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

May 9, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-May-09 (PDF)

L104 - Thu 9 May 2019 / Jeu 9 mai 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 9 May 2019 Jeudi 9 mai 2019

Orders of the Day

Getting Ontario Moving Act (Transportation Statute Law Amendment), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour un Ontario en mouvement (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport)

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

Ambulance services

Municipal finances

Climate change

Flooding

Member’s conduct

Government fiscal policies

Employment supports

Land use planning

Taxation

Education funding

Skilled trades

Endangered species

Road safety

Abortion

Skilled trades

Visitors

Notices of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Estimates

Members’ Statements

Child care

National Nursing Week

Climate change

Israeli Independence Day

Genevra House

Vehicle registration

Education funding

Oak Ridges Community Clean Up

Covia

Introduction of Bills

Lupus Awareness Day Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de sensibilisation au lupus

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Long-term care

Education funding

Fish and wildlife management

Education funding

Consumer protection

School facilities

Fish and wildlife management

Education funding

Affordable housing

Injured workers

Emergency services

Education funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Genocide Awareness, Commemoration, Prevention and Education Month Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le Mois de la sensibilisation, de la commémoration, de la prévention et de l’éducation à l’égard des génocides

9-1-1 Everywhere in Ontario Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le 9-1-1 partout en Ontario

End the Public Funding of Partisan Government Advertising Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à mettre fin au financement public de la publicité gouvernementale partisane

Genocide Awareness, Commemoration, Prevention and Education Month Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le Mois de la sensibilisation, de la commémoration, de la prévention et de l’éducation à l’égard des génocides

9-1-1 Everywhere in Ontario Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le 9-1-1 partout en Ontario

End the Public Funding of Partisan Government Advertising Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à mettre fin au financement public de la publicité gouvernementale partisane

Orders of the Day

More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour plus de logements et plus de choix

Royal assent / Sanction royale

More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour plus de logements et plus de choix

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’re going to begin this morning with a moment for silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Let us pray.

Prières.

Orders of the Day

Getting Ontario Moving Act (Transportation Statute Law Amendment), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour un Ontario en mouvement (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport)

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 8, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters / Projet de loi 107, Loi modifiant le Code de la route et diverses autres lois à l’égard de questions relatives au transport.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to rise today and add some of my thoughts on Bill 107. It’s a government bill. We’re calling it the Getting Ontario Moving Act.

I think we all recognize that in the province we have many challenges. There aren’t a few challenges. It’s not all about balancing budgets; it’s about how to get the economy moving. That sounds very simple to say in a few words: Get the economy moving, get investments in Ontario, get great jobs that people feel are able to improve their quality of life and contribute to the province and educate their children, and do all the things that we know are important and could be done in Ontario.

But there are a lot of challenges, and it’s not just about getting companies to feel that this is a fiscally responsible government, that this is where they should be investing their money; they’re looking at a lot of different aspects when they decide to invest in Ontario or expand in Ontario.

One of the things that I heard over and over again when I visited many of the companies in York region—one of them specifically told me that he had to double the number of trucks doing his deliveries. He has a fantastic—it’s sort of like a huge vending machine in a factory to supply all those little things that you pick up on your way out of a pharmacy: the gum, the chocolates, and the little containers with Tylenol. It’s a huge conveyer belt around this enormous factory, and the stuff gets collected with the staff and all the high-tech machinery that’s in there.

At the end of the day, he could have the orders coming in, he could prepare the orders in boxes. But those orders have to get, in a timely fashion, to all of the pharmacists and all of the pharmacies across Ontario, and probably maybe some of our neighbouring provinces even.

Just within 10 years, when I visited him a couple of years ago, he told me—one of the managers there—that they had to double the number of delivery vehicles. That’s double the number of trucks on our roads and double the number of drivers who have to be paid to do the same number of deliveries. So that’s without any growth; they needed double the drivers, and then, hopefully, they have growth as well and they need extra drivers and extra trucks for that.

Their challenge is that the traffic is getting exponentially worse each year. We all feel it, we all see it; we complain about it. We understand that for our constituents it really affects their quality of life. It cuts into the time they can spend working or with their families or even exercising. But we have to remind ourselves what it means to our businesses. For the deliveries to go out and for the supplies to come in, they need that transportation network; they need the trucks and the vehicles to get through. They also need their employees to be able to get to work and get home safely from work, and that’s a real challenge for them.

The Getting Ontario Moving Act, if passed—the legislation will change, trying to make our roads safer. One of the things that I’ve highlighted is that any driving instructor who violates a zero blood alcohol or drug presence requirement—it will be a more serious offence than it is right now. As somebody who had four children who took driving lessons, I can’t imagine a driving instructor violating any of the rules of the road, but certainly it makes sense they should have a zero blood alcohol level.

Improving traffic flow and enhancing road safety on our highways by introducing tougher penalties for driving slowly in the left-hand lane: We’ve all seen people who drive very slowly in the left-hand lane. There have even been protests on our roads, where people drove the speed limit in the left-hand lane and that caused huge delays and huge problems; which brings me to another point, which is, do we need to consult? One of the proposals is to consult. I’d invite people to contact their MPP’s office by email, if possible, or letter or phone call, and let us know what you think about that.

Should we be adjusting the speed limit to the actual flow of traffic, as opposed to the speed limit, which is right now posted on our 400-series highways?

We also want to put cameras on school buses, because too often the arm is out, the lights are flashing, the stop sign is there by the school bus, but people still blow right by, and it doesn’t register for them for whatever reason, or they do it intentionally, thinking it’s worth the risk. We want to have those cameras on the arms to ensure safety for the students who are getting on and off the buses. After all, Madam Speaker—we’ve switched now from Mr. Speaker to Madam Speaker, just so that people at home are aware why I’m switching—it’s paramount that our children can get on and off the buses safely.

I know, as somebody who drove carpool for many years, it’s hard enough with just five kids in a carpool to make sure they get out of your car with their lunch bag, with their hat, with all their school projects and papers. The school bus driver has enough of a responsibility without trying to get down licence plates of people who are driving by, which now I’m sure they try to do.

One of the other things that is being proposed is to allow motorcycles to have those high handlebars. It never really occurred to me that I don’t see that in Ontario on our roads, and I do when I’m outside of the province. Perhaps in the United States, you see those motorcycle clubs and they’re kind of leaning back. It reminds me of one of my first bicycles with the banana seat, and we used to call them the monkey bars. I guess it’s a certain look, it’s a certain style, it’s a type of motorcycle club, and they want to have the option to have those types of handlebars.

I’d be interested in hearing from people any of their thoughts on any of these topics, but I do want to read a couple of quotes from the Ontario Confederation of Clubs, the OCC, the motorcycle clubs: “This regulation allows the bike owner to adjust the height of their handlebars to suit their individual rider position, which affects both riding comfort and safety. Without this change, motorcycles were the only vehicle in Ontario that the owner could not adjust for driver safety and fit.”

Obviously, there is a different style of motorcycle for different types of riders and for how they feel safe or whether or not they have passengers or gear and just their comfort level. I think that there’s a bit of a fashion style to it as well.

The other quote from the Ontario Confederation of Clubs is, “Our research proves this access reduces pollution; addresses road congestion and greatly enhances rider safety.” Well, this is actually talking about another aspect of motorcycles, which is to allow motorcycles to stay in the passing lane and not be stuck in the middle lane, which is very dangerous for a motorcycle. I think we can all appreciate that. I know I don’t like to stay in the right-hand lane, personally. Cars are trying to get off and on, and I generally try to stay in the middle lane as much as possible.

They’re addressing that most motorcycle accidents on 400-series highways “result from drivers of larger vehicles failing to see a motorcycle; especially, when they change lanes and this access to HOV lanes greatly reduces that risk factor.” So they want to allow motorcycles to use the HOV lanes even if it’s just one rider.

That makes sense from a safety perspective, but I think a lot of people are going to have a lot of comments about that because generally the HOV lane goes quite quickly, and I’m not so sure that the motorcycles—some people might be worried whether or not they’ll be able to keep up with the traffic. We all know you can’t get in and out of those lanes so easily.

One of the other things is that they’re looking at strengthening the laws to protect front-line roadside workers from careless drivers and using advanced technologies for commercial motor vehicles that lead to reduced fuel consumption, lower emissions and increased productivity within the trucking industry. Well, I think that technology is changing all the time. I would like us to look at regulations that can keep up with changing technology, not always being 10 years behind, which is how I feel Ontario has generally been.

Maybe we have to build some flexibility into our regulations so that we can anticipate new technologies before they even come out and the adjustments can be made by the various ministries and the various industries so that we can use those new technologies. We see it happening now with all of the new technologies for cars, in terms of cameras, in terms of hands-free, in terms of built-in hands-free and Bluetooth and WiFi and things like that in cars.

I think it’s a real challenge for all of us, when we’re driving and stuck in traffic for so long, not to somehow try to use that time to our benefit to do some work and speak hands-free. There have been a lot of studies done. I know it’s something that I talk a lot to. Specifically, my daughter has sent me information on studies that she says show that when you’re talking on hands-free, on Bluetooth, it isn’t actually much safer than holding a phone. It’s a distraction.

So we’ve had that discussion where I’ve said to her that if I’m talking hands-free, I try to keep it sort of a very light type of conversation, not serious where I have to really be thinking and somebody’s asking you a serious question about something, because I’m aware that we’re on the road, there are so many distractions, there are so many things happening, and it’s really not the place we should be having to run our entire lives. With the fact that our traffic is so horrific in the greater Toronto area, I think it’s just hard for people to manage. Their cars become almost a moving office.

I used to joke when my kids were younger that they thought of my van as some kind of moving family room with an entertainment system and food, and they would be expecting things to be served to them. Maybe I was guilty of letting them have that expectation, Madam Speaker, but the fact is that it’s very dangerous.

Just this morning I heard on the news that two women were injured, older women who were at a church event last night, and their car got stuck somehow on the curb. Both of them were trying to get out and deal with the car being stuck. One of them has passed away and the other one is injured and in hospital, I believe. These things happen very, very quickly, in the blink of an eye.

Things can happen so quickly, and you’re thinking, “Well, I was just trying to open the door to put in my credit card to pay for parking and have the gate go up,” and then there’s a pole there, and you didn’t put the car properly in park and the car moved and trapped you. We all have to stop a little bit. They always say, “Stop, look and listen,” to children, but we could all do that a little bit ourselves when we’re parking. Take a little extra time. You’re making that left turn. You’ve missed your turn on the highway.

I always remind my family members, if you’re missing your exit on the highway and you’re not in the exit lane, to just go to the next exit and turn around. You don’t just—we’ve all had it happen to us: We’ve all seen the car come from that middle or left-turn lane and rush off to exit. It’s one of those wow moments where you see your life flash before your eyes. Too often, accidents happen that we realize were preventable. I mean, they’re called “accidents.” Accidents are always going to happen. We cannot prevent every single accident. It’s just the way of the world. Things happen.

But we should do everything we can to minimize as much as possible.

We want to have some province-wide consultations: one to review speed limits and another to look at the rules of the road for bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters. Certainly, with the bicycles, it’s a big topic of conversation. Generally, when you’re on a bicycle you see things from one perspective, and when you’re in the car you see it from the other perspective—and the same thing for pedestrians, obviously. I think that it gets challenging when we have motorized bicycles. At what point do we decide a scooter is more of a bicycle or more of a motorcycle?

It’s a challenge, but I think that we need to hear from all aspects. I think that it’s a good idea that we’re doing consultations, because when we go door-knocking and we meet with constituents—just at the malls or the grocery stores or out walking our dogs—there are a lot of people out there who come from other countries and have seen things done better than what we’re doing here, for one thing; and there are a lot of people who just generally have an interest and have good ideas.

If we don’t hear from people, we’re not doing a service to the taxpayers of Ontario, if we’re not getting all of those ideas that the public have and get them on the table. A lot of times people do have great ideas, but they don’t realize the liability issue, or the complication, different weather conditions, and things like that. That’s understandable. But the experts will go through all of those recommendations.

Again, I would invite people—certainly, I love it, specifically by email, because sometimes you have a few moments and you can go through those emails that we get from our constituents. I would advise people that it doesn’t have to be in a letter. We don’t need proper punctuation and grammar—just bullet-point form. Just say, “I’m sending you my concerns and suggestions. These are the concerns. These are the suggestions.” A lot of times when we’re here in the Legislature and we’re speaking on behalf of a bill or giving statements or—whatever it is—we’re giving questions and comments on somebody else’s debate, we draw upon what people have told us and have shared with us and their stories.

We are obviously focusing on one of my favourite topics: subways. We’re focusing on getting subways built in Ontario. I think that everybody agrees that we have been way too slow in terms of building subways. Other cities never stop tunnelling. They buy the tunnelling machines, they keep them going, and they just never stop. They know in general which direction they want to go. Even though we call it the “rocket,” it’s not rocket science, where we want to expand those subways and in what direction. We’ve just got to keep tunnelling and keep building.

Other than the few subways that have opened up in the last couple of years, all of the subways prior to a couple of years ago were opened by Conservative governments here in Ontario. It’s just such a shame, Madam Speaker, when we go to New York, and we go to other cities and we see the incredible network of subways. We were really the leader of subways not that long ago—a couple of decades ago—and we’ve really fallen far behind.

We need to look at the GTA as a big urban centre—one urban centre—and stop pitting different municipalities against each other. The province is really in a position to do that, to work with private interests, to work with different municipalities and to work with the experts and ensure that the subways are getting done in a timely fashion and on budget.

We want to expand light rail service. There are thoughts to that. There is new technology out there. We heard during the debate that there is now new narrower electrified trains so that the tunnels don’t have to be as wide. That can facilitate an easier time tunnelling.

One of my complaints, which, to be perfectly honest, Madam Speaker, not too many people agree with me on, has been that I feel that the subway stops are much too close to each other and that subways should reach a certain speed before they have to slow down for a stop. When you’re expanding subways for miles and miles and miles, it gets kind of silly when it becomes what we call a milk run with trains. There’s a reason why the train from Toronto to Montreal that people like to take is the one that goes straight through and doesn’t stop along the way, or maybe it just stops in Kingston.

The other ones, that stop at every little town—you don’t get to Montreal very quickly from Toronto if it has to keep stopping.

Yes, I can see the point of view that you want to have the subway stops, so that more people can access it walking or biking, but on the other hand, we have to balance both parts of it. We heard the debate of new GO trains, in fact, and that it seems so obvious to open up more stations, but it actually lowers the ridership. People coming from further away, if it stops too many times, stop taking that train. So there are a lot of challenges that we have to consider.

We want to ensure that people feel that our roads are being made safer. One of the biggest debates, I think, that I’ve heard from people is about raising speeds on the highways. It’s interesting that that is a real attention-grabber. Other jurisdictions have higher speeds. The speed was actually lowered because of the fuel embargo with OPEC back in the 1970s. We lowered it to conserve fuel consumption. But the reality is that that embargo has not lasted, and our cars are so much more fuel-efficient now that we want to get the traffic moving.

People have suggested to me that maybe different lanes have to have different speeds posted. It sounds kind of complicated. People have said that in the States, they have a higher speed limit, especially in the southern United States. But it’s a hard one; you do not go one mile above the posted speed limit or they’re going to grab you. Instead, we have posted 100 kilometres an hour, and the average speed seems to be 115, or certainly 110.

So, it’s a big discussion. I’m certainly interested in hearing from people. I believe that my colleagues here from all sides of the House are very interested in hearing from their constituents about all of these issues.

There are a lot of times—the summer months, beginning now, and spring—that we forget what it’s like in the winter road conditions. But hopefully, we’re going to always be thinking about that, and thinking about the types of surfaces, the friction, the fuel consumption, the noise—the concrete road surfaces make a lot more noise but last longer—and how we can use asphalt that doesn’t have to be replaced so often.

These are all challenges that we’re going to meet. I’m looking forward to hearing much more debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Joel Harden: It’s a pleasure to rise this morning. This is a time that we should be talking about getting Ontario moving. I think this is a great subject for debate. There are things in this bill that I could see the opposition coming around and supporting.

But, again, getting Ontario moving is a laudable objective, but doing it in a hurry concerns me. Everything this government has done since I started work here 11 months ago seems to be in a hurry.

My friend from Thornhill ended with talking about the speed limit issue. I just want to say, candidly, from an environmental perspective, people in Ottawa Centre have told me very clearly that the speed limit exists not only for a safety reason, but it exists for an environmental reason.

We are living in a context, in case my friends in government haven’t noticed, of a climate emergency. Back home in Constance Bay, in Cumberland, in Britannia Beach, homes and properties are flooded. We’ve had forest fires up in northern Ontario. We’ve had flooding in northern Ontario. Our friends from Kashechewan were with us last week.

We either make policy decisions, as a government, that actually help us address that climate emergency, or we don’t. What I fear is that in a lot of this bill are decisions that will allow us to fast-track already bad practices, and the speed limit issue is one.

I would also ask my friends in government—if they’re listening to what I’m saying—when they approved the $1.6-billion light rail project in Ottawa, which I think is needed, did they ask the city of Ottawa and the Rideau Transit Group questions so they had comfort that the project that was going to be built could actually be useful for Ottawa?

For example, my friend the councillor for Capital ward, Shawn Menard, has raised questions with the project’s constructors, asking, “Are the trains suitable for the coldness?” And it’s likely to be even colder; it’s the nature of Ottawa’s winters. The answers we have been getting back are not satisfying. Our names, as a Legislature, are on that particular secretive group.

We need to make sure that when we get Ontario moving we’re doing it—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s a pleasure to take

part in the debate today. I wanted to thank the member from Thornhill for some very poignant comments that she raised.

One thing that we don’t talk about a lot outside of Toronto is subways. I had a really great chance to meet with the Minister of Transportation earlier this week and also a group from my area in Kitchener-Waterloo, in Waterloo region, called Connect the Corridor. They are very, very happy to see new subway lines being built in Toronto, because any time you can get Toronto moving faster, you get the rest of the province moving faster as well.

I think a lot of people focus on, “There’s a lot of infrastructure being built out in Toronto. It seems like there’s a lot of money being put into Toronto.” But when you do factor it out and aggregate it—Toronto, of course, is our largest city. When you look at the overall GTA region, we’re now the fourth-largest city in North America—Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles and then Toronto. I think that says a lot for us as Canadians. It’s great that we’re able to celebrate that, but we do need to be able to get people moving.

When we can get congestion off of the 401—I think the vast majority of us here probably take the 401 on a pretty regular basis. It sometimes takes me almost three hours to get home, to go 116 kilometres door to door. It’s pretty crazy, actually, when you think about it.

When you look at the investments we’re making in transit infrastructure, especially pertaining to this bill, when it’s talking about subways, when it’s talking about getting people moving faster on our highways, they’re all fantastic things. Of course, we don’t want the rest of Ontario to be forgotten—and I certainly don’t think we will. We’ve got a great group of ministers and, of course, our Premier. He’s travelling around the province. He’s meeting with everyday constituents, hearing their concerns. We’re moving forward in a very positive, responsible manner.

I appreciate the time this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this government’s most recent bill, the Getting Ontario Moving Act.

I have to say, Speaker, that this government is once again tidying up the edges of already implemented acts in Ontario, selling the changes to the people as large, drastic policy changes and reaping the praise. For one, a lot of the amendments being made are simply to match already active legislation on the federal level, like the Criminal Code of Canada, which, of course, is something that needs to be done, but I don’t think it warrants the hype that this government plays into.

One of my favourites was changing the motorcycle handle height restrictions to allow for high-style handlebars. My most favourite line was when the government said that doing so would provide consumers greater choice.

The government for the people clearly has their priorities straight. Between being able to drink at 9 a.m. and raising motorcycle handlebars, I almost cannot contain my excitement.

Going back to the important aspects of this bill, I can appreciate the desire to make our roads a lot safer for everyone in Ontario and help our businesses achieve their goals. But we need to think of the people rather than focus on reducing red tape for medium- to large-scale businesses or reducing the burden of inspections on specific vehicles. Regulations and red tape are there for a reason: to hold the people accountable, to ensure procedures are being followed through.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Parsa: First off, I would like to thank the member for Thornhill for raising some great points, and also some of my honourable colleagues across.

One of my colleagues across talked about getting things done and being in a hurry; we absolutely are. The last government kept coming to our towns and our regions, election after election, promising to build more transit for the people, for the businesses, and dropped the ball every single time. As soon as the election was over, all the promises disappeared. So absolutely, we’re going to keep our promise. We said we were going to do things differently.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Of course we’re very excited, Madam Speaker. The member across said there’s no excitement. We’re very, very excited, Madam Speaker.

In my region, I can tell you right now—the member across referenced some of the councillors. I can tell you, some of our councillors who have been vocal on this issue election after election have reached out to the provincial government to say that we need transit. The reason we need transit in York region, in my area, is that it’s a very growing area. By 2041, our population is going to increase to 1.8 million people. We can’t expect people to get around to work and school without better transit. Small businesses rely on better transit.

So, yes, we made a promise to them, and, yes, we’re going to keep that promise. We’re going to build subways. We’re going to build transit all across Ontario. I’m very, very excited that transit is finally coming to Richmond Hill. I thank the minister and his hard-working parliamentary assistant for finally getting the work done on behalf of all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Thornhill.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want to thank all the members for their comments. I think that we all agree that we need to get transit moving. We need to get transit built and get people moving. We probably need to get our roads fixed up, and some of our bridges. Infrastructure needs to be done in this province.

I want to point out that—the NDP mentioned priorities—a lot of times it’s those small, little things that we do as a government that help somebody with a hobby, help somebody with their business. It might seem so trivial to us, but it might be very meaningful to them. I have a feeling that’s the case with the custom-designed motorcycles, that it’s something very, very meaningful to a lot of people. And I apologize; before, in my earlier remarks—I have seen the monkey bars, I call them, the high handlebars, in other jurisdictions on motorcycles.

It never occurred to me that I never saw them here on our roads in Ontario because it’s not something, maybe, that’s important to me; I admit it. But if it’s something important to our constituents, then I’m certainly willing to discuss it and hear the pros and cons. It sounds like it’s a hobby type of thing, Madam Speaker.

In terms of fuel consumption, I think we all agree that we have some of the most fuel-efficient cars on the road here in the GTA, but the traffic has to get moving and we have to balance everything. I think that we recognize a lot of the cars now—I know certainly my car—say “eco.” I would just remind the member of that, that a lot of the cars now say “eco” when you’re reaching the right speed to have the maximum fuel consumption for lower emissions. There’s a lot of technology out there that we can be using to lower emissions, and I welcome the member to share some more comments on that with us at a later date.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m pleased today to join debate on Bill 107 on behalf of the good people of Davenport. Our community in the riding of Davenport depends on public transit every single day. We also depend on the effective functioning of the transit system in Toronto, and that functioning of the transit system is a top issue for my constituents.

It’s ironic, because this morning I was almost late waiting for my bus, which is a pretty regular occurrence, so I try to use the tools available to me to make sure that I time my travel accordingly. But certainly, in my riding, as in many parts of the city of Toronto and elsewhere, we are used to a system that is overburdened, over-utilized and underfunded.

Davenport is home to the Dufferin bus, sometimes referred to lovingly as the “sufferin’ Dufferin.” But, really, it is a vital transit line for so many people in the city. It is ranked as the fourth busiest route, with almost 40,000 riders a day. To put that in perspective, that’s about a third of the population of Elgin–Middlesex–London, home of the Minister of Transportation himself.

Lansdowne, Dufferin and Ossington subway stations are jam-packed with riders at most times of the day, like the rest of Line 2. People tell me they go into work an hour early just to account for the crowding and the inevitable delays—as I just spoke of—on the subways during morning rush hour.

Fortunately, over the last little while, I don’t take the subway to work as much. I tend to take a bus now to here. But for many, many years, I took the Bloor line to work every day, entering at Dufferin station. And even then—and this is probably at least five years ago that I really stopped using it as regularly—I would give myself an extra 45 minutes during rush hour to account for the back-up that was really inevitable.

If you talk to people who are using it regularly, like my daughter—my daughter takes the Dufferin—actually, she gets on at a different subway station now, but she takes the subway to her school across the city. Across the GTA, many, many students take the TTC. She leaves every day, giving herself plenty of time, but at her school they actually give a certain allowance because so many of the kids end up late because of the subway, and it’s getting worse and worse every year. Even though the kids plan for it, the reality is that they do find themselves often arriving at school a little bit late.

It takes a very long time. There are parts of this province where people have to take school buses for an hour and a half, so I’m not complaining, really, but the truth is, to stand on those crowded platforms—and I urge everyone here, if you haven’t had that experience, to try to get onto a subway platform on the Bloor line, for example, during rush hour. I’m sure many folks here have, and I appreciate that. But try that a few times, because it’s not a great way to start your day; I’m just going to say that.

Now I take the 94 Harbord bus, which takes me right to the back door of this wonderful building. It’s less crowded, but as I said, sometimes it’s also delayed. It really is, again, dependent on the time of day and the route that you take in this city. East-west routes along College and Dundas are just as crowded as the subway often is.

The Union Pearson Express and GO Transit lines also border my riding, and, in the northern

section of the riding, there are also tracks. Indeed, I often describe Davenport as a riding that is defined by trains. It really is.

In my riding, people are still dealing right now very urgently with the construction of the Eglinton Crosstown. You’ll recall that my riding was also very affected by the building along St. Clair a few years back. Many of the businesses did suffer quite a lot at the time. Things are coming back, and, in the end, it was a really important investment in transit in our city. It has been a great improvement, but we should not underestimate the impact that these projects have on local businesses.

I’m just going to mention that a couple of weeks ago I went to visit one of my constituents. Her name is Susan Bazarte. She has a wonderful Filipino cafe called Eglinton Fast Food, right at the corner of Dufferin and Eglinton. It has been literally hidden by barriers because Metrolinx is building right in front of her business. It has been, literally, completely hidden by these barriers for over a year.

I’m sure she wouldn’t mind me sharing this: She was compensated a tiny, little amount by Metrolinx, but the fact that you can’t really even find her business at all and the fact that many of her regulars are seniors from a nearby seniors’ home—it’s very, very difficult for them to get there, and they’ve actually also lost a lot of that community that comes together in local places like that. I’ve been, on her behalf, trying to see if we can get any more support for her. I understand that the barriers are coming down soon, or somewhat coming down.

But I think we shouldn’t underestimate, when things don’t go smoothly, what that means to local communities that are directly affected. My riding is directly affected, in numerous ways, by many of the projects that Metrolinx has been involved in over the last number of years, as well as the TTC’s.

As many here may know, the Metrolinx extension of the Barrie GO line will see the construction of a massive new transit super-bridge that goes right through the heart of the riding of Davenport. We call it the “super-bridge”; it has some other less polite names as well.

It was announced quite a few years back, and I guess I wouldn’t mind talking about it for a few minutes, because the people who I represent have a very good sense of what’s working and what isn’t when it comes to transit planning. I can tell you that they are tired of seeing vanity projects and electoral calculations take precedence over their needs as transit users and transit riders. They are tired of never being consulted and they are very disappointed in this legislation, because they have not been asked and they will be directly impacted in so many ways, like so many people in this city.

The government, I want to point out, had an opportunity to consult on this. In fact, they could have even talked about it, I don’t know, in the election? That might have been interesting. I mean, I don’t really consider that a comprehensive consultation, but you could have at least mentioned it—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Put it out there.

Ms. Marit Stiles: —and put it out there. But, again, it was crickets.

In debating this bill, the first major piece of transit legislation by this government, I’m going to try to bring the experiences of the people in my community to the forefront. I’m going to talk about how successive provincial governments have failed the people of Toronto and have pushed our transit system to the breaking point, and I’m going to talk about how this bill, far from addressing those concerns, will actually make things worse—much worse—for transit riders in Toronto and for our economy as a whole.

Let’s talk about what’s in this bill. This bill amends the Metrolinx Act to allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe a new rapid transit project—in other words, a project for which for design, development or construction is yet to occur—as the sole responsibility of Metrolinx. Essentially, the government is seeking to break up the Toronto Transit Commission infrastructure, handing authority over its subway system to Metrolinx and opening the door, as such, to even more potential for political interference in transit planning: more privatization of public assets and higher fares for riders.

I also want to mention that there is no longer going to be a requirement for public consultation; I guess that’s just a waste of money. Also, there is no longer going to be a requirement to consider—and this one I find really, really disturbing—the climate change impacts of transit planning. This is ironic, because one of the reasons we actually build and invest in transit is to build a sustainable province.

I’ll tell you, in my community, when you have a line and this giant bridge that’s now going to be taking hundreds of trains every day across their community right through their backyards—in Toronto and in that neighbourhood—this is the Junction Triangle neighbourhood—people live really close together, so there’s not a big field between you and that line; it is right there. When you’re increasing the number of trains by a substantial amount—which everybody kind of likes; we want to see more trains. But when you do that and they’re not electric trains, that’s a whole lot of problems for families in my community.

I’ll tell you, I’ve had kids in the past when I was a school board trustee draw me pictures of what they were afraid of: the smoke, the billowing smoke, the air pollution as a result, the noise pollution. I’ll get back to that in a little bit, but these are the kinds of things that directly impact communities that I really worry about, because of the action this government is now taking.

Why are the people of this city and others concerned? In my community and in neighbourhoods across the city, we have seen the impact of provincial governments meddling in long-term transit planning to suit their own purposes. It hasn’t helped people get to work on time, but it has helped elect a few MPPs from time to time.

We have many, many reasons to be concerned, so let’s talk about them again. Let’s talk about the ripping up of Transit City. Let’s talk about the Scarborough subway debacle. Let’s talk about GO stations built in a Liberal minister’s riding, overriding existing plans and evidence. I seem to recall that was Minister Steven Del Duca, who I understand has other plans, perhaps, in his future—the former transportation minister. We saw the reports that came out around that from Ontario’s Auditor General, saying that the minister had clearly influenced Metrolinx to approve the proposed Kirby GO station in his Vaughan riding.

Just to be clear, Metrolinx initially did not recommend Kirby and a proposed Lawrence East GO station in Toronto be built as part of the former Liberal government’s expansion of the GO public transit system. And there were good reasons: They thought it would increase car traffic, it would reduce the number of people taking public transit and create more greenhouse gases. But Del Duca and the city of Toronto swayed Metrolinx to approve the stations in their communities. What they found was that the Minister of Transportation—and the city of Toronto as well, I will grant—influenced Metrolinx’s decision-making process leading up to the selection of those two stations.

We’ve got to get the politics out of these decisions. This is not good government. We know that the previous government had a terrible record, but why repeat these mistakes?

The UP Express: Maybe some of the members in this room have actually taken this. It’s the train that takes you back and forth to Union and Pearson, something that I have to say many of us thought—I thought, “Wow, great idea. Let’s become a world-class city. Let’s have a great train to the airport.” The only thing that held me back from completely endorsing it was the fact that it was going to go right through the community again, and it was going to increase a lot of the traffic, and that they weren’t talking about electrification.

I want to talk about that. There was this promise of electrification. That was one of the reasons why the community eventually bought in or was willing to settle for it. There was a promise of electrification of that route. It has never come. In fact, what came instead was a boutique transit line built at a great cost at a time when people were desperate for relief on the main transit lines. It’s also barely integrated into the rest of the transit system, and is heavily subsidized, by the way, to deal with the absolutely absurd—the initial fare was nearly $30. Can you imagine?

Today many people take the UP Express, and they do value it, but you only have to look at visitors to Toronto wandering around confused under the bridge at Bloor and Dufferin, looking for the subway station, to see that this is not the seamless integration with the TTC that Metrolinx and the Liberals promised it would be.

Let’s look at Presto. Presto was forced on the TTC by the provincial government. This is an example of the provincial government meddling in the affairs of transit in Toronto with the idea of saving money and moving forward with privatization. They forced the TTC to take Presto by saying, “If you don’t take Presto, we’re going to take the gas tax funding away from you.” So the TTC said, “Okay, we’ll take it.” The Auditor General, even five years ago, said that Presto would be the most expensive fare card system in the world. A private company is essentially running Presto right now, making a profit out of it.

Five years ago the Auditor General said that it could be, again, the most expensive fare system. What’s so disturbing is that, talking to transit agencies, Presto is just going to get more expensive.

Interjection: Cha-ching.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Yes, cha-ching, because they’re increasing the rate that transit agencies are going to pay by about 9% of the fare price.

Let’s face it, the technology for this is already outdated, and the government has signed a contract that’s going to be difficult if not impossible to get out of. These are important decisions that directly impact what people pay, which I know matters to this government like it matters to us—what real people pay. Believe me, it’s a huge chunk of many people’s income to get back and forth to work using transit in this city.

Let’s talk about operating funding, because under the previous government, the Liberals failed to restore the 50-50 operating funding to the TTC, allowing problems just to fester to the point that the TTC now needs $33 billion over the next 15 years for maintenance alone. Instead of addressing that issue, this government is going to take it a step further, breaking the Premier’s own promise to maintain gas tax transfers to Toronto by cancelling the planned increase.

That decision is ripping $1.1 billion away from Toronto, money that would have gone to maintenance and repairs, preventing some of those delays that I spoke about earlier, those very lengthy delays that people here are experiencing every single day.

I just want to go to something that was reported by CBC News. The transit agency’s chief financial officer, Dan Wright, said that signing off on the final capital budget after that cut made him feel “ill.” He said, “There is no way you can take $1.1 billion out of our 10-year program and not have an impact on the efficient and effective running of a system—there is just no way,” adding that new bus and streetcar purchases in 2020 are now unlikely, if not impossible.

So this is the context in which we are dealing with this bill, Speaker, and it’s why so many people aren’t buying what these members and this government are selling. I’ve heard it first-hand from riders in my community when we’ve done outreach on this issue; the refrain is always the same. There are big problems in our transit system, but no one asked for more fragmentation, more privatization or higher fees, and they certainly did not ask for existing transit planning at the city to be scrapped, yet again, to allow the Premier to play city planner for Queen’s Park.

The government’s consistent attacks on our city should also give anyone who is listening pause, anyone who thinks that maybe this upload scheme is in the best interests of the people of Toronto. I want to refer you to what’s happening with the public health cuts, with the attack here on local democracy, with the cuts to child care—6,000 subsidized spaces—and the cut to the gas tax, as mentioned earlier.

I’ve only got another two minutes, so I want to speak more specifically about some of the concerns locally that we have in Davenport around the Davenport bridge—sometimes it’s called the Davenport Diamond. Going back to that and the importance of community consultations, the previous government was ready, through Metrolinx, to just ram that baby through my neighbourhood, through the Junction Triangle, where many in my community live. When local people found out about this, they demanded public meetings. There was resistance.

There were some public meeting opportunities, but they weren’t really looking for people’s input. Because the community got organized under groups like Options for Davenport and because they mobilized, they were able to pressure the local Liberal MPP at the time to try to get up and actually stand up for the community a little bit, and we were able to have some consultation and some input.

I should also mention that the environmental assessment approval of this requires them to move to electrification at some point, and I’m hoping that we will continue to see that happen. I’m looking at the Minister of Transportation and hoping that electrification continues to happen and that they don’t scrap that, because for the people in my community it will mean increases in asthma among children, it will really impact the lives of many people living there.

Anyway, we’ve now just learned that the contract has been divided, so now all the things, all the community benefits that the community won while they’re putting this giant thing through the community, have been separated out to a different contract for a later date. I’ve sent a letter to Metrolinx confirming that this is what’s happening and I really hope Metrolinx reconsiders this terrible decision.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Vincent Ke: It is my honour to rise and speak in favour of Bill 107. In my riding of Don Valley North, residents commute to complete their errands, go to school or to their jobs. Whether it is down the street, downtown or in the 905 area, some of them take their cars, but most of them rely on public transit to take them from point A to point B.

Our government is taking a vital leadership role to get public transit built in the GTA. The reality is that many people need to get to destinations beyond the 416 area code. They want a seamless transit experience that crosses Steeles Avenue to the north, Highway 427 in the west or east of the Rouge River.

Speaker, my residents of Don Valley North have waited long enough for the city of Toronto to build transit. As I have said before, the Toronto subway is 20 years behind when we compare it to similar-size cities. For example, Chicago has a 360-kilometre subway while Toronto only has 76 kilometres. Even Mexico City has an over 200-kilometre subway. The fact is, we really need more subways built. I’m very proud that—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

I recognize the member from London North Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Davenport for her comments about how the impacts of this bill will hurt her community. I think it’s important that we recognize that all great cities have great transport. It is one of the major equity issues that is facing people in this province, alongside affordable and public child care. It’s an equity issue. Students rely on effective transport, seniors rely on transport, and people who are not advantageously employed and people who were cut from the $15 minimum wage also rely on transport.

But I’d also like to thank the member from Davenport for sharing the struggles of small business owners, the lifeblood of Ontario, and how construction can very dramatically impact their ability to do business, as well as the community impacts.

When we look at Bill 107, we see that this is going to result in a lot more political interference. If we allow transit to be further privatized, it is going to result in higher fees. That will be borne by the transit rider, and that’s something that we cannot support.

Furthermore, when we take a look at the ways in which transit has become such a politically hot topic and something that’s been interfered with, it really leads us to question the very nature of our democracy. If governments can come in without having solid platforms and start interfering and meddling in different projects, as was mentioned by the member from Davenport, then it really does make me question what a government’s intentions are. Further, do we live in a democracy, or do we live in a nanny state where the government can top-down handle all these projects and seize transit for their own benefit? That’s a question that this bill does not answer.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: It’s an honour to rise here today in support of Bill 107, the Getting Ontario Moving Act. I’d like to thank the Minister of Transportation and his parliamentary assistant, the member from Etobicoke Centre, for their leadership on this bill.

Traffic gridlock in the GTA costs us $11 billion every year. Uploading responsibility for our new subways will allow the province to expand on transit faster—and it will help the member from Davenport most of all—so that we can get to work faster and get home sooner.

Bill 107 will also cut red tape and make life easier and more affordable for job creators in Ontario, it will end the burdensome annual inspection for personal pickup trucks and trailers, and it will modernize our laws and allow more advanced technology, including wide-base single tires, in partnership with other provinces.

At the same time, Bill 107 will help make our roads more safe for everyone. New penalties will target dangerous drivers who threaten the safety of students on our school buses, or our front-line workers in construction or roadside assistance, including tow truck operators.

Madam Speaker, I know the Canadian Automobile Association was very pleased to see this. I’d also like to thank the president of the Ontario Safety League, Brian Patterson, for his support. Brian said, “Collectively, this bill addresses a number of road safety concerns, and will improve overall safety on the roads of Ontario.”

Madam Speaker, I will be supporting this bill, and I want everybody to support it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jamie West: I want to thank the member for Davenport for her comments, and just the reflections of how it’s affecting her riding and how it’s affecting Toronto in general.

One thing she brought up was about the Presto pass. I’m from Sudbury so I wasn’t familiar with the Presto pass. Basically, what you have to do is you have to buy a little card that you’re allowed to go on the subway and transit with, which doesn’t make any sense to me because I can buy a candy bar with my phone. Somehow, we decided that we should give some money to a private company to help us take the bus, where everybody already has a card in their wallet—a debit card, a credit card or a phone—that they can use to purchase already. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

As fees go up and more and more money goes to private companies, I don’t know see how it helps the public, especially the working poor who are taking this or the people who we cancelled their minimum wage from rising. It really doesn’t help, but I know it’s a Conservative idea that everything has to be privatized, it will be better, and we have to make our friends richer.

Another concern she had was about electric trains. I want to talk about that because the member opposite talked about increasing speed limits. What I thought about that was about risk assessments. It’s important to do risk assessments. The posted speed limit is about 100 on the 400-series highways. So why don’t we change the speed limit to what people are driving? Because let’s be honest, not everyone is doing 100; people are often going over 100. The reason you don’t do that is because people go above the speed limit, and it becomes less safe.

If you do a quick Google search, you will see that they have tried this in other cities, and it has increased the amount of fatalities that they’re having. If you get your risk assessment wrong, you’ll kill people.

Going back to the member from Davenport and her comments about electric trains: Being from a mining town, we use a lot of diesel equipment underground. We’ve discovered recently—mining companies across Canada have discovered—that diesel particulate matter, or DPMs, is a known carcinogen, and no amount is enough. So her concern about “my friends, my family, my children” breathing in these fumes is very important, because if you want to save health care costs, you don’t want people breathing in fumes that are carcinogenic.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Now I return to the member from Davenport.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I want to thank the members from Don Valley North, London North Centre, Mississauga–Lakeshore and Sudbury for their comments in response to my comments. I really appreciated all the comments about equity issues, in particular, which I think are super important, and the environmental impacts.

The last time the Conservatives were in power, they started out by pouring concrete down a new subway that was being built. Politics and playing politics has often been a part of a Conservative government’s policy.

I also want to say that when we are going to build transit, we should be thinking about the kind of questions we really do want to ask before we start to change things up. One of them is, will this benefit the most number of Ontarians—in this case, maybe Torontonians? Will this increase ridership? Is this value for money? We know privatization usually doesn’t provide value for money. Will this help low-income people get access to cheap transit? These are the things that we should be asking and these are the questions that were never really discussed. This is not the basis of this bill.

I also want to just counter something that’s often said, because the member from University–Rosedale mentioned yesterday here that the $11.2 billion that’s going to be going toward these transit projects, apparently, currently—the Ministry of Transportation has confirmed that—is not in the budget. I think that’s a really interesting point, because they’re going to be rewriting all this and digging into the planning again.

I just want to remind the people who are listening, particularly the people in Toronto—they may not need to be reminded—that when this Premier and his folks had the reins at city hall, sure, spending didn’t go out of control, because nothing got done. Everything ground to a standstill. And if anything did happen, it was, my goodness, because it happened in spite of them. I just want to make that point.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? I recognize the member from Mississauga Centre.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good morning.

It is a great honour to be able to rise today to speak to this bill and to speak on behalf of the people in my riding of Mississauga Centre. Bill 107, the Getting Ontario Moving Act, as with all other legislation our government has put forward, promises to put the people of Ontario first. It promises to keep them safe, to cut red tape, to help businesses grow and to build new infrastructure more quickly while saving on costs.

This is a bill that even the opposition should have no problem supporting, because how can anyone say no to safer roads? How can anyone say no to protecting roadside workers from careless drivers? And how can anyone argue against saving taxpayer dollars while also getting people home quicker? Because that’s what we are doing with this bill.

I’d like to thank our Minister of Transportation and his PA, the member for Etobicoke Centre, for all their efforts in listening to Ontarians and delivering on our promise to get Ontario moving.

Of all the great things we’re accomplishing with this legislation, there’s one piece of this bill that I’d like to call attention to because it resonates with me, and I think many of us in this House will agree. It has to do with how we are making our roads safer for Ontario’s children. Through Bill 107, we’re giving municipalities the tools they need to catch and hold to account careless drivers who speed by stopped school buses without a care in the world, endangering the lives of children crossing the street to go to school or to go home. I’ve seen it happen many times.

I’ve seen it in the morning on my way to work. I remember seeing it, growing up in this province, when I first immigrated here at age 12. And I saw it on the news just the other day. This news segment showed a dash-cam video in which we see a stopped school bus and six cars driving by it, not even slowing down, let alone stopping. I was stunned when I saw this video because I could just imagine a young student running out onto the road only to end up running in front of a car—something that could be easily avoidable.

Thankfully, the bus driver in the video did not open the doors of the bus until cars came to a complete stop. But our bus drivers should not have to wait on cars to stop in the first place. When the bus is parked and the stop sign comes out, that means “stop”—no exceptions, because breaking that law could mean an end to a child’s life.

When I saw this video, I couldn’t help but think to myself how badly we need systems in place to not only catch these drivers who put kids in danger, but also a system to eliminate this kind of reckless driving behaviour altogether. We need a regulatory framework that is in sync with the reality we see on our roads, and we need that framework to keep up with modern developments in technology. We need to respond firmly to those who break the law, and that is exactly what our government is doing with this bill.

Speaker, what I saw in that video happens every day in Ontario. In fact, there was a study done in Waterloo not too long ago that looked at local data to find out how many of these kinds of violations happen daily. The researchers put cameras on six buses. Over 23 days, those six buses alone recorded 97 violations. That’s 97 times there was a chance a child could have been hurt; that means four drivers a day breaking the law and endangering kids’ lives. And that was data from just six buses. The authors of the study extrapolated the number to all buses in the region, and in just Waterloo alone the data suggests there could be up to 130 violations every day.

I think we all agree, including the member for Kitchener-Waterloo, that this is a serious problem, and the best way to fix it is through the measures we are taking with Bill 107. We are empowering school bus operators by allowing for camera footage to be used in courts to prosecute those charged with breaking the law. We are putting laws in place to make it easier for municipalities to try reckless drivers through their own tribunal system instead of having to go through the courts.

We are making it easier, quicker and more efficient to hold those reckless drivers to account, because as things stand right now, the law is not being enforced. Under the current system, school bus drivers need to take a day off to come to court to testify against those who have been charged. Under the current system, those who endanger children’s lives on our roads are having an easier time getting off the hook. We are changing that. We are saving lives, and we are making sure to keep Ontario’s roads among the safest not just in Canada but also in North America.

Cette loi rendra également les routes de l’Ontario plus sûres, notamment en protégeant les travailleurs de première ligne en renforçant les pénalités imposées aux chauffeurs imprudents qui risquent de mettre des vies en danger. Tous les jours dans notre province, des gens travaillent sur la route et sont exposés aux dangers des véhicules roulant à grande vitesse. Il y a des policiers qui se tiennent tous les jours au milieu de nos rues pour guider la circulation; il y a des policiers sur les côtés de nos autoroutes quand ils interceptent des automobilistes qui conduisent trop vite.

Dans ces situations-là, et d’autres, ils risquent leur vie pour faire leur travail et pour protéger le public; alors, nous devrions faire tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour les protéger également. The same can be said for all those Ontarians who work in roadside maintenance and construction and the ones who work in medical recovery and the tow truck industry, all of whom are physically out on our roads every day doing jobs that need to be done. We need to make sure that we do our job, as a responsible government, by implementing the right steps to protect their safety.

In the last few years, we’ve seen too many stories of construction workers who have been injured or killed on the road while directing traffic. In one year alone, there were six construction workers who died in Ontario after being struck by a vehicle, two of which were vehicles they were directing. Speaker, their deaths were tragic, and we owe it to them and to their families and to the people of Ontario to ensure we do everything we can to deter careless driving that puts workers’ lives in danger.

This bill discourages reckless driving and protects the safety of our workers from harm’s way. But we can’t just stop there when it comes to safety, which is why this bill goes even further in protecting drivers, by allowing motorcyclists to use left-side lanes that are shared by high occupancy vehicles, because we know, from all evidence, that motorcyclists are much safer using the side lanes than when they are boxed in between cars in the middle lane.

We also know that traffic signs keep people safe. Traffic signs tell people how fast they can drive, in which lanes they can drive and what kinds of cars are allowed on the road, which is why, when people vandalize or steal them, they are making our roads unsafe, they are delaying construction projects and they are costing taxpayer dollars by having to repair and replace them. By aligning this kind of behaviour as a provincial offence, we are improving road conditions, making communities safer and getting Ontario moving.

Speaker, the title of this bill is fitting, because it gets Ontario moving in so many ways. We are doing it by listening to the people, consulting with the public, working with the experts and looking at the evidence. We are listening to people’s biggest concerns on the roads, and one of those problems we have heard is the issue of drivers not understanding that left-hand lanes on highways are meant for passing. Not only does this cause a lot of frustration on the road, which can lead to aggressive driving, it is a safety issue in its own right.

If all the slow drivers were to keep in the right lane, then a faster driver could pass several of them at once instead of trying to do it by weaving through traffic at higher speeds. By creating laws that would keep slow drivers out of the left-hand lane, we are cutting down on the total number of lane changes passing cars need to do, while eliminating slowdowns. We are reducing the chance of accidents and improving overall road safety.

Speaker, I must say, I’m really excited about some of the pilot projects that we are also introducing with this bill, including launching a digital dealer registration pilot program. This pilot will give businesses the opportunity to apply for permits, plates and validation stickers, because we’re not just looking at ways to save people money; we are also looking at all the ways to save people time.

We’re also launching a province-wide consultation and pilot project to look at speed limits on highways, because the last time the province updated its highway speed was 40 years ago. That’s 40 years ago, Speaker. What was the Liberal government doing all these years while they were drowning us in debt? I’ll tell you what they were not doing: They were not getting Ontario moving. That is why I am so proud to be a member of this government and to support this bill, which is like no other, a bill that will get the people of Ontario moving and put them first.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member from Markham–Unionville may have a point of order.

Mr. Billy Pang: I am introducing visitors first.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Okay. Go ahead.

Mr. Billy Pang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Tanya, Diana, Yadira and David, along with their family and friends, who have come down to the Legislature to support me today. Thank you for being here, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Brenda Missen, Nancy Beverly, Lynne Missen Jolly, Gavin Jolly and Harriet Clunie, all relatives of Kathryn Missen, in support of 9-1-1 Everywhere. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I would like to welcome my former colleague from the city of Markham, regional councillor Jim Jones, and councillor Andrew Keyes. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a real honour for me today to introduce to the Legislative Assembly some visitors from Ukraine. First of all, I’d like to introduce Mykola Kuleba, who is the ombudsman for children with the president of Ukraine; Oleksii Fedchenko, president of Save Ukraine through Samaritan’s Purse; also Julia Shishlova, who works for the president of Ukraine in administration; Snezhana Derzhanovskaya, representative of Ukraine’s ombudsman here in Toronto; and, a very difficult name for me to pronounce, Ed Dickson. He’s the overseas director of Loads of Love and a good friend from Chatham. Welcome.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: In celebration of Mother’s Day on Sunday, I am pleased to welcome back to Queen’s Park today my mom, Susan McNaughton. Welcome.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Today my daughter Sarah is the page captain, so, in honour of that, my son Clayton Fee is here; my mom, Linda Trimble; and my legislative assistant, Brandon Crandall.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to welcome back once again some autism families: Michau van Speyk, Amy Moledzki, Kowthar Dore, Jonathan Abdilla, Angela Brandt, Crystal Burningham, Tangerine Stanley and Reshma Younge. Welcome back to Queen’s Park again.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’m pleased to have with me today Anne Pettigrew, who first came to the House as the youth ambassador for juvenile diabetes. She’s shadowing me all day. Please say hi when you see her in the halls.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I want to welcome to the House today my friend Roberta Scott, who is in the gallery.

Wearing of ribbons

Mr. Billy Pang: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Markham–Unionville has informed me he has a point of order.

Mr. Billy Pang: I’m seeking unanimous consent for members to wear purple ribbons to recognize lupus awareness day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Markham–Unionville is seeking unanimous consent of the House to wear purple ribbons in recognition of lupus day. Agreed? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Ambulance services

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Premier. When the government first announced plans to eliminate 42 of Ontario’s 52 land ambulance services, the Ford government claimed that paramedics should be happy about the changes that will actually improve service. Now the Premier has also cut funding for emergency ambulance services. Does he believe that this funding cut to our services will spark joy and improve the services here in our province?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: That’s not accurate. I’ll tell you what’s accurate: On June 7, this province voted for change. They voted for a government to come in there and be fiscally responsible. And on June 15, the first thing we did was that we announced we would scrap the cap-and-trade carbon tax, a carbon tax that is now implemented from the federal government that jacked up the gas prices, jacked up heating costs and jacked up everything in the stores. As a matter of fact, there was a convenience store we went into, and he was there re-pricing all the goods because of this terrible, terrible carbon tax.

On June 21, Mr. Speaker, we saved 7,500 jobs at the Pickering nuclear generating station. That’s 7,500 families that would have been out of work. The NDP and the Liberals wanted to close it down. I was just wondering where they were getting the energy from, but they don’t worry about that. They don’t worry about the hydro bills that are the highest in North America. They implemented a plan to destroy the energy system in this province—

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Across the province, people who run our ambulance services are warning about the risks of this health care cut. As Ottawa emergency services scramble to deal with flooding, they admitted they’ll have to revisit plans to hire paramedics needed to maintain response times. In Leeds–Grenville, the paramedic chief is advising to delay plans to build a new paramedic station that they desperately need. In Barrie, one paramedic was crystal clear: “Cuts will ultimately result in longer response times.”

Why is the Premier making health care cuts that will leave families in our province waiting longer for the emergency care they need?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Once again, that’s not accurate, but I’ll tell you what is accurate. On June 27, we committed to building a memorial honouring the heroes of the war in Afghanistan. We support our military, unlike the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, during the election, had anti-poppy people, anti-war people, anti-military, anti-police, but just stood by and let her caucus run around and criticize the military and our police.

On June 30, we reformed OHIP to support the people in greatest need. There are so many people in greatest need out there, but we reformed the OHIP program through our all-star Minister of Health.

On July 11, we removed the CEO and the board of governors of Hydro One. They’re done; they’re gone. We have to restructure hydro to make sure all the people that I met on the campaign trail in tears about their hydro bill—we’re making changes at Hydro One, and we are—

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Every day, the Ford government makes the ridiculous claim that they haven’t cut health care, and every day, another news story breaks about health care cuts to ambulance services, to public health, to telemedicine or to our OHIP services.

Families in this province need to know that they can get affordable and reliable care when they need it. Why is this government chipping away at the services that families in our province rely on?

Hon. Doug Ford: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that they aren’t very good with figures over on the other side, but when you look at the budget, which is open to the world to look at, you see $1.3 billion more being spent in health care. So I’m not too sure how they’re adding their numbers up—again, another inaccurate statement from the opposition.

We cancelled wasteful energy contracts totalling $790 million, that were on the backs of every single Ontario resident who’s paying their hydro. We demonstrated leadership on the illegal-border-crossing crisis. It’s a crisis because 40,000 illegal border-crossers ended up, the vast majority, here in Toronto. We can’t handle the infrastructure. We’re trying to take care of our own people here.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? The federal government owes us $200 million. I haven’t heard a peep, a word from the city of Toronto about the $200 million. They would get a big chunk of that because they’re carrying the burden as well. We’re going to make sure we—

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

Municipal finances

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Ambulance services are just one of the costs that the Ford government is further downloading to municipalities, and across Ontario, those municipalities are scrambling to deal with the government’s decision to walk away from funding everything, from those ambulance services to flood prevention. That only means that municipalities have to cover that funding gap with service cuts or property tax hikes, or both.

How high a property tax hike does the Premier think is appropriate for his downloads?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, to the member of provincial Parliament who just asked the question: Where was he for the last 15 years as they dismantled, they destroyed one of the most prosperous provinces in the entire country? They were nowhere. They’re worrying about that? As gas prices went up, as heating costs went up, as everything went up, and our debt went up over $200 billion, they were side by side; 98% of the time they were supporting the Liberal government.

I can tell you, what we did when we found out we were inheriting a bankrupt province—on July 17, we commissioned a line-by-line audit of government spending from one of the big five accounting firms for third-party verification.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the socialism that they believe in, the socialist mentality doesn’t work anywhere in the world. You can’t keep digging into the pockets of the people who are working in the factories, working in the offices. Socialism—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to come to order and the member for Essex to come to order.

Start the clock. Supplementary question.

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Premier: Almost every day since the Ford government’s budget was revealed, municipal leaders have had to deal with a new cut—a cut to municipal transit transfers; a cut to the municipal partnership fund; cuts to public health units; cuts to ambulance services, cuts to library services, cuts to municipal child care spaces and cuts to tourism agencies.

How can the Premier pretend that downloading all these costs onto municipalities doesn’t mean tax hikes and service cuts for families across Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the opposition that they were involved and schemed, I’ll tell you, the largest tax hikes this province has ever, ever seen on businesses, on the average person, working hard. They understand one thing: Continue to tax people and continue to waste taxpayers’ money—zero accountability.

Because they were spending and they were making the backroom deals with the cronies and all their buddies, on July 17, we launched the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry to find out who was getting rich off the backs of the taxpayers. That was a real eye-opener for the taxpayers. On July 18 to 20—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: —showed national leadership at the Council of the Federation. We had an agreement from all provinces to make sure the federal government is held accountable on illegal immigration, to pay back the $200 million. It wasn’t just me, Mr. Speaker; it was every single Premier in this country.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Premier: Families expect governments to work together to ensure they have the services they need, whether it’s reliable transit, vaccinations or library books. Instead, they have a Premier who is basically walking out of the restaurant and leaving mayors and councillors to deal with the bill.

Why can’t the Premier actually work with municipal leaders to solve these problems instead of being the one who creates them and also being the one who even refuses to answer the questions regarding these issues?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: another inaccurate statement. On July 19, we fought for automotive jobs and trade talks in Washington, DC. I’ll tell you what the Big Five automotive folks said: that the high hydro rates that they supported are killing automotive jobs; the heads of the unions were killing automotive jobs. There are places all over North America to produce cars. We need to make sure that we create the environment for companies to thrive in the automotive sector.

We supported the new lower Don project by cutting red tape. It was full of red tape. As we know, we have 385,000 regulations created by the NDP, created by the Liberals that stifle jobs, that stifle entrepreneurs from getting ahead in life. But we put an end to that and we cut red tape.

We introduced legislation to end the cap-and-trade carbon tax once and for all. Now we have—

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

The next question.

Climate change

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday our leader, the leader of the official opposition, tabled a resolution to officially declare a climate emergency here in Ontario. Across the province, we are seeing the devastating toll that climate change is taking on our communities, our environment and our economy. Increasing instances of natural disasters like tornadoes, forest fires and floods are tearing through Ontario at an alarming rate, threatening lives, displacing families and contributing to millions of dollars in damage.

Recognizing the very real threat climate change poses to our province shows that we are committed to taking immediate, decisive action to protect our people and the environment. Will the Premier support our motion to declare a climate emergency in Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: I’ll tell you, one of the biggest climate crises right now is burdening the backs of businesses, burdening the backs of the people, day in and day out, with this terrible, terrible carbon tax. We’ve proved to the federal government we don’t need a carbon tax to be environmentally friendly. Our Minister of the Environment has put together a solid plan, a great plan, to make sure we’re environmentally conscious, to make sure we go after the big emitters. That’s accurate, Mr. Speaker.

But we cancelled—and this is what destroyed the energy. The energy policies that they supported, along with the Liberals, destroyed this province. We cancelled the White Pines Wind Project and made a lot of people happy in Minister Smith’s area, and across the province. It’s unfortunate that we can’t cancel the rest of them—driving up costs anywhere from 14 cents per kilowatt to 40 cents. They’re gouging the people. There has never been a bigger transfer of wealth from the hard-working people of Ontario to the political insiders than this energy project and these—

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

Ms. Sara Singh: This resolution reflects the priorities of communities Canada-wide. Cities like Ottawa, Vancouver, Halifax, Hamilton and Kingston have all actually taken the same step. They all know that ignoring the threats of climate change will not stop it from destroying our communities. The Premier himself has even admitted that climate change is real and that it is contributing to the devastating floods that we’re seeing in Ontario right now, so it’s hard to understand what there is to disagree about here.

Will the Premier stand by his word, listen to Ontarians and support this motion that would make Ontario the first Legislature in Canada to declare a climate emergency: Yes or no?

Hon. Doug Ford: The biggest crisis—it’s real. You know something that’s real, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

Hon. Doug Ford: I’ll wait until they finish clapping.

Yes, it’s real, but do you know what’s real as well? Their energy policies, which they supported the Liberal government on, that lost 300,000 jobs. There were 300,000 families that couldn’t pay the bills. They couldn’t pay their hydro bills, they couldn’t pay their rent, they couldn’t pay their mortgage because of their policies.

We believe in climate change, but we also believe in supporting companies and people to create jobs. The carbon tax is the worst single tax you could put on the backs of the people of Ontario.

On July 26, York University, they were holding the students hostage—it’s kind of similar to what’s going on now, holding students hostage. But at York University, we legislated them back to work to get the students back into the classrooms, because we knew it was the right thing to do for the people of York University and the students.

We announced the Better Local Government Act, making sure that across the board, they’re accountable—

Interjection.

Hon. Doug Ford: See you later, buddy. It’s a good one. And the rest of you—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Wow.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Flooding

Ms. Jill Dunlop: My question is for the Premier. This spring, many regions in Ontario were hit with incredible flooding that caused havoc in our communities. Our hearts go out to the families that have had their lives turned upside down by these floods.

I’d like to thank the Premier for the strong leadership he has displayed. He has visited affected communities and met with municipalities to ensure that the people of Ontario know our government stands with them. In fact, our entire team has stepped up during this very challenging time. We want every Ontarian to know that they have our government’s full support during this most difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier speak about a few of the Ontario businesses that are doing their part for Ontario during this flood?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the member from Simcoe North, who’s doing a great job in the Simcoe area. She’s absolutely loved in that area. Thank you for the question.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve been up in northern Muskoka—I’ll probably be up there again this weekend—talking to the three local mayors.

I want to first of all thank the essential service folks out there, the emergency folks who all came together around the table and supported the community, but most importantly the 2,000 Canadian Armed Forces members, who have been instrumental in helping people fill the sandbags, making sure that people feel secure there. They’re just incredible heroes in this country. We’re so fortunate to have them.

Hydro One has waived all reconnection fees. It’s typically $400 to reconnect. They’ve cancelled all those fees, and Hydro Ottawa has done the same. So we want to thank Hydro One, we want to thank Hydro Ottawa for making life a little bit easier for the people who have been affected in the flooded areas.

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

Ms. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the Premier for his answer. Rising water levels have pushed many Ontarians out of their homes. Many more have seen significant damage to their property. This is a devastating situation, but I know our government is dedicated to assisting the people of Ontario in this trying time.

Some members of this House have undoubtedly heard concerns from flood-affected residents that the Electrical Safety Authority would be charging them a $400 fee to reconnect their electricity. To put it simply, this is an unfair burden to place on Ontarians who have seen their homes and businesses damaged or destroyed by flooding.

Speaker, could the Premier please explain what actions our government is taking to ensure residents in flood-affected areas are not subjected to further costs?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Bill Walker: Speaker, through you, I want to thank my honourable colleague the member for Simcoe North for the great work she does and this very important question.

I want to first express my deepest sympathies to all those families who were affected by the recent flooding in Ontario. I know my thoughts and the thoughts of everyone in this House are with them. I can only imagine how difficult it is to be displaced from their homes in such a devastating way. For too many people, restoring their property after a flood can create significant hardship both emotionally and financially.

That’s why I’m pleased to report that the Electrical Safety Authority will be waiving the reconnection fee for restoring electrical services in flood-damaged areas. I’ve been informed by the ESA that a full refund will be provided for anyone who has already paid this fee. I want to take a moment to let Ontarians know they can contact ESA’s customer service centre by calling 1-877-372-7233.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to working with the dedicated staff on the ground and our partners in emergency services to ensure the safety and well-being of residents. I’m glad to see the ESA joining us in those efforts.

Finally, I want to personally thank all the responders—first responders, utilities and service providers—for supporting affected communities across Ontario during this difficult time.

Member’s conduct

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, the Premier knows, or should know, that in a democracy, people can and should visit their local MPP when there are issues that concern them. That’s why it was shocking to see the MPP for Niagara West call the police on a group of about 15 book club members and former librarians who visited the constituency office to raise concerns about library cuts. Janet Hodgkins, a book club member and a retired librarian who worked at the Welland Public Library for 28 years, told the press, “I don’t think we looked threatening.”

Speaker, does the Premier believe that this group of retired librarians posed a threat that required police intervention?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: The only people that pose a threat to the people of Ontario are their policies, the NDP and the Liberals’ policies for the last 15 years. For the last 15 years, their policies have destroyed this province.

On August 2, we challenged the federal carbon tax in court. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, win, lose or draw in court, the people will decide in October where this carbon tax is going. It’s not going to be the courts; it will be the people of this country. You’ll see the blue sweep going right across this country. I think the feds need to wake up and smell the roses.

On August 7—one of their favourites—we issued a buck-a-beer challenge, and people took us up on the buck-a-beer challenge. Places were sold out at every store that sold it. That was on August 7.

On August 8, we responded to the forest fire crisis. We went up there. We made sure we put the resources needed to fight—

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m disappointed. The Premier had an opportunity to show leadership in his answer and he did not take that opportunity at all, Speaker.

The government side should remember that we all answer to the people of Ontario, and talking to constituents is a part of this job, not something that requires a police escort. It should go without saying, Speaker, that our police have better things to do, constituents deserve to be heard, and no one should be calling the police on retired librarians politely raising concerns.

Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing, show some leadership in his answer and instruct the member to make a formal apology, and if he refuses, will the Premier do so on his behalf?

Interjections.

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

Premier to reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: You know, Mr. Speaker, I find that so rich, so ironic. Who talks to their constituents? I made five constituent calls in your area, by the way, the 519 area code, today. They’re concerned about Essex. Once they find out the voting record and how they voted down all the tax breaks and all the incentives, it might be a different story, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The polling doesn’t suggest that, Doug.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: On August 9, we invested $25 million to fight guns and gangs. We saw an increase in shootings. It took us a few days to get the cheque over there to be implemented and they’re fighting guns and gangs now.

On August 13, we announced the cannabis retail model, following federal legalization of cannabis. The previous government wanted to unionize it all, to make sure their buddies got their cut of the pie as well. We thought it would be better to let entrepreneurs thrive and prosper, open their own stores and create jobs themselves rather than being tied to the unions, as the NDP—

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

Government fiscal policies

Miss Kinga Surma: Our government was elected on a promise that we would return Ontario to fiscal health. As we now know, the interest on the debt accumulated by the Liberal government is the single largest cut to front-line services in Ontario’s history. Over the past few months, the government has been taking steps to reduce expenditures while investing in the people. For example, our CARE Tax Credit will provide about 300,000 families with up to 75% of their eligible child care expenses.

We have taken this action while working carefully and diligently to manage expenditures while protecting our front-line services. Can the President of the Treasury Board please tell this House how our government continues to work for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke Centre—what a great riding. That’s where I knocked on doors with the late great, Michael Wilson for many years in the 1980s. Thank you for the work that you continue to do in the tradition of Michael Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, Ontarians understand that we must right our fiscal ship. By spending $40 million more a day than we were taking in—inherited from the previous government—we were on a course to put things at risk that matter most to the people of Ontario: our health care system and our education system. That’s not ideology; that’s math.

Later today I will table in the House the estimates for 2019-20. This milestone is another opportunity to engage in an objective conversation about the future of our province, a conversation we are happy to have. It’s time to return to the core commitment behind our plan, a promise to protect what matters most. That’s exactly what we’re doing, and we will make no apology for it, Mr. Speaker.

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

Miss Kinga Surma: Thank you, Mr. President. It’s clear that the previous government’s spending practices have taken their toll on our province. Instead of making critical investments to enhance economic growth, the previous government increased government spending and wasted billions of dollars. This was done at the expense of hard-working Ontarians.

You would think that with all of that spending, the services and programs that the people of Ontario depended on would have improved dramatically, but they didn’t. The only thing that the people got more of was debt and mismanagement of hard-earned tax dollars. This is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, can the President of the Treasury Board inform the House on what the government is doing to repair the damage that was done by the previous Liberal government and bring relief to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Our government understands that reducing the burden of everyday expenses can make a huge difference in the lives of the people of Ontario. That’s why we fought, through the great leadership of the Minister of Energy and his partner the Minister of the Environment, to fix the hydro mess so that more money stayed in the pockets of hard-working Ontarians. That’s why we are working to bring over $2 billion, through the hard work of the Minister of Finance, through our new Low-income Individuals and Families Tax Credit.

That’s why we invested $1.6 billion to protect teacher jobs while boards align class sizes with other Canadian jurisdictions, through the hard work of our Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, we are protecting what matters most while we restore fiscal balance to this province. Ontarians deserve a better, brighter future, and that’s what we are building, without apology and with tremendous care.

Employment supports

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, five employment service agencies in London have been forced to lay off a dozen staff because of a $2-million funding cut that took effect April 1. About half the cut is the result of this government’s cancellation of two province-wide programs focused on young people: the Employing Youth Talent Incentive, which provided subsidies for small business to hire youth; and the Youth Job Link. The loss of these programs will hurt hundreds of vulnerable youth in London and thousands more across the province.

Speaker, with the summer job season upon us and with so many Ontario youth struggling to find employment, why is this government eliminating programs that are specifically designed to help young people gain skills and valuable job experience?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Do you know what our employment program is? Creating jobs, which we created 123,000 private sector jobs. We have a labour shortage. There are so many jobs out there. Anyone who is healthy and physically able to work can go out there and get a job tomorrow. Every company I talk to needs people, no matter what sector it is, Mr. Speaker. We have created the environment to thrive and prosper in this great province. Before, we lost 300,000 jobs.

When it came on August 15, we ensured greater transparency and accountability at Hydro One. The six-million-dollar man: He’s done; he’s gone. And guess what? We made sure the compensation was 300% lower for the next CEO. That 300% lower is going in the pockets of ratepayers who pay their hydro bills.

We announced nine new OPP detachments. We love our OPP. We love our police, unlike the other side—

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

Hon. Doug Ford: They are police-haters.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the Premier to withdraw.

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Premier: It’s not only youth jobs and small businesses that are under attack. This government is also gutting funding for start-ups and innovative companies by as much as 50%. The supports available to early-stage firms are what keep these companies here in Ontario. Without these supports, they can and will go elsewhere.

In particular, cuts to Ontario Centres of Excellence will mean the loss of vital scale-up investment for later-stage businesses, which is known to be the biggest gap in Ontario’s innovation ecosystem. These businesses will simply leave to find investors.

Speaker, other than signs on the border, does this government have any plan to keep high-potential firms in Ontario, creating jobs for Ontarians?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. Our government was elected with a strong mandate to restore trust and accountability in Ontario’s finances and respect for tax dollars. I’ll repeat that: respect for tax dollars and for the hard-working people who work so hard to earn those dollars. We, as a government, are being financially responsible so that we can protect what matters most.

Our government is committed to delivering core services by focusing on putting the people first and ensuring that we are getting the best value for money. We looked at the employment service providers and many of them were not delivering on their targets. The people of Ontario expect their tax dollars to deliver results and not just maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. We are delivering on our promise to the people of Ontario to make Ontario open for business.

Land use planning

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. For years, the Ontario Municipal Board cost citizens and taxpayers millions of dollars. It’s bad enough that deep-pocketed developers used the OMB to overturn local planning decisions. It’s even worse that millions of tax dollars were wasted on these judicial disputes. In Guelph alone, the OMB hearings cost city taxpayers more than $1 million in three years. Reviving the old OMB rules is a massive transfer of power and money from taxpayers to big developers.

Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier showing such disrespect for taxpayers by reviving an old OMB system that took so much money out of their pockets to overturn the decisions citizens made?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: First of all, the member’s statements do not reflect the facts. In fact, what we are doing for the taxpayers—let me tell you the choices that we made. We’ve chosen to invest in projects like $90 million in free dental care for 100,000 low-income seniors. We’ve chosen to invest $1.75 billion to build 15,000 long-term-care beds. That’s what we’re doing for the taxpayer. We’ve chosen to invest $2 billion to fund up to 75% of child care for 300,000 families. We’ve chosen to invest $2 billion so that low-income earners no longer pay any provincial income tax.

We have chosen to invest $1 billion to add 30,000 child care spaces in our schools. That’s what we have chosen to do for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It would have been nice if the minister had actually answered the question I had asked.

We understand that you have chosen to dismantle programs that would fiscally responsibly prevent disasters, eliminating tree planting and flood protection. But you’ve also chosen, through Bill 108, to bring back OMB rules that resulted in a massive transfer of money and power to big developers.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier or the minister tell this House and the people of Ontario how much money in anticipated legal fees bringing back the OMB rules will cost municipal governments and municipal taxpayers?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I can tell you how many jobs we’ve created in Ontario since we’ve begun. The business climate that we have put out has created 123,000 jobs since we were elected. That’s done by cutting $880 million from the cap-and-trade carbon tax. That’s done by freezing minimum wage at $14, giving businesses a chance to catch up and save $1.3 billion, which they’ve reinvested and hired those people. We froze WSIB fees and saved $1.4 billion for the business community, which has reinvested that money and hired 123,000 people. We’ve invested $1.4 billion in the accelerated capital costs.

Businesses reinvested that money and hired 123,000 people. We froze the $300-million Liberal tax. The businesses took that money, reinvested it in businesses and hired 123,000 people since we got elected. That’s what we’ve been doing.

Taxation

Mr. Stan Cho: My question this morning is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. This morning, I joined the minister in the great riding of Willowdale to bring attention to the harm the federal carbon tax is doing to small businesses.

Our government has been doing everything we can to create an environment where job creators can thrive. Unfortunately, the federal government is doing exactly the opposite. They have imposed a job-killing carbon tax in Ontario, on Ontario businesses and Ontario families. Small businesses in particular are being hurt by the Liberal carbon tax. The people running these businesses aren’t billionaires, and they’re certainly not going to climate conferences in their private jets. They’re hard-working people just trying to make ends meet.

Could the minister please expand on how the federal carbon tax is harming small businesses across Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: It was great to be with the member from Willowdale in his riding this morning, talking about the devastating effects that the federal carbon tax will have on small business.

Since we were elected in June, our government has been doing everything we can, working tirelessly, to create an environment where businesses want to grow, invest and create jobs. But the federal government is doing everything they can to hold Ontario back. Their carbon tax is hurting all businesses—small, medium and large—with small businesses being hit the hardest, like Drewry’s Variety that we were at this morning.

The CFIB has found that nearly half of carbon tax revenues—half of them—will be coming from small businesses. These businesses aren’t able to absorb these kinds of costs, and they’re going to have to cut back as a result. Half of the CFIB members say the carbon tax is pressuring them to freeze or cut salaries for their workers and causing them to delay investments in their business.

Mr. Speaker, Justin Trudeau and the federal government have a track record of hurting small business, and his carbon tax is no different.

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

Mr. Stan Cho: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thanks to the minister for his answer.

I was also joined by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, who spoke at length about the progress our province has made to reduce emissions without a tax. It’s clear that through great sacrifice and the meaningful efforts of individuals and small business, like Drewry’s Variety, our province has done its fair share to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, the federal government fails to grasp this concept. They believe that the only way to fight climate change is with a regressive carbon tax. Justin Trudeau continues to force his carbon tax on the people of this very proud province. Their carbon tax is hurting all businesses, with small business being hit the hardest.

Could the minister please explain what the sacrifices of Ontario’s hard-working people have accomplished so far?

Hon. Todd Smith: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Thank you for the question, thank you for the great work that he does, and thank you to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade for joining us today.

We’ve spoken in this Legislature about what Ontario has done. The new National Inventory Report came out just two weeks ago. While Ontario has reduced greenhouse gases by 22%, the rest of Canada has gone up 6%. Mr. Jeung, who owns Drewry’s Variety, understands that. He knows that in addition to the $1,000 a year that Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax will add, the moves that have already been made to move us to a low-emissions economy have cost Mr. Jeung and other small businesses $435 a month, $5,000 a year. That’s an investment that businesses have already made.

That’s why our made-in-Ontario plan focuses not on a penalizing, job-killing carbon tax, but on other pragmatic measures that will help us meet our targets but not hurt families and not hurt businesses.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. It was clear from the start that the government’s so-called education consultation was nothing more than a public relations exercise. The real plan for massive cuts and lost jobs was being hatched behind closed doors. The so-called consultation asked about improving outcomes in math, but their plan adds the distraction of large classes and takes away teaching supports. The so-called consultation talked about getting kids into technology, engineering and the skilled trades, but their plan is cancelling courses in technology, robotics and shop.

Given the turmoil the government has brought to our schools, does the Premier think this million-dollar survey was money well spent?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Someone needs to reply on behalf of the government. Minister of Finance?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Do you know what? The results of this consultation have informed us for education policy for years to come, and we’ve listened. We are investing like never before. We’re investing in our capital investments in terms of schools, school repairs and builds across this province—$13 billion over the next 10 years.

We heard loud and clear from the consultations that our students were graduating without the job skills they required. We are investing in math curriculum so we can get back to the fundamentals and get them back on track. We are supporting teachers as well in that regard so that they have the skills to teach the math fundamentals that our students have missed over the last 15 years.

We listened through that consultation and found that parents want to be included and engaged in the curriculum, and we are making sure that happens. That curriculum has given us so much opportunity to continue to listen and properly invest like never before, so ultimately that classroom is the best—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The parents are actually saying that they’re outraged by your cuts, Minister. Speaker, the Premier is forcing school boards to find cuts in the classroom in the name of efficiency, while his own so-called consultation came in 300% over budget.

But if they want some free feedback on their education plan and its impact, Speaker, they don’t have to look very far. Just ask one of the 23 teachers declared redundant in Simcoe county last week, despite growing enrolment, or the counsellors and speech-language pathologists let go in Halton, or ask one of the students at Brampton Centennial, who will lose 30 course options next year. But, of course, this government shut the door on students yesterday, so they sure aren’t listening to students.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t take $1 million to find out that students, parents and education workers are united against these cuts. Will the Premier listen?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, Speaker, I want to remind that our purpose in getting education right is making sure that parents know they’ve been listened to, and we’ve done that loud and clear. We’re investing $1.6 billion in attrition protection funding. We’re investing $90 million in increased spending in special education. We’re increasing our investment in student transportation by $92 million.

Speaker, in our budget, we’ve dedicated an increase of $700 million in Ontario education alone and, again, we’re looking at over $1 billion in new child care spaces: 30,000 spaces, of which 10,000 will be in schools.

Our investments are very, very clear in demonstrating that, through that consultation, we’ve listened to what matters and what’s important. We’re protecting what matters most. Our investments that we’re demonstrating are absolutely clear that we’re getting it right. Another example would be in terms of school renewals and school repairs. We’re committing another $1.4 billion—

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

Skilled trades

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Speaker, I’ve heard from many constituents who are frustrated with the complex, convoluted and constraining system set up by the previous government and the Ontario College of Trades. They’re frustrated with the red tape and stifling regulation that the previous skilled trades framework created and the lack of action by the previous government to make life easier for tradespeople in Ontario.

That’s why I was so pleased to see that our government introduced a plan to modernize the skilled trades in Ontario. Would the minister tell us how the government’s modernization of the skilled trades will help make Ontario open for business and open for jobs?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you very much to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for his question and for his great work on behalf of his constituents.

Unlike the NDP, our government is committed to making Ontario open for business by reducing the burden on skilled workers. Our Modernizing the Skilled Trades and Apprenticeship Act, if passed, will create a flexible system for the skilled trades in Ontario. It will reduce red tape for employers and apprentices. It will streamline service delivery and help promote the tremendous career opportunities that the skilled trades offer. This new framework will allow our workforce to respond to the demands of the job market, ensuring that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs.

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

Mr. Michael Parsa: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Speaker, I’m thrilled that we’re taking decisive action to make life easier for our tradespeople, whether they’re an apprentice or journeyperson. I know that this will come as a relief to many of my constituents and that it will make Ontario open for business.

Speaker, I have also heard from many constituents who are frustrated with the high membership fees charged by the Ontario College of Trades. I heard this again and again as I travelled across Ontario and listened and consulted with the people.

Would the minister tell us about what our government is doing to reduce the financial burden on tradespeople in our province, please?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: The member is absolutely right: The previous Liberal government increased fees on journeypersons by 300%, yet wages for tradespeople did not increase by 300% over that same period. That is why we have eliminated membership fees for apprentices and reduced the annual membership fees for journeypersons by 50%. These reductions will put more money back in the pockets of our tradespeople and encourage more people to pursue a career in the skilled trades.

I’m looking forward to the NDP supporting our government’s actions.

Endangered species

Mr. Ian Arthur: My question is to the Acting Premier. This past week, the United Nations released a report stating that there are a million species currently at risk of disappearing altogether. We are in the midst of the sixth great extinction on earth, and the only one caused by us.

But instead of taking action to protect endangered species in Ontario, the Premier’s newest scheme is going to allow developers—sprawl developers—to pay to break the law, to buy their way out of the Endangered Species Act. Under this government, Conservative government allies can now bulldoze previously protected areas and ignore best practices for development in Ontario.

How can we preserve natural diversity if we allow developers to pay to pave over protected areas?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity from the member’s question to talk about our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan. It’s a comprehensive plan. It is a plan that not only deals with climate, which we enjoy talking about, but also deals with other important issues, including species at risk. We are taking definitive action to make improvements on our plan.

Even your own House leader voted against the existing Species at Risk Act. I’m sure that the members from northern Ontario who are in the NDP caucus understand the challenges that this put in front of business. That’s why we brought back a more balanced approach, just like our approach to the environment in general: balanced. We believe that you can balance a healthy economy and a healthy environment—not with the highest carbon tax in the world, but with an approach that understands that human habitation and the habitation of endangered species can coexist.

That’s what your own House leader believed when this was passed 10 years ago. Why don’t you talk to him about it?

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

Mr. Ian Arthur: Speaker, through you, again to the Acting Premier: We know the environmental sham is about opening up protected areas for the Premier’s sprawl developer buddies. That is what it is about, and that is all it is about. It allows his developer friends to buy their way out of complying with the Endangered Species Act. It ignores science, it ignores best practices in development planning and it moves us further away from the sustainable province we want to pass on to our children and our grandchildren. Families deserve better. Our children and grandchildren deserve better.

Who lobbied the Premier to allow developers to pay to bypass endangered species protection laws?

Interjections.

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

The minister to reply again.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, our science-based approach will continue to protect species.

But I don’t have to reference your House leader. Speak to your former leader; speak to Howard Hampton. He was at the conference that I was at in Sault Ste. Marie.

He stood up in front of the audience and talked about the essential need for changes to the Endangered Species Act to create that balance—once again, that balance that we talk about in our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, a balance when it comes to climate—not the highest carbon tax in the world, but a balance that hits our target; a balance when it comes to clean water—1,327 times, the government you supported allowed sewage to be put into clean waters and lakes in Ontario. We’ve stood up against that. We’ve said that municipalities will have to notify their constituents when that sewage is put in the water.

Mr. Speaker, we’re going to make a difference to the environment. We’re not going to be dogmatic, we’re not going to be ideological; we are going to protect the environment for Ontarians with a balanced plan, not the ideology of the NDP.

Road safety

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last week, the minister tabled a comprehensive piece of legislation that, if passed, will reduce red tape, increasing safety on our roads, highways and bridges, to get Ontarians moving. During the election, our government for the people committed to reducing the gridlock and improving transit across Ontario to bring relief to all commuters. I am proud to say that the Minister of Transportation has made many significant announcements that will get the people of our province moving. We have announced highway expansion projects, GO service expansions, the biggest subway expansion in history and so much more.

Can the Minister of Transportation share some of the great initiatives that are included in the Getting Ontario Moving Act?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks to the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills for that question. It’s a great joy working with him, day in and day out.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, I introduced the Getting Ontario Moving Act. As the member stated, it’s quite a comprehensive piece of legislation that, if passed, will cut red tape for our province’s job creators, keep our roads safe and make it easier to deal with the MTO, with those individuals throughout our province. Mr. Speaker, we are proposing changes that will build much-needed transit, reduce congestion and get commuters moving again.

Some of the proposed measures in my bill include: an administrative monetary penalty regime for improperly passing a school bus, increasing penalties for driving too slowly and failing to drive on the right-hand side of the roadway when you’re driving slow and stronger penalties for driving carelessly around maintenance workers, construction workers, tow truck personnel and recovery workers on our highways.

Mr. Speaker, these are