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

October 29, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Oct-29 (PDF)

L119 - Tue 29 Oct 2019 / Mar 29 oct 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 29 October 2019 Mardi 29 octobre 2019

Orders of the Day

Interim supply

Introduction of Visitors

Yusra Javed

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Government accountability

Mining industry

Education funding

Climate change

Mining industry

Government accountability

Climate change

Long-term care

North Spirit Lake First Nation

Long-term care

Automotive industry

Public transit

Anti-racism activities

Notices of dissatisfaction

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Halloween events in Spadina–Fort York

The Turtle Project

Automotive industry

Halloween

Member’s comments

Thunder Bay Police Service

Lisa Raitt

Islamic Heritage Month

Introduction of Bills

Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les services provinciaux visant le bien-être des animaux

Motions

Adjournment debates

Petitions

Public sector compensation

Addiction services

Climate change

Food safety

Services for persons with disabilities

Ontario Disability Support Program

Government’s record

Services d’urgence

Public safety

Health care

Orders of the Day

Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à préserver la viabilité du secteur public pour les générations futures

Adjournment Debate

Education funding

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Interim supply

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments relating to the legislative offices pending the voting of supply for the period commencing October 28, 2019, and ending on March 31, 2020, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation for the 2019-20 fiscal year, following the voting of supply.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 67. Further debate?

Mr. Michael Parsa: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House to put forward a motion for interim supply to authorize the salaries of legislative staff and other necessary payments relating to the legislative offices.

This motion ensures that we have the ability to pay all of the necessary expenses of the Legislative Assembly and the legislative offices, including the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Ombudsman, the Financial Accountability Officer, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Integrity Commissioner, from now until March 31, 2020.

This motion for interim supply is necessary to ensure those offices are able to continue the work that they do on behalf of Ontarians. They perform a vital function in our system of government, and I know members on both sides of the House rely on the analysis, insights and advice provided by these legislative officers. Final spending authority must eventually be authorized through the Legislature’s concurrence of the 2019-20 estimates and passage of the Supply Act. This interim supply motion is not about providing additional funding for a government program or office; it’s about making sure the Legislature, the institution that houses our democracy, has the funds it needs to operate.

Some members may wonder why this motion is necessary. The legislative offices are currently spending under the interim appropriation act, IAA, for the 2019-20 fiscal year that was passed as part of the Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018.

The interim appropriation act capped the spending of legislative offices at $190 million, which was a portion of their budget. At this time, a motion is necessary to support the continued operation of the legislative offices from the beginning of November until such time as all spending for the year is authorized through an annual Supply Act. I’ll also want to stress that the motion before the House today has to do with the appropriations decided by the Board of Internal Economy.

For those who do not know, the Board of Internal Economy is an all-party committee chaired by the Speaker. It’s tasked with making funding decisions for the Legislature, including the legislative staff, the constituency offices of members, maintenance of the legislative building and overseeing funding for the legislative officers, including the Financial Accountability Officer, the Office of the Auditor General, and the Chief Electoral Officer. Based on the decisions made by the Board of Internal Economy, we’re putting forward today’s motion to ensure the Legislature’s spending requirements are met.

There are several relevant changes to the legislative offices that have taken place over the last two years that I want to highlight today. First, members will recall that the previous government increased the number of seats from 107 to 124 just before the 2018 provincial election. As a result, we have 17 new members in the House, all of whom have new staff, new constituency offices and new offices at the Legislature. Second, members will also be aware that the Office of the Assembly has committed to upgrading the security and screening centre in the assembly to ensure the safety of members, staff and visitors.

Lastly, the officers of the Legislative Assembly, including the Auditor General, Ombudsman and Chief Electoral Officer, require spending to continue the important work they are doing for Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of the House will agree that these expenses are not contentious and that they are necessary.

As members, we all know the fundamental role the legislative offices play in the life of government and our great province. It’s within this great hall that we present, debate and vote on bills advanced by the government and private members; it is in committees with fellow members that we scrutinize and deliberate proposed bills; and it’s here that we listen and speak to each other so that we can build a stronger and more prosperous province for all our constituents across this beautiful province.

The motion before the House today would provide the necessary spending authority to keep the legislative offices going and allow us to continue the important work that the people of Ontario have sent us here to do. Without it, most scheduled and unscheduled payments, such as salaries and wages, or suppliers’ accounts, cannot be paid. In essence, this motion allows us to continue serving the people of Ontario and keep our commitment to look after and represent their interests.

In the time since the Ontario legislative building here at Queen’s Park was completed in 1893, its beautiful frontage has become a symbol of Ontario’s democracy and the will of its people. Thousands of young Ontarians pass through here every year to learn about their heritage, their rights and their freedoms. This beautiful structure that represents so much serves as an inspiration to the next generation of our province’s leaders.

I have to share a personal story with you in this area in particular, Speaker. For us, as you know, as young people when we are students, we typically have these tours where we come to various Parliaments, depending on where you live. This beautiful structure was one that was often visited by various schools, including ours. Whenever we had the opportunity to come and visit this beautiful building, it was such an amazing experience. Having immigrated to this country at a young age, I always wondered what it’s like and what they do here—the work that gets done here.

To one day have the opportunity to be a member in this House, Speaker—this is why, in almost every speech, I always say that we live in the greatest country in the world. I’m beyond thankful for the opportunity that my constituents and this great country have offered to me and to my family.

Hon. Bill Walker: Hear, hear. We’re lucky to have you.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Thank you, sir.

You won’t believe it, Speaker: Regardless of whether it’s hot, cold or rainy, every day I walk to this building, park my car and look up with a smile. I’m in shock; I can’t believe that I actually work here.

I encourage all members to support this important motion so that we can keep the lights on and the doors open to the people’s House, and open for all. Ontarians demand no less from their representatives, and we certainly won’t let them down. I thank you for the time to speak to this motion for interim supply, Speaker. I look forward to hearing from the opposition members on this very important bill. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s a great opportunity to speak to an interim supply motion, well explained by my colleague across the way. I think he laid out what this motion is all about. Without this particular vote, we couldn’t pay the bills of the Legislature—the staff, this building, the hydro, the heat and our wages. You wouldn’t have an appropriation to do it.

I want to speak to how the government has set up the situation of having to have an interim supply motion now. As we all know, last spring the government brought in a budget. Normally, you could contain within a budget bill an appropriation for an amount of time—let’s say from the time of the budget up until April 1—in order to make sure you had the authority to spend what is necessary at the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, all other ministries and the Ontario Legislature.

For whatever reason this year—and I thought it was odd when we saw this interim supply motion show up at our House leader’s office. Looking at it, I was saying, “Well, this is kind of odd. It’s kind of early to get an interim supply motion at this time of day.” I’m not saying it has never happened before, but it’s not the norm. We don’t normally see an interim supply motion in this time. But then we went back and looked at the actual budget bill.

When they did the appropriation for the Legislature—our budget is about $300 million, to pay for everything that runs the Legislature, and they appropriated about 25% to 30% of what was needed inside that bill. So then I went, “Well, why did they do that?” For a government who says they want to get House time maximized so they’re able to pass more legislation through the House, they set up a situation where they would be forced to use more House time to do an interim supply motion on something that you could have dealt with when you did the budget bill.

I’m not faulting the government for not having brought it to the end of the year; other governments have done the same. This is not casting aspersions in regard to what the government did overall, but you have got to wonder: Why would you only appropriate 30% of what was necessary? Normally, when you do an appropriation in a budget bill, you at least appropriate for six months. You do a set of time, for six months, or you do the amount of money that gets you to about six months so that by the time you do your fall economic statement, you’re able to put into a bill whatever it is that has to be done.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, this one is six months. But my point is you wouldn’t have to be in this situation if you would have done an appropriation that allowed to the end of the year or even beyond Christmas, because you knew you were going to do a fall economic statement. I have got to imagine that the government, once they do the fall economic statement, which I think is next week, is going to bring a bill to the House—I would think. If you bring a bill to the House—it’s an appropriation, so you could have put this in the appropriation bill if you had set up the timing properly. That’s the argument.

I’m not saying there’s anything nefarious about what you’ve done, but it certainly makes you wonder who at finance, or who in the Premier’s office or the House leader’s office or a combination thereof, made the decision to do the appropriation in this way. That’s the point that I’m making. For a government who says, “We need to use every second in the House as efficiently as we can,” you’re being yourselves a bit sloppy in the way that you’re setting this up.

Is it the end of the world? Absolutely not. This is only a two-hour debate, because an interim supply motion is limited to two hours by our standing orders, so it’s not the end of the world. But it does raise the question, “Why did the government do it in this particular way?” That’s the first point that I wanted to make.

The second point I want to make—and this, I think, is the beauty of the British parliamentary system. In the United States, in the congressional system and the senate system, this whole thing would be just—there would be all kinds of riders on it. It always amazes me, when you read the news in the United States about their budgetary process, that the budget bills could be about that thick, because there are so many earmarks put onto every appropriation that it becomes that every congressman and every senator puts their pet projects through.

In order to be able to get support for the budget bill, they end up putting riders on—earmarks, as they call them—in order to get additional money. The British parliamentary system doesn’t work that way.

I know we all are in agreement here on both sides of the House, but when I hear some of my friends talk about, “Oh, you know, the United States, I like their congressional system,” this is one of the things that’s much more superior about what goes on in the British parliamentary system, because our appropriation process is fairly clear. The government sets out a budget in the spring by way of a speech here in the House as to what its general principles are to what it is that they want to do economically for the next year.

Once we’ve done the debate on the actual budget speech, we then have a bill, and then the bill, yes, can be amended in committee to do whatever, but we do not have the practice in our parliamentary system to do what they do in the United States. In fact, I think what we do here is a much cleaner system, where a government decides what they want to do as far as appropriation, there’s a debate in the House where members can speak to or against or for or whatever they want to do, and then we refer it off to committee.

Now, here’s where I think our system is starting to break down a little bit: The government has increasingly gotten into the habit, especially under this administration, that there is little or no time in committee to deal with bills once they get to committee. Because our parliamentary process is that a bill must have first and second reading—first reading is a nod, yes, it’s introduced, we all agree, and then we have a short six-and-a-half to seven-hour debate at second reading here in the House, because the government will time-allocate everything at that point. But once you refer it to committee, we’re supposed to have some time.

For example, members on the government side or members on the opposition side should be able to get an opportunity to get into committee to further probe what the government is doing with their budget bill, or whatever appropriation it might be—and, more importantly, the public. This is where I think this government has failed. If we don’t allow the public to get access to us, the politicians, and to our legislative process, I think we’re failing our citizens. Because a lot of them these days, we say, “Oh, you know, the public is apathetic.

They don’t vote in large numbers and they don’t pay attention to politics.” Well, we don’t give them the chance sometimes. The fact that we don’t allow enough time in committee for the public to be heard when it comes to everything from a budget bill to a very important bill, whatever it might be, on an issue that they care about—they don’t get an opportunity to be able to speak to the bill.

When I first got here in 1990, it was the practice that governments, especially on controversial bills, not only referred them to committee in this Legislature, but they would refer them on the road so that in between sessions—not while the House was sitting, but in between sessions, either the spring or summer—a bill of controversy would have at least two to three or four weeks of hearings, depending on negotiations with the parties, in order to give the public a chance to have their say. On a budget bill, it was the same.

I hearken back to—I think it was our first or second budget—when I first got here in 1990. The Conservative Party of the day, the third party led by Mr. Harris, took exception to the budget. Fair enough. He has that right as a member. I’m not arguing he shouldn’t have done that. So they held up the House with the rules of the day in order to put pressure on the then-government, NDP, to travel the budget more extensively than we would normally have done.

So we had to acquiesce because of the rules of the House. We were forced to negotiate, and I think that was a good system. It was give and take. Tories wanted more time; we wanted less time. We negotiated and we came to an agreement.

But the budget bill was sent out on the road. Not only did the opposition third party—in that case, the Conservatives—gain information about what it was that they were trying to make as far as points about that budget, but we as a government also gained as well. We learnt things. Because as you know, when you draft bills and you draft budgets, sometimes you don’t get it right on the first pass. That’s why we engage with the public. That’s why we engage with people who are interested. That’s why the people who follow this stuff closely within various agencies and universities etc. come to talk to us.

When the government refuses to give that opportunity to the public, I think we’re put in a position where it’s short-shrifting democracy.

I would hope—not on this appropriation, because this is an interim supply motion, which means to say it’s not going to go to committee, but when it comes to a budget bill—you’ll have a money bill that you’ll bring in to this House, I would think, after your fall economic statement—I think the government would be well advised to allow time for the public to have their say, not only here in Toronto but in places like Hamilton, places like Ottawa, northern Ontario, southwestern Ontario, so that people can feel engaged with the Legislature and what their government is doing, because in the end, it’s our money.

It’s the money of the citizens of this province. All of us work, or don’t work, and pay taxes in some form. These taxes are collected and we utilize those taxes in a way to be able to provide services to people, so we should give them an opportunity to have that say.

A couple of other quick points that I would like to make in regard to this particular appropriation—you’ll notice those who have been down here and get to see the Legislature—as a member was saying previously, this building is, what, 128—I’m looking at the Clerks—about 128 years old, or about 118? About that. About 120 years old. The building is a glorious old building. It’s an historical building, but, man, it’s pretty expensive to take care of. They’ve had to redo all of the mortar between all of the bricks. They’re not even bricks; they’re big construction stones. They’ve redone the whole building.

They’ve had to replace the mortar between every joint in this building. Very expensive to do.

Currently, we’re building a new reception centre downstairs to deal with today’s security needs when it comes to getting access to a parliamentary building in a day where security is not what it used to be and the threats to people are not what they used to be as compared to 30, 40 years ago. When I first got here in 1990, there was no security in this building, by and large. I’m looking at my good friend the Sergeant-at-Arms, who’s smiling and looking because she’s interested in this one. She’s a great person, by the way. We should thank her for the great work that she does, along with all of her staff.

We have professional security people here second to none, I would say. Well, of course they’re second to none. Anyway, I was going to have a little fun with you.

But the point I want to make is, in 1990 when I got here, there was no security in this building. Anybody could just walk in. You could walk in by any door you wanted. You could walk up to the Premier’s office, open the door and say, “Can I see the Premier?” Essentially, it was as easy as that. But it was a much different time. People were not consumed the way they are today with some of the things that have happened in society that have led us to the need of clamping down on security a bit more. Now, do I like all of this?

Absolutely not, and I know our Sergeant-at-Arms knows I’m a traditionalist when it comes to this, but I understand why it’s being done. But all of this costs money, and it’s money that we have to spend in order to make sure that it’s not just the politicians that are being protected, but that when the public comes into this building, they’re protected as well, because we need to make sure that we do proper screening. We need to make sure that we control access into the building so that our security people here can do the job that they’ve got to do in keeping us safe. All of that costs money.

One of the reasons we have to pass this appropriation motion today is that without the appropriation, everything in this building would stop, including the work that’s being done downstairs with the reception centre. So let’s understand what this is all about.

I know my colleagues want to have a few words on this as well. I’m going to wrap up within a couple of minutes. But I look forward to next week—the government’s fall economic statement. It will be interesting to see what they have to say. I can tell you there is much in the way of angst in Ontario when it comes to how this government has dealt with things so far in the first year and a half in office. The government has done a massive restructuring and made cuts in health care, education and other programs that are really starting to be seen back home.

I think all of us could admit, on the government side and the opposition side, that we’ve all had constituents come up to us on the street, at the grocery store or the office, by email or whatever, to complain about what this has meant to a parent of an autistic child or what this has meant to a parent who has children in high school or grade school that is affected by what’s going on.

I had an opportunity to meet with all of the school boards in my riding this spring. I’ve had an opportunity to meet with students. I’ve had an opportunity to meet with the labour leaders, which are the unions that represent the workers in all of these schools. I’ll tell you that there are some changes that have happened. Now, the government has tried to mitigate some of those as of late—that’s interesting. Certainly, New Democrats have been pushing for that. I take great pleasure and great pride as a New Democrat that we’ve been effective as an opposition in getting this government to slow down a little bit.

Now, are they stopping? No. Are they going to go in the opposite direction? I don’t believe so. But we’ve been very effective as an opposition, here in the NDP—our leader, Andrea Horwath, and all of our critics—working with the public, working with parents of children with autism, working with schools, working with students and working with health care workers and others who have been affected.

I think of people that I talk to in my riding who work in the home care sector. We have a crisis in home care. I’m not talking about long-term-care institutions; we have a separate problem there. When it comes to being able to provide services for people at home, we don’t have enough PSWs. Why? Because we don’t pay them enough. As a result, they can’t find PSWs to do the calls. A good friend of mine, Darla, who is a PSW in Timmins in the home care sector, will take off for work in the morning, and she has so many calls, it’s ridiculous. We’re asking these people to do huge amounts of work for very little pay, and we wonder why they quit and why we can’t find PSWs.

The government has really set up—the problem first started under the Liberals; I’m not going to put it all on your desk. The Liberals set this up by neglecting home care for many years, but you guys came into office and you were supposed to try to find a way to fix some of this. What we now have is a failing home care system where we can no longer get services that we used to be able to get, and what we do get is very much rationed.

I have a lady that I was dealing with in my constituency about two weeks ago. Her issue is real simple: She can live independently in her apartment, provided somebody comes in and does her laundry, because her arthritis is so crippling that she’s not able to do the stuff physically that you have to do to operate the washer and dryer or to do the things that have to be done—a few other tasks, some of the heavier housekeeping. She can cook for herself; she can do the rest.

She can live independently, but because home care is not doing the work that needs to be done to help her stay in her home, she’s risking having to go into a long-term-care institution. It’s going to be far more expensive to have her in a long-term-care institution than to keep her in her home. So this is a question of the government not putting resources where they can best be utilized in order to lessen the effects on services back home.

I’m going to let the rest of the members of the assembly who I’m sure want to speak to this speak, and I look forward to continued debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate? The member for Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Good morning and thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see you sitting up there today.

It is an honour to speak today in support of the supply motion put forward by my colleague the member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, a good friend of mine, right here in front of me today. This motion is routine and procedural, but it is also a very important step in the provincial fiscal cycle. As many colleagues note, this motion is about making sure the Legislative Assembly has the funding it needs to operate this year.

It provides temporary spending authority for the salaries of our legislative staff, and for other necessary payments related to the offices of the Legislative Assembly, until the end of the fiscal year. These include the Chief Electoral Officer, the Ombudsman, the Financial Accountability Officer, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General. As many members know, we are also upgrading the assembly’s security and screening centre to ensure safety for all members, staff and visitors here.

It is important to reiterate that this motion today includes spending approved by the Board of Internal Economy, an all-party committee chaired by the Speaker that makes funding decisions for the Legislative Assembly.

Our legislative officers perform vital functions, and I know that members of all parties rely on these essential functions. To take just one example, the Audit and Accountability Committee, on which I serve, is working right now on a motion and follow-up on the implementation of this recommendation of the Auditor General. We should all value her work identifying areas where taxpayers’ money can be used more efficiently. We need this motion to ensure that these officers can continue their important work in this beautiful province of Ontario that we all live in.

From now until March 31, 2020, Speaker, I hope all members of the House will agree: These expenses are essential, and none of them should be controversial. But since this is a supply motion, the rules of this House also allow us to speak more generally on the economy and on the budget of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to say once again that our government’s approach is working. We took office based on a commitment to clean up 15 years of waste, scandal and mismanagement. We inherited a $15-billion deficit; it has now been cut in half, to $7.4 billion. After years of neglect under the previous government, our credit rating has now been returned to stable. I’ll repeat that once again: Our credit rating has been returned to stable.

After years of warnings about “bogus accounting” by the previous government, we have received a clear audit opinion from the Auditor General for the past two years. And since last June, we have created 270,000 new jobs in this province of Ontario. We created a stable business environment where employers have opportunities to grow, prosper and create quality, high-paying jobs right here in this province of Ontario—for our children.

But as we saw yesterday, we have lots of work left to do. Having worked at Ford Motor Co. at the Oakville assembly plant for 31 years, I know how devastating the announcement yesterday is. Many of the 4,500 workers at the Oakville assembly complex were my co-workers; they remain my friends. They lost 450 positions beginning next February. It’s difficult news, not just for them but for their children and for their families and for the entire region. I want them to know that I stand with them. Our Premier stands with them, and our entire government stands with them at this difficult time.

I understand that the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development is now reaching out to help the affected workers, and I also stand ready to assist in any way that I can.

It is estimated that every job in auto manufacturing supports nine other jobs in our community, so it is also a difficult time for many auto parts suppliers and other small businesses.

When I was working there, I was a vehicle auditor at the Ford Motor Co. as well as incoming quality, and I dealt with a lot of these suppliers day in and day out. I know it will be very difficult for their families and their friends as well who depend on the Oakville assembly complex, as well as so many other businesses throughout Halton region. But, working together, I know that we can support the affected families and work to strengthen the competitiveness of the Ontario auto sector.

The first phase of our Driving Prosperity plan announced earlier this year committed $40 million to do just that, and that’s just the beginning. I know that, moving forward, our government will work every day to ensure that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs in automotive manufacturing.

In Oakville, Mississauga and right across this province of Ontario, over 105,000 Ontarians work in the automotive industry, with hundreds of thousands more spinoff jobs, so this sector is critical to the success of our province.

I would also like to take a moment to correct the record about allegations of a 14% pay increase to the deputy ministers. The reality is that since we have come into government, there has been a modest increase of 2% to the salary range of the deputy minister—that is the salary range of the deputy minister—and only for those deputies performing at a level of excellence.

In fact, one of the first actions we took as a government was to cancel the scheduled automatic pay increase that would have seen deputy minister salaries raised by 11%. Under the previous government, at the cost of living, deputy ministers received automatic pay increases regardless of their performance. We put an end to the practice of that in the 2019 budget, and we put a system in place that puts taxpayers first.

Under our new pay-for-performance strategy, modest pay increases are provided, and only to leaders delivering programs towards meeting key government objectives. This will end the culture of entitlement and create a new culture of excellence. The taxpayers of Ontario expect nothing less.

Speaker, we know the fundamental role that the legislative office plays in our government. This motion will provide the necessary spending authority to keep our legislative offices going and allow us to continue the important work that we have all been sent here to do. Without it, salaries and wages can’t be paid.

Once again, I encourage all members to support this important motion today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: You know what? I am surprised that we’re here discussing this today. I am a new member of this House, and the senior members expressed that this is a very unusual time for us to be talking about an interim supply motion, in the middle of this budgetary year. I think I’m going to try to seek some answers from this government as to why we’re in this position right now.

The government talks a lot about restoring trust and transparency. I hope that this is an opportunity this government will take to do just that, to answer some of these fundamental questions and to help us restore some of the trust and some of the transparency that the people of Ontario expect from our government.

As the honourable member from Timmins has said, this role, as the elected members of this House, is our fundamental duty. It is a duty that goes back all the way to King John and the Magna Carta. It’s hard to believe we could be standing here this morning in Toronto talking about something that has a pedigree that deep but, in fact, it does. Really, these are the origins of our Westminster parliamentary system that go back to King John and the Magna Carta, and we’re here today exercising that responsibility and exercising that duty.

There is nothing we can say more strongly than it is our responsibility to be keepers of the purse strings of the taxpayers’ money. That’s what we’re talking about today: good spending and good allocation of taxpayers’ dollars, hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars.

The Auditor General has a quote I’d like to read this morning that underscores the importance of our role in oversight when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars. In her 2012 annual report, it reads, “Legislative oversight of government spending, including the annual budget, is fundamental to any democracy. In Canada, such oversight typically falls to the opposition parties, although all elected officials are ultimately responsible for ensuring that revenues are spent prudently on behalf of the public.”

That gives me an opportunity, again, to emphasize the important role of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, a key, fundamental component of a Westminster parliamentary democracy which the members of the House on the other side said that they are so proud of when they walk up to this House. They’re proud of what this building represents. The opposition represents a fundamental, key component of that pride we all feel in the system that we have here today. We certainly take this duty very seriously.

The government talks a lot about restoring trust, but I want to say that trust is another way of talking about confidence, that you trust someone when you have confidence in what it is they’re doing. But, I have to say, at what point, with a government that appears to be incompetent when it comes to handling the financial files, does that lack of confidence become mistrust? I would say that that’s what we’re going to talk about a little bit this morning.

I also want to say, again, this is an opportunity for the government side to answer questions clearly, so that we can ensure that we are restoring trust and that no one has any doubt about the competency of your handling of the financial files.

As I said, this is an incredibly unusual motion. I’ve listened carefully to the members on the opposite side, on the government bench, and I really haven’t heard a clear answer as to why. Why are we here, and why are we discussing this interim supply motion?

I did hear some members saying that we have new members in the House, and we have increased the number of members in terms of the number of seats. That was something that was known; that’s not new information.

I did hear that we talked about a security upgrade to the building. That couldn’t have just come out of the blue. Maybe it has come out of the blue. I know we’ve had a lot of problems with this particular government in terms of security. That may be something that was unknown. But that kind of capital spend isn’t something that comes out of the blue, or shouldn’t come out of the blue.

I also would like to point out that while these things were already known, I noticed that no one on the other side mentioned some of the increases in the cost to the taxpayers, based on additional ministries and ministers, additional PAs, additional associate—what is it now, the new term?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Associate ministers.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Associate ministers. My question is, is there anybody on the government side that isn’t a minister, an associate minister—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Or a PA?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: —or a PA? Because according to the Premier, you’re all all-stars, so I can understand why we will have to increase the cost for these promotions that you have awarded yourselves.

I would also say, in terms of the people having trust in how this government is handling files, let’s just look at the numbers that this government keeps throwing around in terms of what is the actual deficit in the province of Ontario. I know people that I talk to have shut their ears; they don’t listen anymore. This government had this big, flamboyant commission of inquiry. I sat on that commission. It really was, I would have to say, political theatre for the most part. But we did come up with a number that the government was in debt, that we had a $15-billion deficit.

But since that time, we have a government that, in fact, has increased the deficit. I can’t even imagine. Really, it only would take a Conservative government to increase the deficit at the same time as you’re cutting program spending. I don’t know how that adds up. I was asked, and I’d have to say that the people of Ontario are also curious as to how that adds up.

Straight answers on the deficit, straight answers on your cuts to the cap-and-trade that is costing us $1.9 billion in revenue, straight answers about the Liberal fair hydro plan that you are continuing—you’ve adopted that. It’s costing $4.2 billion to the taxpayers of Ontario, all at the same time that hydro bills are going up. That 12% promised decrease—Doug Ford promised that hydro bills were going down 12%. Well, that’s not happening; it’s going up. All at the same time, $4.2 billion is going to subsidize Ontario hydro.

Now we can talk a little bit about transparency. I would have to say that the government has a lot of pretty words about transparency, but I am standing here before you to say that the government doesn’t walk that talk. As the finance critic, I have made genuine, sincere efforts through the standing orders, through conversations, through committee to get straight answers on the government’s handling of the finances, and I’m going to show you exactly how that has not happened. We don’t get straight answers, and it’s unclear.

The government is not willing to be clear and forthright with the people of Ontario, let alone Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, on how this government is spending taxpayer dollars.

When this government presented the estimates this year, it was a shock to me, as it would certainly be to the people of Ontario, that they were actually, in fact, the Liberal estimates. They used precisely the budget of the previous Liberal government. The Liberal government that they railed against on and on and on again—we had to discuss those Liberal estimates.

I don’t see how that is transparent, because there were no answers from the government side, from the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance at the time, who is in a different position now—no straight answers as to why we were faced with having to debate the Liberal estimates at the time. So in order to begin to get a handle on what this government’s spending is, we submitted to the government what are called order paper questions. This is something that exists in the standing orders, and it exists so that members of the House can get a better understanding of how the government is spending their money.

I submitted a few Treasury Board orders to the President of the Treasury Board. I submitted this question: “Would the President of the Treasury Board please provide details of planned spending changes to approximately 40 ministry programs referred to in the Financial Accountability Officer’s report, Expenditure Estimates: A Review of Ontario’s Proposed Spending Requirements....”

Now, I would reiterate the fact that this is 40 different ministries that were having a changing in their spending, and that we thought that this was really good information to have from the government. But essentially we really got, I would say, a cut-and-paste answer that referred me to the Treasury Board orders that will be published in the Ontario Gazette. I’ll talk a little bit about the Ontario Gazette in a second.

I had a second Treasury Board question, which was: “Would the President of the Treasury Board please provide a copy of all Treasury Board orders since June 29, 2018, including orders to adjust the authorized spending for any ministry program or sub-program.”

Now, these are fundamental questions. You’d think that a government would be prepared to explain exactly how they were moving money from one file to another file, especially in a time when what we would see is cuts to spending. How many billions of cuts would we see to spending? Was it $3.2 billion in cuts to program spending? But no details, absolutely no details. That’s something that would certainly restore trust and transparency to this House, if the government was prepared to answer those questions.

Now, for those of you who don’t know, the Ontario Gazette does publish Treasury Board orders. Treasury Board orders are in-year orders that allow the government to move money from one line item to another line item and back and forth. Really, Treasury Board orders show you what the real spending was. That’s what they are all about. But the Treasury Board orders don’t get published in the Ontario Gazette until the following year, so it’s already way old news when we get those reports.

The members of the opposition—including, perhaps, members like the parliamentary assistants and the associate ministers who may not be privy to this, as well—we get to find that out at exactly the same time as the general public does. That does not give us a good opportunity to exercise our duty, the highest duty that we have, which is to oversee the spending of the taxpayers’ dollars.

There is no better example of the people of Ontario’s lack of trust, their lack of confidence in the competency of this government’s handling of taxpayer files, than the autism file. It was really contentious, and continues to be really contentious and, in fact, I heard yesterday morning that autism families were here again in front of the House, seeking answers. One woman said, “Tick-tock, Todd. We’re looking for an answer as to how this money is being spent.” They’ve been waiting 18 months now and they don’t have a clue about what’s going on with that money.

But we had the former minister of community and children services—she had a lot to say. She was very loud about her proclamation that she had in fact sought $102 million. She had run to the Treasury Board to beg for $102 million to maintain funding for the autism file that she claims was bankrupt when she arrived, based on the Liberal government’s handling of that.

So in order to understand exactly what the minister at the time, MPP MacLeod, was talking about, we again submitted Treasury Board orders to understand exactly what was going on in this ministry. The MPP from Hamilton Mountain, Miss Taylor, submitted two Treasury Board orders. I will read those as well, because we did not get an answer to these questions and I would say that we still are waiting for an answer to these questions.

That would be: “Enquiry of the ministry—Would the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services please provide details of the constraints on spending on the Ontario Autism Program that explain her statement during question period on February 21, 2019, that she was obliged to ask the Treasury Board ‘for an emergency $102 million’ to maintain funding for a program whose budget was $321 million, according to the expenditure estimates published by the previous government and subsequently tabled by the current government.”

As I said, this government, the Conservative government, tabled the Liberal estimates in this House. Even that is hard to believe, but it did happen. Truth is stranger than fiction.

A second order paper question from Miss Taylor: “Would the President of the Treasury Board please provide a copy of the request from the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services to the Treasury Board ‘for an emergency $102 million’ for the Ontario Autism Program, as mentioned by the minister during question period ... as well as the Treasury Board’s response, including any Treasury Board orders.”

Simple information: $102 million in emergency funding; $36 million has moved around. Really, those numbers don’t add up. To this day, those numbers do not add up. Again, the answer that came from the President of the Treasury Board was, “Wait until the Ontario Gazette comes out. You can find out, just like all the people of Ontario can find out”—the people who are really dying waiting with bated breath for those Ontario Gazette papers to get published.

The autism file is a perfect example of how this government could step up and give straight answers—straight answers to the opposition and straight answers to the autism families, who continue to have to protest to get the services that they so much deserve—and restore trust, as you so like to say. Restore trust with your actions, not with your words. But so far, we haven’t got straight answers on that.

I would have to say that the important components of the budgetary process, the important components that would allow every member to have some input, to have some understanding of the finances of Ontario, are prescribed in the standing orders. But as, again, a new member trying to understand that cycle and trying to understand what the actual prescribed standing orders allow, it hasn’t been easy, because this is a government that has seemed to short-circuit accepted practices.

They don’t seem to respond to questions and they don’t seem to be conducting themselves, as far as their oversight of the finances, in any typical way, in any way that you would expect of responsible governors, the responsible keepers of the public purse.

One of the important pieces of this oversight is the Standing Committee on Estimates. Last year, we had the Liberal estimates, tabled by a Conservative government, that never did go to the Standing Committee on Estimates. So a huge chunk of the responsibility, the deep dive, the drill down into what the planned spending of the government would look like, was completely taken away from the people of Ontario. It’s an important piece of our parliamentary democracy, and that didn’t happen for the last estimates tabled by this government. Now we have a new budget year.

We’re moving on to the new budget year, 2019-20, so you would like to think that the government now had a reset point where they could get back to business as usual and ensure that their actions, the way they handle this file, would, as they like to say, restore trust and transparency. But you would be as disappointed as I am to hear that that is not the case.

The Standing Committee on Estimates usually begins meeting in September and October, but guess what? They begin meeting when the House reconvenes. But where were we? We were not here; we were on a forced absence from the House.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s called a Scheer pause.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It was sheer lunacy that we had a five-month break from this House. So now we have lost almost two months of a cycle in which the estimates committee could review the planned spending of this government. We’re now on an accelerated timetable. I’m not saying that the Standing Committee on Estimates doesn’t have some fantastic people on that committee and that they can scrutinize these estimates, but I can certainly imagine that they would have expected, having not had the opportunity last time, that they would not have a second opportunity shortchanged on behalf of the government.

I would also like to point out that we now have another feature in a way that the people of Ontario and the House can track spending. What we have is the public accounts. The public accounts is another way that we look to see what is the spending of the government. It doesn’t give the kind of breakdown that the Treasury Board orders give of where money went in and went out; it does show the spending.

But there has to be—I don’t want to lose people in the weeds, but it is important to note that volume 2 of the public accounts has been removed from the scrutiny of public accounts. So why does that matter? Within volume 2 of the public accounts—volume 1 is the ministerial spending. Volume 2 actually has a subset of three volumes, and what is in there is the actual spending of the government—the biggest budget items of the government.

In that volume 2, we have the spending of the LHINs, so our health care budget. The biggest, biggest item that we have in service spending is in volume 2. We have the spending on our school boards. We have OPG. You know OPG. We have the IESO, which is pretty important in terms of a government that’s trying to restructure or trying to address the rising costs of hydro for people in Ontario. OLG, those are there. We also have the LCBO.

This is billions of dollars that are being spent, and what the government is saying is that rather than that being part of public accounts, in fact, what we’re going to do is rely on these individual agencies to publish their spending on their own websites to make that available to the public. So you can’t go to one place to find that; you have to go to the website of each one of these entities to find out how they spent taxpayers’ money, this huge amount of money.

I don’t know about you, but that, to me, is a really onerous, unreasonable expectation for the people of Ontario to be going to each website to be scrutinizing this when, in fact, this is the government’s responsibility to have ultimate oversight on the spending of taxpayers’ dollars. But now they’ve downloaded that responsibility to these organizations.

A perfect example is the Green Ontario Fund. The Green Ontario Fund, that’s millions—billions, possibly—of spending of taxpayer dollars. There are no financial statements on their website. It’s an agency, an organization—absolutely no financial statements on that. So there is one example of many where I was only able to find—if I were looking to find out how that money went, and I was asked by the government to go to the website to see how the Green Ontario Fund spent their money, I wouldn’t get any answers.

I suppose I could ask a Treasury Board question, or I could stand up in the House and ask the minister, but my experience so far is that I would be out of luck in terms of getting a straight answer from this government.

So, really, while we agree that this bill, this interim supply motion, is not necessarily controversial and is not nefarious, as someone had said, it certainly points to this government’s—really, they do not seem to have a firm grip on the financial budgetary cycle of the province of Ontario.

If you really want to restore trust, give people straight answers. Give the opposition straight answers. If you want to be transparent, as you so much claim—I mean, it seems to be your brand to talk about transparency, but it isn’t just a T-shirt, by the way. It has to be backed up with actions, and this government to date has shown no actions that are moving us to a more transparent and accountable government.

I expect and hope that, when we have the fall economic statement, this will improve and that we can see a government that really does feel that they are accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario and that they really do feel that they owe the taxpayers of Ontario straight answers on how they are spending their hard-earned dollars.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I listened to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, and I have to say I did appreciate his remarks about the importance of this institution to the furtherance of democracy in the province. He talked about the role of the Legislature in advancing the public good and enabling participation in the process of government.

But the problem is, Speaker, this supply motion, as necessary as it is, is not the answer to making democracy real in the province of Ontario. If this government was truly interested in respecting the role of the Legislative Assembly, they would do things like take bills to committee, enabling the public to come and participate in the legislative process, suggesting amendments to bills.

Instead, throughout this government’s first year, we have seen numerous bills skip committee altogether, and go straight from second reading to third reading with no opportunity whatsoever for the public to come and make suggestions—maybe even commend the government for what they are doing. Lots of times, people come to committee to congratulate the government on what they’re doing. But, no, this government is not interested in hearing from the public—good or bad—on what they’re doing.

The times that we have seen this government take bills to committee, what we’ve seen is very, very, very limited time for people to come and make submissions. I think of the health care restructuring bill. There were thousands—thousands—of written submissions, hundreds and hundreds of requests from the public to come—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thousands.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Yes, thousands of requests from the public to come and speak to the bill. I think we had about four or five hours allocated to hear public input on that bill. That, Speaker, does more to undermine democracy than anything else that I can think of. If we’re truly interested in the legislative process, in ensuring that there are opportunities for participation in moving the government’s agenda forward, then we would ensure that there are ample opportunities for people to come to committee and make suggestions about the legislation that this government is passing.

Speaker, this interim supply motion is part of the government’s overall fiscal agenda. As my colleague the official opposition finance critic has said, people have concerns about whether this government actually knows what it’s doing with its fiscal agenda. People in the province will know that there has been a long, long, long list of cuts that this government has made. There are websites—the Ford Tracker—with all of the cuts that have been implemented by this government, and now, in response to some of the pushback that the government has received, they’re partially walking back many of those cuts.

So now we have a parallel set of websites that are tracking all of the walk-backs, the reversals of these cuts.

It’s quite bewildering to people, what this government is doing with its fiscal policy. It’s making cuts on one hand and it is reversing cuts on the other hand. But at the same time, Ontarians are really feeling the pain of the cuts that haven’t been walked back. In my own riding of London West, health care remains a huge concern, a huge priority for the people who I represent. We saw this government, in its spring budget, make cuts to health care by not increasing health care funding even to the rate of inflation.

We know that the health care rate of inflation is, in fact, much higher than the general rate of inflation. What this has meant is, in London—the London Health Sciences Centre last year ended its fiscal year with a $24-million deficit. That, of course, was due to decisions that the Liberals had made: years of underfunding by the previous Liberal government. This $24-million deficit at London Health Sciences Centre last year was the first time in 13 years that that hospital ended its fiscal year in a deficit situation.

With this government, they’re now looking at a $53-million deficit because of the decisions that were made in the budget. In June, the hospital announced that it would be reducing staff hours across the organization, making cuts that are the equivalent of losing 165 full-time-equivalent positions. Reducing staff hours has an impact on the quality of care that people receive.

More concerning: Just in October, we learned that the hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, is going to be closing 49 beds in a community that actually is at the epicentre of the hallway medicine crisis. London Health Sciences Centre put together a hallway transfer protocol to deal with the reality that people in London were going into the hospital and were being treated on hospital stretchers—stretchers lining all of the hallways in the hospital. To deal with that reality, the hospital decided to put some rules in place, some guidelines, about the kind of care that patients would receive when they were lying on stretchers in the hallway.

In response to this crisis of hallway medicine, the hospital is in this position now of looking at making more bed closures. We’re going to be losing a total of 49 beds, and that, Speaker, includes 11 beds from the burns and plastics unit. Actually, that is all the beds that are in the burns and plastics unit at the hospital. So the burns and plastics unit is going to be entirely closed.

Of course, London Health Sciences Centre is a tertiary care hospital. It serves a much broader area than just the city of London. People come from across southwestern Ontario to access care at London Health Sciences Centre. So when people experience a serious burn, they will no longer be able to get the specialized care that used to be provided in the burns and plastics unit. The specially trained nurses who worked in that unit are being redeployed in other areas of the hospital.

So when somebody comes in with a serious burn, that burn nurse who used to be there in the unit to provide the care will have to be called from another area of the hospital, potentially leaving the patient that she was dealing with, and she’ll have to come and hopefully be available to treat a patient who comes in with a burn.

There is also a very real risk of infection that burn patients will be exposed to if they have to be transported to different areas of the hospital to find someone who is specialized in burn care to treat them.

I want to commend our leader, Andrea Horwath, who came to London and joined me and my colleagues—the member for London–Fanshawe and the member for London North Centre—in meeting with the nurses, some from the burns and plastics unit, the unit that’s being closed, and nurses from other areas of the hospital, who talked about what this is going to mean for the patients that they care for. I can tell you, Speaker, I was so impressed by the professionalism of these nurses. Their concern is not that they’re going to lose their jobs, because they are being redeployed to other areas of the hospital.

Their concern is for the people who are coming to the hospital to access care. They are very worried about what this is going to mean for people in London, for people in the surrounding area, when they come to the hospital to be treated—especially for burns, because that unit is now going to be closed.

Speaker, we also know that there are many other negative impacts in the fallout from this government’s budget in the spring. Housing is something that was actually absent in this government’s budget. We would have liked to have seen something in the budget to deal with housing, to deal with the backlog in maintenance for social housing, for example, because in London, as in all social housing stock across the province, we are facing millions of dollars in deferred maintenance.

The community housing has not been able to do the maintenance necessary to provide the existing units, and even the existing units are nowhere near what is needed for low-income Londoners who don’t have safe housing, who are living in substandard housing.

The London and Middlesex Community Housing actually has had a number of units vacant because they don’t have the resources to do the maintenance and repair that’s necessary to allow new tenants to come in and occupy those units. This is while we have—I think it’s thousands of Londoners who are on the wait-list to get into subsidized housing in the city.

Poverty, Speaker: Poverty remains a huge issue. In London, we have a quarter of children in London living in families below the poverty line. We have a serious issue with a declining labour force. We have a jobs crisis in London. Over the last year, our workforce declined by 10,000 people, even while our population has grown by 8,000, so we’re having more people moving into the city and we’re having fewer people working. That really has a dramatic impact on the city’s ability to deliver services to the residents of the city.

Last May, the London Employment Help Centre had to lay off a quarter of their staff because of provincial cuts to employment service providers. In a city that has a jobs crisis, that has a quarter of people of the working-age population who are not in the labour force, a city where half of the workforce are in what’s called precarious jobs—they’re not full-time; they don’t have benefits; they are contract positions; there is no security—in a city where people could really use the services of the London Employment Help Centre, that organization had to lay off a quarter of their staff because of the fiscal decisions that this government has made.

We also have more than 3,500 families every month accessing the food bank. It’s really painful, Speaker, to think that there are—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I apologize to the member for London West. The time to discuss motion 67 has expired.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Seeing the time on the clock, we will now stand in recess until question period at 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Jill Andrew: I would like to thankfully introduce Sharon Stanley, a member of CUPE women’s committee representing Local 101 in London, Ontario. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Sharon. Thank you so much for your advocacy for women and girls.

Mr. Dave Smith: I have two I’d like to introduce today. First, my new executive assistant, Sydney Bertrand, is here in the gallery.

And today is Meet the Miners Day, so the Ontario Mining Association will be with us today, as well as a number of other miners, and we have a reception later on this evening.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome back autism parents and advocates Amy Moledzki and Michau van Speyk. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I would like to welcome Sinem Mingan, the new Turkish consul general in Toronto, her husband and members of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations to Queen’s Park this morning. Welcome.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’m proud to introduce page Jack Sullivan, from Lester B. Pearson Public School, and Jack’s dad, Sean Sullivan. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Shannon Weir and Tanner Jamieson, from my constituency office. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I would like to welcome the grandparents of Owen Welch, Kristine Welch and Mark Welch, from my riding of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, and also Owen’s cousins, Carter Nault and Emerson Nault. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I would like to welcome the grade 10 students from St. Xavier school along with their teacher, Mr. Howard Leung. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome William Haber and Auslin McDaniel-Perrin, young cannabis entrepreneurs from Alberta.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Good morning. I’d like to introduce Elizabeth Wright, from the riding of King–Vaughan, and her family, who are with us today to enjoy seeing their daughter in action.

Mr. Stan Cho: It’s my privilege to introduce Brian Lukshis and Lynne Morrison, the parents of wonderful page Elizabeth, from the greatest riding in the world, Willowdale. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I’m a little confused because I was told for the first time ever I was having a page, who is Owen Welch, and he goes to Pinedale school. Anyway, I’m over the moon, thrilled, glad he is here. Owen, we look forward to the next couple of weeks with you.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Good morning, Speaker. It’s great to see you. I’d like to welcome Alisha Arora, who is the legislative page from the great riding of Mississauga Centre, as well as Wioletta Matczuk, who is visiting us from Poland and who is doing an internship at my office. Welcome.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today a friend and former colleague. I’d like to welcome Sheik Mohamed Abdat, who is visiting from Dubai; and former colleague Shazad Mohamed and Amir Modaressi, who are visiting us today. Welcome to the people’s House.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature the proud parents of page Bernat Bernaus-Townsend: his father, Derek Townsend, and his mother, Isabel Bernaus. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): In the Speaker’s gallery today are the family of the late Yusra Javed, our summer press gallery intern: Mohammad Javed, Sabrina Suraiya, Junaid Javed and Nusrat Rahman. We are pleased to welcome you to Queen’s Park.

Yusra Javed

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I’m seeking unanimous consent for the House to pay tribute to Yusra Javed, the promising young journalist who passed away this September, leaving an indelible impression on those who knew her, and that 10 minutes be divided between the official opposition and the Speaker to make statements, followed by a moment of silence to remember this incredible young woman.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent of the House to have a tribute for Yusra Javed and to have a moment of silence afterwards. Agreed? Agreed.

I recognize the member for Scarborough Southwest.

Ms. Doly Begum: I am honoured to speak on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and yet deeply saddened that I will be speaking in memory of Yusra Javed, a remarkable 21-year-old young woman whom we have lost recently.

To Yusra’s family—her parents, Sabrina Suraiya and Mr. Mohammad Javed, and her brother, Junaid Javed—and to the members of the press gallery, Yusra’s friends, colleagues and guests in the gallery today: I had the privilege of meeting Yusra here when she started her internship. She found me after question period and introduced herself. From one young woman to another, I felt a true sense of pride as she told me she was proud of me. I told her I was proud of her.

We went back and forth about who was prouder, and then agreed that we were both pretty proud of each other for making it through, for being able to work in this incredible place. I mean, how many brown women do you see in the portraits of these walls? So we were pretty proud. We both believed that one day we could have our portraits on those walls, too.

Yusra wanted to see more women, especially women of colour, taking up these spaces, and she knew that hard work and dedication were the way forward. She had an enormous amount of positive energy and motivation to create new opportunities. All of these attributes she acquired from her parents.

Yusra’s parents were working-class people who immigrated to Canada in 1994. Her mother recalls having a small amount of cash with them when they arrived. Both worked odd, precarious jobs, making ends meet. Life wasn’t easy, but they were determined to settle down and give their kids the best life possible. For both of her parents, this meant supporting each other, learning together, and sharing each and every special moment together.

Before any big occasions, be it watching a political debate or preparing for an interview, Yusra’s father was her go-to person. Anyone would say she inherited her meticulous organizing skills, caring nature and fashion sense from her mother. And there isn’t a secret Yusra and her brother wouldn’t share with each other. Yusra was the reflection of her parents and their upbringing.

In one of the episodes of her own show, The Youth Perspective, she starts with a quote from her father: “If you don’t respect money, money will never respect you.” This was an episode to help youth to be more financially responsible. Yusra wanted to empower people, especially our youth. This 21-year-old had embodied her parents’ teachings. She wanted to make them proud, a sentiment I and many of us can closely relate to, and in just the beginning of her career she made them, and all of us, proud.

When Allison Jones from the Canadian Press and Rob Ferguson from the Toronto Star interviewed Yusra for the press gallery internship, her talent and her enthusiasm impressed them. Both shared with me how well thought out her answers were, and they wanted to hire her before she was scooped by another media outlet. Within months she impressed everyone in the press gallery.

Yusra believed in the power of journalism. She didn’t hold back when asking the tough questions. Whether it was a student group, MPPs or even the Premier, she knew her facts and was quick to correct them when necessary. She believed that highlighting facts and truth was not taking sides but, instead, strengthening our democracy. This was her dream, and she did it with extraordinary poise.

When writing this statement, I reached out to some of the members of the press gallery to ask about Yusra. Fatima Syed from the National Observer told me how confident Yusra was. “Yusra would be working for the CBC and would be running the press gallery and Ontario coverage with me and Emma Paling.” That’s what Fatima said. That was Yusra’s dream.

Emma Paling from HuffPost Canada told me, “The confidence, drive and poise she exuded were unbelievable for a 21-year-old.” She remembered the time when Yusra told Steve Paikin, “I’m going to have your job one day.”

Yusra knew how to dream. She understood the need to occupy spaces that have been closed for generations.

When she was diagnosed with an illness that about one in 16 million people in this world have, she didn’t lose hope. She wanted to get back up and finish her journalism degree, and, more than anything, she wanted to return to Queen’s Park.

Yusra was a confident young woman who believed in the moral obligation to uphold the truth. Her essence was a reminder to all of us, especially those of us in this Legislature and anyone in public service, of our moral duties.

Rob Ferguson told me that she set the bar pretty high for their interns. I think she set the bar pretty high for all of us, especially for us daughters.

To the loving parents of Yusra Javed, we want to say thank you. Thank you for sharing Yusra with us. All of us whose lives she touched one way or another are better for it. God bless Yusra Javed and God bless this wonderful family that brought up this incredible young woman.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): As Speaker, I feel honoured and privileged to have been asked to give this statement on behalf of the Queen’s Park press gallery, where Yusra worked as an intern this past summer.

Yusra’s life was tragically cut short, but it doesn’t feel like that phrase appropriately conveys the enormity of what was lost. Who would she have become, given all the years she deserved to have? How many other lives would she have touched in the way she left such an indelible impression on all of us after just a few months here? What those of us in the press gallery can say for certain is that journalism lost one of its brightest stars just as she was beginning to shine.

She had the drive to go above and far beyond what was required of her during her internship, pitching and writing stories for various news outlets, contacting dozens of people for one story, and still trying to do interviews while in hospital. She already had serious political reporting chops, which is incredibly rare in someone so young.

She could cut through message tracks, and she asked pointed questions at every press conference, grilling every stakeholder and special interest group that passed through the media studio. To get a taste of her unabashed gumption, you needed only to watch her questioning the Premier. None of us could have done that so skilfully at just 21.

Many of us have found ourselves, in the past few weeks, stopping all of a sudden when we realize Yusra is gone. Her press gallery internship was always supposed to wrap up at the end of the summer. But to know that she is not out in the world, wowing the CBC at her internship there, working on freelance stories in her spare time, finishing her degree at Ryerson, charming absolutely everyone she meets and spending time with her wonderful family, is just so abjectly unfair.

Yusra was on her way to becoming one of the very best journalists in the country. Her picture now hangs in the press gallery lounge so that everyone will know that. She has taken her rightful place among the giants who inspired her and so that she may inspire generations of journalists to come.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the members to now rise and observe a moment of silence in memory of Yusra.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I am going to ask the pages to assemble for their introductions.

It is now time for me to introduce this group of legislative pages serving in the first session of the 42nd Parliament.

From the riding of Oshawa, Aarya Shah; from the riding of Markham–Unionville, Alexander Lai; from Mississauga Centre, Alisha Arora; from Parkdale–High Park, Bernat Bernaus-Townsend; from Scarborough–Agincourt, Boyuan Zhang; from Brantford–Brant, Christian Kuan; from Sarnia–Lambton, Davina Bhola; from the riding of Willowdale, Elizabeth Lukshis; from King–Vaughan, Elizabeth Wright; from Hamilton Centre, Ella Bradley; from Waterloo, Jack Sullivan; from Ottawa South, Josha McMillan; from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, Kiran Chauhan; from the riding of Guelph, Mackenzie Richer; from Essex, Madison Booth; from Whitby, McKenna Otter; from the riding of Niagara Centre, Nathan Wan; from the great riding of Wellington–Halton Hills, Neil Atkins; from the riding of Thornhill, Olivia Zhang; from the riding of Milton, Omar Sinno; from the riding of Burlington, Owen Welch; from the riding of Dufferin–Caledon, Ravneer Pabla; from the riding of Niagara West, Rian Wilson; and from the riding of Mississauga–Malton, Zakiyya Gangat.

I would ask all members to now rise and join me in welcoming this fine group of legislative pages.

Applause.

Oral Questions

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is to the Premier. I want to start by asking the Premier about the impact of his health care cuts in one community.

For patient safety, Ontario hospitals should be operating at no more than 85% capacity. That’s the internationally recognized standard. Can the Premier tell us what level hospitals in Brampton are currently functioning at?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: We do know that many hospitals across the province of Ontario are operating at over 100% capacity, but this is nothing new. This has been happening for a number of years. We were elected to change that. We were elected to end hallway health care and we are doing that. There is no simple answer to it.

As all of you know, we know that we have thousands of people who are waiting for long-term-care beds because of inaction by the previous government. We promised the people of Ontario that we would build 15,000 beds within five years. We are working on that. My colleague the Minister of Long-Term Care is working on that diligently.

We know we also have people who are coming into hospitals with chronic mental health and addictions problems because there is nowhere else for them to go. We are creating community mental health and addictions policies and procedures and facilities so that people can get the care they need before they get into a crisis.

We know there are people with chronic disease management problems. We’re working on those. I’ll have more to say in the supplemental.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Through freedom of information, we have learned that in fact Brampton Civic Hospital has spent the first half of 2019 at over 100% capacity. But even more shockingly, Brampton’s Peel Memorial urgent care centre is operating at 587% volume compared to what it is funded for. I’ll repeat that: 587% above what it is funded for. That means that for every patient that urgent care centre is funded to care for, nearly five other patients arrive looking for care.

Does the Premier think this is acceptable, Speaker?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are certainly cognizant of those facts and it is not acceptable. We are working to change that. That’s what we were elected to do. We are focused on that each and every day.

We have raised the funding for hospitals. We know that there is more to do. We did provide $384 million more in funding to hospitals this year, a 2% increase. We’ve also funded another $68 million for small to medium-sized hospitals based on an inadequate funding formula, again brought in by the previous government. But we are changing that.

We recognize that hospitals are under pressure and we are working with the Ontario Hospital Association and with individual hospitals to change that. But this is not something that can happen overnight, because this is something that’s been growing for 15 years before we were elected. We are here to change that and we will do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is not about small and medium hospitals, but I dare say it is about this government taking the same track as the Liberals took in underfunding our hospitals system in this province.

Brampton’s urgent care centre was built to bring relief to the overcrowded Brampton Civic Hospital, but under this government, Brampton Civic Hospital has more patients in hallways. Freedom-of-information documents show that there are more patients in hallways this year than last year.

So why is hallway medicine in Brampton getting worse on this Premier’s watch?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We certainly know that there are many areas in Ontario where there is increasing pressure because there are more and more people moving into the area. That is why we are taking a look at hospital infrastructure projects. We have $27 billion that we’re going to be investing over the next 10 years to build hospital projects, but I’m sure the leader of the official opposition will know that we inherited a pretty dismal financial situation, again from the previous government.

We are working on areas where there is the most patient need. We’re certainly aware there’s a patient need in the Brampton area. We’re working to address that, but this isn’t something that can be turned around on a dime. This is going to take several years in order to be able to deal with this completely.

But we are aware of these pressures. We do want to make sure that people are going to be able to receive the care that they need in their own communities, and that is making sure that we have hospital funding, that we have long-term-care beds, that we have community mental health and addictions programs. We are working on all of those factions. We will bring down hospital hallway health care.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Liberals left patients in hallways, and this government is keeping them there. That’s the problem. It’s not just Brampton that is seeing things go from bad to worse. Two weeks ago, I met with front-line health care workers in London who were being laid off as the hospital, yet again, was cutting beds to meet the budget crunch because they are not getting enough funding from the Conservative government, like they didn’t get enough funding from the Liberal government.

The Premier knew that hospitals were underfunded by the Liberals for years. This Minister of Health has repeated that already, with my first three questions this morning—or the three parts of my first question—so why has this Premier continued to underfund the hospitals in this province, taking things from bad to worse here in Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: I find it very ironic that the Leader of the Opposition is saying what she is saying, because they voted 90% with the Liberals to destroy the health care system.

We’re investing, as the Minister of Health mentioned, a historic $27 billion into infrastructure, building new hospitals. William Osler had tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure put in place in their emergency room. I was there not long ago with one of our great MPPs from Mississauga who actually was a nurse there. We’re focusing on reducing hallway health care by putting in over 7,500 beds, so far—long-term-care beds. We’re promising 15,000 beds and another 15,000 after that that will alleviate the pressures at the hospitals. But I do appreciate the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, what I find ironic is that after five months, the Premier still didn’t study the Hansard to figure out what went on in the four years before they made government.

But, nonetheless, patients are stuck waiting in hospitals. They are not fooled by the Premier’s rhetoric as they sit languishing in the hallways of our hospitals. They know that hospital funding is not keeping pace with inflation, much less with patient need. They know that there are people in the hospital who are desperately waiting for long-term-care beds, and they see that the wait-list for long-term-care beds, in fact, has grown even longer after one year of the Ford government.

Does the Premier understand that cuts and lay-offs and budget squeezes won’t solve the hallway medicine crisis?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you for the question, but I think we really need to look at the facts. We are investing $1.3 billion more into our health care system this year than we did last year, and we are doing that across a variety of areas. Hospitals certainly have received an increase, $384 million more this year than last year—a 2% increase. But we know that there is more that needs to be done. We have invested $68 million in small-to-medium-sized hospitals, and it may not be important to the leader of the official opposition, but it certainly is important to many hospitals and many people across the province of Ontario.

We have also promised the people of Ontario that we are going to build more long-term-care beds, because we know that contributes to hallway health care. We have promised 15,000 new long-term-care spaces within five years. We have already built or created more than 8,000 of those beds, or have them in line to be opened within the next several years. We know it doesn’t happen overnight—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Order.

The final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, here is what families see: hospitals laying off nurses and beds still being closed in hospitals, hospitals routinely operating over 100% capacity, and in the community of Brampton, an urgent care centre that is operating at 587% volume compared to what it’s funded for. This Premier committed to ending hallway medicine. Why is he, in fact, making it worse?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the leader of the official opposition: I’m sure she will know that hospitals are independent corporations. They make their own decisions with respect to staffing, and in the situation they are speaking of—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I close my eyes and I hear Kathleen Wynne.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I believe that the member, if she will listen, was speaking with respect to some changes in the London area. That is a result of decisions that they made based on the need and based on the usage. They have made arrangements with community centres to take up some of the issues that need to be dealt with.

But that’s what we’re doing with changing our system of health care to reflect patient-centred care. We want to make sure that people receive the care that they need both in the community and in the hospital.

As we know, hospitals are not always the best place for people to receive care. Sometimes it’s about home care. We are investing $155 million more in home care, so that people can be treated in their own homes instead of hospitals, which is where they want to be. There is no one simple solution to this, as I’m sure the leader of the official opposition knows. We are working on many fronts—

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

The next question.

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last January, New Democrats asked the government whether Mario Di Tommaso, who the Premier had recently appointed deputy minister of community safety, had declared a conflict of interest when he sat on the hiring committee for the new OPP Commissioner. We are still waiting for an answer. Can the Premier provide one today?

Hon. Doug Ford: Solicitor General.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I really want to talk about the great things that are happening under Commissioner Carrique with the OPP. We have a commissioner in place who is actively engaged with his commissioned officers and the OPPA on actually dealing with the mental health crisis that we have within our police officers and our first responders.

When Commissioner Carrique agreed to take on this very important role, the first question I asked him was, “What is your top priority if you become the commissioner?” And he said, “The health and safety of my officers.” I can say without any doubt that what we have seen in place at the OPP, working together with the OPPA, is an amazing organization that is actually supporting and encouraging their officers to ensure that our communities are safer. Public safety will always be first and foremost with Commissioner Carrique and myself as the minister.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Globe and Mail has just published a news story detailing the close ties between Mario Di Tommaso and Ron Taverner, the Premier’s one-time pick for OPP commissioner. Among other things, the story reveals that Taverner actually helped organize the retirement party of the man who would then sit on his hiring committee.

We already know that Di Tommaso’s predecessor felt he was forced from the job of deputy minister after feeling pressure to hire Taverner. My question is—and, with all due respect, I didn’t get responded to in the last response from the minister—does the Premier acknowledge that the deputy minister he hired had a conflict? And, if so, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: So, to be clear, we have a 50-year-plus veteran of the Toronto Police Service who knows a 40-year-plus veteran of the Toronto Police Service. That is not shocking to me. That does not surprise me.

Speaker, when you get to 50 years serving in the Ontario Legislature, I would be honoured to co-host and encourage people to go to your retirement party—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I might ask the minister to withdraw that.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Just kidding.

The next question.

Mining industry

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for our Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. Everyone in this House is well aware that Ontario is the economic engine that drives the Canadian economy. The financial capital of Canada is right here in Ontario. Even more impressive is the fact that our province is also home to the mining finance capital of the entire world. The TSX and the TSX Venture raise more mining equity than anywhere else on the planet. This leads to major investments in Canada and in our province.

Mining benefits all areas of the province, providing a broad scope of employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. Even in my riding, we have companies like Aecon mining.

Can the minister please tell us more about mining in Ontario and the special celebration we are having today?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Brantford–Brant for the extraordinary work he does in this place on behalf of his constituents.

He rightly points out that mining has an impact on just about every region in this province. We strive to make Ontario the mining centre of the world. He mentioned that it’s the financial capital of the world; that’s true, but we still face some challenges. That’s why, born out of this annual tradition of Meet the Miners, which is today and a long-standing tradition, the Premier and I and several other colleagues decided to establish the Mining Working Group.

This calls on the Premier’s office, the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development as well as the Minister of the Environment, importantly, to attend panels with the OMA, working with them on the challenges—or the prospects, as we like to say. This Mining Working Group is a highly specialized discussion on the things that we can do to ensure that, for the entire spectrum of mining activity, the destination is Ontario.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. He has been an excellent advocate for the mining sector, and our work is only just beginning.

We’d like to thank the mining community for visiting us here at Queen’s Park today, and we’d like them to know that they have an ally in our government. We are focused on bringing good jobs back to northern communities, and the mining sector is a huge part of that plan. Our government’s plan is to keep taxes and power rates low, cut unnecessary and costly red tape and create unprecedented jobs and prosperity, all of which makes Ontario more globally competitive and a great place to invest.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House how important mining is to Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Over the past 15 or 16 months, we’ve been actively involved in a number of key mining opportunities in northern Ontario. Sadly, for the previous 15 years, mining activity in northern Ontario had been slowing down significantly. So when we came on board, it was the Premier and I who went up to the Sugar Zone and the Harte Gold project. We were involved in moving them past the starting line on a few final regulatory matters.

I was recently up at the Borden mine, where we had a chance to celebrate the first completely electrified mining operation. They will tell you—Newmont Goldcorp will say unequivocally that we did more to help them in regulatory matters in the year leading up to their opening than had been done in the previous government.

More recently, we announced the east-west tie, a corridor across northwestern Ontario that holds the key to a number of potential developments to support mining activity, and, of course, the prospect of Greenstone Gold in Geraldton, where we could be facing one of the biggest opportunities in a very long time, the centre of gravity for the Ring of Fire and all that that region could benefit from.

We are moving forward with these mining companies and the communities that surround them for a prosperous mining sector.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. Yesterday, 50 laid-off teachers were here in the public galleries. Among them was Lindsay. Lindsay is a math and science teacher from Chatham who has worked for 12 years in various long-term assignments, but without permanent work. She is also a new mom. This year, Lindsay wasn’t offered an assignment at all because there were no jobs available.

Now that the impact of the Premier’s cuts are too difficult to ignore, does he still stand by his claim that not a single teacher will lose their job?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite: I thank her for her question.

It’s clear that our government is committed to protecting front-line workers and front-line teachers in the classroom. It was the driving force for why this government in our last budget allocated $1.6 billion to ensure teachers remain at the front of the class. It is why our government has announced a fund that is demonstrably working. In fact, in Windsor–Essex, in the Upper Grand District School Board, all teachers who had redundancy notices have been recalled. These are the stories that have to permeate in the debate. In fact, we’re seeing more of this manifest in boards across the province.

We will continue to invest in protecting teachers, invest in a modernized curriculum and invest in modernizing our schools, because that’s what parents expect.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The Premier and the minister can deny what’s happening, but the fact is that teachers are still being laid off and students are being forced to accept less. With the greatest of respect, sorry, it is not clear at all that you are protecting these jobs.

The independent Financial Accountability Office has reported that by the end of this government’s term, there will be 10,054 fewer teachers in the education system; I have the citation right here. This year alone, the FAO estimates that there will be 967 fewer elementary teachers and 1,859 fewer secondary teachers.

Does the Premier think it’s right that qualified, caring teachers are moonlighting as waitresses to make ends meet while students are seeing supports and courses that they need disappear?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask the minister to reply, I’ll remind the members to make your comments and address them through the chair.

Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, our government made a determination to create a teacher protection fund because we want to ensure that teachers remain in the front of class.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, where she proudly hails from—the chair of that board said that this year there are fewer classes with 30 or more students than there were last year. It is proof positive that our plan is working. It is another example that our investments in the front-line are yielding positive results.

We’re doing this while modernizing our curriculum, by investing over half a billion dollars to renew schools in the province. We have a $200-million investment to ensure that math scores rise over time. We’re doing all of this because we believe in the potential of our young people in the province of Ontario.

Climate change

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Firstly, I’d like to congratulate the Premier on a genuine effort to change the tone in the Legislature. I think we all welcome that change. But what Ontarians need more than a change in tone is a change in the Premier’s priorities.

This government is still trying to make class sizes larger. Wait times in emergency rooms are getting longer; they’re not getting shorter. What is most concerning is the Premier has already dismantled one plan for climate change and he is trying to tear another one down. In the federal election, almost three quarters of Ontarians voted to support a plan for climate change.

Speaker, through you: Why is the Premier trying to tear down a plan for climate change when he has none of his own?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Referred to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak in this session of the Legislature. I just want to thank you for your leadership and guidance in the Legislature. I think we’re moving to a better place here, so thank you very much. We do support your work.

I want to thank the member opposite for that question. Unfortunately, I’m going to just reject his whole premise about an environment plan for Ontario. We’re almost at the year to celebrate the anniversary of our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, which is looking at protecting our land, air and sea.

We have moved forward with a number of initiatives already that are going to be bearing fruit in a short time coming forward. We have sent our mission performance standards to the federal government to target the big emitters, which will be fair and flexible. We’ve moved towards changing the recycling program for this province, to move plastics out of our landfills, out of our lakes and streams, and put them into a circular economy to create a new economy within Ontario that is going to grow and create jobs. It’s also going to clean the environment.

I have more to say in my supplemental.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer.

In August, here is what the Premier had to say about his court challenge: “Once the people decide, I believe in democracy, I respect democracy, we move on.”

Speaker, what has changed since then? This government has no real plan for climate change. They’re not even meeting meagre targets. I agree with the Minister of Education when he says the next generation deserves better. It’s ironic: Even the Premier’s peeling gas pump stickers are trying to send him a message.

Speaker, through you: Will the Premier commit to withdraw his court challenge and work with all members of this House to come up with a realistic plan for climate change in this province?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member opposite for that question. You know, Mr. Speaker, last June we were elected with a mandate to end the cap-and-trade program that the member opposite was a part of—a tax that made life more unaffordable. But the main thing—I find it ironic that the member opposite talks about democracy. He was part of a government following the leader of the day, who sits beside him, that forced municipalities in rural Ontario to take these wind turbine projects in our municipalities, which split communities in half and drove up the cost of our energy. They are the last people who should be talking about democracy.

But let me just throw some facts out there. Angus Reid released a poll from the National Post during the last week of the election. It showed that more than half of the people polled said that the federal carbon tax should be cancelled; a fifth—22%—of NDP supporters said that the carbon tax should be cancelled; and 20% of Green voters said that the carbon tax should be cancelled, Mr. Speaker.

We’re going to do everything we can to end the unaffordable carbon tax while implementing our made-in-Ontario environment plan, which will make our—

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

Next question?

Mining industry

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House is well aware that Ontario is the economic engine that drives the Canadian economy. Ontario is Canada’s largest mineral producer, producing $10.1-billion worth of minerals last year alone.

Can the minister share with this House the steps our government is taking to ensure that Ontario remains the world leader in mining investment?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Milton for the important work he does on behalf of his constituents and the contributions he makes to this caucus.

Our government’s plan is to create a low-tax environment, cut costly red tape and create unprecedented jobs and prosperity. The financial activity in the mining sector is great, and it’s wonderful for Bay Street, but we’re concerned obviously with the opportunities or the prospects of more than 200 mines, more than 75% of them in northern Ontario. Look at the workforce here, Mr. Speaker: 11.2% of people working in mines, at mine sites and mining activities are Indigenous peoples. This is an important part of our northern communities, our northern economies and a critical success for the vast region of this province.

We want to translate those financial investments into activities up north. That’s why we’re working closely with companies to push them across the starting line and get digging.

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

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank the minister. Mineral wealth and its associated economic activities are the key source of jobs and prosperity for many mining industry workers and their families in communities across our great province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the mining industry has created more than 26,000 direct jobs and approximately 50,000 indirect jobs in mineral manufacturing and processing across Ontario.

Under the previous Liberal government, mining companies and suppliers faced delay after delay. Can the minister share with this House the initiatives our government is taking to promote the industry’s strong future in Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: As I said, we’re taking a whole-of-government approach from the Premier’s office, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Labour, skills and trades, and the Minister of Natural Resources. We also have the support of the Associate Minister of Small Business. In the modernization and efficient Ontario act, we’re proposing a number of amendments, in particular to the Mining Act. For example, this would provide proponents submitting a closure plan amendment with greater certainty by creating a 45-day timeline for those decisions.

You know, Mr. Speaker, these mines need certainty. They need certainty when it comes to the regulatory environment. They need certainty when it comes to the cost of energy. That’s why one of our first acts last summer was to make sure that mines that are particularly electricity-intensive experience significant savings on their per-monthly costs of operation—of course, celebrating in Borden a completely electrified mine, Mr. Speaker.

We’re going to continue our work. We celebrate the Ontario Mining Association’s day today because, Mr. Speaker, mining matters.

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, it’s good to be back here; its good to see you in the chair.

For months the Premier has laid low while details of his patronage appointments leaked out, handing lucrative foreign postings to a former PC Party president and the lacrosse-playing friend of his chief of staff’s son, stacking government agencies with friends and relations. Today we’ve learned more details of the close ties between the Deputy Minister of Community Safety and the man he wanted to make the OPP commissioner.

The Premier claimed that the government was conducting a review of the appointments process. He has had five months to do so. Speaker, what is the status of that review?

Hon. Doug Ford: Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the honourable member for the question. The member knows, obviously, that the public appointments process is something we are constantly working on, striving to make it more open and accountable, and in fact, transparent. We have made a commitment that we will continue to do that, not just over the last five months but for the entire time that we have the honour of serving Ontarians from this side of the House. I hope if the honourable member has some suggestions, he and the members of his party will send those forward. We are working on that. There is more to come.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I have a lot of suggestions, Speaker. One would be for the minister to review the committee reports and the Hansard from the committee. We’ve made lots of suggestions to open up that committee for transparency and accountability for Canadians and Ontarians.

Speaker, the sad reality is that nobody trusts Doug Ford and his government to investigate—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. I assume the member for Essex is aware that we don’t refer to each other by our given names. We refer by our riding names or a ministerial name, as appropriate. I would ask the member to rephrase his question.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much, Speaker.

The sad reality is that nobody trusts the Premier’s government to investigate the Premier’s government scandals. The PC caucus has shut down any effort to have appointments reviewed openly by the government agencies committee and there’s no evidence that this government will conduct a review at all, much less an open and transparent one.

Will the government commit today to a truly open and independent review of the appointments process?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As the member knows, obviously, when it comes to the committee process, we are following the process that was actually put in place by the previous NDP government. Now, there’s a lot that I would like to forget and have forgotten about the NDP’s time in office, Mr. Speaker, but here’s one thing they can celebrate: They brought a process in that we have been using.

But we are continuing to work on improving the process for public appointments, making them more open and transparent. These are people that do very good work on behalf of the people of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, but we want to make sure that they are in it for the right reasons, that they’re doing it, and that the work that they do is in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

And while I have the floor, let me just ask the honourable member—I know there is a new Conservative member of Parliament for Essex. I haven’t had the chance to contact him, so I wonder if he would express my congratulations.

Climate change

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome everyone back to the Legislature and direct my first question to the Premier. The Premier’s stickers that don’t stick continue to ignore how the carbon rebate will leave eight out of 10 people with more money in their pockets. I’m shocked, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier doesn’t understand how markets work. We can put a price on pollution, we can reduce emissions and put money in people’s pockets. The Premier says he wants to make life more affordable, but he continues to—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member for Guelph. The member for Essex will come to order. Member for Guelph, I apologize again.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker: The Premier says he wants to make life more affordable for people, but he continues to waste our hard-earned tax dollars fighting a program that actually puts money in the pockets of 80% of Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, why does the Premier want to raise taxes on 80% of Ontarians by taking away their carbon rebates?

Hon. Doug Ford: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the honourable member. I would point out to him that the only problem we’ve had with the stickers are Liberal staffers actually peeling them off gas pumps. You might want to check your Twitter account and see one who openly admitted it.

They’re ashamed of that tax, Mr. Speaker, because they know that when ambulances and school buses and families fuel up their cars, when buses in Kenora are taking school kids and sports teams over to Dryden or across to Ignace, they’re paying more to operate those buses. It’s costing the people of Ontario more money. We are not standing down from this exercise in transparency to send a clear message that we reject this job-killing, regressive carbon tax.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m sorry; the government cannot have it both ways. They say it’s a job-killing carbon tax. Meanwhile, the next day, they talk about how we’re creating more jobs in Ontario. As a matter of fact, if you look around the world, the economies creating the most jobs have a price on pollution.

The bottom line is, the people of Ontario are problem-solvers, not problem-deniers. They do not want their tax money wasted on a lawsuit against the federal government that’s actually going to increase taxes on 80% of Ontarians.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Will the government back off on this wasteful lawsuit and work with the federal government on developing a real climate plan to create jobs and reduce climate pollution?

Hon. Greg Rickford: If the member could just provide any evidence that a carbon tax, especially here in Canada, has actually reduced GHG emissions—the only thing that has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that it has increased the cost of living in those jurisdictions. That’s a fact.

It’s another fact that we know that at least one Liberal staffer took pride in saying that he peeled off a hundred of those stickers. Mr. Speaker, we know why he did it: Because that government at the time issued a job-killing carbon tax that’s still having an impact on regions.

I can speak as a guy from northwestern Ontario, Mr. Speaker. We’re having some hard times. Some of those jobs that are created here are still a challenge for us in northern Ontario. The last thing that mill up in Ear Falls needs is to spend a million extra dollars a year, to the member from Kiiwetinoong, on the carbon tax alone to operate. That is unacceptable.

We’ll stand with woodland operators. We’ll stand with our mills. We’ll stand with our mines and the people of this province who are paying way too much—

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

The next question.

Long-term care

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. With an investment of $72 million this year over last year and the creation of a new ministry dedicated to long-term care, it is clear that our government is making long-term care a priority. We know that the stresses of our long-term-care system are serious, but I am proud that our government has taken quick and concrete action to improve the situation—for example, our investment of $1.75 billion to build and redevelop 30,000 beds across Ontario. With her background as a physician, the minister will have first-hand exposure to, and experience with, how we deliver health care and long-term care in this province.

Can the minister provide some insights as to how she plans to build a sustainable and resident-centred long-term-care system right here in Ontario?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member for Thornhill for the question and for the good work she does.

As Minister of Long-Term Care, I’m working to build a system that focuses on residents and supports our province’s most vulnerable in a place that they can call home. We are committed to building a 21st-century long-term-care system that ensures people are treated with dignity and respect, and one that will continue to be there for those who need it.

We are committed to helping long-term-care providers be more responsive to the needs of residents while maintaining safety and the highest quality of care. That means looking at ways to offer homes more flexibility to fund priority areas, and reducing red tape responsibly.

For the first time in the province’s history, Ontario is prioritizing the long-term-care sector and putting long-term-care residents and caregivers first.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’d like to thank the minister for her answer and for all of her hard work. Building a sustainable and resident-centred long-term-care system is clearly an important priority to our government. But I know that there can be challenges along the way, and we have to work hard to achieve that goal.

It recently came to my attention that long-term care is considered one of the most regulated parts and sectors in our province. While we need some regulation, I’m sure there is a buildup of red tape in the long-term-care system that sometimes prevents residents from getting the care they need. Speaker, could the minister please tell the House what she is doing to make long-term care more efficient and more sustainable?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: My thanks to the member again after those questions.

Our government also recognizes that sometimes we experience a buildup of red tape that interferes in the ability to deliver high-quality care for residents. We are working to reduce regulatory burdens and administrative barriers and to get shovels in the ground faster as we develop new long-term-care beds and redevelop older beds to ensure that residents can get the best possible care when they need it.

Recently, we also made changes under Bill 66 to modernize the long-term-care licensing process. Our hope is that this will reduce the administrative burden for home operators and expedite the approvals associated with the development.

We are committed to reducing red tape, we are committed to getting beds built and we are committed to getting Ontarians off of wait-lists and the care they need when they need it.

North Spirit Lake First Nation

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

Remarks in Oji-Cree.

My question is to the Premier. North Spirit Lake First Nation, also known as Memekweseo Sakahekan, is in a state of emergency. The community has been devastated by a breakdown in its most important infrastructure. They have suffered over the past two years intermittently without essential services such as power and running water. Their sewage system repeatedly backs up into the community due to faulty pipes and pumps.

Mr. Speaker, this is Ontario. It is 2019. Will this government continue to stand by and use the excuse of jurisdiction to avoid stepping forward and helping North Spirit Lake?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member opposite for his question. The short answer is, we haven’t, and no, we won’t. At every turn, we have clearly understood some of the structural, long-term, long-standing issues that some of the isolated and remote First Nations communities are facing, and we work in lockstep with them on ensuring they don’t come to a crisis situation.

In the case of North Spirit Lake, a series of unfortunate events happened in a very short period of time, and the community was unable to mobilize and respond to them. That’s why we worked effectively with NAN. I spoke with Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler last week. We offered our full support. It was a coordinated effort through the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre and Indigenous Services Canada. We mobilized to lead the response on water system issues, public safety and the health needs of the community, and we remain committed to working with them on a day-to-day basis as they work through this difficult time.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: North Spirit Lake doesn’t need just phone calls; they need actual emergency support.

Two weeks ago, I was in North Spirit Lake. The community spoke to me about the social breakdown that occurs when you don’t have the basic human needs. Teachers and nurses have been forced to leave the community because of a lack of basic services needed in the facilities to do their work, to do their jobs. They are experiencing an addiction epidemic and they need help. The children are experiencing trauma as a result of this and they need help. They have said to me that just because they are small, it’s not right to be ignored and neglected by governments.

Will this government be part of the solution to help North Spirit Lake—yes or no?

Hon. Greg Rickford: The answer is yes, and we have been. I had an opportunity of serving that region as the member of Parliament. That was not a small community to me; it was an important community. That’s why we built a brand new school in North Spirit Lake at the time. We recognized the importance of putting that asset in that community so the children had a better place and a better space to go to school.

We are in the midst of an acute crisis, and that’s unfortunate. That’s why we’ve provided funding support, and I have pledged, beyond phone calls, to send mental wellness teams to cover the crisis and surge response to the community, like basic needs for the children and families and travel costs for NAN crisis workers.

I’m looking forward to continuing to work with the Nishnawbe Aski Nation in particular and Indigenous Services Canada to ensure that we work through the acute crisis at North Spirit Lake and find solutions for some of the long-standing challenges that they have faced in the past.

Long-term care

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. I would like to congratulate her on assuming this new portfolio. Your expertise as a health care provider will serve Ontarians well.

Every member of this House is aware of the crisis that hallway health care poses to our province. One thousand people are receiving health care in hallways and closets every single day in Ontario, and over 36,000 are waiting for a long-term-care bed.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in my region of Peel and in Halton is serious, with the long-term-care list being the longest in Ontario. This is a sad legacy left to us by the previous Liberal government, which had largely ignored this sector during their mandate.

Residents of Peel and Halton and all Ontarians across this province should not have to wait so long for the care they desperately need and deserve. Could the minister outline what action she has taken to shorten long-term-care waiting lists in the region of Peel?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I’d like to thank the members from Mississauga for their dedication to the Peel region. The member is correct in stating the seriousness of the problem, especially in Peel region. Earlier this summer, I was pleased to join the members for Brampton South and Brampton West to announce the allocation of 168 new beds and the redevelopment of 280 beds for Brampton at Tullamore Care Community and Greenway.

That same day, I was pleased to stand with several members from Mississauga to announce the allocations of 457 new beds and the redevelopment of 275 upgraded beds in Mississauga at the Village of Erin Meadows, Tri