.

Given the importance of this relationship to businesses in Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, would the minister please inform the House what efforts are under way to ensure that NAFTA 2.0 is ratified by the federal government as quickly as possible?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we live in a globally competitive world, and our government knows that we must take a proactive approach to international trade. Throughout the negotiation of NAFTA 2.0, our government’s top priority was to protect jobs for the hard-working people of Ontario, and our work continues.

In our submission to the federal Standing Committee on International Trade, we urged all federal parties to work together and ratify the agreement as quickly as possible. We outlined that one in five jobs are US-trade-related.

A successful NAFTA 2.0 agreement is the critical next step in providing certainty to businesses around the world. That certainty will add to the over 300,000 new jobs already created here in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m glad to hear the minister is continuing to take a leadership role in ensuring the ratification of NAFTA 2.0.

Today, nearly one in five jobs in Ontario depend on trade, so that’s more than 1.3 million hard-working men and women whose jobs are supported by exports in our province. We are now the number one customer in 19 US states and the second for nine others, and account for more than one half of the total merchandise trade between Canada and the US.

I hope all members of this House, regardless of party, are able to appreciate the importance of NAFTA 2.0 to the stability of our economy.

Can the minister please explain to the House in more detail how Ontario is continuing to pursue increased trade with the US?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Earlier this month, Premier Ford led a trade mission to Washington and Dallas. We met with a number of US governors and business leaders to build on our multi-billion dollar trade relationship.

However, Speaker, we know we cannot take these relationships for granted, so we are focused on ensuring Ontario has the right tools to strengthen US economic partnerships. As part of our new strategy for US trade, Ontario will now pursue first-of-their-kind strategic investment and procurement agreements with key US states. These agreements will expand important economic relationships. They will ensure Ontario companies are on a level playing field for government procurement opportunities.

As free traders, we have a fundamental obligation to ensure Ontario companies have the greatest market access possible. We will continue to push for free trade and fair trade with our US partners.

Education funding

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is to the Premier. This government’s half-baked plan for involuntary e-learning is just as unpopular among London North Centre parents as it is in the rest of the province of Ontario. The government needs to put on its listening ears.

Mark is a father in my riding who says that having educators in class is essential for his son’s learning, because when his son “reads something, he often has a difficult time understanding what’s required.... The fact remains, he does much better with more one-on-one instruction.... Online courses would be horrendous for his learning style.”

Teachers who administer e-learning tell me that the student success rate for those who willingly take these courses is jus