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

November 27, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Nov-27 (PDF)

L055 - Tue 27 Nov 2018 / Mar 27 nov 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 27 November 2018 Mardi 27 novembre 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Automotive industry

Automotive industry

Automotive industry

Automotive industry

Automotive industry

Automotive industry

Child protection

Seniors

Northern economy

Wildlife management

Privatization of public assets

Volunteer firefighters

Social assistance

Social assistance

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Gerry Benson

Social assistance

Across U-hub

School facilities

Anglican Church of St. Paul, L’Amoreaux

Events in Kingston and the Islands

Careers day

Special-needs children

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Right to Timely Mental Health and Addiction Care for Children and Youth Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le droit des enfants et des jeunes à des soins de santé mentale et au traitement de la toxicomanie en temps opportun

Petitions

Social assistance

Employment standards

Injured workers

Long-term care

Injured workers

Indigenous affairs

Social assistance

Toronto Transit Commission

Affordable housing

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Access to Natural Gas Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au gaz naturel

Adjournment Debate

Government accountability

Government accountability / Responsabilité gouvernementale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Hon. John Yakabuski: I move that, pursuant to standing order 57 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 57,

An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on second reading may not be deferred pursuant to standing orders 9(

c) or 28(h); and

That, at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, December 3, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 57:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28, 2018; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee or their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 7 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28, 2018; and

—That each member of the subcommittee or their designate provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk, by 12 p.m. on Thursday, November 29, 2018; and

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation, followed by 10 minutes for questions divided equally amongst the recognized parties; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 6 p.m. on Monday, December 3, 2018; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 6 p.m. on Monday, December 3, 2018; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 4, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Wednesday, December 5, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Wednesday, December 5, 2018, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Thursday, December 6, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 81(c), the bill may be called more than once in the same sessional day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, with 25 minutes allotted to the government, 25 minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, five minutes allotted to the independent Liberal members and five minutes allotted to the independent Green member; and

That, at the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may not be deferred pursuant to standing orders 9(

c) or 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes.

I have a point of order as well, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Yakabuski has moved government notice of motion number 20. We would look to the minister to lead off debate.

Hon. John Yakabuski: But I have a point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order.

Hon. John Yakabuski: In the first paragraph, I meant to say “pursuant to standing order 47”; I believe I said “57.” I’d like to correct the record.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We do require the unanimous consent of the House to change with respect to what the minister indicated. Is there consent to make that change?

I heard a no.

Would the minister care to lead off the debate?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Is the standing order that we quoted in order? It’s not correct, so if I could ask how we would correct it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’m splitting my time with the Minister of Education.

You’re going to read the amendment?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes, I’ll read it.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’m splitting my time with the Minister of Education.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m pleased to recognize the Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much. This is a wonderful example of teamwork this morning, Speaker.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 57 and notwithstanding any other standing order or—no, that’s not the one I want? Okay.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I move to amend Bill—government notice of motion number 20 and the first line, “An Act to amend and repeal various statutes.” In the first line, replace “57” with “47.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The minister has moved that number “57” be changed to number “47” in the first line.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’ll return to the minister, unless you’re going to raise a point of order after I recognize the minister.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: So then I go into—

Interjection.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Okay, I don’t have to do anything. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate on the amendment? Debate on the amendment? Debate on the amendment.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yeah, we’re coming.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member from Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, that was interesting, I must say. We have to have humour in this place; otherwise, we’re all going to go bonkers in this place. Anyway, that was an interesting turn of events.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It kept it real, Gilles.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: We always keep it real; we always keep it real.

I just have to say, I remember sitting in opposition with the now government that was then the official opposition, and all the honourable members there, most of which are in cabinet now and others that are not, unfortunately—I’m sure you will get your turn eventually. You will get your turn eventually. They were so solid when it came to speaking against time allocation. The Conservatives used to come into this House, used to rail against the Liberal government and talk about how it is that time allocation was a horrible thing.

My good friend the member from—whatever riding it is—Nipissing. He would get in here and say, “Here we go again, the guillotine,” and he would slap his desk. It was all just so much—it was something to watch.

I had to think, all kidding aside, that some of it wasn’t just acting; some of it was that they actually disagreed with time allocation, because I think as I, and a number of members back then who are now in government, who were in opposition to the Liberals, thought that there may be the odd time where time allocation may be the only way out of a particular situation, but to use time allocation on a regular basis as a means to be able to move the government’s agenda forward, quite frankly, is just a situation where the government is incapable of managing its own affairs in the House.

For example, currently the rules without time allocation would allow the government to be able to, first of all, call the bill into the House, introduce it, bring it in so that we can get a first reading, sit down with the opposition, figure out how much time the opposition wants on the bill and what you have to trade in order to be able to move the bill forward. That’s the way this place works best.

On a bill like this, on Bill 57, there is no question that the official opposition, the New Democrats under our leader, Andrea Horwath, has a problem with this bill. There are sections of this bill that are quite problematic, and we’ll talk about those in a few minutes. But we would have wanted some amendments to the legislation. We would have wanted possibly more hearings on the legislation so that people can come and speak to us.

For example, the francophone community across Ontario sont en rage. Ils regardent ce projet de loi, puis ils regardent l’élimination de l’officier responsable—comme le commissaire aux langues officielles, le commissaire qu’on a présentement, M. Boileau. Ils se disent : « Écoute, comment est-ce qu’un gouvernement qui prétend être en support de la communauté francophone peut éliminer un tel poste? Ça ne fait aucun bon sens. »

Je vais vous donner un petit exemple. Nous autres, à Timmins, on a voulu commencer un projet qui était très important pour notre communauté. Une des affaires qu’on a faites, on était au commissaire, puis on a demandé au commissaire de regarder la question. En effet, il a trouvé que les services pour les francophones—qu’on n’était pas bien desservis à Timmins quand ça venait à un certain service. Ce commissaire a fait un rapport et ce rapport faisait

partie du—comment dire—bilan ou bien du volume d’information qu’on a utilisé, finalement, pour amener ce service à la ville de Timmins.

So, donc, ce commissaire, ce n’est pas quelqu’un qui est là pour prendre des plaintes seulement; c’est quelqu’un qui est là pour être capable d’avancer des dossiers. Dans ce projet de loi, le gouvernement élimine son poste et met quelqu’un au Bureau de l’ombudsman qui va répondre à l’ombudsman et non à l’Assemblée, tel qu’on a fait dans le passé.

So there’s a lot of stuff inside this bill that, quite frankly, we don’t agree with. The government: Yes, I understand they’re a majority and they will get their legislation through the House—rightfully so; that’s what they’re able to do.

But there should be an ability on the part of the government to listen to what the public has to say—in this case, the francophone community when it comes to the commissioner of French-language services; those in the province who are engaged with protecting children when it comes to the child advocate; those who believe in the environment, being the Environmental Commissioner; and a whole host of other issues that you can listen to. Some of the things that this government is doing in this legislation are very problematic, and it ain’t saving any money; if anything, it’s just going to make things worse.

For example, we just heard yesterday, Mr. Speaker—and you would know, coming from Windsor, how devastating news like this can be—that GM is going to just close their production facility in Oshawa. We know what the story is: The company has decided it wants to change its production line and move into different technologies when it comes to vehicles that we buy in the future—more electric, less gas, more technological when it comes to the features that those cars have.

Well, here we are as a province, we’re eliminating the Environmental Commissioner, we’ve gotten rid of cap-and-trade, we’re the only large jurisdiction that doesn’t have a plan to deal with how we’re going to limit greenhouse gases, and we’re supposedly saying to industry, “Come and invest in Ontario.” Why would anybody come here and why would GM decide to stake its future in Ontario when you’ve got a province that’s going exactly the opposite way than the company is when it comes to trying to green their product?

That’s what this is about, to a degree: General Motors, along with Ford and the rest of them, are trying to move to vehicles that use less fuel. When a government sends a signal such as this government is sending in this bill that it, quite frankly, doesn’t believe in climate change and that they want to turn the clock back, well, you’re not sending a message to industry out there that this is a jurisdiction that understands that the green economy is where we need to go to.

So I think there are opportunities with GM—

Mr. Randy Hillier: We’ve been down that road, Gilles.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I know that you don’t believe that there’s such a thing as climate change, and that’s fine, I respect that you have the right to believe that, but I also have the right to be able to express that I think that’s problematic.

As we saw at the turn of the previous centuries, economies always evolve; they go from pre-industrial to industrial. You see the transition that’s happened to the economy in Europe, Canada and across the world when it comes to the last 150 years. Nothing remains stagnant, it always moves with time, and that’s sort of what’s happening with GM.

The government, I think, made two errors: One is to throw in the towel so early after the announcement yesterday. Quite frankly, it just shocked me when I heard the Premier say, “It’s done. There’s nothing we can do.” The second thing is that you’re signalling to the world by your actions, by eliminating positions like the Environmental Commissioner and other things that you’ve done around eliminating cap-and-trade, that Ontario is not a jurisdiction that believes in moving into the green economy. So you say to yourself, “Why did GM pick Ontario?” That’s probably one of the reasons, quite frankly.

I think that we could do something about GM if we really tried sitting down and saying, “Let’s talk about how we bridge ourselves to your new production plans when it comes to whatever you’re going to build,” and that GM Oshawa be part of that, because we’ve invested into that company a fair amount of money to be able to move to those new technologies, we invested in that new centre that was built in Oshawa, and we should be able to get some benefit out of that. I think Ontario, if it so decided, could actually put a fair amount of pressure on the company to do something.

I know, Mr. Speaker, because I was part of a government in the early 1990s where, on a daily basis, because of the recession, we had sawmills closing down. We had paper mills closing down. We had steel plants closing down. We had de Havilland Aircraft talking about shutting down production facilities in Canada. We decided to roll up our sleeves and work with communities and work with industry in order to try to find solutions to the problem and keep those places open, and we succeeded.

De Havilland continued on to become Bombardier, which made both the Dash 8 Series 300 and the Dash 8 Series 400, the RJ series, and now moving into this new commuter jet that they’re going to be building out of Montreal. Unfortunately, governments after allowed them to be sold to Airbus. Now we’ve sold off the Ontario division to a western company, which is going to affect jobs here. But we, as a government back in the early 1990s, said, “Listen, we’re not taking anything off the table.”

The reality is that there is always a possibility of trying to find a solution. If you sit down with the players, be they workers, be they the community, GM and anybody else that is involved in it, we could probably come up with something. But you certainly don’t send a good signal by moving in the way that you have, when you’re saying you’re going to get out of green energy. This government says it wants to move in that direction, and I think it’s completely the wrong direction that we have to go.

I want to point out something else in Bill 57 that’s actually quite troubling. I’m just going to take a quick look here. I think it’s in schedule—let’s just find it here. Okay, we find it in

schedule 12; that’s one place. It’s everywhere that we have an officer of the House.

In

schedule 12, which is the election officer, there are amendments being made by the government to the legislation that governs how the officers of the Legislature are hired, how they are remunerated and how they’re able to appoint a deputy in order to replace them in the case of illness. As we know, that’s already happened once with the FAO.

I don’t have a big argument with the government trying to standardize the legislation. I think there’s maybe some sense to that. But when you look at what they are doing, there’s a really, I think, dangerous thing that we’re putting in this legislation.

The first

part is under

section 3 in

schedule 12. I just have to find the right section. I’ll paraphrase it, because I’m trying to find it as I speak here. That’s always a little bit more fun.

Anyway, what it does is it entrenches the process by which we hired officers of the House—that the government in itself cannot hire an officer of the House. There’s a process where the recognized parties each sit on a panel. We shortlist, we interview, and we only hire the person we’re all in agreement on.

In other words, if you’re two parties or you’re three parties, the two or the three parties—in this case, because we’re only two, the New Democrats and the Conservatives—both have to agree on the successful candidate for that person’s name to come to this Legislature so that we can enact it when it comes to a vote here in the House. And that’s fine. That’s the way it should be. That’s something that we, as New Democrats, pushed very hard to get some years ago and that the government is seeing their way forward on. Entrenching that in legislation I don’t think is a bad thing.

However, the

section by which you can get rid of the auditor or get rid of the Ombudsman or any other officer of the Legislature is simply by a vote of this House. This is problematic, because if I’m the auditor and my job is to hold the government to account—if you end up in a confrontation with the government over your doing your job, how much are you thinking that the government might use their majority in order to, essentially, chase you out of office?

If you don’t like this particular auditor, you don’t like this particular Ombudsman or you don’t like the Integrity Commissioner, whoever it might be—those people are going to have, over their shoulder all of the time, the thinking that, “The government, if I don’t do what they tell me, might fire me,” because it’s by a simple majority of the House that they’re able to get rid of the person.

We’ve never operated like that as a practice. It has always been that if there was an issue, we would get together—the recognized parties—to discuss it. We would do the proper HR stuff in order to deal with the issue. But if it ever did come to a decision of having to get rid of somebody, it was only if the parties agreed—the recognized parties of the House, be it two parties or three.

This government is giving itself a majority to fire these people should they want to. I think that’s very dangerous, because we know that Mr. Harris—Mr. Harris; that was a Freudian slip. Mr. Harris, I must say, looks more of a socialist than this government, these particular guys, but anyway, that’s a whole other story.

Under the Ford government, we know that they’re going to have to make some pretty tough decisions, and the auditor, the Ombudsman and others are going to take exception to some of the stuff that this government does. To allow the government to utilize its majority to hold a threat over the officers of the Legislature I think is wrong. We’ve always operated with the practice here that we do this only when the parties all agree. What the government is doing is stepping out of that by doing what they’re doing now. So I just say that this is certainly a problematic situation.

I think the government is going to want to speak to this as well, and I’m sure some of my members want to speak for a bit, so I’m not going to go for very much longer. I just want to end on the child advocate. The child advocate has done a whole lot of really good work when it comes to protecting children. It’s not about taking complaints; the job of the child advocate is to be proactive and to work with those people involved in trying to protect children.

I look at what he has done in my part of the world in northern Ontario: a huge initiative when it comes to working with First Nations youth in order to better protect them. He has put in place boots on the ground, as they say, in places like Thunder Bay and other places in northern Ontario so that there’s a place that people can go to when they know that young people are at risk. I think that the government getting rid of the child advocate is a really nasty thing to do, because this child advocate has done some great work.

We’ve had, as you all have in your ridings, issues when it comes to youth with disabilities, either physical or intellectual, who are unable to access a particular service. As a result of that, those children go without the service. We’ve had the child advocate come to Timmins to meet with agencies, to meet with parents and to meet with community groups, to help us launch strategies so that we’re able to deal with better serving the kids in our communities so that they get the kind of supports that they want.

For example, the whole idea of people transitioning out when they were 16 years old and moving out of the system because they turned 16: The child advocate was a large part of making sure that we actually moved the age up to 18 so that those kids, while they were still in school, were not falling out of the system as a result of turning 16.

So I think them moving in order to get rid of the child advocate is just problematic as heck. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think my other members would like to say a couple of words, and we’ll leave it to them.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I actually want to follow up on some of the points that my colleague just made. This idea of having such a large bill with so many issues in it presented to the House and not providing an opportunity for the community to speak to some of the changes—these are major changes that are going to impact communities across Ontario—is really troubling to me. I’m also going to focus my attention on the provincial advocate, primarily because an advocate does something—their role is very different than the role of an ombudsperson. When I take a look at the details in this bill, I get really nervous.

In my office, I’ve received a number of calls and concerns about the elimination of the advocate in particular. I know that there are people in my riding who would want to speak to the government about the impact of these changes. By not providing them with sufficient time to bring their concerns to the table, I don’t know how we’re actually enacting anything that’s going to bring back trust in government processes. I think that that’s something that we really have to take seriously. If the goal of having the community come out to speak is to, in fact, provide opportunity to build trust etc., then you have to give the community an opportunity to speak to changes that are so vast.

I was actually reading an

article from yesterday in the Globe and Mail, “Ontario Has Undermined Its Ombudsman’s Independence.” At the very, very end—it’s quite interesting—the author writes, “Asking an”—ombudsperson—“to take on new responsibilities while installing a trap door underneath them is not in anyone’s best interest. If the rationale is to save public funds, well and good—but undermining the independence of oversight is one of the most short-sighted and expensive decisions any Legislature can make.”

I bring that up because that, I think, is a sentiment that’s shared by many people who are in my riding, and likely in ridings across Ontario. The idea of taking away an advocate is problematic on its own, because somebody who’s an advocate is actually fighting for changes to the system; somebody who’s an ombudsperson generally takes complaints. Those are two very distinct operations, so combining the two is problematic on its own.

Then, to have a clause within this bill that suggests that if the government or the House feels that a decision made by the ombudsperson is incorrect or wrong-headed, we can vote and have them suspended, is really troubling. How are they supposed to do their job independently? How are they supposed to do their job in good conscience if, hanging over their head, as my colleague had just said, is the possibility of them losing their job? That, to me, is an indication that there is no desire for oversight.

That brings me right back to the beginning: If we do not provide sufficient time for people across the province to come in, to write about their concerns, then there seems to be a lack of desire to hear from the people about issues that are going to arise with these changes. Something like an advocate—if we mess that up, that’s people’s lives. That’s the lives of children that are going to be lost if we don’t make sure that there is somebody who they can speak to who can advocate for change. I think there is insufficient amount of time for us to keep reiterating that point, in my opinion. This is a huge, huge, huge challenge.

With that being said, I’m quite nervous about the fact that so little time will be allocated to people being able to speak to some of these changes. I think all three of the independent positions that have been eliminated in this bill are things that everybody in the province worked really hard to have, to have that kind of independent oversight. I don’t think that strong leadership should be so worried about people being critical about what it is that they’re doing.

That’s kind of my final point, really: Strong leadership should have no worries about sitting and talking to people across Ontario about the changes that they want to make. They should be open to having people across Ontario provide them with criticism, suggestions, concerns, and they should be willing to speak to those concerns. If everything in this bill is being suggested for something positive and good, then there should be no problem with somebody asking questions, but there seems to be resistance to anybody asking the government questions. That piece is very scary.

Then, when you take the next step and start to take away advocacy roles, roles that independent folks—their job is just to take a look at what is happening here. It’s not just for this government; that’s for the future of all governments when they make this change. That means that we’re actually setting ourselves up, then, across Ontario to have to advocate again to get these positions back. It doesn’t make any kind of sense.

If it does make sense, then why can’t we just have time to have that discussion? Instead of decreasing the amount of time that we have to debate these ideas, why can’t we actually debate the ideas? Why can’t we open it up and have people send in their thoughts and their feelings and engage in that kind of discussion? Why can’t we make sure that people can actually get here to have sufficient time not just to look through—it’s quite a hefty bill of changes. We have to give Ontarians enough time to read through it, to think about the impact, to get over the shock of the changes that are happening so quickly, and then to get here.

I think that this seems to be an ongoing refrain: that we don’t give enough time. It seems, on the surface, that we’re providing some amount of time for the public to come and engage, but in actuality, how are people supposed to get here with such short notice? How are they supposed to navigate the changes that are happening?

I think that the criticism is already all through the media. The media has already picked up on some of the changes that are happening here, and that’s at least one step. But there seems to be resistance to criticism, and that’s worrisome to me. And this is just the start. This is a pretty hefty set of changes, and I’m quite nervous about that.

Kevin, I’m not sure how much time—sorry. I just had to check in with my team.

Interjection.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Yes? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Government members: There are four different conversations—if you can keep it down. I’m having to wear my earpiece so that I can keep up with what is being said on this side.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Is this just ever since I walked over to this side?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Well, you’ve been very loud since you’ve joined the little group there, Minister.

Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased, I think, to rise to speak in opposition to the time allocation that is before us today. The reason I hesitated, Speaker, is because it is always a shame, quite honestly, to have to participate in a debate about closing off debate.

This is a very thick piece of legislation that we have before us in Bill 57. There are 45 schedules. There are multiple pieces of existing legislation that are amended by this bill. To date, we have allocated six and a half hours of debate for these 45 schedules of this very thick omnibus bill. If you do the math, that works out to be about eight or nine minutes per schedule, in total. That’s eight or nine minutes for every member who has something to say about each of those 45 schedules to do the due diligence, to bring the concerns of our constituents to the floor of this House so we can make good decisions about the legislation that we are bringing forward for this province.

Today I want to share a couple of those voices that we should be hearing from—people that I represent in London West. First, I want to talk about a young woman named Elsbeth Dodman. Elsbeth is an inspiring advocate. She is a young woman with autism. She has been very outspoken about the challenges that she has faced because of her autism: the underemployment that she continually experiences and the barriers that she has encountered. One of the things that she was able to do to empower her voice, to amplify her voice across the province, was to be involved with the advocate for children and youth office and the We Have Something to Say project.

“The Ombudsman’s office does not have the time to direct its full attention to the work the advocate’s office was doing.

“I’ve been calling whoever I can, reaching out to whoever I can. The office and the people there and the work we were doing means so much to me. I cannot sit and watch Ontario, the very first province to have an independent child advocate, be the first to lose it. And all in the name of a budget.”

In her email to me, she attached a photo of herself and others who were involved with the We Have Something to Say project, which was initiated by the child advocate’s office. She says, “I wish Doug Ford could see this photo and see the faces of the people he’s saying no to.”

Now, Speaker, those of us who have been in this place for some time will be aware that in 2014 the We Have Something to Say project was started by the advocate as an attempt to begin to close the gap between provincial policy and the realities facing children and youth with disabilities in this province, and their families and caregivers. It put the voices of young people with disabilities right at the centre of these policy discussions and the development of recommendations, to ensure that their rights were respected.

We have no way of knowing whether the new Ombudsman that’s going to take over the role of the provincial advocate—whether that office will be able to continue the We Have Something to Say project. The loss of that project, as Elsbeth Dodman says, is going to be devastating for those young people who have been involved.

The other voice from my constituency that I wanted to share is from a constituent named Lee Richardson Symmes. She forwarded me an email that she sent to the Premier about the elimination of the Environmental Commissioner. She says, “Whether it be ignorance or guile on the part of his government, I think this move paves the way for some bad policies and actions by the Ford government, and I hope the NDP will highlight this issue.”

She says, “I was shocked and dismayed to learn that your government is eliminating the Office of the Environmental Commissioner. This action is the environmental equivalent of eliminating the province’s auditor, an essential non-partisan assessment for the public of any government’s stewardship and a valuable source of constructive suggestions. This is a serious mistake and the optics are terrible.

“No one familiar with environmental conditions or issues will believe that the financial analysts in the auditor’s office have the skills or interest to perform this function with credibility.

“The cost of the” Environmental Commissioner of Ontario “is trivial within the Ontario scheme of things so the contribution to deficit reduction or tax cuts will be lost in rounding the numbers.

“Many people will conclude the real reason is that your government is poised to adopt a number of actions and policies that will be backward and detrimental to the quality of air we breathe, the nature we love and the environment which is essential to our quality of life.”

Speaker, I think that my constituent Lee Richardson Symmes has really hit the nail on the head here. We know that the Environmental Commission was highly critical of the very first actions that were taken by this government to cancel cap-and-trade without any kind of alternative plan in place. The Environmental Commissioner has been outspoken about the negative impact of the actions that have been taken by this government on protecting our climate, on preserving our climate for future generations, on ensuring the quality of the air that we breathe and the water we drink.

It’s pretty clear that this government’s decision to eliminate that position was basically a pre-emptive strike, because they know what’s to come and they didn’t want to face that criticism from the Environmental Commissioner about the policy decisions that they were making.

The third thing that I wanted to highlight is the elimination of the French Language Services Commissioner. In my community of London, there are 7,000 students who are enrolled in French immersion schools throughout our community. There are 2,800 students who are enrolled in French-language schools. That’s almost 10,000 students who were looking forward to the French-language university, whose language rights had been protected because of the office of French Language Services Commissioner. These are all young people and families who will be affected by this government’s decision to eliminate that position, which is also a part of this budget bill.

These decisions have an impact. They have a very profound ripple effect throughout many of our communities across this province.

The final point that I wanted to speak to in one of the other 45 schedules of this bill—one of those schedules talks about rent control. It allows dwellings that are built after 2018 to no longer be subject to rent control legislation.

This morning, I met with realtors from my community, realtors from London, who pointed out that in the last three years in London, there has been a 50% increase in the average home sale price. What that does for entry-level buyers, for young people who are looking to get their first home, is it forces people to remain in rental buildings. By allowing these new rules, allowing builders to build new rental units and to be able to raise the rent however much they want—do you think that’s going to incentivize builders to build affordable housing, to build affordable homes? No.

It’s going to incentivize the development of more high-end rental dwellings where the rent can be raised wherever the developer decides or the landlord decides. This is not going to do anything to address the housing crisis in my community.

We know that it’s not just our social housing stock that is in crisis; there is a crisis of affordability across the board. In my community in London, we have the London Poverty Research Centre that’s doing amazing work to highlight the reality of the precarious labour market. Some 50% of people who are working in London are employed in unstable jobs that provide no security and no benefits. Half of our workforce who are working are in precarious jobs.

They can’t afford to buy a new home when there has been a 50% increase in the price of a new home over three years, and they are unlikely to be able to manage rental units where the landlord is now exempt from rent control if there are new rental units that come onto the market.

There are so many things to address in this bill. I’ve highlighted, certainly, the loss of the independent, non-partisan watchdogs of this Legislature: the Environmental Commissioner, the child and youth advocate and the French Language Services Commissioner. The loss of those positions is going to be very detrimental to our ability to provide the kind of oversight that people expect from government.

There has been an erosion of trust in terms of people’s trust that government has their best interests at heart. It’s no wonder when we watch, particularly with this government, the decisions that have been made. To have these independent, non-partisan officers providing that third-party, neutral level of oversight is absolutely essential. This government has no interest in transparency despite the title of this bill.

If they were interested in transparency, they would keep those officers in place, because those officers shine the light on some of the systemic problems that people in this province are facing. They challenge the government to take action on those issues, they push the government, they push all of us, to acknowledge and recognize and act on these concerns. To have those voices silenced is going to be devastating. It’s irresponsible.

I’m going to conclude now. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: In this bill there are a multitude of wonderful, beneficial improvements for the province, but I do want to draw this House’s attention and the committee’s attention to three elements that I think require further examination in committee.

The first one is in response to the member from Timmins’ comments. The mechanism to suspend an independent officer of the House, in my view, requires a more robust and stronger check and balance on that function of a suspension. I would like to draw that attention to the committee.

The second element I’d like to bring attention to is the changes to the Civil Remedies Act; I believe that’s

schedule 6. This amendment facilitates and broadens, in my view, the ability for the state to seize people’s private property without due process, so I would like to draw that element to the committee’s attention when it’s examined.

Finally, I believe it’s

schedule 16, the Election Finances Act: We spent a lot of time on that bill, creating it, and the mechanism to repeal the need for the public declaration of funds. I know it’s a complicated process, it has caused a lot of inconvenience and it was a lot of difficulty to get it done; however, removing it without another suitable mechanism to ensure that personal funds are the ones being used, I think, needs to be strengthened up.

So I would draw the committee’s and the House’s attention to those three elements when the bill is examined further.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to join the debate on Bill 57; in particular, the time allocation motion of it. There are a number of elements to the legislation, and one in particular has to do with after 15 years of Liberal mismanagement. The government is working hard to reduce the province’s $347-billion debt while making life more affordable for all individuals, families and businesses. We’re determined—absolutely determined—to meet this challenge by using the 2018 fall economic statement as a solution to monitor public spending, while also creating profitable growth strategies for the province.

You will know, Speaker, that making responsible decisions around budgeting, living within your means and saving can change your life. It can absolutely change your life. Those same healthy habits around personal spending I believe also apply to public spending. Ontario’s interest payments on the debt are now the fourth-largest line item on the provincial budget. That means taxpayers are spending approximately $1.4 million on interest every hour—every hour, Speaker: a significant cost that’s unfair, and it’s unsustainable.

Since being elected in June, we’ve taken action to modernize government. Small steps and keystone habits lead to impactful change, and we’re already seeing the results. We’ve given families and businesses important tax relief by not proceeding with the previous government’s $308 million in planned tax increases, and cancelling the cap-and-trade carbon tax in order to strengthen Ontario’s economy. These measures would keep almost $2.7 billion in the pockets of people and businesses in our great province.

Speaker, knowing how to manage money isn’t enough. You’ll know this, and many other MPPs in this chamber know that. Like families, the government cannot indefinitely spend more than it takes in. We must lead by example and make smart financial decisions on behalf of the people we have the privilege of serving.

We were elected to not just fulfill a balance-sheet commitment, but to also ensure that the vital programs that people rely on meet their needs. Ontario residents may not notice the numbers on the province’s statements; however, they feel the impact—they absolutely feel the impact—that mismanaged finances can have on their everyday lives. By making responsible financial decisions around public spending, as we are, we can take care of those who are most vulnerable and need our compassion the most.

Prior to the release of the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry’s report in mid-September of this year, the Auditor General had reviewed the Liberal’s Pre-Election Report on Ontario’s Finances. In that report, the Auditor General framed the Liberal behaviour with words—and these are her words—like “conceal,” “bogus,” “unreliable” and “deceptive.”

Once again, those are the descriptors of the Auditor General of Ontario. As you know, Speaker, this language is not normally used to describe a government’s accounting—far from it. What it revealed was a reckless spree of deficit-financed spending that, in turn, led to a carefully conceived series of accounting tricks, all intended to obscure the resulting costs from the public.

This is the context for the introduction of Bill 57. It will, if the proposed legislation is passed, restore the trust, accountability and transparency to Ontario’s finances. At the same time, it will make life more affordable for all Ontarians.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce had this to say about Bill 57: “We are pleased to see the government of Ontario taking reasonable steps to build a more prosperous Ontario with a strong focus on fiscal accountability and cutting cumulative red tape. On behalf of our 60,000 members in 135 communities across the province, we have long called on the government to reform Ontario’s tax system, reduce red tape, and restore fiscal sustainability to the Ontario taxpayer.

“We agree with the decision that the government of Ontario will not proceed with the prior government’s initiative that would have taxed the so-called ‘passive’ income for thousands of businesses across” Ontario. “This would have greatly increased taxes for thousands of employers in Ontario.”

Finally, “Our members are also supportive of some of the government’s other key priorities, such as their commitment to: ....

“—expanding broadband to rural and underserved communities across Ontario;

“—reviewing electricity costs for industrial users; and

“—investing in both the Ring of Fire and transportation infrastructure in northern Ontario.

“Combined, these are fundamental steps towards a more competitive and prosperous economy.”

Let’s turn now to some of the other elements in Bill 57 that are important to this discussion that we’re having this morning and earlier debate a few days ago. First, the legislation introduces one of the most generous tax cuts for low-income workers in a generation. It’s called the LIFT, or Low-income Individuals and Families Tax Credit. It would provide low-income and minimum wage workers up to $850 in Ontario personal income tax relief and couples up to $1,700. The vast majority of people earning $30,000 per year or less will pay no personal income taxes whatsoever when they file their 2019 tax returns. Low-income taxpayers earning just over $30,000 will also receive graduated relief.

Ontario’s government for the people is committed to helping taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. Every single dollar of this credit is targeted to low-income workers. If the bill is passed, Speaker, this measure will provide tax relief to 1.1 million people in our province.

I’d like to turn now to housing. Housing is another long-standing issue addressed by the proposed legislation. The demand for housing in Ontario has risen rapidly in recent years, driven by strong population growth and low interest rates. However, the supply of housing has not kept pace, leading to higher prices and rents—that’s a truism. As part of the new Housing Supply Action Plan, the government is developing a strategy to increase housing supply quickly and responsibly so that more good-quality places to live will be available for the hard-working people of Ontario.

With respect to making rent more affordable and promoting housing development, the government is proposing to encourage developers to build more rental housing by exempting new rental units from rent control, but at the same time keeping its promise to preserve rent control for existing tenants and cancelling the expensive and ineffective Development Charges Rebate Program, which will create savings of approximately $100 million over four years. Critics may expound at length about exposing new tenants to higher rents, but experts in the industry will tell us that a limited housing supply does much more damage.

Limits on rent increases have ultimately discouraged developers from constructing rental units, and this bill, Bill 57, if passed, will encourage the construction of new rental units and take away one of the key impairments to growth.

We are a government for the people, not just those who live in the cities or in the southern part of the province. The Minister of Finance has long been a special champion for northern Ontario, and with the support of all of his caucus colleagues, many of whom are here this morning, he does not ignore its residents.

First and foremost, working directly with First Nations partners, the government will end the delays for the development of the Ring of Fire and will promote resource revenue sharing agreements between First Nations and northern communities, as well as mining and forestry companies, so that the benefits of northern development will be shared.

In addition to those northern Ontario initiatives I already highlighted, the government is expanding natural gas delivery to over 70 communities and 30,000 households, it is investing in broadband infrastructure so that all of Ontario may participate in the digital economy, and a special working group is being created to speed up regulatory approvals and attract new investments in the mining industry. Northern Ontario is Ontario, and our purpose is to ensure that any legislation is sensitive to northern issues and deals with residents fairly and equitably.

Finally, another feature of Bill 57 is making Ontario better for the people. In that respect, the government is working to cut hospital wait times and end hallway health care for patients. The government is investing $1.9 billion in mental health and addiction services over the next decade, matching the federal government’s commitment.

We will be investing an additional $90 million in 2018-19 to build 1,100 beds and spaces in hospitals and the community, including over 640 new beds and spaces to prepare for the flu season, and investing more than $300 million to support the addition of 6,000 new long-term-care beds, the first wave of more than 15,000 new long-term-care beds over the next five years.

Households struggle and work every day to manage their finances and to live within their means. Surely they should be able to expect their elected officials to do the same with their tax dollars, managing and accounting for every penny. That’s what we’re doing: managing dollars for them as we must do every month with our own family budgets. That expectation is both reasonable and, with critical focus, attainable. It is absolutely attainable.

The overriding direction of Bill 57 is one that creates a process for reasonable and pragmatic change. It carves a path through some very deep undergrowth. The Minister of Finance has told all of us that there are no quick fixes, and there aren’t. A path back to balance is a difficult one, an absolutely difficult one. It will require fiscal discipline, but it will also require innovation and creativity, transparency and accountability. We owe both those things to the taxpayers we are representing, and we’re delivering. Bill 57 does not raise taxes. It makes life more affordable for people and safeguards vital public services and programs they rely on every day.

The bottom line is this: We have a rare chance to transform public finances, and it’s one that we cannot squander. We will continue to put Ontario’s fiscal house in order and focus on serving this province through transforming the culture of government. If done right, we’ll see a more sustainable Ontario for current and future generations: your children and your grandchildren, Speaker; everyone’s children and grandchildren.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): A point of order from the member from Timmins.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): That is not exactly a point of order, but it’s always nice to welcome our guests.

The member for Markham–Stouffville.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to rise briefly today to speak to the motion that was brought forward.

Principally, the motion was brought forward so we can begin to deal more effectively with the economic crisis that has befallen our province. We have to go back in order to understand where we are today, and I appreciated the fact that the member for Timmins did a little bit of that, Mr. Speaker, but you will appreciate that this government has absolutely no intention of following the path of the previous NDP government. It was a government many, many years ago, but it’s a government that Ontarians are still paying for today. Obviously, we have no intention of doing that.

We have no intention of having record-setting deficits; we have no intention of raising taxes; we have no intention of building an economy where few can prosper and where the only people who benefit are our neighbours to the south, because that’s where our jobs go to.

The last 15 years in this province followed much the same path of the previous NDP government, but elevated to a whole different stratosphere. We came off a time where we have a deficit now, this government is faced with a deficit, of some $15 billion. Now, I know that’s a very large number and it’s hard for a lot of people to contemplate, but $15 billion means that we’re paying, as the member for Whitby had mentioned, about $1.4 million an hour more than we take in. One of our largest budget items is interest on the debt, and that’s just obviously unsustainable. It’s unsustainable.

We obviously know we have an aging population. We have to do more with health care; we have to do more with long-term care. It’s hard to do that when your third-largest budget item is interest. It’s hard to pay for transit improvements and infrastructure improvements when you’re paying so much for interest. It can’t be done.

The people of Ontario rightfully, before the last election, were very clear: They had had enough. They wanted the province of Ontario to move in a very different direction. All of us went to the people and we heard what the people said. They said, “Get your house in order. Get our house in order.” Because it’s not the government’s house; it’s not our house; it’s the people’s house. When we go door to door and we hear from them, and they talk about how hard it has been for them to make ends meet, they’re not making stories up.

When I’m in my riding of Markham–Stouffville—by and large, Stats Canada will tell you, it’s a very wealthy riding. We’ve done very well in a lot of areas. But when you go door to door, you hear from person after person, from family after family, that they’re having a very difficult time making ends meet. And that’s in an economy with low interest rates. We know things are starting to change. When communities are asking for more and families are taking in less, then obviously we have a problem.

Since I’ve been here in debate, I’ve heard consistently from members from both sides—from our side and from that side—of the need to invest in transit and infrastructure. In my community, that’s had a devastating impact. The inability of the previous government in the city of Toronto to make decisions on transit and infrastructure has left billions of dollars stranded, sitting in a bank account unused, for over 10 years. That’s unacceptable. People in the eastern part of my riding—in Markham, in particular—shouldn’t have to struggle to get on public transportation. It irritates them.

It frustrates them and gets them angry when they find out that $5 billion has been sitting there in an account unused—$5 billion. What does that mean for the people in my part of Ontario? It means that the people of Markham could have had access to a subway or a rapid transit along Sheppard Avenue, but because the city of Toronto couldn’t make a decision, the money sits there. That’s unacceptable. We need transit and infrastructure in my riding. The money is there. It needs to be used so that we can grow the economy. So the investments that the people have already made need to be used.

I know that many of us will be meeting with trustees today. We have issues with respect to schools. Some schools in my riding—it’s a fast-growing riding, a fast-growing community—need to have infrastructure improvements. You can’t do that when you’re spending more on interest to pay for a deficit that we’ve all accumulated than you can set aside for reconstruction and repairs of schools. You can’t do that.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is all about bringing together a plan. This is a very first step—it’s a first step. Yes, we’ve reduced the deficit by $500 million, from $15 billion to $14.5 billion. That’s a good first step, but it’s the first step in a plan, the plan that this government is bringing forward to unleash the potential of the Ontario economy, to prepare it for what might lie ahead; for changes in the economy, as our economy moves in a different direction; preparing us to meet head on some of the challenges that we saw yesterday with respect to Oshawa. That’s what this is: It’s a first step.

So I would implore my colleagues opposite to work with us. We’re going to have differences of agreement, obviously, on how we move this economy forward, but work with us. Help us reduce taxes. Help us invest in people. Help us pay down the debt, because balancing the budget isn’t enough. We have to bring forward a plan to also pay down some of this debt. So I would ask my colleagues opposite to join with us, support us and help us move forward on balancing the budget and investing in individuals and families.

Mr. Speaker, it’s also a good time to recognize the fact that what the finance minister has done is really started reinvesting in people. What do I mean by that? Some of our lowest-income individuals—when I went door to door and I talked to people; I know many of us have heard this—a lot of them could not understand why it is that some of the lowest-income earners are sending money to the government. It makes no sense. This budget changes that.

The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is starting to bring forward a plan to invest in long-term care for our communities. You can’t address hallway health care if you don’t make investments in long-term care, but for far too long that wasn’t done. The Liberal government didn’t do it. The previous NDP government, many years back, closed hospital beds. That wasn’t—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Don’t take this as a partisan interruption, but we have reached that point of the morning where further debate is going to terminate at this point.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We are going to recess until question period at 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask the members to introduce their guests, I would like to draw attention to the fact that in the Speaker’s gallery today there are realtors from my riding of Wellington–Halton Hills and adjacent communities: Katrina Steffler, Denise Dilbey, Brett Nodwell and Karen Keleher. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: As the minister responsible for women’s issues, I’d like to welcome the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario and 23 of its members, who are here today for their 95th semi-annual meeting, including Edeltraud Neal, president of the organization. It was first established in 1923. I want to welcome them here today.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to recognize those travelling from the city of Ottawa who are here today from the Ontario Real Estate Association: Jennifer Morley and John Bennett are in the gallery.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would first of all like to welcome Michel Blais, Tiffany Rogers and Anne Marie Vaillancourt, our realtors who come from the city of Timmins. I remind you to meet us out front afterwards; we’ll go for lunch.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I would like to welcome John Bennett from Ottawa, who is here with us today. I had the pleasure to meet him this morning

Ms. Jane McKenna: I would like to welcome two of my constituents whom I had meetings with this morning, Sean Morrison, the chair of government relations for OREA, and Tamer Fahmi. Tamer and his beautiful bride, Janet, who isn’t here today, are very good friends of mine in Burlington. Thank you for the meeting this morning and for being here today.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I want to welcome Nordiah Newell to the Legislature today. Nordiah is majoring in political science and French at the University of Western Ontario. She volunteers in her community, mentoring women of colour who are interested in politics. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Walker: I would like to introduce OREA’s president-elect, Karen Cox, her husband, Russ Severnuk, and Stan Reljic, Gail McCartney, Julie Marshall, William Ballard and David Reid—all from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound—CEO Tim Hudak, and all the realtors in the building.

From the Bruce Grey Catholic District School Board, board chair and chair of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees Association, Bev Eckensweiler, and student trustee, Mackenzie Finamore.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I would like to welcome local Thunder Bay realtor Bob Pfaff, from the Ontario Real Estate Association, to the House this morning.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: It is my pleasure to introduce members of the Mississauga Real Estate Board who are present here this morning: Tehreem Kamal, Ray Dubash, Helen Goljack and Ettore Cardarelli. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I met with a whole gang of realtors from the Windsor and Essex county real estate association, and they’re here today: Tina Roy, Daniel Hofgartner, Krista Del Gatto, Lorraine Clark, Bob Pedler, Anna Vozza and Phil Dorner. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park. You are very welcome.

Mr. Norman Miller: I would like to welcome, from Parry Sound, Scott Broad, who is here with the Ontario Real Estate Association, and as well his son, Liam Broad, who has got a keen interest in politics and helped me out in the election campaign. Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I also had the pleasure of meeting with some folks from OREA this morning from Hamilton: Jack Loft, Wendy Stewart and Nicolas von Bredow. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Kinga Surma: I would like to welcome and introduce Kevin Krigger, who is a part of the realtors’ association and is also my constituent. Welcome to the House.

Hon. Rod Phillips: I’d like to welcome the grade 10 class from Archbishop Denis O’Connor Catholic High School and their teacher, Mike Orsag. It’s a civics class and it’s their first visit to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s a pleasure today to rise and also add my welcome to Beverley Eckensweiler from Mildmay, Ontario, in Bruce county. She is serving as chair of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, and she is joined as well by Nick Milanetti.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I’d like to introduce His Eminence Cardinal Collins, who is with us today, proudly representing Toronto’s archdiocese. It is always a pleasure to be with you in your presence. Thank you for your guidance, Your Eminence.

Mr. Dave Smith: I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with three real estate agents from my riding. Kristi Doyle, Christine Ball and Cathy Burningham, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I also wish to introduce to the Legislature today those who are here today with Cardinal Collins and the friends of Catholic education who are in the members’ gallery. I look forward to joining you for lunch. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my privilege to introduce members from the Chatham-Kent real estate board: president Steve Carroll, president-elect Michael Gibbons, executive officer Janice Wieringa and chair of political affairs Amber Pinsonneault.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I would like to welcome this morning Danny Tedesco-Derouchie from the Cornwall real estate board, along with Lyle Warden, who is also the deputy mayor-elect for South Glengarry. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Doly Begum: It’s my pleasure to introduce Regent Heights Public School to Queen’s Park today. I’m very happy to have Regent Heights students here—the first batch.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. John Yakabuski: When I didn’t stand up, I got recognized. I appreciate that. I would also like to bring greetings from the House to His Eminence Cardinal Collins and all of the advocates for Catholic education here today.

In addition, I would like to welcome one of my Ontario Real Estate Association members from Renfrew county, Cindy Sell.

Mr. David Piccini: I just wanted to welcome to the House Wendy Giroux, a constituent from Port Hope who is also head of the Durham Region Association of Realtors and who is here with us today. We had a great meeting this morning. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I would like to welcome constituents of mine from the Lakelands realtors: Debbie Gilbert, Mike Stahls, William Ballard, Debbie Vernon, Crystal Henderson and Kelly Warr.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park this morning realtors from the London and St. Thomas area realtors, otherwise known as LSTAR: Jeff Nethercott, Earl Taylor, Jim Smith, Chad Lovell and John Geha. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Good morning. I’ll take the chance as well to welcome His Eminence Cardinal Thomas Collins, and I would like to mention and thank the Catholic church for their support of the persecuted minorities in the Middle East.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, I would like to introduce, from the Woodstock-Ingersoll Real Estate Board, William Cattle, Isaak Friesen and Linda Van Hooren; and from the Huron Perth Association of Realtors, Gwen Kirkpatrick and Sue Fowler.

Mr. Ross Romano: I’d like to welcome to the House this morning from my riding of Sault Ste. Marie members of the Sault Ste. Marie Real Estate Board: Tiffany Rogers and Jodie McNabb.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I would like to welcome the grade 5 class from a school in my neighbourhood, New Central school in Oakville.

Hon. Laurie Scott: From Lindsay, with the Ontario Real Estate Association, we have Jim Sexsmith. Thank you very much for being here this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I, too, would like to welcome a former member to the assembly today: Tim Hudak. Welcome back to the Ontario Legislature.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Automotive industry

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, on behalf of the New Democrats, I would also like to welcome His Eminence Cardinal Collins to the Legislature and all those folks who are here advocating for Catholic education.

My first question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, families in Oshawa received devastating news about GM’s plans to shut down operations. Speaking on behalf of Conservatives in Ottawa, Andrew Scheer said, “Conservatives aren’t prepared to throw in the towel on this.” Can the Acting Premier explain why Conservatives in Queen’s Park are ready to do exactly that?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much for the question this morning. It has been a difficult 48 hours for the folks in Oshawa and in the Durham region. There’s no question about that. This news hit hard.

That’s why Premier Ford, Ministers Bethlenfalvy and Phillips and a number of other members from the Durham region went to Oshawa last night to meet with the outgoing mayor, John Henry; the incoming mayor, Dan Carter; and members of the chamber of commerce to talk about how we can provide supports, as the province of Ontario, for that region, which is being hit so hard in a global restructuring that—and I have to reiterate this: It’s a global restructuring.

When asked by the Premier if we could do anything to keep that Oshawa facility up and running—on numerous occasions, we asked the question. General Motors has answered that the decisions are final and, unfortunately, those lines will be moving out of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For thousands of families in Oshawa, losing GM means losing their livelihood, and they’re not willing to give that up without a fight. But the Premier’s message to them yesterday was, “It’s over. It’s done. That ship has sailed.” How can the government declare that the fight for jobs is over when they threw in the towel before it had even began?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again for the question.

We’ve been on the ground in Oshawa. We met with the mayors and the regional council, the soon-to-be chair of the regional council and members of the chamber of commerce to talk about next steps so that we can continue to make Ontario open for business, so that we can ensure that the Durham region reaps the rewards of the changes that we’re making in Ontario so we can bring good-paying jobs to the Durham region.

There are a lot of different things that we’re going to be exploring as the new government to ensure that the people of Oshawa, that the people of Durham land on their feet; that we see new investment in those employment lands and employment lands along the 400 series of highways.

Oshawa is in a great position to see a brand new investment in that community—great jobs that are going to support the families in the Durham region. Working together with the leadership in Durham region, working with the chamber of commerce, Nancy Shaw and her team, we’re going to make the Durham region rise again.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When I spoke to the new mayor, he was crystal clear: He wants to fight for jobs. The workers at GM are even clearer. “They are not closing our damn plant without one hell of a fight”—that’s what the workers are saying. Even the Conservative MP for Durham says, “We owe it to the workers and their families to explore what can be done to preserve Oshawa as an automotive hub.” But when Oshawa looks to the Premier of this province for hope, all they see is, “It’s over. It’s done.”

When is this government going to show some leadership, bring together workers, municipal leaders, auto parts and other supply chain businesses, and start working on a plan to keep these good jobs in Oshawa?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that one thing we won’t be doing is grandstanding on the backs of people who have just lost their jobs in the Durham region. When Premier Ford and our team were standing out in front of the Pickering nuclear station earlier this summer, making sure that we were committed to saving 7,500 jobs at that facility, where was the NDP? They want to close down the nuclear facility in Pickering.

We’re going to do everything that we can to ensure that we have good-paying jobs on the ground, and that’s why we’ve made the changes that we have made. I don’t know what the leader of the NDP wants us to do. Does she want us to nationalize auto jobs in Canada? Is that what she wants?

We are going to provide the supports that the workers on the ground in Oshawa need. We’re there. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities has her rapid-response team on the ground to make sure we’re helping those who need us at this time of need, Mr. Speaker.

Automotive industry

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. But I have to say, it’s not about what I want, Speaker; it’s what the workers in Oshawa want, and they want fighters. They want fighters to stand up for them, not a government that gives up and walks away from the concerns that these families have.

Yesterday, General Motors said that its goal in global restructuring was to focus on electric vehicles to transition to a low-carbon economy. They’re scrambling to catch up where they see the auto industry going, to catch up to where the industry is going. The Premier’s plan for electric cars seems to consist of scrapping incentives that encourage innovation and fighting electric carmakers in court. Why is the government moving Ontario out of this sector exactly when carmakers are looking to break into it?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: Again, Mr. Speaker, it just speaks to the knowledge of the leader of the official opposition of what is actually happening on the ground. We’re actually removing red tape in the industry. We’re removing red tape, which is going to allow for technology advancements in Ontario, and that includes in the automotive sector.

As a matter of fact, General Motors is making a significant investment in the technology centre that they have in Markham. There are 500 jobs there now. General Motors plans to create 1,000 jobs at that Markham facility, Mr. Speaker, and one of the reasons that they’re doing that is because the Ontario government is getting out of the way and removing some of the barriers and red tape that exist in that sector.

The NDP seems to want to give those on the ground a false sense of hope. I would say that that false sense of hope from the leader of the NDP is disingenuous at best, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The minister will withdraw his unparliamentary comment.

Hon. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, notwithstanding the way that the government is deciding to respond to this, smart government policy has been crucial in making the auto sector the linchpin of Ontario’s economy for decades. But the Premier has shunned the idea of an auto strategy and denounced job-creating government investments in industries like the auto sector. Instead, he proposes no-strings-attached corporate tax giveaways that go to companies even when they lay people off by the thousands. Given the announcement in Oshawa yesterday, does this government really believe that this plan is working?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything that we possibly can here in the government of Ontario to ensure that we’re creating an environment in this province for investments: for investments in our auto sector, for investments in our manufacturing sector. I don’t know how the leader of the NDP can stand there with a straight face and ask these questions when what they’re looking to do is put up barriers, increase costs, corporate tax increases, jacking up carbon taxes in the province of Ontario.

They supported the Liberal government, hand in glove, as electricity prices have soared through the roof to some of the highest in North America. They supported them on Bill 148, a job killer here in Ontario. They are guilty as an accomplice to that terrible Liberal government that we’ve had for the last 15 years. It’s impossible to take these questions with any—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Over the last 24 hours, I’ve had the chance to speak with union leadership and Oshawa’s new mayor. Our MPP for Oshawa has been on the ground meeting with workers and families tirelessly. They all agree with what industry experts and parts suppliers have been telling me for a long time: Ontario needs an auto strategy, especially if we’re going to fight to save jobs in Oshawa.

Why is the government sitting on their hands without a plan?

Hon. Todd Smith: Our plan is to ensure that Ontario is open for business. That’s for auto manufacturers, that’s for all manufacturers and that’s for the technology sector.

I can tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that although we got some devastating news—and I appreciate the member from Oshawa and the way she has been standing with her community and standing up for her community in a respectful way. I do want to say that we really do want to work hand in hand with the member from Oshawa, who has been at the heart of these job losses over the last couple of days, and ensure that the supports are there from the provincial government for those people on the ground in the Durham region, along with all of my colleagues who represent ridings in the Durham region.

What we’re doing is creating an environment in Ontario for job creation. We’re seeing a facility that just had the ribbon cut today—1,450 jobs in the London area. I just opened a facility—800 jobs here in downtown Toronto—this morning. We’re making a—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Restart the clock. Next question.

Automotive industry

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the deputy leader. The families facing job losses in Oshawa need a government with a plan to bring the jobs of tomorrow here to Ontario. They need a serious strategy, backed with investments designed to create and keep good jobs in Canada. They need a government ready to fight for Oshawa.

Instead, they have a Premier whose plan for jobs consists of overpriced road signs, discounted beer and telling Oshawa families that there’s no point in fighting for their jobs. Does the Acting Premier understand that this is just not good enough?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, it’s really hard to take these questions seriously, given what we’ve been doing for the last five months here in the Legislature. We’re opening Ontario up for business.

If we had continued on the path that we were on, we would have the highest carbon tax in North America, if that party had their way. The soaring cost of electricity would continue to be outrageous, if this party had their way. They wanted to kill 7,500 jobs in the nuclear sector in Pickering—the low-cost, reliable form of electricity coming out of the Durham region. The NDP would have killed 7,500 jobs.

Here they are, standing up—and we do feel, certainly, for the people on the ground in Oshawa, but they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth in the official opposition, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll withdraw that. I’ll withdraw that.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Notwithstanding the fallacies that this government continues to spread, the women and men who are facing catastrophic job losses in Oshawa need a government that’s ready to step up to the plate and help them keep their jobs. Instead, we have a government that’s asleep at the switch.

Instead of shrugging their shoulders and throwing in the towel, will this government join with the workers, municipal leaders, local businesses and concerned citizens who are ready to actually fight this decision, and start working on a plan to keep those good jobs in Oshawa?

Hon. Todd Smith: Apparently, the leader of the NDP didn’t hear my answers earlier, because we are working with all of the individuals that the member just said.

We’ve been in constant communication, first of all, with the company. We’ve been in constant communication with our federal counterparts. We’ve been in communication with leadership on the ground, including the outgoing mayor, who will soon be the regional chair, Mr. Henry, and the incoming mayor of Oshawa, Mr. Carter. We met with them last night. We’ve met with Nancy Shaw, who is the CEO of the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce. We’ve talked with our counterpart in the region, the member from Oshawa, Jennifer French, to ensure that she knows what’s happening from the provincial point of view.

Our Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, our minister of the Treasury Board, our Minister of the Environment, local MPPs Park, Coe, Smith and Piccini—we were all there last night in a show of solidarity to build a plan so that we can bring Oshawa back up onto its feet, because it is going to do well, not under a false premise but with a real plan—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the minister once again to withdraw his unparliamentary comment.

Hon. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

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

Automotive industry

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. I want to thank the minister and the Premier for coming to Oshawa last night.

Yesterday was a hard day for a lot of my constituents and across Durham region. For many, General Motors is a part of the family tree. For years, workers did everything they could to keep the plant open. However, yesterday the Wall Street Journal summarized the problem when it said “Canada is among the most expensive countries in the world to build cars and the highest-cost market for car assembly in the North American free trade zone.”

Speaker, can the minister tell the House what our government is doing to make Ontario more competitive and bring businesses to Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s a great question, and I thank the member from Durham for the question this morning.

I want to stress that what the member stated is absolutely correct. Time and time again, Canadian auto workers at General Motors were measured as the most efficient and the most effective on the continent, but this is a global marketplace, and it’s not enough for our workers to compete; we have to compete as a province.

For 15 years, we just didn’t. But in the last six months, this government has repealed Bill 148. The finance minister has worked to create a lower tax rate and accelerate capital cost depreciation here in Ontario. The energy minister is on a crusade to undo the last decade of destruction that made energy poverty a reality not just for people on the ground, but for our business community in Ontario as well.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario is going to be competitive. That’s how we bring business here and that’s how we’re going to keep good jobs here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Lindsey Park: I want to thank the minister for his answer.

Back in May, the CEO of Magna had this to say about the auto sector in Ontario: “I get very frustrated when I see the decisions being made that put undue administrative costs and inefficiencies on our plants, specifically here in Ontario, because we have to compete.... We’re not going to get business if we’re forced to be uncompetitive.”

I’m glad our government is taking the challenges faced by the auto sector seriously, but some challenges, like tariffs, require the co-operation of the federal government in order to keep plants open here in Ontario. Can the minister update the House on our efforts to fight tariffs and protect Ontario’s auto sector?

Hon. Todd Smith: The member from Durham has highlighted an important part of the equation here, and that is the aluminum and steel tariffs that remain in place even after the signing of the USMCA. The average car crosses the border seven times before it’s fully assembled, and tariffs on steel make life harder for parts manufacturers and car manufacturers to do their jobs.

Since coming to government on June 29, Ontario has sent deputations to the United States congressional committees. We’ve worked with state governments and our counterparts there. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had a great conversation with the American ambassador, Kelly Craft, to talk about our trading relationship with the United States and how important that is on both sides of the border.

We’re calling on the federal government to press the Americans to lift

section 232—those are the tariffs on steel and aluminum—because keeping them in place is harming our auto manufacturing on both sides of the border. It’s a win-win to remove those tariffs now for the US and for us here in Ontario.

Automotive industry

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Acting Premier. As everyone in this room knows, yesterday my community was rocked by the news that GM is intending to close operations in Oshawa. Oshawa Carriage Works started in Oshawa 140 years ago and became the cornerstone of GM, and GM Canada just celebrated 100 years in Oshawa. I was there. We have a long story of commitment.

This is devastating news. Words cannot express how my community is feeling. Oshawa didn’t build GM—excuse me; yes, it did. Oshawa built GM from the beginning. It was a dream and an idea, and they now can have a global conversation because of their community start.

This government talks about wanting to create good jobs. We have thousands and thousands and thousands of them in Oshawa, and once they’re gone, they’re gone forever. The people of Oshawa are feeling abandoned by their employer; they don’t want to feel abandoned by their government. And to find out that the Premier comes in, after dinnertime, and has a huge meeting with all of the folks, but none of them from labour—I would have brought my own chair had I been invited. I was in Oshawa all day. I would love to have a conversation with this government.

The question I want to know now is, will this government talk to workers? Will this government protect these jobs before it’s too late?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member from Oshawa for the question this morning. I can only imagine how difficult it is for her losing these kinds of jobs that have been there for literally a century in Oshawa.

I had the opportunity to speak to the member yesterday morning, along with the member from London West, to update them on how things were proceeding and the messages that we had been getting from both GM Canada and GM global. I know that the Premier had an opportunity to talk to labour over the last couple of days, with Mr.

Dias and Unifor, to talk about what this means for the labour force in Oshawa and express to him certainly our displeasure with the decisions that were made by GM, but also to explain that we had asked GM if there was anything we could possibly do to reverse this decision that’s part of a global restructuring. This wasn’t a kneejerk reaction. Certainly we’ve seen that eight plants across North America and around the world are closing as a result of this.

Our commitment is that our team is going to work with folks on the ground in Oshawa, including the member opposite, to ensure we have a positive outcome for the Oshawa region.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I want to let everyone in my community and in this House know that I’m not going to give up the fight to keep these jobs in Oshawa, where they belong.

Yesterday was an unbelievably challenging day, and we have many ahead of us. I spent time with the workers, who are my friends, my neighbours. We are reeling. We are reeling. Our community—

Applause.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: No, no. I’ve got to get this out.

Our community is building fantastic vehicles and wants to continue to do that work and to have those great jobs. On the day, though, that we got the news of a closure on the horizon, it was really tough to not only get that news but to hear the Premier announce, after one conversation with GM Canada, that the ship has left the dock. The Premier jumped straight to damage control and skipped right over the year that we have until December 2019. That is like tapping out before you even get in the ring.

We want a Premier and a government that are willing to fight to protect our jobs, not to fold like a cheap suit. Oshawa will fight to protect our jobs. We invite the province to stand alongside us. Speaker, will this Premier stand with workers and fight to keep good jobs in Ontario and Oshawa?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks for the question. I certainly do understand how upsetting and disappointing and heartbreaking this is for families right across the Durham region. The Premier said so yesterday as well. This is such a stressful time for families, especially heading into the Christmas period.

We are doing everything that we can as the government of Ontario to ensure that General Motors continues to have a significant presence in Ontario. They do have the CAMI facility in Ingersoll, they have the engine plant in St. Catharines, the technology centre in Markham, and the headquarters is going to remain in Oshawa.

We want to ensure that we have that relationship so that we can see further expansion from General Motors and that the workers at General Motors now—one of the lines is shutting down in June. The other two lines are to shut down or have unallocated resources at the end of December.

We’re doing everything we can to support those people on the ground and ensure that we can have new jobs and new hope for the people in Oshawa with our plan to make Ontario open for business

Automotive industry

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I and many Ontarians were saddened to learn of the planned closure of the General Motors plant in Oshawa. I know this will impact thousands of families in Oshawa, the GTA and eastern Ontario, many of whom have worked at GM for years and have become highly trained professional workers. These are people who take pride in their work and know that it’s crucial that they return to the workforce as soon as possible.

Many of the affected workers will need help to learn new skills to rejoin the workforce in a new, highly skilled position. Can the minister tell us what this government is doing to ensure that the workers at GM will have the supports they need to reskill and find another job?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member from Whitby for that question.

First, I want to express my sympathy for the thousands of families who will be affected by the closure at GM.

When the government learned about the planned closure, Premier Ford and I directed officials to reach out to GM as quickly as possible and initiate the Rapid Re-employment and Training Service program. Under that program, my ministry will be in regular contact with GM to ensure they and their employees have the information about training services provided by our government. I will make sure that services and training necessary are readily available so that impacted employees can rejoin the workforce as soon as possible.

No doubt there will be difficult times ahead, but I can assure the member and the affected families that they have my commitment that we will be there for them to help them get back on their feet.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thank you to the minister for that thoughtful response. I’m happy to hear that our government is already getting involved through this Rapid Re-employment and Training Service program and asking all levels of government to work together to help impacted families with the support, assistance and relief they need.

Many of the workers will need help to learn new skills to rejoin the workforce in a new, highly skilled position. However, Speaker, there are some people calling on the government to do more to reverse this unfortunate business decision by General Motors, which is affecting plants in the United States as well as the Oshawa GM plant.

Can the Minister of Labour explain what else our government has done to provide assistance to the workers affected by the planned closure in 2019?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I want to thank the member from Whitby for the question, and express my sympathy for all the families who will be impacted by this planned GM closure.

In my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, I know hundreds of people who have worked or have retired from the Oshawa assembly plant.

I can reassure the members that our government has acted quickly to find ways to assist those workers who have been impacted by this planned closure.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, our government has asked the federal government to immediately extend employment insurance eligibility by five weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks in the impacted EI regions. We’ve also asked the federal government to extend the duration of work-sharing agreements by an additional 38 weeks to a total of 76 weeks and allow for immediate reapplication for expired agreements.

Our government is taking these measures to ensure our impacted workers in the auto sector can fully access EI benefits when they need them most. Mr. Speaker, we are there for the families and the workers impacted.

Child protection

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch.

Remarks in Oji-Cree.

My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. A big part of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth’s advocacy role is addressing systemic issues impacting First Nations children and youth. The act itself highlights the need to pay attention to First Nations children. This is particularly important to the people in the Far North, where in 2017 we lost 38 children and youth to suicide.

So, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Without access to a provincial child advocate today, who will First Nations children and families reach out to when the system is failing them or when they are falling through the cracks?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much for the question. Meegwetch. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to talk about what our government is doing in order to strengthen accountability in children’s aid societies as well for children in custody across the province of Ontario. Our most vulnerable children deserve better, and we will be holding those responsible for those children to a higher standard and a stronger accountability mechanism by ensuring that there’s an investigative unit within the Ombudsman’s office that is dedicated to children. It will be turnkey.

But there’s more that we’re going to be doing as a government. We are committed to improving the outcomes of Ontario’s child protection system through the creation of three new tables dedicated to sharing ideas of empowerment that work. It started last week. We’re going to continue to move forward. I’m pleased—and I’ll talk more about it in the supplemental—but we will ensure there will be an Indigenous-led table. I will be happy to consult the member opposite, as well as the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, as we move forward with this new model, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: The question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services again. Mr. Speaker, tables are fine but they are no substitute to having an independent office of this Legislature to advocate for and with our youth. That’s what the Feathers of Hope initiative is. That’s what the independent advocate did when there was an inquest into the deaths of seven youths in Thunder Bay.

Without an independent child advocate mandated to focus on First Nations children and youth, how will Ontario ensure that the children of Kiiwetinoong and others from the Far North are given every opportunity to grow and flourish?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much, Speaker. Again, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. Look, we are moving towards a stronger, more robust accountability mechanism for those who may seek to harm children or who are not there. We are ensuring that the Ombudsman, who is the chief investigator in this area now, will have the opportunity to pursue more child protection mechanisms while ensuring that there is an advocacy component within our office.

I want to make it very clear to the members opposite, who do not understand the difference between what investigation components and oversight are as opposed to what advocacy is: Last year alone, the Ombudsman received 367 complaints about children’s aid societies and had to refer them to the child advocate, who didn’t have a strong and investigative component. So that’s why, with the new, expanded—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The Ombudsman’s expanded oversight capabilities will remain and we will ensure that there are going to be greater child protection systems. But I want to be perfectly clear: Any report that has been done or is pending by the child advocate will be sent over to the Ombudsman for greater oversight and accountability, and we’re going to take action immediately.

Seniors

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour le ministre des Services aux aînés et de l’Accessibilité. I was speaking with a 90-year-old woman this morning. She’s here at the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario, and lives with very limited means and needs to be supported by her brother. I’ve spoken with many seniors in the community of Orléans and across the province who are actually unsure about what the fall economic statement means about their finances and their future. They are worried that this government will not be there for them when they need it most.

As some of you know, I used to own a retirement residence. I understand the aging process well and I know how it affects families. Mr. Speaker, does the minister and his government believe in supporting seniors, whose population is expected to double by 2041?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you for the very important question. I would like to refer your question to the Minister of Social Services.

The fall economic statement was very clear on how we’re going to support those who are on limited incomes with the LIFT program that our Minister of Finance rolled out. This past week, we were prepared to roll out more changes on social assistance so that Ontario’s most vulnerable will have a pathway to getting out of poverty rather than sticking in it.

I just want to point out to the member opposite that during the time that her government was in office, one in seven Ontarians was struggling in poverty, and they were stuck there. What we are offering as a government is a multi-ministerial approach, where we work together as the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Education, the minister responsible for seniors and the minister responsible for the Attorney General. We’re working together because we recognize that each individual in Ontario needs to be lifted up as best they possibly can.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I appreciate the minister—I’m quite disappointed the actual minister for seniors affairs couldn’t stand up and speak on seniors’ issues, maybe like the Minister of Francophone Affairs, actually.

What I can tell you is that the seniors I spoke with don’t only want to be looked at through the lens of health care or any others. They’re not feeling supported by this government. They are concerned about the LIFT tax plan, which does not apply to low-income pensioners. They’ve been told that it only applies to employment income. This means this tax credit is not going to be helping many people in one of the fastest-growing groups of the population of Ontario.

Speaker, seniors want to participate and contribute actively to their communities. Does the minister really think that a single senior—I would say, in the vast majority, women who have outlived their spouses—earning under $30,000 a year in pension income does not deserve support?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: This government has been all about supporting the people of Ontario since we took office. We are reversing some of the most damaging policies that Liberal government put forward, including in social assistance where for 15 years they operated a disjointed patchwork system that kept one in seven people living in poverty, including seniors in this province.

That’s why, for the first time in over 15 years, this government brought in an across-the-board 1.5% increase in Ontario Works and ODSP. That’s why this government is going to create better wraparound supports for those who are on ODSP and Ontario Works. That’s why this government is going to be putting more people back to work by supporting them—not ignoring them—and empowering them and making sure that there’s dignity in the situation, which is something, by the way, during the 13 years that I sat in opposition over there, I watched them squander. Shame on them.

Northern economy

Mr. Norman Miller: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. I know our government for the people has been working hard to improve the lives of everyone who calls Ontario home. We are cutting red tape, making responsible investments and making sure that we get our economy going again.

Mr. Speaker, 15 years of the Liberal government has made it a very difficult task, but I know my colleagues and I are up to the job. We are investing in local businesses that help communities grow.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House about how our government is working for northern Ontario businesses?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I appreciate the question from the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka, a strong advocate not only for Parry Sound–Muskoka but for the entire region of northern Ontario.

We have a Premier and caucus that want to ensure that northern Ontario is as much open for business as any part of this province. They know what we can contribute when we make targeted and strategic investments, but as well ensure that it doesn’t take seven years for a mine to open, and ensure that by reducing red tape, our forestry sector and our mining sector have a chance to respond to the market today.

That’s why we’re moving ahead with so many different initiatives across the region: opening up northern Ontario for business; addressing the Far North Act because it has made little progress to collaborate with First Nations communities; or negotiating a deal that would keep Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie. Thank goodness for the member of Sault Ste. Marie and his hard work in that community.

We’re protecting jobs and keeping northern Ontario open for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Norman Miller: Thank you to the minister for his work on these files and for his support for northern Ontario. There’s no doubt that our government is doing everything it can to ensure we create economic prosperity right across our province.

The members of this House are well aware of the important investments our government has continued to make to support this goal. Last week, I was very pleased to announce one of these investments in my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka. Our government announced a $968,000 investment to build a multi-purpose centre in Carling to host community activities and private functions. This investment provides a much-needed space for families to gather and host special events.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House more about how this investment will benefit the community of Carling and area?

Hon. Greg Rickford: As I said earlier, we’re making the kind of targeted investments that make sense in northern communities. We have a lot of small towns, isolated and remote Indigenous communities and some bigger cities that are not to the scale of the ones down here in southern Ontario. Our great northern Ontario gang out here knows where those investments are, because we work closely with those community members. Even for ridings where there’s no Progressive Conservative member for now, we continue to make sure that they’re connected and that we’re investing in the projects that matter.

This particular one was a 9,443-square-foot facility to host family gatherings, conferences and business functions and serve as an emergency shelter. Its fully licensed commercial kitchen will help support training and host larger events.

We congratulate the town of Carling and their outstanding member of provincial Parliament for Parry Sound–Muskoka.

The projects like it—the fall economic statement—we’ll continue to support northern Ontario. Let’s just hope the northern Ontario caucus—

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

Next question.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Notre gouvernement a démontré vendredi soir, avec nos annonces, notre volonté de travailler pour les francophones et avec les francophones pour faire avancer les enjeux d’importance pour les francophones.

Monsieur le Président, je demanderais au député de l’opposition de ne pas politiser ces décisions. Nous allons veiller à ce que les droits linguistiques en Ontario soient préservés tout en préservant l’argent des—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

M. Gilles Bisson: Madame la Ministre, ce l’est, politique—très politique. Vous venez d’une famille, la famille de Mulroney, qui est francophone affichée, un premier ministre qui a oeuvré pour la communauté francophone.

Vous, comme francophone, je vous demande la question, non comme ministre : est-ce que vous comme francophone de l’Ontario supportez la décision de fermer ces services-ci en Ontario, oui ou non?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll remind all members to make their comments through the Chair.

Minister.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Bien sûr, j’ai une énorme fierté de ce que mon père a fait pour le Canada, ce qu’il a fait pour les francophones ici au Canada. Ce qu’il a fait pour les francophones au Canada a servi à tous les Canadiens. Ce que nous faisons ici en Ontario, ça va servir à tous les Ontariens, y compris les Franco-Ontariens.

Je peux vous dire, en tant que francophone fière, que les changements que nous avons proposés au bureau du commissariat—même avec ces changements, on va continuer à préserver les droits linguistiques ici en Ontario.

Le Président (L’hon. Ted Arnott): Merci.

Next question.

Wildlife management

Ms. Jill Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Our government members are aware of the disdain that the previous Liberal government had for the hunting and fishing communities. This 15 years of neglect created an unfair moose tag draw system that failed to meet the needs of the hunting community and the tourist industry in northern Ontario. The previous government had years to repair a well-known problem, but instead chose to ignore the issue and focused on raising taxes for Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, the draw needs to be fixed so that the hunt can benefit hunters and our northern communities by supporting tourism and small businesses. Can the minister update the House on what steps are being taken to ensure that future moose tag draws will be done in a fair manner?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I thank the member for the question. Our government for the people has listened to the concerns of hunters, and my ministry is reviewing Ontario’s approach to managing moose. We’ll work with an advisory committee which will review moose management, including the tag draw system, with the intention of making it fairer, more accessible and simpler for hunters. As the review unfolds, we will continue to listen and engage hunters and stakeholders to inform future decisions on how tag holders are developed and distributed. We will investigate new and improved ways of meeting the needs of hunters with continued hunting opportunities.

The member is correct: The system needs to be fixed. My ministry will provide the solutions necessary so that we can finally have a moose management approach that works to the benefit of hunters, businesses and our northern communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I know it will be reassuring to both my constituents as well as to those in our rural and remote communities to know that they finally have a government that works for the people.

The current situation is a personal one for a lot of Ontarians who are avid hunters and use the moose tag system frequently. Fixing the moose tag draw will be for the benefit of hunters all across Ontario, and I’m sure they are eager to know when they can expect to see the results of the review from the committee. Can the minister provide a timeline of when the review will be completed?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Thank you again to the member. I’m glad to hear that she agrees that the review will bring relief to the members’ constituents and Ontarians across the province.

The Ontario Moose-Bear Allocation Advisory Committee is typically made up of six members with related experience appointed by the Public Appointments Secretariat. As part of our overall review, we will revamp the advisory committee to make sure they are set up for a thorough review of Ontario’s moose management system.

I also want to reiterate what I said in my previous answer. Throughout the review, my ministry will continue to engage and listen to the concerns of hunters and other stakeholders so that our new approach is one that works for the people and actually addresses the problem. As the member knows, the current system is quite complex. The advisory committee will work over the next two years to ensure that we get this right and that we finally have a moose management system to make moose hunting fairer and more accessible.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Minister of Energy: There are serious questions about OPG’s sale of the Hearn generating station that the government needs to answer. We know that when the Premier was a city councillor, he met behind closed doors with developers to cook up a vision for Toronto’s waterfront. That vision included an NFL stadium on the Hearn site, then controlled by Mario Cortellucci, a major donor and fundraiser for the PC Party and the Ford family.

Mr. Cortellucci’s group has acquired the site at a suspiciously low price. Has the Premier or his staff had any discussions with developers for OPG about the Hearn site since he became Premier? If so, what did he discuss or promise?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Ontario Power Generation operates at arm’s length from the government of Ontario and it is responsible for its own operational decisions. Studios of America has leased this land since 2002. The terms of their lease included the first right of offer to purchase the land if it ever became for sale. By divesting this land, OPG has shielded taxpayers from any long-term environmental liabilities associated with a former coal generating station. This decision is in the best interests of taxpayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Minister of Energy: That was a very cautious answer.

During the last PC government, there was scandal after scandal, where insiders were able to buy government properties cheap and flip them for a massive profit. Several employees of the Ontario Realty Corp. were charged and convicted. In yet another scandal, the Conservatives appointed the party official who controlled their donations to be CEO of the Ontario Pension Board. The official then approved $36.3 million in cheap loans to the top donor of the PC Party. That donor was Mario Cortellucci.

It’s time to clear the air. Will the government allow an independent evaluation of the Hearn property so we can determine if this deal was fair?

Hon. Greg Rickford: This decision is in the best interest of taxpayers. By divesting this land, OPG has shielded taxpayers from any long-term environmental protection associated with the former coal generating station. Studios of America has leased this land since 2002, and the terms of the lease included the first right of offer to purchase land it ever became for sale.

Ontario Power Generation operates at arm’s length from the government of Ontario and is responsible for its own operational decisions.

Volunteer firefighters

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Double-hatters are full-time professional firefighters who also provide volunteer services. Minister, I understand that many rural and small municipalities rely on double-hatters to protect local homes, families and businesses.

For many years—almost two decades, in fact—double-hatters who volunteer in small and rural communities as firefighters have faced the potential of disciplinary action and even threats to their full-time jobs because of how they choose to volunteer in their free time. Many of these double-hatters have been forced to stop volunteering for fear of fines and disciplinary action.

Can the minister explain to this House what the government is doing with regard to double-hatters and how this will benefit the many communities relying on these volunteers to stay safe?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for his tireless work in his community.

One of the first speeches I gave right here in this Legislature was on the importance of protecting public safety and the need to protect our professional firefighters who, in their free time, act as volunteer firefighters in their communities. These heroic double-hatters are some of my community’s most dedicated volunteers. They are protecting their neighbours’ lives and homes.

Through Bill 57, our government is enshrining the right of our professional firefighters to volunteer their time whenever they want and wherever they want. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Ontario’s professional firefighters are double-hatting. These amendments will allow municipalities to resist any pressure to dismiss professional firefighters for double-hatting and ensure that they do not face penalties for choosing to serve their communities as a volunteer firefighter.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Thank you, Minister, for that explanation. Through you, Mr. Speaker, it seems not only strange but also wrong that firefighters would face disciplinary action and persecution for choosing to volunteer as firefighters in their own communities. We know that double-hatters care deeply for the health and safety of their communities and that fire chiefs across rural Ontario depend on their double-hatters to provide training and mentoring to other volunteer firefighters.

Can the minister tell us what this government is doing to permanently protect professional firefighters who are keeping our communities safe in rural Ontario?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I have waited 15 years for the province to take action. If passed, our changes will prohibit associations from disciplining members for double-hatting, allow municipalities to resist any pressure to dismiss double-hatters, ensure that professional firefighters cannot face association penalties for double-hatting, and perhaps, most importantly, our legislation will apply those protections retrospectively.

Today in Ontario, there are 18,000 volunteer, 11,000 full-time and 600 part-time firefighters. In other words, Mr. Speaker, 60% of Ontario’s firefighters are volunteers. I am hopeful that Bill 57 may not only protect today’s double-hatters, but will also welcome back firefighters who found other outlets for their volunteer community service. I’m very proud of that piece of legislation.

Social assistance

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Yesterday, I asked the minister about how the government’s changes to social assistance will hurt Ontarians with disabilities. The plan includes zero support for Ontarians with disabilities who cannot work, and it will take more money out of the pockets of people who are able to work, because the more they make, the more gets clawed back. To quote the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, “Forcing people off social assistance while depressing work conditions in the midst of a housing crisis won’t move people out of poverty.”

Will the minister explain how taking more money out of the pockets of working people and offering nothing to those who can’t work at all will eliminate poverty in Ontario?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, I don’t know where the member opposite gets her information, but this was the first government in 15 years to raise 1.5% increases across the board in Ontario Works and in ODSP at the same time. We’ve also brought in the LIFT from the fall economic statement that’s going to make sure people will keep more of their hard-earned money in their pocket, and they won’t have to pay additional taxes.

What I announced last week was that those who are on Ontario disability supports will end up seeing more wraparound services than they’ve ever seen and they will come out further ahead than they’ve ever been. Those who can work, on Ontario Works: We’ll be making sure that they have the supports in place.

But don’t take my word for it; take Paul Johnson’s, the city of Hamilton’s general manager of health and safe communities. He said: “The city of Hamilton has undertaken an integrated approach to services and will work with the province to reduce the administrative burden on those who provide social assistance, thereby ensuring more time is spent with those we serve....”

Or we could talk to Michael Allen from United Way, who says, “Today’s announcement signals Minister MacLeod’s intention to evolve Ontario’s social assistance system to more effectively serve the needs of vulnerable people and interrupt the cycle of poverty.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the minister: The changes to the earnings threshold will be a disincentive to work, because the more you make, the more the government will claw back. If you are on ODSP but able to work and earn more than $500 a month, you will only be able to keep 25 cents on the dollar. The same goes for Ontario Works if you earn more than $300 a month.

Trish Huculak, a social assistance recipient in Scarborough—someone that the minister wasn’t actually interested in talking to, the recipients—told the CBC that recipients “are going to end up with what they had before. It’s not going to help them; it’s going to keep them impoverished.”

The minister likes to talk about the 1.5% increase, which actually amounts to, if you qualify for the maximum benefit, $11.50 a month for Ontario Works and $17.50 a month for ODSP.

Does the minister think it’s fair if she only got to keep 25 cents of every dollar she worked for, and does she think she could live above the poverty line by only keeping 25 cents of every dollar that she earns?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, I am going to reject that question out of hand. It is factually incorrect, and the member opposite knows it. All she’s doing is trying to scaremonger Ontario’s most vulnerable people.

Here are the statistics: We have one million people on social assistance in this p