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

May 1, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-May-01 (PDF)

L022 - Tue 1 May 2018 / Mar 1er mai 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 1 May 2018 Mardi 1 er mai 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Executive compensation

Automobile insurance

Women’s centres

Government accountability

Home care

Greenbelt

Student achievement

Broadband infrastructure

Affordable housing

Highway improvement

Public transit

Sexual violence and harassment

Assistance to farmers

Members’ Statements

Celiac disease

Workers’ rights

Doctors’ Day

Dutch Heritage Month

Long-term care

Greenbelt

41st Parliament

Greenbelt

The Speaker

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on General Government

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Jewish Heritage Month

Asian Heritage Month

Jewish Heritage Month

Asian Heritage Month

Jewish Heritage Month

Asian Heritage Month

Petitions

Doctor shortage

Long-term care

Health care funding

Correctional services

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Great Lakes protection

Pharmacare

Voting age

Landfill

Eating disorders

Voting age

Opposition Day

Executive compensation

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Michael Chan: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 53,

An Act respecting the establishment of minimum government contract wages, 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

At such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, 30 minutes of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties; and

That during this time, there shall be no motion for either adjournment of the debate or adjournment of the House permitted. 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, notwithstanding standing order 81(c), the bill may be called more than once in the same sessional day; and

The vote on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Chan has moved government motion number 8.

Mr. Chan?

Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, I’m a little dry in the throat. May I get some water, please? I, in no way, expected to be speaking this early.

Wow. Even for this government, they never fail to shock and surprise me. They brought forth a time allocation motion, of which we found out late in the day yesterday—that’s not entirely unusual because it is not their practice to give us any more notice than is absolutely legally necessary under the standing orders. But this is unprecedented, where they would table a time allocation motion, have the minister read it in the House to fulfill the obligations of the orders of the day, and then not utter a word. Are they reserving the right to speak later? I don’t know.

Have they not relinquished their right once the minister sits down? I don’t know. I’d honestly have to check that. They probably have some time.

This, in itself, stoops to a new level because I do not recall—and I’d ask my colleagues from the third party; maybe they are checking their own records right now, because I haven’t had time. Without even being able to prepare notes, I’m up here speaking because they, just like that, passed it on to the opposition to speak. I do not recall, at any time—I’m speaking to you, Speaker, but, you see, if I don’t move around a little bit, I could take root. I don’t want my feet to get stuck on the floor in one spot. I do not believe that even this government, who respects democracy not, has ever, ever in my memory brought forth a time allocation that does not even involve committee.

Ms. Cindy Forster: How many years have you been here again?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’ve been here almost 15 years. I long for the opportunity to see what that side of the House looks like from that side.

They’re not even sending this bill to committee. It is such a sign of a desperate group of people who, in their dying gasp, are trying everything to somehow turn this thing around. What I say to them is this: You’ve been in government for 15 years. Did you not figure out that so many of the things that you did for the last 15 years have shown a total lack of respect for democracy and the people who send us all here?

This time allocation motion: How do you say that it is the worst of the worst? That’s what it is.

I just want to point out that they will be calling this back to the House for second reading as soon as we’re done this debate:

“... dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

“At such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading.”

This is the shortest time allocation motion I’ve ever seen as a member of the Legislature. What’s missing here is that “the bill shall be referred to the XYZ committee” so that deputants from all across the province can voice their views on the bill.

Without any warning—and we have testimony from people in the business. I quoted David Frame last week that they were never consulted on this bill. If you weren’t consulted on the bill before the bill was tabled, then you would think that the opportunity to voice your opinion on the bill, areas where the bill could be improved, areas where there could be some maybe even minor changes and areas where something was drastically in need of revision—where you would get that opportunity is at committee. Committee is the place where we make things better. Committee is the vehicle to drive the legislation down a better path. We are being denied that.

It is like Star Trek, you know, and Captain Kirk orders Scotty to beam it directly to third reading; no committee, just beam it directly to third reading. Well, that’s how the Romulans would behave. But we want the people to have something to say about the legislation.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That’s why we’re for the people.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We are for the people.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The richest people.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’ve got to tell you—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: My leader, Doug Ford, is going to be in my riding next Wednesday—for the people. And I can tell you, Renfrew county is not filled with rich people; it’s full of hard-working people who abide by the law, go to work every day, try to do the right things for their family and expect that the government will listen to what they have to say, because they are the people. I’m looking forward to that.

I hope that the Premier will come to my riding, because she is going to be a great help to me as well if she does.

Mr. John Fraser: All of those long-term-care beds.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, that we fought so hard for, I can tell you, for three years—for three years.

I’m looking forward to that. I hope she does come to my riding, I say to my friend from Ottawa South, because next to the boost that we’re going to get from my leader, Doug Ford, coming next week, that would be the second biggest boost: to have Kathleen Wynne come to my riding. She could—

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Nothing would be better for me in my riding than to have the Premier coming through, absolutely.

This government, in its panic before June 7—you know, this issue has been before the public for decades. This issue is not new, Bill 53. This issue is not new, but—

Mr. Arthur Potts: Bring him to my riding.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, I’m sure he will be there, Potts; he will be there, Mr. Potts.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Again, just to remind everyone in the Legislature that when, in fact, we are in debate, we refer to members by their riding, not by their first name or their last name but by riding, please, and thank you very much.

Back to the member, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, and that is the custom here, Speaker, but it is also—you know, you would think it would be the in spirit of the Legislature that members on the opposite side would also respect the duly elected leader of a major political party in this province. But, no, because of their desperate situation, they malign Doug Ford in this House on a daily basis—on a daily basis. But they forget that Doug Ford is for the people. The Liberals have been for their friends for 15 years. For 15 years they’ve been for their friends.

Now, Speaker, after intense pressure from Doug Ford; from our parliamentary leader, Vic Fedeli; from Steve Clark, Leeds–Grenville; from Todd Smith, Prince Edward–Hastings—and we have been putting pressure on these people over there about the obscene work and the obscene shenanigans going on at Hydro One with regard to the salary of the CEO, with regard to the poison pill severance that he has been given.

And now what? We had the Premier out there yesterday: “Oh, well, we’re going to have a look. We’re going to have a little meeting, and we’re going to try to do something about that.” Now, when their backs are against the wall, when they signed off—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Minister of Municipal Affairs, when I’m standing, I expect respect, as I do my best to give respect back.

However, I just want to point out again that I believe we are talking about Bill 53, and I just want to—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Time allocation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Motion number 8, government Bill 53. Again, I’m just going to refer back to the member and just bring him in line. Thank you very much.

Mr. John Fraser: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, if I may—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. Point of order, the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: I believe the member from Nepean–Carleton used unparliamentary language.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I don’t believe I heard that but—

Mr. John Fraser: You can assume it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Back to the member, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, you know it would never be my place nor my actions to challenge the Speaker, but we’re not actually talking about Bill 53; we’re talking about a time allocation motion. And the government side has opened the doors to all kinds of topics. The time allocation motion, in so many ways, Speaker, talks about the actions of a democratic institution and an undemocratic government that has turned it into a dictatorship. I believe it is my right to talk about their actions in this House.

Hon. Bill Mauro: A “dictatorship”? Did you just say that?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I did. I say to the minister, this government no longer acts like we’re living in a democracy. It is a dictatorship. They’re not giving us the opportunity to have proper discourse about a bill. They’re shutting off debate. The guillotine has been sharpened to a new edge.

I see the Speaker is deliberating. We’re good?

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker.

What we are talking about here are the actions of the government, the actions of a government that when—now not all of those members were ever in opposition, but many of the members of that government were, and they absolutely railed and they went apoplectic when the government of the day would time-allocate a piece of legislation. They derided the government saying that this was the most undemocratic, dictatorial action they had ever seen—dictatorial action—they had ever seen, and yet, they got their hands on the levers of power and they’ve taken this action.

Using this legislative tool, they have taken it to a new level. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that never in the history of this institution have we seen this tool used to such excess.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Even Speaker Levac said that today.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Even the Speaker. I read an

article on the Speaker—and congratulations. I may not have the opportunity, because I know this government is not going to offer me the opportunity; in fact, they hate it when I get up and speak. But I want to stand here in my place today and thank and congratulate the Speaker, Dave Levac, for his service not only to this Legislature and to his riding of Brant since 1999, but to the people of Ontario.

You know, he did a great service to this Legislature in a very special way yesterday. When he was interviewed, he talked about how he is saddened by the direction things have gone in. One of the things he talked about most, one of the things he highlighted, was the unacceptable use—I’m not quoting him because I don’t have the

article in front of me—but what he felt is the unacceptable use of time allocation—the freedom of us as members, duly elected by the people in our constituencies to come here and debate the legislation. Technically, I’m not even debating Bill 53 because we’re on a time allocation motion.

Time allocation is like—Speaker, you might as well have been sentenced and all you’re waiting for is the executioner. Your time is up. The Legislature has been told they’ve been sentenced. Your time is up and all we’re waiting for—I know the Sergeant-at-Arms doesn’t behave in that fashion, but the executioner is coming. We know exactly when and where. It’s in the schedule. So we know when the guillotine will fall. We’re basically told, “You’ve got nothing more to say about it.”

Liberals will run your lives: That’s what Kathleen has been trying to tell the people of Ontario for 15 years. She wants to tell the people of Ontario how they would live their lives. She wants to tell them that she knows better. She wants to tell them that only she is right. Have you ever noticed that when you disagree with a piece of legislation that Kathleen Wynne has brought forth to this chamber, she doesn’t argue about the merits, pro or con, about the piece of legislation. She will attack your character.

If you disagree with what Kathleen Wynne says about a piece of legislation, she’s no longer interested in talking about the merits of the respective piece of legislation. She would rather go out and attack your character, that somehow you are less of a person because you don’t see the world the way she sees it.

And, you know, Speaker, people in Ontario take offence to that, because we all have the right to our views. That’s what freedom is all about. I don’t expect everybody in my riding to agree with what I say, and I will gladly have the discussion with them on those issues. But I can tell you this: I will not call someone in my riding names or castigate their character because they don’t see the world the way I see it, because we are not all made the same. We all have an intellect and we all have a heart and we all have our feelings on various subjects.

Because somebody doesn’t see the world as Kathleen Wynne sees it, she loves to attack their character. She attacked my character in this House last week.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: That was shameful, too, by the way.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That was shameful. When we didn’t vote for Bill 3, she challenged me. She as much called me a misogynist. That’s the way she rolls. We voted against Bill 3 for very good reasons. The experts told us it was unnecessary and the changes could have been adopted by amending current legislation. If the Liberals hadn’t starved the Pay Equity Commission, they would have had the resources to implement the changes necessary. But she calls Doug Ford names. She calls the rest of us names. That’s what she does when you don’t agree with her.

As I said, Speaker, not everybody agrees with me. My wife doesn’t always agree with me. As it turns out, most of the times that my wife doesn’t agree with me, she’s right.

That’s why I think we have a responsibility. I think we have a responsibility to the people that sent us here to stand up for what we believe. We can’t do a poll every time there is an issue, but we do live among our people and we do get a sense of how they feel about things. That’s our responsibility: to try to articulate that feeling to this Legislature.

I don’t know what’s going to happen on June 7. I have a good feeling, but who knows? Just as they say in hockey, before the Stanley Cup playoffs begin, everybody has got their betting favourites. But you know what? You still have to play the game. How many people in August of last year would have said that the Vegas Golden Knights were going to be running deep into the playoffs? Here we are: An expansion team is now leading the San Jose Sharks two games to one in the second round of the playoffs. They are down to eight teams. You might have been wise to go to Vegas and make a bet on Vegas last August. But you have to play the game.

We recognize that. We are more than prepared to take our message for the people to the people. We will take our message for the people to the people. How many members of the party opposite have chosen not to even seek re-election? They have probably heard from the people. They have heard from the people about what their government has meant to them over the past 15 years: less and less in their own pockets, more and more of their hard-earned money being taken for the pretty programs that the Liberals want to promote to satisfy their friends.

Well, we heard from the FAO, the Financial Accountability Officer, yesterday about $23 billion in the last five years being handed out to programs with no accountability for it whatsoever, no measurements as to whether the recipients of that money received the kind of results that were expected or created the jobs or maintained the jobs that were part of the application process. That’s the big ones like the Jobs and Prosperity Fund, where we’ve seen grants of hundreds of millions of dollars to one company—hundreds of millions to one company at one time of your hard-earned money.

You have to ask yourself, Speaker: If you’re giving that kind of money to one recipient, then there should be no contract more ironclad in the world than the one that requires them to meet benchmarks and achieve goals—not stretch goals like the Premier likes to talk about, but real, hard goals, hard numbers that have to be met.

We’re going to come back here in a few days, or maybe it could even be by—based on this, we could pass this bill, Bill 53, by the end of the week without any significant further debate. Thirty minutes of total debate on third reading: this, after no committee. If there’s no committee, then this bill will come back unamended. This bill will come back just the way it is.

In their arrogance, not only do the Liberals no longer believe in democracy, but they believe that they are perfect, that they are infallible, that they can’t even make mistakes.

I’m sure there are people out there who live in the world that will be governed by this bill who would like to have the opportunity to come in here, even to the Liberal majority that can choose to listen or choose not to listen—and we know that if future behaviour is best determined by past behaviour, they probably won’t listen; but at least they have the opportunity to make that decision. At least they have to categorically say, “No, we’re not listening,” because they would have to face the reality of proposed amendments and then make the choice that they’re not adopting them. But in this case they are telling the people, “We don’t need your input.”

Well, I’ll tell you, in Ford nation, we want their input. Doug Ford is for the people. Everything that we do will be determined by how the people respond. There is nobody out there—

Mr. James J. Bradley: For the rich people.

Laughter.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I hear the chortles from the opposite side: “Doug Ford is for the rich people.” Yes, who has been enriched in this province more than the rich people in the last 15 years? How much does David Herle—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Three million dollars.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s $3.4 million, is it?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The wizard, Gandalf.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The wizard. Gandalf. Over $3 million.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Mississauga–Streetsville on a point of order.

Mr. Bob Delaney: It is distinctly unparliamentary and against the standing orders, standing orders 23(

g) and (h), to make allegations against members or to utter comments that are disturbing in nature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member for that point of order. I would remind the member and other members in this Legislature to refrain.

I would now turn it back to the member.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, I would point out that standing order 23 speaks about how you address and refer to members of this assembly. The last time I checked, nobody ever voted David Herle into this assembly.

I recall distinctly when a member of this Legislature who is no longer here used to take great glee in railing about Conrad Black over and over again, and was never admonished in this Legislature. If we want to take a shot, just as they take gratuitous shots at Doug Ford, the duly elected leader of the PC Party of Ontario, then we will avail ourselves of the privilege to point out to the people of Ontario the obscene way that David Herle has been enrichened by contracts handed out directly by that party over there.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Seniors can’t heat and eat, but David Herle—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes. We’ve got people in this province who are crying about what this government has done to their ability to get by. Hydro prices that went from 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour when they took power to—exploded.

Hon. Bill Mauro: They never were 4.3 cents.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan says he doesn’t agree with me. I guess he must not have been paying a hydro bill.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The Minister of Municipal Affairs will come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

I believe we have one speaker debating at a time. I don’t want to have it confused with other members trying to interject on your time of debate, so I’ll turn it back to you, member.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate the advice from the other side, but I’m not sure where they’re getting their information. I paid a hydro bill in 2003, just like most people here would have paid a hydro bill, and I know what the per-kilowatt-hour charge was.

Through that subsequent time, when this government, again, decided that they would tell the people of Ontario how they should think and they would dictate how they would live, hydro rates, electricity rates, skyrocketed because they signed the most exorbitant deals for power in the history of mankind. They were willing to pay more than any other jurisdiction—far above the market price. Who benefited? Well, we know that those—and I say to the member from Northumberland, we know that he claims to be against the developers.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I didn’t say that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He claims to be against the developers. But what about those gigantic wind turbine developers that you voted for in the Green Energy Act—to fill their pockets at the expense of grandmothers who couldn’t pay their hydro bills, widows who couldn’t pay their hydro bills and had to resort to food banks to get food, but—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member for Northumberland–Quinte West will come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —yet voted in favour of those developers who—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would certainly hope that the member from Northumberland–Quinte West is not challenging the Speaker when I asked him to come to order. I would just expect that the respect be shown.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I wasn’t, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. It’s accepted.

Back to the member.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, I could understand the people getting upset on the other side if we were making this up, but it’s all there in the record. The Green Energy Act, which the NDP voted for—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, they voted for the Green Energy Act. Before they get too worked up here, they voted for the Green Energy Act.

The Auditor General, the impartial, non-partisan officer of the Legislature, has told us repeatedly how much the people of Ontario have overpaid for electricity because of the Green Energy Act and the contracts that this government signed.

I’ll give credit where credit is due. They all voted for it. They all wanted it—

Mr. Arthur Potts: I wasn’t even here.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —those who were here in 2009—and now they won’t walk it back. They’ve insulted municipalities over and over again—municipalities that have asked to have some control over whether they get a wind development built in their municipality. The Liberals have paid lip service to it.

Interjection.

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

On a point of order, I recognize the member from St. Catharines.

Mr. James J. Bradley: I always enjoy hearing the speaker, but what he is saying has nothing to do with the time allocation motion or Bill 53. We’d love to hear about Bill 53 and the time allocation motion, because I do like hearing the member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. I’ll return it back to the member, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. The point I’m trying to make is about the democratic process and what Speaker Levac has referred to. I’m really touching around that by how we behave and conduct ourselves in this chamber, and about how the whole package—15 years are up for decision. The Liberal government must answer for its record. I am simply reminding people about some of the things.

What happened then, Speaker, is that the people of Ontario got saddled with these massive electricity contracts that would hinder them for 20 or 30 years. I know that there are a lot of members here who wish they hadn’t done it, but they did it. Instead of backing off, they doubled down. The hurt is so bad that they had to remortgage the house so that the people won’t be paying these contracts for 30 years; now they’ll be paying them for 60 years. What is interesting, though, is that they have a little bit of buyer’s remorse.

Do you remember George Smitherman? Do you remember Furious George? He was the architect of the Green Energy Act, and he brought it in here. I remember him sending me a handwritten note. I was the energy critic at the time. He sent me a handwritten note, and it said, “Yak: the Green Energy Act is going to add no more than 1% a year to your power bills.” It was on one of those little sheets out of the little book—a handwritten note. “Yak: 1% a year.” How absolutely sad is that?

Oh, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It’s okay.

We are in time allocation; I understand that and I know that you understand that. But we need to be debating the time allocation of this. With the other stories, I’m not so certain that they are relevant to time allocation and specifically Bill 53. Although entertaining, I would ask that the member stick to what we’ve just discussed.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, if that is your desire—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Nepean–Carleton: This is the second time. I’m going to ask that you do your best to contain your comments.

Back to the member.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. In fact, I am time-allocated. I have, at this time, less than two minutes left to speak.

Let’s talk about time allocation. I’m so pleased that my friend from St. Catharines rose on a point of order, which is his complete right to do. I don’t have time to go through all of the quotes here, but I have copious notes on the member himself when he was a member of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. These are some of the things he said when he was a member of the opposition:

“We are operating in this Legislative Assembly at this time almost exclusively on what are called time allocation motions. That’s most unfortunate, because it’s what you would call”—listen, now—“anti-democratic....

“The best way to deal with legislation is to have the government sitting most of the year so that it can receive careful analysis and debate in this House and in committees and, in fact, in committees that travel across the province to get meaningful input. We do not have that.”

Speaker, if I could have one of the pages pass this on to the member from St. Catharines, perhaps he’d like to read his own quotes into the record after I finish. I think it would be wonderful.

On that, Speaker: “anti-democratic”? That picture is in the dictionary beside the words “anti-democratic”: the Liberal Legislative Assembly members.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of Windsor West and add some comments to the time allocation motion before us, which is related to government contract wages. I find it interesting. I’m not sure that in those 40 minutes the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke really talked much about what was before us; I’m going to try to stay a little more on track than he was. It was entertaining, though, and it did give me some things to talk about.

I think it’s important to note that we are here once again with the Liberal government time-allocating an important discussion. This is something they’ve done time and time again. For those who are out there watching or that might read the Hansard later and don’t know what time allocation is, basically time allocation is the government’s way of saying that they don’t want to talk about the legislation; they just want to push it through and make it law without having fulsome debate, without wanting to hear from the other MPPs in the Legislature, whether that’s opposition or some of their own members.

And they don’t want to hear from the people of this province. That’s what time allocation means: They’re shutting down conversation about a bill.

I want to point out something that’s interesting. There’s an

article in the Toronto Star today with an interview that was done with the Speaker of the House, the member from Brant, Speaker Levac, who, as we all know, is retiring. He’s not going to run again, and I wish him well, wherever life takes him after retirement. Speaker Levac actually said this in the interview: “Levac says Liberal government dominance of legislative debates has also set a poor precedent, citing the ‘excessive use of time allocation’ measures to rush bills into law through closure tactics that limit the opposition’s say.”

It’s important to point out that Speaker Levac, although when he is here is non-partisan, is a member of the Liberal Party. He is an elected MPP who ran under the Liberal banner, and here he is saying that the Liberal government uses time allocation excessively to shut down the voice of the people in this House and to shut down the voice of Ontarians.

When the Liberal government moves time allocation, what they are saying—not just to opposition MPP constituents, but to the people they represent, those that sent them to this place—is, “We don’t want to hear from you.” I cannot stress this enough for the people who are watching this or who will read the Hansard later: When the Liberal members that you elected in your ridings support time allocation, what they are saying to you, their constituents, is, “We don’t want to hear from you. Your opinion doesn’t matter.”

So remember that come June 7, when you are standing in the polling station deciding who you are going to support. If you have supported Liberal members in the past who are sitting in this House now with time allocation shutting down debate, they are saying that they don’t want to hear from you, and your opinion doesn’t matter.

What’s even more alarming is that they don’t want to hold committee and hear from the people of this province and get their input. They are not interested in that this time either. They have had about 10 years to deal with this legislation, which they have now decided they need to rush through on the eve of an election, and they don’t want to consult the people of this province.

That’s shameful, because every single one of us in this House was elected to represent every constituent in our riding; whether they voted for us or not, whether they can vote or not, we are sent here to bring the voice of our constituents. The Liberals don’t want to hear from us and they don’t want to hear from their constituents. They are not doing their job, frankly.

We just went through a very long college strike, and the Liberals let that go on and on for I believe five weeks or more without doing anything about it, without truly addressing—that’s not true. What they did about it was they tabled back-to-work legislation, which was supported by the Conservatives; what they did was they forced the faculty back to work without actually addressing the issues that caused the strike in the first place.

That is exactly what they are doing now at York University. They’re not addressing the fact that we have more contract faculty, more part-time faculty, more people who are there to provide an education—a darn good education—so that people can go out and make a decent living to fill the gaps in our job sector.

There are many areas where they need skilled workers, and we have faculty who are trying to educate the next generation and fill those gaps, and they’re not respected. More and more of them are contract, part-time and precarious employment. That isn’t the way that we should be treating the people who are put in charge of educating our next generation or those who have had to return to post-secondary education and then move on to another career. This is not how we should be treating the faculty. They shouldn’t be starving out our post-secondary institutions so that more and more they’re having to decide to hire contract faculty.

The students who pay to be there deserve no less than to know that their faculty will be there whenever they need them, that if they’re struggling with something they can go back and seek additional help so that they will get the best possible education they can. But that’s not the case right now. Many of the faculty, whether that’s at York University or whether that’s in our colleges, are piecing together a life because this Liberal government is underfunding the post-secondary education system. Many of the faculty in our post-secondary institutions are working multiple jobs just to try and make ends meet because they don’t have stable employment, thanks to this government.

Another issue I’d like to bring up, because these people are indirectly employed by the government as well because the institution where they work receives funding from the government and the government receives revenue in return, are the people on strike at Caesars Windsor casino. It’s shameful that, as the employer, the government and the OLG—which is a body of the government—are making sure that the management team at the casino are still getting their revenues. They’re still getting paid; they’re not losing any money. The management company is getting exactly what they’re supposed to.

Meanwhile, we have workers who have been out on the picket line for weeks now, and this government will not say to the management company to actually get back to the table.

The government will say they respect collective bargaining, and that’s fantastic, but they know as well as I do that you can only have collective bargaining when both sides are at the table. Management is refusing to negotiate; they won’t even come to the table. They will not talk to the union about even setting dates to bargain. This is an institution that receives funding from the government.

In Community Living—another example. In developmental services, you have organizations like Community Living, OASIS and Christian Horizons that provide supports to people with developmental disabilities; yet they can’t meet their pay equity obligations because this government hasn’t given them base funding increases in 10 years—10 years.

What happens is, these workers are getting left behind. They are not receiving fair wages for the work that they do. They are not receiving full-time hours that they can count on, because these organizations that serve some of the most vulnerable people in this province aren’t receiving the funding from the government in order to be able to take care of their staff. While you have staff that are taking care of other people, they are not being taken care of by their employer, which essentially is this Liberal government.

So it’s all good and well to talk about supporting government workers, supporting any worker in this province, but the record on the other side of the House, on the Liberal side, indicates that they really don’t support workers in this province; because if they did, they would be making sure that all of these organizations and institutions that are publicly funded are receiving adequate funding to do what it is that they need to do and that, ultimately, the employees there are making a decent living, where they can put a roof over their head, where they can feed their kids, where they might actually be able to afford their hydro bill.

Speaking of hydro bills, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke had talked about hydro. I think it’s really important to point out that it was actually the Conservatives that started us down the path of privatization when it comes to the hydro system. It was actually the Conservatives that started that process. That doesn’t excuse the fact that the Liberals then went off and charged ahead with selling off, when 80% of the people in this province did not support that—nor did they campaign on it last election, which they say they did.

Interjections.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: They say that they campaigned on selling off hydro, but that’s not what they said. They want to talk about broadening ownership of hydro, but there is no broader ownership of hydro than every person in this province owning it. A select few shareholders is not broadened ownership. It’s not. It’s certainly not helping the people of this province.

The member from Huron–Bruce was heckling me while I was talking—talking about green energy. I don’t know what it is that the Conservatives have against making sure that we have a healthy environment, that we have a sustainable environment. Where they get a little confused is in the role when it comes to supporting the Green Energy Act.

Just to be clear, the NDP aren’t government—not yet. That will change June 7. We are not government. For 15 years, the Liberals have been government. They are the ones that sign contracts and make those decisions, not the NDP. We know that the Conservatives don’t support green energy and they don’t support the environment. That was made very clear yesterday when a video was released of their leader, Doug Ford, saying that he would bulldoze over the greenbelt in order to make affordable housing. It’s very clear they don’t support our environment.

But the fact of the matter is, Speaker, they were the ones that started the privatization of our hydro in the first place.

Ms. Cindy Forster: There are developers chomping at the bit for that—

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Yes, yes, there are developers chomping at the bit for the greenbelt. And we know that those developers aren’t interested in building affordable housing. They’re in it to make money. That’s what they’re in it for. We also know the Conservatives aren’t in it for affordable housing because, in fact, when they were in government they downloaded housing onto the municipalities. along with community and social services programs, child care, land ambulance and public transit.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke talked about the Liberals downloading and things like that, but the Conservatives actually downloaded a great deal and left it on the municipalities to pick up the pieces.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Three billion dollars.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Three billion dollars in repairs to social housing that the Conservatives downloaded onto municipalities. It’s all fine and well that they want to go after the Liberals. The Liberals’ record is the Liberals’ record. They’ve had 15 years to fix things since the Harris government. What they have often done, more often than not, is continued down the same path that the Conservatives did. But if they want to talk about and sound like they are all for supportive housing, affordable housing and that kind of thing, investing in our public services, then they really need to be talking about what their record is and what they have actually done in the past.

The other thing I want to point out is specifically related to government contract wages and talking about wages. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke also talked about the Pay Equity Commission. It’s important to point out, while he’s going after the Liberals about the Pay Equity Commission, that it was actually the Conservatives that cut the Pay Equity Commission by 50%. But again, the Conservatives don’t want to talk about their record. They don’t want to talk about their history. They just want to re-create history, I suppose.

And then perhaps we could talk about Eleanor Clitheroe. Eleanor Clitheroe was the president of Hydro One under the Conservatives and was making $2.2 million in 2001. In 2001, $2.2 million. But wait; there’s more. She had benefits and $172,000 for a car. And then, Speaker, they want to stand up now and talk about CEO salaries and that kind of thing. Clearly, under the Liberals and their privatization of Hydro One, we now have Mayo Schmidt making over $6 million a year and saying he feels our pain when it comes to paying our hydro bills.

I just want to point out that New Democrats have tabled legislation several times to cap CEO salaries, and neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives supported it. Not once. I believe this afternoon the PCs have a motion about the Hydro One board and their salaries. It’s interesting that they’ve had several opportunities to actually support legislation to cap CEO salaries, executive salaries, and they didn’t.

Speaker, again, I’m not really sure the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke talked much about the actual bill, but he certainly gave me a lot of things to talk about.

Another really important one, I think, to point out when we’re talking about the PC record and downloading and privatization is Walkerton, the privatization of the water testing in Walkerton. Everybody in this House, I think, knows what happened there. No oversight whatsoever, and people were sick and dying. What we see is—

Interjection: Boy, oh, boy. That’s really desperate. I’m disappointed in you.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s desperate? Talking about the fact that you privatized the oversight of water and people were dying and gravely ill: That’s desperate? That’s not desperate; that’s fact.

Interjections.

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

Interjection: No stone unturned.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: No stone unturned. The PC leader, Doug Ford, has said he will leave no stone unturned when it comes to privatization, and I think we all know what that means. That means, likely—

Interjections.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: And $6 billion in cuts. What that means is, once again, they will cut social assistance—by 21%, I believe, is what they did last time—and tell people to eat dented cans of tuna and eat baloney sandwiches. They sit here and talk about investing in people, that they are for the people, while what we have seen in the past was telling people, low-income people who are struggling to make ends meet, to just shop better: “Buy dented cans of tuna and eat baloney sandwiches and you’ll be just fine. Don’t worry about your water; you’ll be just fine. Don’t worry about affordable housing or social housing; we’ll cut those, but you’ll be fine.”

Ms. Cindy Forster: And no new housing built under the Liberals.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: No new housing built under the Liberals.

So, Speaker, I think that the Conservative record and the Liberal record speak for themselves. The Conservatives did a lot of damage in this province. There were mass rallies in opposition to what the Conservatives did the last time that they were in government in this province. The Liberals have had 15 years to undo that damage, and they haven’t done it. And we are supposed to believe that, on the eve of an election, suddenly they’ve seen the light and they’re going to do things differently. They are actually going to invest in the people of this province.

Really, what they’re doing is, they’re playing catch-up for 15 years of pretty much doing nothing. It’s a desperate attempt to try to hold on to power.

I can tell you, in my riding, it’s not working. There hasn’t been a single door that I have knocked on where anybody has said they will be voting Liberal. I bet it’s like that across the province because nobody believes that, after 15 years, this Liberal government is finally going to deliver on any of the promises they have made time and time again.

Then we get to where we are today, where we have legislation that they’ve had 10-plus years to deal with, an issue they’ve had 10-plus years to deal with. We are on the eve of an election and so they are rushing it through and they’re time-allocating it. They’re shutting off debate because they don’t want to hear from the constituents from the opposition side of the House. They don’t want to hear from their own constituents. They don’t want to have committee meetings and have stakeholders and others that are affected come in and talk about what may or may not work for them in the bill. They don’t want to do that. They want to shut down discussion and they want to rush through a bill.

What that says to the people of this province is that the Liberals haven’t learned anything in 15 years about actually taking the people of this province seriously and listening to, and addressing, their concerns. It’s all about the Liberals; it’s all about the Liberal agenda: “What can we do to try and make us look good?” That’s rather unfortunate because there are 107 people, this session, who were elected to be here; 107 out of millions. It is an incredible honour and a huge responsibility to be here.

People put their trust in us to do the right thing, and the Liberals are saying to them, “I don’t need you. I’m government. Now that you got me here, I don’t need you. I can do whatever I want and it doesn’t matter what you say. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is.”

I’m certain, Speaker, that on June 7, the people of this province are going to send the Liberals a very strong message. It’s going to be a very strong reminder to the folks on the government side that you do need the people of this province in order to be able to do the job that you’re doing, that you are only in those seats because the people of this province, the people in their ridings, put them there. When you take that for granted and you stop listening to your constituents and you stop listening to the people of this province, they will send you a very strong reminder come election time.

With that, Speaker, I’m going to wrap up because I know my colleagues have something that they probably would like to add to the discussion as well, once it comes back around to our side.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? Further debate? Further debate?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’ve got five minutes, so I think I’m going to first talk about the time allocation and what a short time allocation it is, and how that really is not democracy in the making.

We’ve heard from stakeholders who actually took the time to put together very detailed reports. They wanted to come to committee and they wanted to share their concerns about that bill, because there’s a lot missing in Bill 53, I think it is; there’s a lot missing. But because I only have four minutes, I’m going to turn to Mr. Ford’s comments with respect to the greenbelt as it pertains to my ongoing saga of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

I am very concerned when I hear that the Conservative leader is actually going to be having a look at greenbelt areas across this province. It is exactly what has been happening and what I have been talking about in this Legislature for the last couple of years, particularly as it relates to Niagara Falls—the member from Niagara Falls is here—and the Thundering Waters project in the Falls. I’m concerned that this, under Doug Ford, will lead to a wonderful wetland in the Niagara Peninsula being developed by some large Chinese developer, and that legislation will change to allow that to happen.

I’m concerned because the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority has moved to a development mode, instead of a protection and a conservation mode, in some of their thinking.

At the moment, the Auditor General is in doing a financial audit. They have been there for months. I’m hoping to see some reports in a short period of time. There are ongoing issues there at the NPCA with respect to harassment of workers. We’re trying to get the NPCA to release a report that was done by an outside firm. They’re not very forthcoming with that issue. We have Ed Smith, who you all know; you probably all know now he was in the Supreme Court for a SLAPP suit by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

Judge Ramsay in the case ruled that the NPCA was wrong and that in fact as private citizens, we have the right to have a voice, to have an opinion, and there was no slander intended by Mr. Smith. Shortly after that suit, they then went to take on one of their former employees, who had her employment severed after I think 20-plus years.

At the moment, there is actually a move on to try to get them to withdraw that SLAPP suit against that person. I’m not going to mention her name again here in the Legislature, because that was how she ended up being sued, unfortunately.

When we have leaders running for parties making broad statements about what they’re going to do with respect to greenbelts, I think it’s very concerning for many of us in the province. For Mr. Ford to say that he’s going to free up a lot of these greenbelt areas for affordable housing—we just don’t believe that. We don’t believe that anybody is going to want to build affordable housing on greenbelts. We’re going to open this up in areas of the province, in Hamilton and Toronto, where property is very expensive to start with, and at the end of the day, people still are not going to be able to afford to buy houses in downtown Toronto or in downtown Hamilton. That issue is quite concerning.

The member from Windsor spoke about the York strike. Speaker, I can tell you that at the moment—I think April 2017—college support staff, 20,000 of them, came out and voted in colleges across this province to join a union, to join OPSEU specifically. That legal battle is still in the middle of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, with the employer counsel for the colleges and the college counsels actually causing the vote not to be counted—still today, a year later.

Interjection.

Ms. Cindy Forster: You’re telling me to wrap up, Speaker, so thank you very much for the opportunity.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): This House now stands recessed until 10:30, since it is now 10:15.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to introduce a few Hardemans who are visiting Queen’s Park today for the Dutch Heritage Month flag-raising. I’m joined by my son Ernie; his wife, Susan; and two of my grandchildren, Freya and Willem. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to welcome my good colleague John’s cousin.

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: À

titre de membre d’Ottawa–Orléans, il me fait plaisir de savoir que la mère de notre page Maxime Dufault, Sylvie Rodier, est ici avec nous aujourd’hui. Donc, j’aimerais la saluer et lui dire un bon bonjour.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to welcome a Huron–Bruce grade 10 class visiting today from Saugeen District Secondary School in Port Elgin.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, I know they’re joining us because I just met them on the staircase. Today, we’re going to be joined by 75 students from grade 5 at James W. Hill school in Oakville. Please welcome them to the Legislature.

Mr. Arthur Potts: We do have the pleasure of having page captain Joseph Berman here today, who is from St. Paul’s, an unrepresented seat. So on behalf of that unrepresented riding, I’d like to welcome grandparents Ruth and Lony Gropper; aunt Elise Stern Gropper; uncle Bernard Gropper; and cousins Adam and Evan Gropper. They are in the public gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Your son and grandson is doing a great job.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I wish to welcome guests here today from the Canadian Celiac Association: Melissa Secord, who is the executive director and actually lives in our riding, and David Congram, who is on the board. Welcome to Queen’s Park today. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Scarborough–Guildwood and page captain Abinaya Chandrasegaran, I’m pleased to introduce her mother, Umahsekari Chandrasegaran; her father, Chandrasegaran Sabapathy; and her brother, Nisanth Chandrasegaran. They will be in the public gallery this morning.

Hon. David Zimmer: It is my pleasure to introduce the family of my legislative assistant, Sasha Boutilier. His mother, Joanna, and his brother, Misha, are here.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m pleased to welcome this morning Alan Carson and Giancarlo Drennan of the Ontario home inspectors. Thank you. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: In association with the member for Nickel Belt, I want to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the members to wear green ribbons today in honour of the Canadian Celiac Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we have the ribbons for both sides?

Mr. James J. Bradley: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes? The chief government whip indicates yes.

The member from Wellington–Halton Hills is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed.

Final last call for introductions? Seeing no further introductions, it is therefore time for question period.

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, we learned disturbing new details about this government’s deleted document scandal in the Trillium Power lawsuit. We’ve learned that documents appear to have been destroyed or deleted by this Liberal government. That’s why, on behalf of our leader, Doug Ford, the PC Party has written to the Information and Privacy Commissioner seeking an investigation into what exactly happened to these lawsuit documents.

This government has had six years to find the documents we know exist. The lawyers against the government provided evidence that these files were deliberately destroyed or deleted. This is the gas plants scandal, all over. Speaker, I ask the Premier, are we really going to do this all over again?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: As the member well knows, we can’t—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I heard a member say something; I’m not sure exactly which member it was. They’ll know what I’m talking about. I don’t want those kinds of references used in the heckling. If it is, I’ll ask you to withdraw; and then the second time it’s used, I’ll start naming people.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: As said before, and as the opposition well knows, we can’t comment specifically on the lawsuit from Trillium Power, as the matter is before the courts, Mr. Speaker.

But with respect to record-keeping, we are committed to being an open, accountable and transparent government. We have taken action, Mr. Speaker, to strengthen the laws related to record-keeping. We have ensured that there are good policies in place for document retention and staff training. As well, we have worked closely with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and the Chief Privacy Officer and Archivist of Ontario, to ensure that our policies are appropriate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: I can tell you that there’s nothing appropriate about this. The former Liberal chief of staff to the Premier has been sentenced to jail for orchestrating the deletion of gas plant scandal documents, and this sounds absolutely identical to that.

Let me read the court filings: “In-house counsel for the (government) have refused to acknowledge or admit the destruction of the incriminating energy documents ... even though this has now been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.”

Who is this government trying to kid? The Liberals thought they were clever last time, and it ended up with jail doors slamming. Speaker, where are the documents that Trillium Power has demanded?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will withdraw. If it’s said again, I’m naming people.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: As said before, and I’ll say it again, Mr. Speaker, to the opposition: They know that we can’t comment specifically on the lawsuit from Trillium Power, as that matter is before the courts.

But in 2016, it is important to note that Trillium requested that the OPP investigate their allegations related to the moratorium on wind energy. Those allegations were thoroughly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. The investigation was promptly closed after the OPP found no evidence to support Trillium’s allegations.

As I said before, when it comes to respect to record-keeping, we’re committed to being an open, accountable and transparent government. We have worked closely with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and the Chief Privacy Officer and Archivist of Ontario, to ensure that our policies are appropriate, and they have said so.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: The reason there was no evidence is because it was destroyed by the Liberals.

We all know that Liberal insiders have lined their pockets from the energy file for years. That could explain this

section of the Trillium Power court filing referring to their competitor: “Unknown publicly at the time, Windstream”—

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Talk about the greenbelt.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Infrastructure will come to order. I might not have to wait until the first round. We’ll go to warnings, if necessary, and we’ll do it quick.

Finish, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —“Windstream Energy had hired Chris Benedetti, a senior government relations person, who had close and direct relationships into the Office of the Premier, the Minister of Energy, and others. At the time, he was a campaign co-chair for the Ontario Liberal Party, in 2011.” The Premier was also a campaign co-chair.

Records of Benedetti’s communications to and from the Office of the Premier on behalf of Windstream have been wiped out. Will the Premier tell us: Are the Liberals destroying evidence in this case too?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, we’ve taken action to strengthen the laws related to record-keeping, and we, this government, have ensured that there are good policies in place for document retention and staff training. We worked with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on that. We worked with the Chief Privacy Officer and the Archivist of Ontario to ensure that our policies are appropriate.

That decision, that policy to place a moratorium on offshore wind is one that our government still believes is correct. Ontario continues to take a cautious approach to offshore wind, which includes finalizing research to make sure that we are protective of both human health and of the environment, because protecting the environment is something that we take very seriously. We’re not going to pave over the greenbelt, Mr. Speaker.

Executive compensation

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. It turns out the Premier’s six-million-dollar man has a price after all; it just happens to be a political price. After weeks of PC leader Doug Ford sounding the siren call against outrageous executive compensation at Hydro One, isn’t it wonderful to see the Premier and this government now following Doug Ford’s lead? Thank you.

This Premier and this government, which is only interested in its own survival, finally read the political tea leaves and told the Hydro One board what Doug Ford has been calling for all along: that we need a lid on fat-cat executive salaries.

To the Premier: Why did it take Doug Ford and the Ontario PC Party shedding a light on this scandalous deal for this government to finally act?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Coming from that party, where there was a video released of a meeting with “fat-cat” developers, Mr. Speaker? Coming from them? Unbelievable.

Over the weekend, our government urged Hydro One’s board to revisit its executive compensation model. As Hydro One’s largest shareholder, we welcome the board’s decision to re-examine the compensation model, which will include independent advice. The board’s decision to increase executive compensation was done without our involvement. Changes to compensation and severance were adopted by the board late last year, but were not raised with us before the release of the 2018 management information circular on March 29. The board now acknowledges that its largest shareholder should be engaged on such material issues and that changes are needed.

I know that while Doug Ford and the PC s would take an erratic and reckless approach and fire Hydro One’s board, which would do absolutely nothing to reduce customer rates, we believe in a stable solution that exercises our authority as the largest shareholder. Our government continues to focus on fairness.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Well, that weak response is only coming now because the Premier and her millionaires’ club have been exposed, just before the election. If this Liberal government truly had any respect for the taxpayers, the Premier would fire the six-million-dollar man and the entire board at Hydro One. The Premier told this Legislature earlier that she has the authority to do that, then they said they don’t, and now it appears they do. Instead, the Premier and her minister have stood here defending their insider friends, justifying this outrageous salary and continuing to line their pockets.

Will the Premier just admit that this deathbed conversion is only because she admits that Doug Ford is right?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The approach that the official opposition is taking is like letting a bull run through a china shop. They want to fire the board of a publicly traded company, not a government entity. This is incredibly, incredibly irresponsible, and it’s up to Doug Ford to explain how this would actually work. Their gimmick will drag us down into the same mess that we’ve seen in the US and won’t do anything to take a cent off of anyone’s bills.

I know, as the member from Prince Edward–Hastings would say, that Ford’s scheme is chaotic and out of control. Instead, our government has taken a responsible approach. After hearing of the compensation changes, our government engaged in careful and necessary analysis and determined that these changes were unjustifiably generous.

This weekend, our government urged Hydro One to revisit its executive compensation model. That’s a responsible approach, Mr. Speaker. On the other side of the chamber, the official opposition—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Let’s remember what the Hydro One board did. They doubled the severance packages for Hydro One executives while this government stood idly by doing nothing, even though they could have taken action to prevent this. Instead, they let Liberal friends line the pockets of other Liberal friends. They come first while Ontario families struggle with skyrocketing hydro bills, deciding whether to heat or eat as the winter disconnection ban comes to an end today. In 38 days the party with the taxpayers’ money is over.

Will the Premier stand with the people and not the millionaires and vote for our opposition day motion today?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: What we have on the other side is chaotic and out of control. They’re talking about firing people left and right, which would do absolutely nothing to reduce rates for people in this province. We believe, Mr. Speaker, in a stable solution that exercises our authority as the largest shareholder. That’s what we did this weekend; that’s what we’ll continue to do.

We will not be voting in favour of that opposition day motion, because when it comes to doing something, they actually stood up and voted against the fair hydro plan. They voted against giving families a 25% reduction.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We did hear over the last few years that people were telling us that electricity prices were too high, so we acted. We made sure that the fair hydro plan reduced rates by 25% for all families across the province. Those in the rural parts of our province and the northern part saw reductions anywhere between 35% and 50%. We acted. The only thing they do is vote against.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this morning, York University professor Dr. Fred Lazar published a report that confirmed what the NDP has been saying for years. Auto insurance companies are making huge, excessive profits on the backs of Ontario families. In 2016, in just one year, auto insurance companies in Ontario made $1.5 billion in pre-tax profits. That’s an increase of nearly 60% since 2012.

Why did the Premier deliver a 60% increase in profits to the insurance companies instead of delivering 15% in savings for Ontario families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the member’s citing of the report by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association in which they came forward talking about some of the alarming costs that do in fact exist in our system. It is why we’ve taken a comprehensive plan to increase consumer protection, combat fraud and ensure that those injured in an accident get the care they need when they need it. It’s about care, Mr. Speaker, and not cash, which is what we’re trying to avoid in the abuse of the system.

Through Ontario’s Fair Auto Insurance Plan, we are creating independent medical examination centres; we’re improving care for victims by creating a standard treatment plan for those minor injuries—that way we avoid whiplash and strains; and, of course, legal costs, which are also adding to the costs in the system.

The Serious Fraud Office—it currently costs the system $1.6 billion. We’ve got to curb that cost as well. We’re going to work with the law society on their contingency fee reforms. We’re going to look at postal code review. I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Again, back to the Premier: The Premier said it was a stretch goal to keep her promise to reduce auto insurance rates by 15%. The Premier believed that auto insurance companies just couldn’t afford to charge less. But now we know that auto insurance companies extracted an extra $5 billion in overpayments from Ontario families. That’s $143 every year that could have stayed in the pockets of each Ontario driver.

Why does this Premier care more about delivering profits to auto insurance companies instead of delivering savings to Ontario families who are being gouged?

Hon. Charles Sousa: In continuation, we have provided some regulatory reform with FSRA, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority. It’s a new authority to provide oversight of auto insurance and regulatory power, increasing innovation and consumer protection and greater supports to fight the very issues of fraud, and curb those costs—costs which now have reduced, on average, at one point, as high as 11%.

We know we’ve got to do better and it is an issue. But we’ve also taken steps to put in constraints around the profits that insurance companies make, taking the benchmark for profits down to 5% from 6%. We’ve also created an expert panel that’s reviewing all of these matters together, so that we can work as one to ensure that we put consumers first and we address the issue of fraud and reduce the costs, thereby reducing the premiums.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: Again, back to the Premier: Even after gouging Ontario families and collecting an extra 60% in excess profits, auto insurance companies are still applying for higher auto insurance rates as they make $1.5 billion in profit and they reduce benefits for those injured in auto accidents.

And this Liberal government is approving them. A few weeks ago, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario approved an auto insurance rate increase of 2.23%. This was the sixth increase in the last two years.

After everything, how is it possible that the Premier is still allowing auto insurance companies to gouge Ontario families even more?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are instituting David Marshall’s review of the auto insurance system. It’s very comprehensive; it’s very detailed. We know that by taking these steps, we are making long-term benefit changes to the reforms in the system.

These are not just stopgap measures like the opposition has just proposed. Instead, we’re making structural changes to put consumers first and address fraud, and implementing measures that will provide timely care for victims of accidents that lead to savings for consumers.

We recognize there are 120 auto insurance company providers out there. They compete against one another. We know that we can do better, and within the system, costs can go down. Premiums should go down. We’re going to continue to fight to do just that.

Women’s centres

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of the Status of Women. Why is the Liberal government denying funding to the Niagara Women’s Enterprise Centre and the Welland Heritage Council and Multicultural Centre in my riding?

Hon. Harinder Malhi: Thank you for your question. I know that we have been funding a number of organizations across the province. There is a system that we use to fund the organizations, and it’s done on the bureaucratic side, where everything is graded according to the criteria.

A number of those organizations you’ve referred to—there were some programs approved. Others were not approved. I can look into it for you if that’s the case, but we do understand that a couple of the ones you’re referencing—the ministry and my staff have reached out to them to talk about why their application wasn’t funded at this time. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chair, please.

Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Both of these organizations have been in contact with me and they have been declined funding for delivering programs for newcomers, women who experience domestic violence and those who are looking for employment.

This government talks about their gender-based violence strategy, but here they are doing exactly the opposite. They’re cutting funding for two important organizations that have been delivering programs in my riding for 12 years. Niagara Women’s Enterprise Centre services 100 to 120 women per year. They have provided services to 60 women per year through Investing in Women’s Futures—a total of 1,200 women through that program and 370 women through the violence against women program over the last 12 years.

Speaker, I ask again: If the Liberals are committed to supporting women escaping domestic violence and new immigrants coming to our country, why are they cutting funding to these two important agencies in my riding?

Hon. Harinder Malhi: Mr. Speaker, again, we have made an up to $242-million investment in our gender-based violence policy. Also, through our women’s economic empowerment strategy, we’ve made an investment in our women’s centres. We have increased that invesment that we’re making in our women’s centres. Up until now, some of them were not getting funding. We have introduced a program where all women’s centres will have access to this funding.

These are the organizations that are supporting our most vulnerable women—immigrant women, women from racialized groups, women from the LGBTQ+ community.

We are working hard to ensure that women who are in vulnerable places, who need our help—and we are providing those supports and that help through the programs that we are offering, whether it be our gender-based violence policy or our women’s economic empowerment strategy.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: Speaker, these were programs that were working. In fact, when these two agencies put their RFP in, they had 16 endorsements from community partners. They were working with colleges, with employment centres. They have been doing a fantastic job over the last 12 years. And now here they are, with no additional resources.

Who is going to support the women in my riding and in my community? Why is the Liberal government cutting funding to these programs that were actually working—programs that supported women escaping domestic violence, supported women who experienced violence in their homelands and are new immigrants to our communities? These are the women who need it most. I just can’t understand why these two agencies were not approved for the funding that they’ve had for many years.

Hon. Harinder Malhi: Mr. Speaker, again, I want to say that there is a process when applications are taken in.

We have increased funding, as we’ve said. We’ve increased our funding to up to $242 million. We are increasing funding for sexual assault centres across Ontario by 35%. We’re improving access to services, including emergency shelters, crisis helplines and indigenous shelters, with an investment of up to $84.2 million. We are ensuring that we’re reaching out to our rural communities, our indigenous communities and our most vulnerable communities.

Mr. Speaker, we have done our best to ensure that we are reaching out to as many communities as possible through the funding that we have available, but we do have to follow a process.

Government accountability

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Premier. Freedom-of-information requests to both the Premier’s office and Cabinet Office on the Trillium Power lawsuit turned up no relevant documents. We know that the ability to go back and retrieve some documents exists. We learned that from the gas plant scandal hearings, and we learned it from the OPP. But after more than six years, we’re still missing documents from this Liberal government in this court case. The Premier can’t claim that it was before her time.

From the court filings, “Offshore wind and Trillium Power Wind generated more than weekly updates after Premier Wynne had taken power. Once again, this is completely consistent with the timeline for the prior deletion of the gas plant energy documents.”

To the Premier: What are you doing today to find these documents that are required for the court proceeding?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I remind the member opposite, who I know knows the rule quite well, that when there is ongoing litigation, question period is not the appropriate place to debate what may be happening in that court proceeding. I know there are political cheap shots to be made and that’s why they continue to disregard a very fundamental rule that is in place. Again, I urge the member to respect the process.

In terms of the OPP, I do want to mention that in 2016, Trillium requested that the OPP investigate the allegations related to the moratorium on wind energy. Those allegations were thoroughly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. The investigation was promptly closed after the OPP found no evidence to support Trillium’s allegations.

Speaker, let’s talk about policy that’s extremely important. This government has taken important steps to protect information in the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, that answer was eerily similar to the Premier’s former chief of staff—who was just sentenced to time behind bars. This is the arrogance of this Liberal government when it comes to this issue.

Enough is enough. Ontarians have heard enough excuses about this government’s email and document deletions to last a generation.

In sentencing David Livingston last month for his role in orchestrating the gas plant cover-up, Justice Lipson wrote that he was a “politically sophisticated government actor who committed this offence because of political expediency....” In other words, it was a Liberal covering up for his Liberal friends, doing what’s best for the Liberal Party instead of the people of Ontario.

Speaker, to the Premier: How many more Liberals are we going to discover destroyed documents?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, it’s so interesting, because as we’re leading into an election, instead of speaking about their policies, they are already running away from what their leader, Doug Ford, stands for. Instead of talking about and embracing the fact that they are going to cut the minimum wage for hard-working Ontarians or talking about how they’re going to cut taxes for wealthy, large businesses, or talking about how they’re going to cut 45,000 hard-working Ontarians who work as our teachers and personal support workers and nurses—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The President of the Treasury Board will come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, let’s talk about the policies that they stand for, versus policies that we stand for. We want to invest in people. We want to ensure that there is more care, like health care and mental health care for people.

We know what Doug Ford and the Conservative Party stand for, and that is to bulldoze the greenbelt, the precious greenbelt that is ensuring that we have our land protected for generations to come.

Home care

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Premier this morning. Bain Peever has been diagnosed with dementia, and his wife, Lynda, has been taking care of him ever since. In March 2017, she took a six-month leave from her career to care for him. In September 2017, she chose to quit her job, as Bain needed 24/7 care.

There are programs in this rural area, which she has accessed. They had 14 hours a week with a personal support worker provided by the LHINs. However, Bain was classified to be in crisis; they could have had 21 hours a week. The problem is that there were no staff available to fulfill this. They could have had 180 hours a month from VON, but there were only 10 spaces open, which were already filled, and they had no funding for extra spaces.

Can the Premier tell me why this government is not investing in home care in northern Ontario?

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

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, we are trying to do everything we can to provide the care that individuals need, where they need it. In this particular case, the question is providing home care in a rural setting.

We are aware that there has been difficulty in ensuring that we have sufficient PSW staff, as an example, so in our budget we have made a concerted effort, and in the 2018 budget have proposed an additional 5,000 PSWs across the province.

There is an issue in terms of attracting people to this very valuable service that our residents need. We are also working with the association for PSWs to ensure they have the appropriate training as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again to the Premier: Bain is now in a very good facility, the Centennial Manor in Little Current, one that I regularly visit; I enjoy seeing the smiling faces of those who are there. This is a 115-kilometre round trip from their home in Mindemoya. Lynda makes this trip four to five times a week.

Lynda chose to leave Bain in long-term care because she was in crisis. She was burnt out and could not access VON or the LHINs because there were no PSWs to assist in giving her the little breathing space that she needed.

When is this government going to invest to end the shortage of nurses and PSWs, as well as to properly help people who want to care for their loved ones at their homes?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: This is exactly why in our budget we have put so much emphasis on health care: not just the issue of PSWs that I recently referenced in the first question, but also all the interconnecting pieces. This is precisely why we announced that we are opening 5,000 new long-term-care beds over the next couple of years.

All the pieces in the health care system are very interconnected, and we are addressing each one of these pieces in a methodical and careful way, in consideration of the demographics of each particular area in each LHIN. We’re looking at what the needs are, and we are addressing them through the various budgetary commitments that we have made. We will continue to invest in our health care system. It is a world-class health care system. There’s always more to do, and we intend to do it.

Greenbelt

Mr. Ted McMeekin: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Back in 2003, our urban communities were sprawling at a dangerous rate. Every year, tens of thousands of acres of farmland, wild lands and wetlands, including ravines and rivers, were being encroached by new development. Ontarians were rightly concerned for both economic and environmental reasons.

The great majority of people agree that to keep our communities livable, we cannot pave over every square inch of farmland and wetlands in Ontario. That’s why we promised them that we would take action, and we did. We created the largest permanent greenbelt anywhere in the world, which protects nearly two million acres of valuable land and water.

Can the minister please explain again to this House and to those who need to understand why our government is so committed to protecting the greenbelt?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member for Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale for a very, very important question.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Hard-working, hard-working.

Hon. Chris Ballard: And a hard-working member he is.

Our government knows how critically important it is to protect green spaces in this province. That’s why we created, and are committed to protecting, the greenbelt. This is an area that is larger than Prince Edward Island. This is an area of some 595,000 acres of water, lakes, rivers and streams. This is an area that protects 78 species at risk. This is an area that provides some $9.1 billion in economic activity. This is an area that grows food for Ontarians to eat. It needs to be protected.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: The only species at risk is the Liberal Party.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Guess what? We’re in warnings.

Supplementary question, the member from Guelph.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Yesterday, a video emerged of Doug Ford discussing his promise to open up a big chunk of Ontario’s greenbelt for development. On the tape, you can clearly hear Doug Ford promise that he will open up the greenbelt. Asked how much, Ford emphasized that he told developers he’s going to open up a big chunk of it. Just like the lyrics to that famous song, Doug Ford wants to pave paradise and put up a parking lot right over Ontario’s greenbelt. Paving over the greenbelt is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

I’m in this to the end. I’m not changing a thing.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You should.

I’m listening carefully, and I’m wanting to make sure there’s a policy question in here.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Paving over the greenbelt is recklessly short-sighted. Opening up the greenbelt will only make rich developers richer and remove pristine farm and greenfield lands forever. The result will be endless sprawl with no green spaces in between. We’ll only get one chance at this.

Speaker, can the minister please explain our government’s efforts to protect the greenbelt and natural green space for future—

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

Minister?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member from Guelph for another very important question, one that deals with protecting important, critical green space in Ontario—land that feeds us.

After that video emerged yesterday where Doug Ford said that anything they look at within the greenbelt will be replaced—it clearly shows that the PC leader doesn’t understand. He doesn’t understand the greenbelt. He doesn’t understand the importance of farmland within the greenbelt. He just doesn’t understand.

The greenbelt, Speaker, is a natural ecosystem that is connected. It’s intertwined. You cannot simply remove pieces of it and replace them with a piece of land from some other part of Ontario. It is all connected. Mr. Ford doesn’t understand that.

Worse, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has apparently already made deals with big developers to pave over the greenbelt.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Student achievement

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is for the Minister of Education. A new report has found that grade 8 math scores improved in all areas in Canada except for Ontario.

Comparing levels between 2010 and 2016, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, released the Pan-Canadian Assessment Program this week and confirmed what we already knew: Math education in Ontario is deficient. Parents try to remedy the situation with tutors, but it clearly is not how taxpayers expect our education system to be run.

Mr. Speaker, there have been nothing but promises and disappointments from this Liberal government when it comes to our kids. Does the minister think that it’s fair that she’s shortchanging our students out of a quality mathematics education?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the member opposite for this question because, really, it gives me a chance to make sure that I’m explaining to people what is actually happening with this Pan-Canadian Assessment Program.

It’s of course important to have a review. It’s also important to know that our educators and our education system are working well, and our partners are working tirelessly every day to give our kids the best start in life.

I want you to know that our government has invested more in Ontario’s publicly funded education system. No one has actually funded more than us. Forty thousand more educators have been added to this system since 2003.

Let me just tell you this: This is a snapshot of what happened in 2016. It is not actually telling us where we are today. And I want to point out that that snapshot was before we moved funding into the math strategy. The $60 million in our Renewed Mathematics Strategy; the 60 minutes of math instruction that happens in a day: This is measuring what happened before those investments were made.

I’m happy to speak to what we’re doing today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’ll just say that Mathnasiums—tutoring for math—are popping up all across the province, including next door to my constituency office in Thornhill.

We see a pattern here. In 2008-09, 63% of grade 6 students met the minimum proficiency level for math. In 2009-10, 61%; 2010-12, 58%; 2012-13, 57%; 2013-14, 54%; and in 2017, we’re at 50%. Half of Ontario’s students are not at the level that the province says they should be at.

Despite the alarm bells over the years, the Canadian math society, the EQAO and now the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, are telling us that grade 8 students are also at a 50% level. Is the Minister of Education going to stand up and take responsibility for this crisis in math education?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: You know what, Mr. Speaker? I want to say that I have full confidence in our publicly funded education system in Ontario. We are absolutely a leader when it comes to education, not just in this province or country but around the world, and we are recognized as being a leader. When you were in power, 68% of the students were graduating and one third were not finishing school; today, 86.5% are graduating, on average.

Let me just tell you a little bit about what we’ve been doing. It sounds to me that the member opposite is actually suggesting we should be looking at privately funded schools. It sounds to me that she has no faith in the publicly funded school system. Well, I have faith in it and I know we’re on track. Ontario is one of only three provinces that scored at or above the Canadian average in all three domains: reading, math and science. In fact, those results show once again that Ontario students are among the top performers in Canada.

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

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Our publicly-funded education system was—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Everyone should end at “Thank you.”

New question.

Broadband infrastructure

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. A public corporation called Ontera used to provide cell phone and Internet services to small isolated communities in northern Ontario like Nickel Belt. In 2014, this Liberal government sold those assets to Bell Canada. Now Bell is saying to the people of Foleyet and Ivanhoe Lake, “We are seriously considering dismantling our equipment.”

We are in 2018, Premier. Does the Premier believe that northern Ontario’s students, families, businesses, outfitters and schools can go on with business as usual without access to the Internet or cell phone networks?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I spoke to the member yesterday when she raised this issue with me privately and, as I indicated to her yesterday, we are looking into this particular issue to get the facts around it.

The property that we own through Infrastructure Ontario or the Ministry of Infrastructure, we charge rent for on the open market. We sell surplus properties—

Miss Monique Taylor: You shouldn’t have privatized it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We sell surplus properties. That’s part of the business of government.

But it goes without saying that the loss of an entire community’s Internet and cellular access would not be an acceptable outcome. As I understand it, Bell is disputing the market rate, but has not provided comparables to justify their current lease. Infrastructure Ontario and its service provider, CBRE, are working closely with Bell to land on a number that is mutually agreeable. I’m confident that this issue will be resolved.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: It is no surprise to anyone from the NDP that the sell-off of Ontario will bring trouble to communities in the northeast like Foleyet and Ivanhoe. We warned the government that would happen, and guess what? It did.

Bell is not able to make money in Foleyet and Ivanhoe. They are facing a 700% increase for the infrastructure used. Bell is planning to dismantle the whole thing.

We in northern Ontario need Internet and cell service like everybody else. What is this Premier going to do to protect the people, businesses, schools, outfitters and residents of Foleyet and Ivanhoe Lake so that they maintain their access to the Internet and cell service now and into the future?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member should know that we’ve already spent $500 million on broadband and digital connection in the province of Ontario. The recent budget has added another $500 million. We have a plan in place where before the end of this year, we’re going to be implementing for rural—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Then fix it. Can we put Helena in charge? She knows how to get things done.

Sorry, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s okay. I get it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have the most aggressive broadband digital connection investments of any of the provinces in Canada. As I said, we have invested half a billion dollars, we have another half a billion dollars in place, and I am sure that before the end of this calendar year the member will see that we are delivering on this issue more than any other party has promised or that any other party has been able to deliver to date.

Affordable housing

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Housing and minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy. In my riding of Beaches–East York and in places across Ontario, we know there is just not enough purpose-built rental housing. Whether that be high-rise, mid-rise, low-rise or townhouses built for rental, there just isn’t enough. To help solve the housing affordability and supply crisis, Speaker, we’ll have to build more purpose-built rental. That is key.

Now we know that the members opposite, under their leader, will simply pave over the greenbelt in order to provide more affordable housing. Incredibly, their leader dismissed the greenbelt with the comment, “It’s just farmers’ fields,” an insult to agricultural workers across the province.

Speaker, the pressures on buying and renting affordable homes can be one of the biggest challenges and weights on the shoulders of young families. In my riding, we are building purpose-built housing, with Options for Homes building 360 units; and building with the Carpenters units made completely out of wood.

Speaker, will the minister please share with the House the measures this government is taking to build affordable housing?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thank you to the member for Beaches–East York for this very important question. My focus as minister is to ensure that every Ontarian has access to a safe and affordable home. As the member said, there’s a huge demand out there for purpose-built rental housing. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I announced the allocation of $125 million in development charge rebates for Ontario municipalities to incent purpose-built rental housing in those 13 communities with low vacancy rates.

This incentivizing of developers to build affordable rental homes is good policy. Paving over the greenbelt will not create affordable homes. It will just increase our infrastructure costs, so the precious infrastructure dollars will not solve our affordable housing situation. We need to spend wisely and efficiently so we actually deliver the homes where people need them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thanks to the minister for that response and for his intelligent approach to improving affordable housing in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, over the past two decades, only 6% of all housing has been built with purpose-built housing in mind. The availability of rental housing is an acute issue, especially here in Toronto. The minister knows well that at last count there was a vacancy rate of about 1%. While this is a signal of a booming, successful and vibrant economy, it also means we have a lot of work to do to build more housing for people that’s affordable.

That’s why initiatives like the minister just announced on development charges are so important. I’d like to congratulate the minister—I’d like to congratulate our government—for advancing this investment, on top of the $5 billion we’re already investing in the creation of affordable housing since 2003.

I know the minister was with Mayor Tory and Deputy Mayor Ana Bailão for this announcement on Friday. Would the minister expand on the other things and details of this announcement?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thanks for the supplementary question. Yes, indeed, last week I announced the allocation of funds for Ontario municipalities to rebate development charges to incent more rental housing. But, Mr. Speaker, I also announced the results of the competition to develop provincial surplus lands. The West Don Lands and Grenville/Grosvenor lands, which are in the city of Toronto, will be home to 2,150 new homes, 30% of which will be affordable. There’s another site in north Etobicoke which we will be releasing with this, and I hope tomorrow perhaps to have another announcement about another site in another municipality.

But, Mr. Speaker, while we’re releasing surplus provincial lands in urban communities, Mr. Ford wants to pave over our greenbelt.

Highway improvement

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. The 400-series highways are intended to be people-movers, and in the budget the Liberals say that they will widen the 401 at the base of the 416—the 416, which, by the way, runs through Nepean–Carleton. But there is no mention of the one ask from the city of Ottawa at AMO, notably an additional exit to the 416 from Barrhaven at Barnsdale. It’s estimated that this will be a $24-million project. I’m asking the Premier, will there be an announcement on this before the writ?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member may know that I’ve already had some discussions with the city of Ottawa, that there are studies that are under way with respect to that particular site. I agree with the member that there’s a need in that particular location in Nepean, but, really, we are doing a lot of infrastructure. We’ve put a lot in place now. We’re planning a lot more. But the other side has nothing planned for any kind of roads or transit that makes any kind of sense.

I’m waiting for the supplementary, for the punchline.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Maybe the minister shouldn’t embarrass himself and he should just answer the question. He knows as well as I do that 29% of the growth in the last four years has happened in Barrhaven. It’s accounted for the highest growth in Ottawa. We are now 90,000 people strong, with only one exit onto the 416. Think of Kemptville on the same highway or cities of smaller or similar size like Brockville or Kingston or Belleville on the 401. They all have multiple exits. The 416 could be maximized as a people-mover if only we had this additional exit.

Inside of Barrhaven, we have six rail crossings that we would love to divert traffic from by encouraging an accessible and convenient entry westward onto the 416. So the minister can spare me his antics and he can answer the question. I have a clear ask from the city of Ottawa. Can we expect an announcement this week or will you just sit—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member not to hold her breath for Doug Ford to do any of that work. When asked about support for local transit and highway projects in London, Doug Ford said, “We never leave any commitment.

We’re going to review everything and nothing is going untouched, including the plans we have in place for Nepean.” Similarly, when he was in Cornwall last week—and this is reported from the Cornwall Standard Freeholder: “Doug Ford said he would be willing to help the city of Cornwall with its infrastructure deficit if he is elected Premier in June, but only if municipalities across the province start cutting what a PC government would deem as wasteful spending.”

Not only does he want to cut, he wants the municipalities to cut. It’s a disease, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do remind members we’re in warnings and that there are people already being warned, who have been warned.

New question?

Public transit

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. When the TTC is properly funded, it actually works. I don’t know if you have been on a streetcar or subway lately, but they are very overcrowded. When the provincial government funded 50% of the TTC’s net operating cost, it was the envy of the world. But the Conservative government cut this funding in 1998 and in fact today the TTC is the least-funded major transit agency in North America. As a result, transit service keeps getting worse while fares keep getting higher.

The Liberal government has had 15 years to reverse these Conservative cuts. Why have you not done so?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think I first went on the subway in 1958. So I’ve been on the subway for many, many years. I have ridden the subway and I know what a terrific and important service it is. Unfortunately, in this province, if we had built transit every year since 1947 or 1949 when the subway was first opened, we’d be in a very different position. It took until now for our government to actually make investments in transit and to actually have a long-term infrastructure plan that includes transit.

The Ministry of Transportation used to be called the department of highways in 1916. That’s the only place there was long-term planning. That’s the world that Doug Ford wants to go back to: where we just pave over the province. What we have done is, we have changed the trajectory of infrastructure in this province. Transit is a part of our long-term plan. We’re in the process of building transit more than any government in the history of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, provincial funding for TTC operations was cut by the Conservatives in 1998 and it has stayed cut under the Liberal Party. Now the Liberals are borrowing another bad Conservative idea: They have proposed to break up the TTC and take over the subways. Riders don’t want fragmented transit service with different fares and operators for buses, streetcars and subways. The TTC needs proper funding, not a change in ownership.

Will the government listen to transit riders who want the provincial government to properly fund the TTC, not break it up? And will the government restore the province’s 50% funding for municipal transit operations, like the NDP has committed to? It’s not 1958 anymore, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: For a party that is looking to govern this province, they have on so many significant issues no plan whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. Item after item after item in terms of transit, transportation, has come before this House for votes. They have voted against virtually every one of them. And still today they have no plan. After years of voting against the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history, the NDP has finally realized that government needs to invest in schools, hospitals and public transit that people rely on.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have another four or five weeks to go before election day, and hopefully the people of Ontario will see something realistic and practical from that party.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You’ve got to love this place, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do.

New question.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of the Status of Women. This month is Sexual Assault Prevention Month. It’s an important time to raise awareness about the devastating impact of sexual assault and to focus on what we can all do to stop violence and support survivors. We must also recognize that sexual assault is far too widespread in our society and our communities, and we must pledge to do better.

I know that this government has done extraordinary work to prevent and address sexual assault by introducing It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment, in 2015. Most recently, as we promised in the first strategy, we launched

part 2: It’s Never Okay, Ontario’s strategy to end gender-based violence, with an investment of up to $242 million, as the minister stated earlier this morning.

Can the minister please update the House on the ongoing work being done to shift societal norms around consent and sexual violence and harassment?

Hon. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to thank my colleague for this important question. Sexual violence is far more common than most people think. One in three women will experience some form of sexual violence in her lifetime.

We know that gender-based violence is a result of normalized misogyny, rape culture and toxic masculinity. As long as women and girls face the threat of violence in this province, our work will continue. We must do better, and we will.

This year, women stood up with great courage and resilience to say, “Me too” and, “Time’s up,” and we have responded to this call for action with our newest strategy, It’s Never Okay: Ontario’s Gender-Based Violence Strategy. We are improving services and supports for survivors. In fact, our government is expanding access to counselling, crisis telephone lines, emergency shelters, transitional housing, sexual assault centres and legal supports. We are investing in victims’ services programs that provide trauma-informed supports to survivors of sexual or domestic violence and human trafficking.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you to the minister for that response. It is certainly very clear that gender-based violence is a result of normalized misogyny, and I ask that each member of this House consider that term carefully. We need to move beyond, and I am so glad that we are wearing purple to bring awareness to violence against women.

I’m pleased to hear that our new gender-based-violence strategy invests in so many critical supports for survivors. But, Speaker, we know that more needs to be done to promote the conversation and shift attitudes and biases around sexual violence and harassment.

We all have an important role to play, and we need to bring partners to work with us, to raise awareness and bring about change. Many survivors have told us that they have faced barriers in accessing the help that they need, and this is unacceptable. Can the minister please tell us what the government is doing to address these needs?

Hon. Harinder Malhi: I want to thank my colleague again for her question and advocacy on this important issue. Our gender-based violence strategy is based on the advice of front-line workers and experts. In particular, I’d like to thank the violence against women round table for their tireless efforts and their leadership. Our strategy is going to get programs and funding out into communities that need it.

As part of our up-to-$242-million strategy to end gender-based violence, we are expanding our Creative Engagement Fund to support artistic projects that raise awareness, we’re investing in professional development and innovation expansion through new bystander and community training, and we’re extending and expanding our free, independent legal advice for survivors of sexual assault province-wide, so that survivors can get advice on their options at any point.

We recognize that certain groups are at greater risk of violence. That’s why we are piloting Canada’s first-ever dedicated LGBTQ+ community legal clinic and facilitating training for more than 70 community legal clinics across the province.

When it comes to the well-being of women and girls in the province, this government has always been there, and we will be there to continue to do the work necessary.

Assistance to farmers

Mr. Jim Wilson: To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: My colleagues and I have been raising concerns with this government about the Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program since it was created over one year ago. The minister has said that he would review and fix the program, but farmers in my riding and right across the province continue to tell us that they face huge livestock losses and that they’re receiving no compensation. Some 20%, or one in five, claims for predation kills are rejected by the program. The inaction by this government is inexcusable.

I ask the minister: When will he fix this program and give farmers the compensation they’re entitled to? And will that compensation be retroactive, as the program has not been working for the last year and a half?

Hon. Jeff Leal: My reply to my colleague from Simcoe–Grey: Indeed, it was brought to my attention that there were some challenges with the wildlife compensation program. I actually went into the fields of many farmers across the province of Ontario. I’ve been right there and seen sheep and cattle that have been attacked by predators.

It was based on that information that we decided to review the program. We engaged the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian farmers’ union and other people, and we have now come up with a plan that we’re going to be implementing shortly. We’re going to have consistent training standards right across the province of Ontario, so there’s no deviation. When an evaluator goes out from, say, a community in the county of Peterborough, it will be exactly the same as someone from the county of Simcoe.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that now we know the true aim of the asphalt farmer from Etobicoke: paving over the greenbelt.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1138 to 1500.

Members’ Statements

Celiac disease

Mr. Bill Walker: May is Celiac Awareness Month in Canada. I’m pleased to rise and to wear my ribbon here, along with my colleagues, to help increase awareness of the daily challenges facing Ontarians with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity, which is estimated to affect 1% to 2% of our population.

Celiac disease is a serious autoimmune disorder whose symptoms are triggered by gluten, which is a protein found in wheat, rye, barley and other grains. People living with celiac disease cannot absorb protein, carbohydrates, fat, vitamins or minerals, all of which are necessary for good health.

At present, there is no cure, other than a lifelong gluten-free diet; and yet, the prevalence is increasing and only 10% to 20% of cases are currently diagnosed. That is why it’s important for us all, including our medical providers and health advocates, to continue to increase public awareness about the importance of early diagnosis of celiac disease. People need to be alert to some of the atypical signs of the disease, which can develop at any age, such as anemia, poor bone health, reproductive problems, elevated liver disease and neurological symptoms.

The average delay in diagnosis is 11 years due to the similar signs and symptoms of other disorders and conditions. The impact of delayed diagnosis can result in bone loss, iron deficiency, neurological disorders, liver problems, reproductive difficulties, and cancers of the stomach and esophagus.

The executive director of the Canadian Celiac Association, Melissa Secord, a constituent of my colleague Ted Arnott from Halton Hills, encourages all individuals who suspect they have celiac disease or gluten sensitivity to speak with their doctors as soon as possible and be tested before any long-term health implications take effect.

Workers’ rights

Miss Monique Taylor: Today is International Workers’ Day, or, as some may know it, May Day. It is a day that is celebrated around the world in recognition of workers’ rights.

Workers will march through the streets and protest for better working conditions and fair wages. In my city of Hamilton, workers will gather and rally behind those who are on strike or those who are faced with CCAA.

It is a day to recommit to the work that needs to be done to ensure that workers are treated fairly in the workplace.

On Saturday, I joined the Hamilton and District Labour Council and workers from across the city at the Day of Mourning ceremony. It was a rainy Saturday morning, but it did not stop the hundreds who attended and packed our city hall.

The Day of Mourning is a solemn ceremony where we grieve for the dead and fight for the living. We heard directly from injured workers who fight daily to receive benefits that are needed through WSIB claims. Measures used, such as deeming and medical overturns, strip injured workers of owed benefits. We heard from health care workers who face injury and assault as part of their daily routine.

Speaker, I’m very proud to be part of a city with such a strong labour community that has made a huge contribution to our city and continues to fight for workers’ rights.

Doctors’ Day

Mr. John Fraser: Today is Doctors’ Day. It’s an important day to highlight the important role that doctors play in our communities. Whether it’s in a doctor’s office, in our local hospitals and clinics, in our research labs or in our homes, doctors play an important role in our lives.

For almost 20 years I have worked with doctors to strengthen health care in the community I live in and across Ontario. Whether it was saving CHEO’s cardiac unit, building a new regional cancer centre or improving access to palliative and end-of-life care in Ontario, doctors have been a key part of the success in those collaborations.

In my mandate for palliative and end-of-life care, I’ve work with doctors like Naheed Dosani, Darren Cargill, Andrew Mai and José Pereira. Their dedication to their patients and their families at a very vulnerable time is incredible, and there are many more like them.

My family has had great doctors. Dr. Barry Adams, who was my pediatrician as well as our children’s—and there was a bit of overlap there with one, but that’s a story for another day. There’s Dr. Tad Pierscianowski, my dad’s dermatologist, who listened to him and took a genuine interest in him and his overall health, and that made a big difference to my dad in the last five years of his life. We can’t thank him enough.

I also had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Nadia Alam last week at #Spots4Docs. I’d like to congratulate her on assuming her role as president of the OMA. I look forward to working with her and doctors to continuously improve our health care system.

Dutch Heritage Month

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Earlier today, we raised the Dutch flag to celebrate Dutch Heritage Month. Coming from Holland, this month holds a special meaning for me. It’s an opportunity to recognize the many contributions of Dutch Canadians. It’s also a time to remember the powerful bonds of friendship that developed between the Dutch and Canadians during World War II. On May 5, the Netherlands celebrates Liberation Day and remembers those soldiers who put the freedom of a nation above their own lives. I still remember my mother’s stories about liberation.

The Canadian soldiers who freed Holland are the reason why my father brought his family to Canada and why there are ties of friendship between Holland and Canada to this day. In 1945, the Netherlands’ Crown Princess Juliana presented Ottawa with 100,000 tulips to recognize the Canadian soldiers who liberated the Netherlands and as a thank-you for providing sanctuary for her and her family during the war. The tulip festival, which is still held each year in commemoration of liberation, is a great symbol of that lasting friendship.

Thank you to the consul general, Anne Le Guellec, for joining us today and sharing in this recognition of Dutch heritage. I would also like to thank all those who came out to celebrate the rich history of the Netherlands and work to keep the tradition alive. To the veterans who allowed me to be born in a liberated Holland, dank je, which of course means thank you. We will continue to honour your legacy.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for being out there and bringing greetings on behalf of the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dank je.

Long-term care

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further members’ statements? The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: Dank je wel, Speaker.

Last week, it was announced in my riding, through a press release out of Sudbury, that the Temiskaming Lodge in Haileybury is getting 46 new long-term-care beds. First of all, I’d like to congratulate the Temiskaming Lodge for all the work they’ve done to get those 46 long-term-care beds. It’s a big deal in our community.

It would have been nice if it actually had been announced in our community. I would have been happy to do that on behalf of the government. I’d like to thank the government. It’s public dollars. I would have liked to thank the government, but they didn’t really have the courtesy to actually let anyone know in our riding that this was happening. That’s part of the issue with this government.

But while we’re talking about long-term-care beds, I’d like to mention the Northland Lodge in Englehart. It’s a D-grade long-term-care home, one of the few left in Ontario. The community is working hard and working together to try and get these long-term-care beds revitalized to make it the home it should be. The staff there are great but the home itself is in tough shape. The community is working together. They’re really happy for the Temiskaming Lodge, but this home needs to be looked at because these people are worried.

I’d like to thank Andy Poupore. He’s the president of the Northland Pioneer Club. He sent us a letter last week talking about how, in a place like Englehart, as people