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

February 20, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Feb-20 (PDF)

L067 - Wed 20 Feb 2019 / Mer 20 fév 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 February 2019 Mercredi 20 février 2019

Orders of the Day

Notice of reasoned amendment

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Autism

Autism

Autism

Police services

Autism

Automotive industry

Autism

Autism

Special investigations unit

Autism

GO Transit

Autism

Government fiscal policies

Autism

Visitor

Notices of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Autism

Archibald MacDonell

Autism

Attacks in the Philippines

Long-term care

Events in Orléans / Événements divers à Orléans

Malton Black Development Association

Government’s record

Children’s colouring contest

Ontario 55+ Winter Games

Introduction of Bills

Paris Galt Moraine Conservation Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la conservation de la moraine de Paris Galt

Motions

Committee membership

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Ontario Heritage Week / Semaine du patrimoine de l’Ontario

Petitions

Mental health and addiction services

Autism treatment

Mental health and addiction services

Environmental protection

Mental health and addiction services

Environmental protection

Firearms control

Full-day kindergarten

Mental health and addiction services

Wearing of poppies

Arts and cultural funding

Orders of the Day

Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à rétablir la compétitivité de l’Ontario

Adjournment Debate

Autism

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the member for Timmins has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 68,

An Act with respect to community safety and policing. The order for second reading of Bill 68 may therefore not be called today.

Time allocation

Hon. Todd Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 48,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to education and child care, that the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet on Monday, February 25, 2019, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Tuesday, February 26, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. for public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 48:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 21, 2019; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee and their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 6 p.m. on Thursday, February 21, 2019; and

—That each member of the subcommittee or their designate provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk, by 12 p.m. on Friday, February 22, 2019; and

—That each witness will receive up to six minutes for their presentation followed by 14 minutes divided equally amongst the recognized parties for questioning; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 6 p.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 2019; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Thursday, February 28, 2019; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy shall be authorized to meet on Monday, March 4, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Tuesday, March 5, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Tuesday, March 5, 2019, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, March 6, 2019. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

That, except in the case of a division arising from deferred votes, any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 20 minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I just want to clarify with the minister that he is suggesting that all this activity will take place in the year 2019; I think at one point he said 2018.

Hon. Todd Smith: I think that’s a safe assumption.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That’s what we assumed, but we thought we’d clarify.

Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 30. Further debate. Does the minister care to lead it off? No?

Further debate. Member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Man, the government is not getting up to talk about its own time allocation motion, other than reading it.

There are a couple of things I’d like to touch on, and I know our deputy House leader wants to get in on the procedural part, as well.

First of all, we’re time-allocating a bill, Mr. Speaker, that the House voted unanimously to pass yesterday. Isn’t that kind of passing strange? Every member in this House, on both sides, voted for this bill at second reading, and the government feels the necessity to be able to time-allocate the bill because somehow there’s some wild opposition going on here.

When I saw the time allocation motion, I was a little bit surprised because the bill—as you know, when we finally got to vote on the second reading of the bill yesterday, it was referred to committee. It normally holds true that if a bill is supported by all sides of the House and the bill goes to the committee, there’s no intent to hold up the bill.

Unless the government plans to filibuster its own bill in committee, there’s no need to have time allocation because the opposition has already indicated by its vote at second reading that we’re in favour of the bill and “Let’s move through the process in a regular way.” But the government is so used to using time allocation now, by reaction they time-allocate. I guess they don’t trust their own members. You must think on the other side of the House that the Tories are going to filibuster their own bill, because we’re not going to filibuster it on this side. So what is the point here?

I know to some people here in the House who just got here—and that’s the nature of this place: You think that time allocation is a normal thing and it’s the way all legislation should work. But this is really a good example of how bad time allocation can be, when a government decides it needs to time-allocate a bill that everybody agrees with; after they call the question on the second reading vote and everybody voted in favour, the government sends it off to committee and then time-allocates the bill. I want to say at the beginning that this is very passing strange in regard to that point.

Then, if you look at the mechanism of the time allocation motion itself—everybody should understand what we’re doing here. Today is Wednesday. I want you to look at the calendar on the table. It says it’s Wednesday, February 20. By tomorrow, at 5 o’clock, you have to have your name in the committee with the Clerk in order to be selected to present at committee Monday or Tuesday during public hearings. We’re giving people less than 24 hours.

All of Ontario is watching the Legislature right now, I guess the government thinks, because they’ve got nothing else to do, and everybody who’s interested in this bill is riveted to this debate and they’re watching really close and they’re right now writing out their requests to appear before the committee in regard to what their thoughts on this bill are. But that’s not the reality. The reality is, the only people who are going to be at committee are the people the government calls or the opposition calls.

There are going to be very few people who are going to find out naturally that they have an opportunity to present to this bill. Parents and educators and school board trustees and all of the people interested in education are going to find out about this because they’re going to read about it in the weekend paper—because how do you put an ad in the paper to let people know that they can come and present to the committee when this time allocation motion will be passed today?

Even if the Clerks are super, super good—which we know they are all the time—you are going to get this before the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail or Le Droit in Ottawa, and people are going to automatically find out about it after the paper will be printed.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s definitely not committee for the people.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s not committee for the people.

Think about it: Even if we send a notice to the media tomorrow—or today, when you can, after this thing is passed—it won’t get printed until tomorrow, which means to say that most people don’t get home and look at the paper or watch the evening news until 6 o’clock at night, at which point the timeline to apply before the committee is going to be expired.

What is the government up to here? There’s a real hurry to pass this bill? The reality is that we’re at the beginning of the spring session. There are many sessional days left between now and June, when this House rises. So if the government had to wait an extra week in order to be able to allow this bill to go through the process at committee and to advertise effectively so that anybody who wants to present can come here and present, that’s what it should have done.

I think the government would have been well advised if they would not have used time allocation and understood that the opposition voted for the bill and that was an indication that we supported the bill—that’s normally why we vote in favour—and that in committee, we have no interest in slowing a bill down which we’re in support of. So why does the government time-allocate it, and why give it such a short timeline?

You could have said, “Okay, let’s get the subcommittee together today”—or you could even have done it yesterday, if you had wanted, and figured out, “Okay, we’re going to advertise in the following papers or radio stations” or whatever, and then give the public at least a week to be able to get this information to decide, “Hey, I would like to present,” and submit their name to be on the list of presenters. Then we could have actually started hearing the deputants sometime the week after that. In the grand scheme of things, what would that have done to harm the government?

It would have meant more people would have gotten a chance to understand that there’s a bill before committee that they may be interested in presenting to. It wouldn’t have stopped you from getting your bill.

The government says, and I listened to the Premier I don’t know how many times say, “Work with us. We need you to work with us.” “Work with us”? You hit us with a hammer every chance you get. What’s the point? Is this working with you, that you have to time-allocate a bill that everybody voted for? It’s beyond bizarre that you’re doing this.

The least the government House leader could do is have a conversation with myself and say, “What’s your intent at committee?” I would have told you what our intent at committee was. Then we could have marched the bill forward in a normal kind of way. Instead, we have to time-allocate.

I think time allocation is a problem not just for us, the opposition; it’s also a problem for the government. Because if things don’t go the way that they think it should in committee, they would be forced to come back to the House to move yet another motion in order to amend whatever it is they need amended to fix whatever was a problem at committee. So it’s not to the government’s advantage on a bill that everybody agrees on to time-allocate. It further restricts the ability of the government to adjust if it needs to adjust along the way.

The more important point is the public—you know, “we, the people”—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: For the people.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —the “for the people” that the government talks about? They’re the ones that pay the bills, remember, Speaker? They’re the ones that vote for us in order to put us in office or to take us out. They’re the bosses. We’re not the bosses; they’re the bosses—the voters. We need to make sure that we respect the voters, and this is not respecting the voters. What you’re doing is saying to the voters out there that you know best, and “I don’t care what you have to say, and if you don’t make it, that’s okay by me.” I just think that it’s very disrespectful to the people of Ontario.

A government, I understand, at times has good-news bills and at times has bad-news bills, but it always has a responsibility to provide clarity on what it’s doing, and doing it in a transparent way. Time allocation isn’t about transparency. Time allocation, in my view, is an attempt on the part of the government to limit the participation of the public, and when you limit the participation of the public, you’re not doing anything when it comes to transparency.

What would have happened—and this is just a what-if—if, let’s say, we would have put this bill out in committee, as we did yesterday, and then we would have said, “Okay, we’re going to give people a week in order to be able to apply”? What would happen if we had more people than we could fit in two days apply? We’d have to say to those people, “No, you’re not important. You can’t come to committee.” Well, why would the government put itself in that position? Because, in the end, the people who want to present to the committee, they’re our bosses, they’re the public.

They’re the ones who are responsible for paying the bill and for putting us in office or taking us out, as I said. So the government is being disrespectful to the public when it comes to how it uses time allocation.

I think this time allocation motion kind of takes a new—it’s a new low. They have taken time allocation to new heights by making it a new low, because we’re time-allocating a bill that everybody agrees with and that the opposition has already indicated that we’re fine with and we don’t have any intent of holding up.

So I just say to my good friends across the way, especially those who sat in opposition with me when we had the 15 long years of the Liberal regime, that we’re all glad is over—we would rather us be on that side of the House, but that’s a whole other story. But I look to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I look at the member from Sault Ste. Marie, and others, who were there before, and the member from Whitby, who, by the way, represents my grandchildren—you better take care of them, or else—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Or I’m else I’m going to send them over with little placards.

My point is, those members, while in opposition, used to rail in this House when it came to time allocation. I think that adds to the cynicism of politics that you say one thing when you’re in the opposition and then you say quite another thing when you’re in government.

I think, on the question of time allocation, some of the best speeches given in this House were by the member from Nipissing—

Mr. John Vanthof: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Yakabuski—whatever riding it is. I want to apologize.

Interjection: Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister of Natural Resources. He used to get up and he used to rail at the Wynne Liberals and the Dalton McGuinty Liberals before that for their use of time allocation, and I would agree with him. I thought the Liberals were bad. They were time-allocating most everything. Not everything, but most everything was being time-allocated. You guys are worse. You time-allocate everything. Even those things that we agree with—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Can’t take yes for an answer.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Exactly. They can’t take yes for an answer. Very good point.

I don’t want to laugh, but you kind of have to because, if not, you would cry. It’s so ridiculous. So I hope that the government changes its mind, which I very much doubt they will, and vote down this time allocation motion and trust that the House will do the right thing.

The institution of Parliament is very old. It has been around for a long time. If you go look at the history of use of rules in all Parliaments across the world—and there are quite a few of them, as we all know—the House works very well without time allocation, because it does what it was designed to do: that is that the government is in control of the agenda, the government is the one who calls what’s going to be debated in the House, and the government is in control of what happens at a committee.

The government’s role is to propose and to try to suggest how they approach a particular policy item by way of legislation, and our job as the opposition is to look at that and agree with you when we need to and it makes sense, as we did on this bill at second reading, and, where we think there needs to be some changes, propose changes. If you allow the system to work, what you end up with is much better legislation at the end and, I think, a greater respect on the part of the public, who would then look at this place and say, “Look at that.

These guys are actually working together trying to make something happen.”

Instead, the government of the people is saying, “We don’t want to listen to the people, only some of the people.” Then, the other thing is, they say, “We want the opposition to work with us. Why, why will the opposition not work with us?” Well, here’s an opportunity where you could have proven that you meant what you said, in that we voted for the bill at second reading, have no intention of holding it up, and you guys are time-allocating a bill that doesn’t need to be time-allocated. I just hope that the government, in the end, decides that the right thing to do would be to vote against this time allocation motion and allow this bill to go the regular way of the process.

There was another point on the time allocation motion that, before I finish, I just wanted to make. What’s interesting is that the government, in the time allocation motion, is allowing the bill to come back at third reading. By the looks of the read, we could hold this thing up for a couple of days in the House if we chose to. I think this particular

section of the time allocation motion has been put there exactly for us to do it, in the sense that they know we support the bill and they know that the opposition New Democrats are going to be upset about the use of time allocation. They’re putting this in as a bit of a red flag or a little bit of bait. It’s almost as if you’re not happy just time-allocating. It’s like going into the bullring with the red flag and trying to look for a little bit of a fight here.

Come on. This is not the way Parliaments are supposed to work. The beauty of the British parliamentary system is that we have designed, over the years—and in all Parliaments across the world—a really good system that works. It allows the government to govern with the feedback of the opposition, but more importantly, with the feedback of the public by way of its committee structure. When the government pulls off these kinds of stunts, this is just game-playing on the part of the government.

This is the government saying, “Oh, let’s put that in there, just to see if we can raise the opposition to the task.” I think that this is just bad politics. It’s cynical. It reinforces all the negatives that people see in politicians. It reinforces that this is not about doing what’s right for the people, but rather doing what’s right for the government.

We have people here in the gallery and some of them may be the parents of children with autism who are so affected by what this government has done. It’s kind of the same thing. The government is doing something not to help the people, but to help themselves and, more importantly, to help their ideology. We’re going from a system that was, yes, broken and needed to be fixed. The Liberals really messed up the autism file. We’ll both agree on that. Yes, it’s true, there were waiting lists. As you do, Mr. Speaker, I’ve got people who have been waiting for two, three, four years for their children to finally get into IBI or ABA treatment.

But now what we’ve done is that we’re going to move people off those lists to where they’re going to have, essentially, no support, hardly, to be able to pay for the services their children need. You go from a service that could be $60,000, $70,000 a year paid by Ontario, to one that will only be $5,000 to $20,000 a year, depending on the age of your child and severity, to pay for services that are far more expensive.

It’s the same kind of thing as what we see in Bill 48. It’s the same concept. It is the link that I’m trying to make here, and that is, the government is trying to be self-serving in writing this time allocation motion. They’re not, in fact, doing what’s right for the public when it comes to allowing the public to do its due diligence on this bill by coming before it and doing what needs to be done when it comes to comment. The government is using time allocation in a way that, quite frankly, isn’t necessary.

I know, with that, Mr. Speaker, other people want to speak to this and I look forward to hearing the comments from our deputy House leader.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Given that we do have the time allocation this morning, I wanted to use my time to highlight why I worked so closely with Minister Thompson on this bill.

First off, this bill will create zero tolerance for teachers and ECEs who are found guilty of any sexual abuse of a student or a child. It will require that the discipline committees of the Ontario College of Teachers and the College of Early Childhood Educators revoke an educator’s certificate if they are found guilty of such acts. This bill will also give the Lieutenant Governor the authority to prescribe other acts of a sexual nature prohibited under the Criminal Code that would result in the mandatory revocation of an educator’s certificate.

These proposed changes, to me, are critical to ensuring that we no longer have a grey area—like we had under the previous Liberal government—around situations like what we learned about in the Toronto Star about a year ago. A teacher who had sexually harassed a colleague was just moved quietly to another school. Then that same teacher started a highly inappropriate relationship with a student. His teacher’s licence, though, was not revoked, even though he pleaded guilty to psychological and sexual abuse of that student.

As quoted in the Star, the student received messages, sometimes until 2 o’clock in the morning, messages like, “Please don’t leave me,” and “If I lose you, I’ll die.” He was also pleading with her not to tell school board administrators what had gone on between them.

When this incident happened, the law here in Ontario stated that the only time licences could be mandatorily revoked was if the sexual abuse was on a predetermined list. This list, Mr. Speaker, didn’t go far enough. Unbelievably, activities such as groping and making sexual comments were not on it.

Bill 48 aims to ensure that teachers who are found guilty of behaviours like this can’t just be quietly moved to another school. We need to ensure that we are protecting our students and that educators who are found guilty can never work in a classroom again.

Our government has also proclaimed sections of the Ontario College of Teachers Act and the Early Childhood Educators Act that will require the colleges to provide funding for therapy for counselling for children and students who have alleged that they were the subject of sexual abuse or

an act of child pornography committed by an educator in the course of that educator’s practice.

I’d like to take a look at another part of the bill.

Math is the big thing. It was something that I certainly noticed a lot as a school board trustee prior to this, and now in my role as an MPP. We certainly have amazing teachers in Ontario, and we want to ensure that all students have a world-class education. That’s why we want to support our teachers to become even better prepared to teach the fundamentals of math. If this bill is passed—and I certainly think it will be after yesterday—teachers will have to pass a content knowledge test in math in order to become certified to teach in Ontario’s publicly funded schools.

I think that we owe it to our students to ensure that we are helping them succeed, especially with the focus on math skills that is happening in the workplace going forward. Even when I speak with current university and college students and professors, they say one of the biggest things that would have helped their students, or helped them, is having better fundamental math skills before they enter post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, something that I think you know is very dear and close to my heart is also included in this bill. It’s the ability for the education minister to put guidelines in place for school boards to follow to put their own guidelines in place—board-by-board guidelines—around the use of service animals in schools. The last time I spoke to Bill 48, this is what I focused the majority of my time on, and I told you some stories about some different students. I want to share some updates this morning on how those children are doing.

First, a young boy, Brayden, who I spoke about earlier, read the transcript of what I had said. He has autism and is non-verbal, but he uses a special way to communicate called RPM, or rapid prompting method. With that, he has kind of a letter board, and he spells out what he wants to communicate. He told his mom, Jen, “This is awesome. I hope my story makes the changes for the kids that want to bring their service dogs to school.” She said he was so emotional, reading what I had said before, that he started to cry, but that he was so happy that we were trying to make this change so future children wouldn’t have to go through what his family had endured.

Brayden has an autism assistance dog, Gusto, from National Service Dogs in Cambridge. He initially attended a public school with his dog in Kitchener, and then his family decided to move him to the Catholic board so he could be with his siblings in that school. But when he got to the Catholic board, he was denied access to the classroom with that service dog. His parents said they never imagined that changing boards would mean that he wouldn’t be able to take his service dog with him, because he can bring his service dog everywhere else.

This is how Brayden describes Gusto in the National Service Dogs’ book In Service—Portraits of Dogs that Change Lives: “Gusto is my saving grace to my world. He gives security when I am feeling anxious. He gives independence by being tethered to him and holding his handle. I think it is amazing to walk with my dog and not hold mom or dad’s hands. When I am tethered to Gusto, I know where my body is at all times. This is the most amazing feeling ever.”

The experience with his new school, unfortunately, was so traumatic for Brayden that he has been home-schooled for the last several years. But I am happy to tell you that he is doing very well thanks to the dedication of his parents, Jen and Trevor, in making sure Brayden has what he needs to succeed, including having Gusto by his side all day.

Another boy I spoke of, Jack, has an autism service dog named Jenson, from Lions Foundation of Canada Dog Guides. Jack attended that same Catholic school board in Kitchener as Brayden. While he was granted a trial last school year after several years of his parents fighting for that trial, school board administrators at the end of the trial determined he didn’t need his service dog at school. This is the young boy I told you about earlier who had previously had severe mental health struggles because of what had gone on. It was recommended that he needed a service dog with him throughout the whole entire day—something that he was being denied by his school board.

Last summer, after finding out the school administrators were not going to allow Jack to take his service dog to school for the 2018-19 school year, his family decided to move from Kitchener to Huron–Bruce county. His mother, Donna, says that by all accounts, this is his best school year yet. For the first time, he has an educational assistant. He has the support of a social worker now at school that he did not get to have before. Most importantly, he does have Jenson, his service dog, with him at school all day. She says she has seen great strides in his ability to regulate his emotions and his mental health. Unlike in the previous school, he is doing grade-level work.

This past weekend, Jack asked his mom to tell me so I could share with you, in his own words, “I feel I can get my work done easier, he calms me down and I don’t have struggles like did I in St. Teresa—getting yelled at for doing nothing and getting blamed for doing nothing. Jenson makes me a lot more confident and happy.”

Minister Thompson’s bill sets out the guidelines for school boards to follow, and that will give her that opportunity to put those guidelines in place. That way, school boards, board by board, can put policies in place. That way, students like Brayden and Jack have what they need to succeed in their classrooms.

Currently, less than half of the school boards in Ontario have policies in place around service animals. For the ones that do, those policies can vary drastically. Some only speak to specific types of service dogs while excluding others.

Some policies mention that a school staff member may be trained to support a child who is unable to fully handle the dog themselves, while another, which does happen to be that same school board that Jack as well as Brayden attended, states that “when a student is not able to handle the dog, the dog will not be considered a certified service dog for the purposes of these procedures.” That particular policy has been called quite concerning by service dog providers as there are children who may always need help with their service animal and may never be able to verbally give their dogs commands.

Also, trainers have raised concerns with school boards that even if a child doesn’t usually need adult support to help with their service animal, they are children, and even though they are service dogs, they are dogs, and sometimes either one may need a little extra encouragement to follow through on a command.

As an example, a child with PTSD may be at such a heightened state of anxiety that they may not want to give their dog a command, but they may need to lie on their dog for comfort and they may need an adult’s help to ask that dog to lie down so they can comfortably lie on the dog and bring their anxiety levels down. Mr. Speaker, policies like that one that, if you will, discredit service dogs when a student can’t fully command that animal, I believe, are putting unnecessary hurdles in front of students to having access to their classrooms with their fully trained service dogs.

I know several children with service dogs, and I’ve seen first-hand how these amazing dogs support their handlers. But it’s not just children with autism. There are many types of service dogs, as I mentioned, for children suffering from PTSD, diabetes and seizure disorders. I have had the opportunity to go through the parent training program at Lions Foundation in Oakville and also speak to trainers about the research around the support that these service dogs can offer, and many of them are pretty much invisible tasks.

We may not be able to see that a child with PTSD is having a spike in their anxiety levels but, for them, it can be overpowering and can stop them from entering a room or being able to complete their schoolwork. Just knowing that their dog is there with them, or maybe just giving the dog a little pet on the head, can bring those anxiety levels back down. It’s much the same for a child with an autism service dog.

Their service dog can also help them regulate their emotions, overcome fears and is also trained to keep that child from bolting away, something that can be quite common for children with autism. Amazingly, these alert dogs for diabetes can tell when a child’s blood sugar is dropping, and that’s very similar to the seizure alert dogs that can sense when a seizure is going to come on and make sure that child is somewhere safe, or even kind of brace themselves to let the child fall on the dog, so they don’t bang their head if they happen to go into a seizure.

It’s believed the first autism service dog trained by National Service Dogs in Cambridge in 1996 was the first such service dog for children with autism in the world, yet trainers who have been in the field for many years are still telling me that training this type of service dog is very challenging, but rewarding.

These service dogs perform many tasks that support children with autism. Families report seeing an increase in social skills and a reduction in meltdowns. It makes their child better able to regulate their emotions, which just makes getting through the day that much easier. Children also report feeling more confident in social situations and being out in public. For children who tend to bolt, their families also say they’re more comfortable when taking their child out in public because they don’t have that fear.

Having a service dog has also been shown to help teach the child some responsibility, as they’re taught to help support the dog as much as they can by feeding it or grooming it. In classrooms, trainers and educators have noticed children are better able to focus, have lower aggression and frustration levels, which leads them to be more comfortable, and, as Jack has said, have more confidence in the classroom.

One other thing I’d like to note for the House this morning is that usually when medical professionals and service dog providers recommend the use of a service dog, it is for all aspects of the person’s life. For our children, that means spending most of their day in their classrooms, which is why, to me, this bill with Minister Thompson is so critical in giving that education minister the opportunity to put guidelines in place for school boards to create their own policies.

Mr. Speaker, as I wrap up, I just want to say that with Bill 48, we’re working towards keeping our students safe in our classrooms while committing to our teachers that we will ensure they have the skills that they need to best support our students in math, while also providing families with the confidence that we are providing the supports that their children need in their classrooms.

As Minister Thompson herself has stated, now, more than ever, it is important for students throughout this amazing province to graduate with the skills and knowledge that they need to be successful in work, school and beyond. That is why the minister and her parliamentary assistant, Sam Oosterhoff, have been working so hard and conducting province-wide consultations as well on education. It’s why I am so proudly supporting this bill and why I was so happy yesterday to see that the second reading was passed unanimously.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker, for that wonderful, enthusiastic introduction of my riding. It is truly a great riding.

I want to welcome the guests who are here in the Legislature today. It’s quite full, so it’s great that people are here this morning, very enthusiastic, wanting to learn about how this place works, because they should. It’s their place. It’s their House.

Today we are here to debate the time allocation, and I think, perhaps, public perception is that when they come to the Legislature, they’re here to hear debate on bills that are in front of the House, that are in front of their representatives. The member from Kitchener South–Hespeler actually took the time under a time allocation motion to debate the bill. Not once did she refer to what is in front of this Legislature that we’re obliged to debate, and that is the time allocation.

What has happened is that time allocation has been tabled by the government, and that’s what we’re supposed to talk about. But the member, who is obviously very passionate about Bill 48—as we all are, because we know that education is a huge piece of development in our children, right? So here we are, wanting to debate Bill 48, but this government has tied our hands and said, “No, we’re going to file a time allocation motion, and you’re going to debate the time allocation.” Here we are, as the opposition members, going to be doing that, but the member opposite avoided that conversation.

That’s not really cool with me, Speaker, because here is the government telling us, “This is what we want to do with this bill.” This is the strategy of what this House is going to impose on us around Bill 48, the safer schools. So everybody has got to talk to this time allocation, yet it doesn’t apply the rules over there. This government needs to follow their own agenda when they present these things in the Legislature.

I’m not going to be speaking about Bill 48, because that isn’t what a time allocation motion demands, mandates, directs us to do. It directs us a time to talk about what time allocation means to this Legislature and the bill that they are using under the time allocation.

The question was called yesterday on this bill, and the vote was recorded. We did vote in favour, because we know it’s important that we protect our children. That is not a question in this Legislature. I don’t think that’s a question in anyone’s mind in this House.

Then the government filed the time allocation. So the problem is, it’s an extensive time allocation piece. It’s very detailed. Therefore, it allows me to think that it’s a very intentional thing that they had already preconceived before the Legislature was coming back. We were back here one day; we forget to mention that. We were in our ridings, working very hard, representing our constituents, during what they call a “winter break.”

When we’re back—the House rose yesterday, on February 19. That was the first day of the Legislature, and this government sees fit to file a time allocation rather than allowing us to have full debate on Bill 48, which is the safer schools bill. Obviously, the intent of this government is to want to debate it, as literally illustrated by their own member, just now, from Kitchener South–Hespeler. She has a desire to want to debate this bill. I’m sure she has a desire to listen to every one of us here who want to debate this bill. But what’s happening? We can’t do that. The rules say we debate time allocation.

This government has had this bill on the order paper since the fall of 2018, so it could have called this bill during the fall of 2018 many times over, when we could have had fulsome debate. Why didn’t it do that? Because it doesn’t want to have a process where people have input, consideration, considerable input, not input in a hurry.

What they do is, they rush to decisions because they have this agenda. They want to tell a story of how important they are and how they know best what’s best for you. “So we are going to push and rush all the things that we believe, people, that you need. And we don’t want to hear; we don’t want to listen; we don’t want to consult with the people that we are affecting with legislation. That isn’t part of our management style in this government.” They are confrontational, at best.

I’ll give you an example of this rushed decision-making. Bill 66,

schedule 10: They release Bill 66, and how wonderful this whole thing is going to appear to everyone. “It’s going to be life-changing legislation.” You’re darned right it was life-changing legislation, because under

schedule 10—people opposed that, because they were putting people’s lives in jeopardy under the Clean Water Act.

So what happened? What happened to this government that just wants to rush legislation and put things forward and not have debate and not listen to experts, not listen to stakeholders, not listen to people it affects? All of a sudden, they had some revelation and they repealed

schedule 10.

That’s the danger in time allocation: that you don’t allow input from people on this side of the House who represent their constituents, and you also don’t allow robust, broad public consultation. This time allocation motion, the way it’s scheduled out, is very clear that it doesn’t want that.

When you’re talking about the Clerks having to advertise tomorrow—if you don’t see that advertisement that you want to be a witness to this Bill 48, you snooze and you lose—what kind of message does that send to the public, that this government wants to rush everything and doesn’t want to hear from this side of the Legislature? It had months—months—in the fall to bring this forward.

We were commissioned back here for a week in December—again, this rushed decision, this creating chaos and a crisis that isn’t there. We were called back to this Legislature to vote people back to work who weren’t on strike. If you look at the timing of how that played out—the public is very intelligent and very smart; they know. We were called back here, and then we were told, “We want to rush it”—another piece.

We stood here and we said, “No, you are not going to make rash decisions without public debate in this Legislature.” And then, the nerve—“They’re holding up debate; they’re holding up an important decision; the lights are going to be turned off all across Ontario, in every nursing home.” That message was just ridiculous.

Now we’re here today, again, with this time allocation piece. They’re limiting our opportunity to give educated input on a bill they’ve presented. The Premier talks about how he criss-crosses the province and talks to thousands of people. If that’s the case, why, under Bill 66,

schedule 10, which is a health and safety issue, none of these experts or specialists—why didn’t he speak to them and understand what he’s doing?

Time allocation—we need to have it understood that it’s used in the right way, and this is not the opportunity to do that. When we’re talking about protecting our kids, which we all 100% believe in, we need to have the opportunity to speak to the bill, but not everybody has had that opportunity here in this Legislature. The member from Kitchener South–Hespeler—I don’t know if she has debated it before, but she certainly debated it now, and I actually listened to the debate, and I appreciated her debating the bill, but not under time allocation. Let’s be clear on that. You can’t just ignore it.

When the government doesn’t follow what their agenda is, and everybody just says, “Oh, well, we’re going to allow the member to continue to debate the bill”—I wanted that, because that’s what we should be doing here, and not debating time allocation. But we’re not afforded that same opportunity.

We talked about the preparation time, the advertising. Hopefully, they see it, and then they have to rush and change their work schedule, maybe their home schedule. The member talked about parents who home-school their children. If they don’t have enough notice to adjust their

schedule to be a presenter, if that’s what they choose, there’s not a lot of time.

Again, I want to implore this government to stop using tools and mechanisms that aren’t necessary when it comes to operating this Legislature. They have a majority government. We have an opportunity to literally put the words into action that they keep spewing about working together. You need to do that in action—not just a slogan, not just to look like you’re doing it, to fake it.

If you want to work together, then actually do that. When we have proposals in committee—and I know we will, to try to make this bill better—why don’t you implement those amendments that actually strengthen legislation to help protect children, or other pieces, protect the environment, protect labour, whatever the case may be? But the style has been they reject everything. When you say to me, when you say to someone, “Oh, we want to work together. No, we’re not going to accept any amendment you have,” that means you’ve just shut down. You’ve shut down before you even want to work together. You’re just saying it to fake it.

People in my riding, I can tell you, caught on. They’ve caught on to the management style of this government, and nobody really appreciates it. Do you know what they want? They want respect, right? We all want respect. They want professionalism from their MPPs and their Premier, and that’s not a high bar to set. But there have been many, many examples, unfortunately—we all want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but at some point in time, you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and people lose respect. That’s what’s happening here.

Constant legislation—and we’re talking about OSAP when students are telling this government there are wrong-headed ideas. There’s another rash, quick legislation cutting out ancillary fees that subsidize transit for students, and now they’ve taken that out of the piece. So why can’t they analyze their legislation themselves before they rush to that piece, to those decisions?

Another one that was very concerning is the health bill. Again, we’re being told, “It’s not really what you see. That’s not how it is.” Come on, that’s how it is.

Time allocation: That’s what’s happening in this Legislature, is that they’re pushing, rushing, moving legislation too quickly and making terrible mistakes. And they have to take them back. That’s not right, Speaker.

I hope that we stop rushing things when it comes to children. Even the minister for autism, she needs to slow down and look at what she’s proposing and talk to stakeholders and do the right thing when it comes to resources for people who are waiting for autism treatment or actually need those fees.

I’m glad I had the opportunity to talk to time allocation. I hope the people in the galleries today understood what we’re discussing here today: a motion that the government put through to limit the debate on Bill 48. What we’re supposed to talk to is that time allocation and why it’s not right and what it does to democracy and what it does to the access for people to present at a committee. It shrinks that opportunity. In some cases, it eliminates it for others, because people just can’t get it together in a day. I don’t know about everybody else, but when you work all day, you’ve got to let your employer know.

You’ve got to let the association—you’ve got to pick somebody to come to the committee and present on your behalf. That’s not something you can just do overnight and snap your fingers.

I implore this government, going forward with this time allocation obviously is—we’re going to vote against it, obviously, because we don’t think it should be on this bill particularly. There are times maybe in the future, who knows, where we can think about coming together on time allocation when it’s something that makes sense, but in this particular case we’re going to vote against the time allocation because it’s the right thing do. The right thing to do is to vote against it.

Maybe these members who actually listened to me speaking will actually do that, and then we can have a full debate. Wouldn’t that be a great thing? Because then you’re actually working with the opposition that you claim you want to work with. We’re willing participants. Then we can actually have debate on the bill, have members talk about the bill, like the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler just did this morning, because I don’t think I’ve heard from a lot of the members on that side.

I can tell you that teachers obviously want to have input on this bill as well, and students and parents, and Catholic school boards and public school boards and trustees. It would be interesting to find out if we’re going to be able to get some of the people who, on the opposition side, want to speak to the bill, other than maybe it’s all tilted that the government’s already predisposed the presenters list, already organized, let them know what’s going to happen because they would have known this time allocation was coming up. I say that because you’ve had this bill on the order paper since the fall of 2018.

You just didn’t come up with this strategy yesterday, the first day when we’re back. There was some planning around it.

I’m going to wrap up my comments, I think, and hope that there’s been some logic debated here today from the House leader from—where’s he from now? Timiskaming?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Timmins.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Timmins, yes. It used to be Timmins–James Bay.

Ms. Marit Stiles: He likes it this way.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes.

One of our members said this government can’t take yes for an answer. We hope that some logic will penetrate on that side of the Legislature and people will do the logical thing and make sure that when we have bills in this Legislature, we work together and allow debate to happen until members have their full say on both sides of the Legislature, and then you collapse debate. Then you give notice to the public so that they have the opportunity to present and then you go to committee and you look at the amendments that are reasonable and you work with the opposition to make the bill stronger.

Isn’t that what we all want? We’re here to make things work better for people, make legislation actually effective and strong and not just look like it’s doing something—you know, faking it.

I implore the government to vote against their own time allocation bill. It probably wouldn’t be that detrimental. Asking them to vote against Bill 48, yes, that’s a terrible mistake for them. But asking them to vote against time allocation, I could see that maybe happening one day. They get a conscience and they do it.

The other rash decision, I have to tell you—I’m going on a little bit longer than I planned—is the francophone commissioner. One of their own members felt so strongly about that decision; again, rash decisions, right? They had to do some catch-up and backpedalling and have the Attorney General now have a francophone semi, quasi position in there. Why? They didn’t consult with francophones. Did they consult with the member who left their caucus?

Interjection: No.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, exactly. No, they didn’t. So what happens is, you create your own scandal, you create your own chaos when you don’t engage in your own caucus opinions and listen to them and actually try to find a negotiation piece. If you turned the clock back, you could have talked to the person who left the caucus and maybe that would have been something that could have been negotiated. Who knows? And then, they could have said, “We’re not cancelling it, we’re just going to amend it.”

I’ll leave it at that, Speaker—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I just want to remind the member, you’ve been talking a lot about the importance of talking about time allocation, and you have wavered quite a bit. I have given you some leniency, but I have to rein you in and refer back to the initial motion pertaining to time allocation. Fair enough?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I think that’s a very reasonable thing to do. And do you know why? Because you’re doing your job. I wish you had done your job a little earlier too. But that’s okay.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I will ask the member to withdraw that statement.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. I will turn it back to the speaker for perhaps a

summary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I do have to clarify. I should have maybe worded it differently but that was the intent—

Hon. Greg Rickford: Just apologize.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Oh, and I do. I do. I guess sometimes in this House things can get a little tricky. Words are extremely important and what you say. That’s the lesson that you would take from that.

On the time allocation bill that we’re here to speak about, we know that the government wants to push this bill forward and quick. They filed that motion yesterday. It’s too bad that, again, decisions are being made in a very rushed way around this very important issue.

With that, I know that the member from Davenport, our critic for education, wants to talk about time allocation and what it means to a bill when it doesn’t have that fulsome debate.

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

Mr. Doug Downey: I’d like to thank the speakers from Timmins, London–Fanshawe and from Kitchener South–Hespeler. I want to, in particular, thank the member from London–Fanshawe for giving an entire recap of all the legislation that we’ve been dealing with and not talking about time allocation, while she chastised the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for talking about the important things in the bill that require time allocation.

We sometimes describe this place as three or five square miles surrounded by reality. What’s been happening out there, I would like the members to know, is that parents have been dropping their kids off at school, and as parents drop their kids off at school, they have an expectation of safety for their children. That happens every day. When I drop my daughter off, it honestly does not cross my mind that there may be an issue going on in the school with a teacher that I’m not aware of, whether it be with a camera pen or some other activity. That’s just not the kind of thing that a parent should be worried about.

So I find it very odd that the opposition says, “We have no intention of holding up the bill. We support the bill. We voted for it. But we want run it through a bureaucratic—we want to extend the period of time that”—

Interjection.

Mr. Doug Downey: As the member from London–Fanshawe mentioned, this was tabled in the fall. It doesn’t just have to be talked about here. There are lots of parents and lots of teachers who have weighed in on this, and now it’s in front of us as if it’s a shock. All of a sudden it’s, “Oh, my goodness, it showed up.”

Mr. Speaker, we need to move forward so that we can protect children and so that we can give children the comfort that the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler spoke about in terms of service dogs, that we can get some consistency.

This government does consult. This government consults all over the province, and work gets done while this House doesn’t sit. Committees sit. We’ve had finance committee, we’ve had the select committee—we’ve had all sorts of things. We had the members from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, Kiiwetinoong, and Kingston and the Islands—all from the opposition—and members from our party, and we travelled to Dryden and Timmins and Ottawa and Fonthill—actually, that group didn’t go to Fonthill, but we went to Fonthill. We were in Sarnia. We were all over the place, consulting with people. Now, that was pre-budget, but you hear things from people as you travel across the province.

I personally, in the pre-budget, between my roles as the parliamentary assistant for finance and on the committee, heard from over 400 delegations telling me what was important in their world in terms of the pre-budget. But you also had conversations while you were there about things happening in the schools and things that people were concerned about for their kids. We heard from abuse centres and we heard from social service delivery agents. We heard from all sorts of groups that were very concerned about what’s happening in their world. This bill, Bill 48, addresses a number of those pieces.

There is no benefit to holding up something that we all agree on. We all agree that kids need protection. We all agree that it’s actually a good bill. The opposition would like a chance, if it goes off to committee and they sit down and say that they’re going to set up lengthy witness lists, that they might want to travel—this could take on a life of its own. In the meantime, I’m dropping my child off at school and I want to know that teachers who cross the line are out—they’re not reprimanded, they’re not coddled, they’re not moved to another school.

We saw this with other institutions. We saw this kind of behaviour. It’s come to a head and it’s not right. We need to protect the children, and this bill does a lot of that.

Now, in terms of the College of Trades, we’re strengthening the College of Trades and making sure that they’re structured in a more effective way.

But beyond that, I want to talk about another really important piece in here, and it’s math. Math is really important. I can tell you that the day that this government signalled that we’re going back to more traditional math, my daughter came home with times tables and was told to memorize times tables. It was always interesting to me that the way math was being taught—the new math that got rolled out—it was estimate something and then work backwards and then try to work forwards again. It was very confusing for the children. I can tell you, it was confusing for the teachers. I talked to several teachers who were trying to teach the new math.

It’s important that we have traditional math. That’s what’s happening in the world. When I get on a plane, I expect the engineer to have learned how to do proper math, not guess at things. We want that in the system for our children to be able to compete in the new world. Math is really important. It’s not just important for our kids to know math, it’s important for the teachers to demonstrate that they’re competent in math.

Part of this bill will have an exit piece on the way out of teachers’ college to make sure that the teachers have had a chance to be exposed to the kinds of things they’re expected to be teaching to the children. I don’t think anybody can argue with that. Of course you have to know what you’re teaching if you’re going to teach it, I would think. This is simple stuff. This doesn’t need to be drawn out over a long period of time, to say that people who teach math should know how to do the math. So why not time-allocate that? It just makes sense to move this thing forward.

I know people get upset. In the opposition, they get upset that this government is moving fast. I know they get upset. I know things are moving fast, and there’s a lot of reading, and there’s a lot of stuff to absorb. Then they turn around and they say, “Look at

schedule 10 of Bill 66. This government is so out of touch that they plow ahead and don’t listen to anybody.” But then they say about Bill 66,

schedule 10: “That’s getting dropped out. Who made that happen? They heard from somebody.” We heard from somebody. You’ve got to listen.

We are not so steadfast that we won’t listen to people. We’re hearing from people. We’re hearing from teachers. We’re hearing from students. We’re hearing from parents. We’re hearing from school boards. We’re hearing from all sorts of people. We’re meeting with them non-stop. So we are getting this right. And if there is something constructive that you think should be changed, then table it. We’re not so closed that we won’t hear things. But for the things that we know we have right, like math, that stuff needs to move forward.

And I don’t want another day to go by that a child can’t bring their service dog into a school, when that makes all the difference in the world. It’s unconscionable that this is happening to these children. Their futures are at stake. There’s no point in holding it up. This could drag on and on and on.

I also want to touch on public interest committees, Mr. Speaker. These are committees that were set up, and they haven’t met since January 2017. They’re an interesting tool that the minister can use to strike a public interest committee with a mandate to advise on certain matters. It’s another ongoing tool. That’s the thing about this government: It’s an iterative process where we constantly get input from people and we incorporate that to make things better, because we all know life is not static. You don’t just do something and then it’s done and you’ve got it right.

You don’t just let service dogs into the school and you’re done and you got it right. You continue to loop back: How is that going? Are there other barriers happening in there? Are there things that need to change to improve? Is there training with service dogs we could be doing a little bit differently, or are there other kinds of support structures we can put in place? That kind of stuff will continue because we are listening. We’re listening now; we listened before; we listened when we tabled it in the fall; and we’ll continue to listen. We will get it right, and we will improve it as we go forward.

When the opposition comes after us and says, “You’re not listening. We need more time to time-allocate”—but then they talk about the health bill and the francophone commissioner and Bill 66 and putting workers back to work on the nuclear facilities. Obviously, we had this debate. We came back from the Christmas break—the first time this House met during the Christmas break since 1869. How about that? Since 1869. This government is working all the time. It’s working for the people and it’s making sure that the things that need to get done are getting done. That includes protecting our children, protecting our school system and making sure that things are working properly.

The Ontario College of Teachers is going to be improved. We’re going to protect children from sexual abuse. I can tell you, there is nothing more egregious, in my mind, than somebody in a power situation—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Hamilton West-Ancaster will come to order.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: And Dundas.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): And Dundas, as well.

Mr. Doug Downey: If I could make this retroactive, I would support that. This needs to happen now. If there’s nothing else in this bill that requires time allocation, if the opposition has nothing else they agree with, they have to agree that this has to stop as soon as possible. Time allocation is the tool that we need to make that happen, to institute this. Any teacher who crosses that line is not reprimanded; they are out. I do not want them in a classroom with a child. I do not want them in a situation where they’re supervising young children.

I can tell you that if you volunteer at any Big Brothers Big Sisters or Youth Haven or any other group, you have to go through a records check. I want a level of security so that when my children, my neighbours’ children and my constituents’ children are in a vulnerable position, they are protected, and this bill well help do that. It has to be done, and it has to be done quickly.

Now, I don’t think I heard anybody arguing about that. What I heard a lot about was people arguing about whether we were talking about time allocation or not. The member from Kitchener South–Hespeler did a fantastic job of talking about the impact on individual lives. Those young children who wrote, in their own words, about the importance of a service animal for them—it’s heart-wrenching. I can’t imagine a child getting dropped off at school, going to the front door and being told, “Your service dog cannot enter. You’re on your own.” You’re literally on your own.

Then, to be in a school that—if they won’t allow the service dog in, what do they understand about that child’s needs? The whole next step, when you’re on your own—I think that’s a signal that they’re going to a place that is not fully supportive. I look forward to the day—and it’s going to be sooner than later, if the motion passes—that these children don’t even have to think about that, because sometimes just the thought of whether your service dog can enter creates an anxiety, just a thought that you might be stopped.

As it relates between different school boards, we need some consistency on that. We need some support for the families. We need it to be consistent and fair. It needs to be transparent so people know, so we avoid that kind of anxiety, so that they can get the supports that they need as they need them.

Quite frankly, getting service animals into the schools is something the member has fought for for a long time, before even coming to this House. I’m just thrilled to stand beside her and support that. It is so important that we provide the supports for the children when we can. I’m confident that this will support the students, the families and the school boards across the province. I don’t think that we’ll get a lot of pushback on that. I’m actually a little mystified on the schools that won’t allow them to enter. I don’t understand the logic to that, but so be it. That’s soon going to be history, if everything goes as I hope, and we’ll move forward.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on, but I’m just doing a bit of a time check. I want to talk, just in the last couple of minutes, about the foundations of math and what that means. I distinctly remember, as a child, a contest in grade 3 to see who could memorize their times tables up to 12 first, and the teacher made it fun. You did the flash card thing and it became a real thing. We did it at recess. We did math at recess.

Now, I’m not an accountant—it didn’t work out that well for me—but some of my friends went on to be in very math-heavy programs. Some of them are in computers, and I’m convinced it stemmed from that foundational piece of having good math skills that they became engineers and students. Quite frankly, some of my best friends are doing sheet metal work, but man, they can measure and cut and do the math faster than I can with a calculator. And carpenters: If you’ve ever worked beside a skilled carpenter, a master carpenter, their math skills are phenomenal, and that came from schools when they were young.

So right across the trades and right across the professions, everybody needs good math skills. If we don’t do that, we’re doing a disservice to our children—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I apologize to the member from Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte. You will have an opportunity to continue debate.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is 10:15 and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network, as well as Lung Cancer Canada. I would like to specifically welcome Anne Marie Cerato, Jill Hamer-Wilson, Andrea Redway, MaryAnn Bradley, Larry Frydman, Raymond Laflamme, Roz Brodsky, David Soberman, Palmerino “Reno” Leone, as well as Julianna Leone. Welcome to Queen’s Park. They are here to talk about pharmacare and take-home cancer drugs and early intervention.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to welcome all 25 reps from the Canadian Propane Association to Queen’s Park. I look forward to meeting with this association later today. In addition, I encourage all members to attend their lunch reception in room 228. It’s right after question period, from 11:45 until 2:00.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, Brent Dyke, Glenn Buck, George Olah, Daryl Patjas, Doug Fines, Jason Cooper, Dan Kelly, James Callow, Jacco Bos, Allan Murphy, Marcelline Riddell, Nathalie St-Pierre, Jack Patriarche, Sue Hardy, Sam Mazzotta, Ryan Down, Greg McCamus, Dominic Palladino, Brad Hartman, Hugh Sutherland, Terry Elligsen, Brent Taylor, Donaven Welk, Jeff Reddon and Michel Gaulin.

Mr. Ian Arthur: It’s my absolute pleasure to welcome Kelly McGarry here from Kingston. She caught a very early train this morning. She’s here to represent her family, Scott St. John and her son Braedon St. John, in the Legislature.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: It’s with great pleasure that I want to welcome Hudson Manning. He’s the new OLIP intern who’s working with my office, and I’m really happy that he’s here.

M me Gila Martow: Je veux donner un très chaleureux accueil à deux hommes : Jean Lemay et Benoit Mercier de l’Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques.

Also, Ben Gelman: He’s one of the fantastic volunteers from the riding of Thornhill. It’s great to see you again, Ben.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have four special guests from my riding to welcome today because of page Pieter Waters. Here today is his mother, Anneke Smit, who is working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Europe on a feasibility study for educational scholarships for refugees; his father, Chris Waters, the dean of the law school at the University of Windsor; and Pieter’s sisters Sofie and Alies Waters. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’d like to specifically welcome to the House today, from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, with the Canadian Propane Association, Donaven Welk. Donaven’s son, Parker, is great friends with our grandson Wallace. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Donaven.

Mr. Jamie West: I’d like to welcome members of OPSEU and Unifor to Queen’s Park today. They’re here to speak with MPPs about the investments and legislative changes we need in order to build strong public services and create good jobs.

I want to thank the members for taking the time to visit and meet with us today.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’d like to welcome our friends from the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network who are here to fight to survive and raise awareness about that campaign. They include Jodi Steele, Jaclyn Jones, Palmerino Leone, Julianna Leone, MaryAnn Bradley, Sarah Cruickshank, Andrea Redway, Jaymee Maaghop, Anthony Wight, Kathryn Hamilton and Jill Hamer-Wilson. Thank you for being here today.

Ms. Jill Andrew: It’s my honour to welcome David Procenko, a resident of Toronto–St. Paul’s. Thank you so much for being here today fighting on behalf of Kaley, your daughter with autism.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to welcome about 50 of my constituents here today to support the introduction of my private member’s bill. I won’t mention all of them, but I will mention a welcome to Arlene Slocombe, the executive director of Wellington Water Watchers, as well as Linda Sword from the Concerned Residents Coalition, and Rand Peter, a young five-year-old advocate with the CRC.

I also want to mention that my wife, Sandy, and my daughters, Isabelle and Beata, are making their way into the gallery as well. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce page Collin Johnson today, and for support we have his mother, Kelly Johnson, in the lobby. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Marit Stiles: Il me fait plaisir de présenter Jean Lemay, président, et Benoit Mercier, directeur général, de l’Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I want to introduce two friends of the MPP for Northumberland–Peterborough South who is currently attending a government announcement today. He wanted me to welcome and introduce two individuals who are very dear to him. The first is Bonnie Harrison, his office manager, a local volunteer and the proud mother of my friend Kaitlyn. The second is Mr. Frank Moses, who spent 30 years in the service as an infantry member of the Canadian forces serving from Cyprus to Somalia in six tours of duty with the Canadian Special Ops Force. On behalf of a grateful nation, we say thank you.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome some families who joined me for a press conference this morning and who are in the members’ gallery: Nancy Silva-Khan, Tatiana Shifrin, Stephanie Ridley and Sarah Klodnicki, who is also from autism advocacy Ontario and the Ontario Autism Coalition.

I’d like to welcome Bruce McIntosh, who is a former PC staffer and is now a professional protestor.

I’d also like to welcome the families, advocates and parents from the autism community who have joined us here today to ensure that the government hears their voices in the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to remind the House that the introduction of guests is supposed to be straightforward and brief. There should be no political statement made during the course of the introductions.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I’ve just learned that there’s a number of parents who are here in order to participate by looking at question period from the public galleries, but they’ve been blocked and are now being sent back downstairs. I know that we have some room. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow those parents to be able to get into the galleries.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It’s not a valid point of order.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured to welcome from your riding of Wellington–Halton Hills a former constituent of mine, Peter Rowe, and Lloyd MacIntyre. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m excited to announce guests here today from London from the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network: Julianna Leone and her father, Palmerino Leone. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the great privilege of welcoming to the Legislature, as a page from my riding of Niagara West, Joséphine Noue, who is with us today and will be here for the next few weeks. Congratulations, and welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to introduce and welcome some friends from my neck of the woods: Julie Kotsis, Tullio Diponti, Doug Boughner, Drew Finucane and Janel Perron.

Aussi, j’aimerais accueillir M. Adam Jasniewicz, qui est un étudiant à l’école secondaire Lajeunesse et qui est ici aujourd’hui avec le Parlement jeunesse francophone. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Mr. Speaker, I’m extremely excited to announce that yesterday my son and daughter-in-law gave birth to a baby girl, my first grandchild, Tara.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It’s my pleasure to introduce Kelley McKeating and Catherine Nasmith from the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, as well as Laurie Nancekivell and Geoffrey Cain from OPSEU, and Melissa Holden and Mike Van Boekel from Unifor. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I, too, would like to welcome the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, who are here today and are celebrating their heritage day at the Legislature. Welcome. It’s great to have you all here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I want to welcome all the brothers and sisters from Unifor and OPSEU, but in particular, Tim McKinnon, who’s the chairperson of my local, Local 199; David De Marco from Unifor Local 199; Jonathan Scott from OPSEU, and Amanda Picott. I’m looking forward to meeting you this afternoon. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: It’s my pleasure to introduce Linda Bui, my OLIP intern. Welcome, Linda.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’d like to welcome Rebecca Haight, Venette Gerden and Gwen Flynn Seymour here from the great city of Thorold.

Rebecca and Venette are both parents of children with autism, and Gwen is Rebecca’s mother. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I would like to welcome one of my amazing constituency staff, Kristine Miller, to the House for the first time. Thanks for coming.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d just like to welcome everyone one else who hasn’t been mentioned.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’re getting to that point.

Introduction of guests.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to welcome some brothers and sisters from Windsor. We have Rod McGill from Unifor Local 444; James Stewart from Unifor Local 444; John D’Agnolo from Unifor Windsor; Ian Whitcombe from OPSEU, and David Coates from OPSEU. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue à Logan Ockenden, qui est un élève de l’École secondaire catholique l’Horizon et qui est ici pour le Parlement jeunesse francophone. Bienvenue.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’d like to introduce two special guests today: Jen Fitzgerald and Jennifer Del Vecchio, who are residents of the riding of University–Rosedale. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I, too, wish to welcome to Queen’s Park today students from Centre Wellington District High School in Fergus. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would now ask that the pages assemble for their introductions.

It is my honour now as Speaker to introduce and welcome the pages serving in this first session of the 42nd Parliament: from Don Valley East, Adam Karim; from Mississauga–Malton, Ahmad Elbayoumi; from Perth–Wellington, Alyssa Eaton; from Toronto–St.

Paul’s, Anika Sood; from Niagara Centre, Cameron Harris; from Kingston and the Islands, Collin Johnson; from Dufferin–Caledon, Daniel Chirichella; from Markham–Thornhill, Hidayah Muhammad; from Scarborough North, Jacky Sea Chung Chan; from Niagara West, Joséphine Noue; from Waterloo, Julian Wang; from Brampton West, Keya Thakkar; from Scarborough Southwest, Martin Makaveev; from Oakville, Michelle Marie Crawford; from Windsor–Tecumseh, Pieter Waters; from Toronto–Danforth, Pyper Rajaratnam; from Nepean, Raahem Syed; from Whitby, Shumyle Shahid; from the great riding of Wellington–Halton Hills, Siya Aggarwal; from Parry Sound–Muskoka, Sophie Miller; from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Thomas Keys-Brasier; from the riding of Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, Vanessa Curran.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Applause.

Oral Questions

Autism

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. During last spring’s campaign, I stood next to the Premier in the leaders’ debate when he promised the parent of a child with autism, “We will be there to support you 1,000%.... I promise you, you won’t have to be protesting on the front of Queen’s Park like you” have with the Liberal Premier.

I want the Conservative Premier to look at families in the gallery today who have come from across Ontario to protest his policies. Does he feel he has supported them 1,000%?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Please take your seats. Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I remember that. I remember saying it and I truly believe this. This is the toughest file I’ve ever dealt with—ever. It has emotions involved, families involved, children involved, and it’s heartbreaking. I know. I’m sure many people in this Legislature have taken calls. I’ve taken hundreds of calls—hundreds of calls—and listened to their stories.

We—our government—feel we’re doing the right things. When we went into office, Mr. Speaker, the system was bankrupt. The system was bankrupt. They had funded it to $256 million. We had to run to the treasury for emergency funds of $100 million. The system was broken—a broken system that the opposition voted for. They actually voted for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Doug Ford: Can I continue?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you, Premier. We normally allow a minute for questions and a minute for responses. At 50 seconds I normally stand to remind members that their time is almost up.

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is, it is this Premier who is breaking people’s hearts across our province, Speaker. It is his policies that are breaking people’s hearts. The fact is, parents don’t feel supported; they feel betrayed. For thousands of parents across Ontario, therapy offers them a chance to truly connect with and communicate with their own children, sometimes for the very first time. They will do anything to access supports, but the Premier’s scheme asks them to do the impossible.

Under these changes, parents estimate their families will be covering 80% to 95% of treatment costs out of pocket. That’s $80,000 to $90,000 a year on a family budget.

Does the Premier believe that paying for 5% of the costs qualifies as 1,000% support?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the passion and the compassion of the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition. This is a very emotional issue for many of us. Some of us in this Legislature have devoted our career to fighting for these families, including myself, the Minister of Health, and my parliamentary assistant, Amy Fee.

We have travelled across the province. We have heard from people. But as the Premier has just stated, the system we inherited six and a half months ago was broken. It was bankrupt. We had to go back to Treasury Board for an additional $100 million so that we could continue to serve just 25% of the population with autism in the province of Ontario. That was heartbreaking. It was gut-wrenching. We had to make a decision so that we could make sure it was fair, equitable and sustainable. That’s why we are moving to a model that directly funds parents and doubles the investment in our diagnostic hubs. That’s the right thing to do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have to say, for a politician who has been fighting most of her career on behalf of these families, once she’s in a position of power, she is supposed to fix it, not make it worse.

For parents who are already struggling to make ends meet, the Premier’s plan is downright cruel. Under the Ford government changes, families will be cut off from full support if they earn as little as $55,000 a year of income. In other words, two parents both earning minimum wage are too rich to qualify for full support. How did the Premier decide that two parents earning the minimum wage are too wealthy to deserve the already inadequate support that his scheme provides?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I get that the Leader of the Opposition is angry. I would ask her to consider the truth, and the circumstances that we inherited with a $256-million program that was excluding three out of four children in this province. That means some children were getting some service, but most of the children were getting no service.

Speaker, she couldn’t look at herself in the mirror if she had to inherit a program like that, just like we in this government couldn’t after we had to inject $100 million into this system so we could ensure that places like Erinoak and CHEO could make it through the holidays to support the 25% of the children who were fortunate enough to be in this program. That is why I am committed to clearing the wait-list so that 23,000 children who were denied service in the province of Ontario will get the service they deserve.

Autism

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. Children and their families came here today from across Ontario because they were promised help by this Premier, and instead they are being sold something much, much worse. Can the Premier explain to them how a family earning $55,000 a year is wealthy enough under his scheme to cover more than $80,000 a year in treatment costs?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks again to the member opposite for her question, and thanks to the parents in the gallery who are here today so that we can explain our program.

I think that there is some misinformation, as I’ve heard over the last couple of days from the opposition. Right now they’re suggesting that people will not be eligible for support if they’re making $55,000. Let me be perfectly clear: Those between the ages of zero to five will be able to be part of a childhood budget right up until they’re 18, but the maximum amount of support will be in the early years because we know evidence-based early intervention is key to success. That’s why we want to clear the wait-list.

Having said that, we are making sure that the most vulnerable people in this program, that is low- and medium-income earners, should have the most support. But to the member opposite’s point, in terms of the $55,000, they will be basically getting 98.5% of that budget of $140,000 from age zero to 18 years old.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I was very clear in my question. I talked about full support, and she actually just agreed that they will not be getting full support because of their income.

These are real people who are here today. They want what any parent wants: a fair chance for their kids. I want the Premier to tell parents—the parents of Sebastian from Waterloo, for example, or Braedon, whose parents came here all the way from Kingston, or any of the parents here today—that he still stands by changes that will leave them having to spend thousands and thousands of dollars that they don’t have just so they can do basic things, like communicate with their own children.

If he doesn’t stand by this scheme, what will he do to fix it?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I guess it comes down to how you view this plan. The member opposite thinks it’s okay to only support 25% of the children in the program. This government believes that we should clear the waiting list of 23,000 children, who would be on the wait-list for an indefinite amount of time.

This is a data-driven project that we have invested additional money in, in order to support more families with better supports and more choice. We will directly fund parents so that they can make the decisions that are in the best interests of their children.

I’m proud to defend this plan and I am proud that this government will finally, for the first time in Ontario’s history, support 100% of the children in this province who have autism.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What I don’t think is okay is for this government to kick families and children with autism to the curb and tell them they’re going to have to make it on their own, when we all know how expensive the therapies are for children with autism.

The families here are not demanding the impossible. They’re asking the Premier to simply keep his word. Instead of providing promised support, the Ford government is yanking it away. Instead of being a voice for these families in government, the minister responsible threatens families when they don’t say nice things about her plan and herself.

Enough is enough, Speaker. Will the Premier do the right thing today, tell his minister that she has to resign, then tear up this failed scheme and replace it with a new plan, backed with actual investment that provides parents with the support for their children that they were promised during the campaign?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’m proud of this plan, because for the first time in Ontario history, we will clear the wait-list by doubling the investment in diagnostic hubs and by directly funding parents so that they can make the best choices for their children, whether that is behavioural therapy, whether that’s respite care, whether that’s technological aids or whether that is caregiver training. We are committed to doing this.

For the member opposite to suggest that this plan will change is nothing short of providing false hope to those who think it will change. I can tell you, Speaker, that the Premier and this government have full confidence in this plan. I will make sure this plan is implemented and I will be the minister responsible for the autism program who implements this program.

Autism

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

I just want to start by saying you have it all wrong. There’s nothing evidence-based about your plan—nothing. Nancy—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to interrupt the House again to remind all members to make their comments through the Chair.

The member for Hamilton Mountain should put her question.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thanks, Speaker.

Nancy has twin seven-year-old boys with severe autism. Right now, they are in 30 hours a week of intensive therapy. They are learning how to feed themselves and have just started to communicate with their mom. Their therapy costs $60,000 a year each. Under the new OAP, which is the government’s proud new program, they will receive less than $5,000 a year each.

Nancy is afraid her children will never learn to live independently, that they will never have the quality of life that they deserve. The new program is devastating for Nancy and her family.

Will the minister help parents like Nancy stop the changes to the OAP and, instead, commit to investing in needs- and evidence-based services?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks to the member opposite for bringing Nancy’s story to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I think the member opposite has to understand the complexity of this situation, the fact that we have decided to invest in early intervention, where we know that that is evidence-based, where we are going to allow for a flexible family budget for families like Nancy’s to get the services that they need.

But where I think the member opposite forgets part of the equation is that three out of four children in the province of Ontario have been denied support by their Ontario government because of the way the program was set up. Twenty-three thousand children were languishing on a wait-list for an indefinite amount of time, meaning that we could have a five-year-old child on the wait-list who would age out of the program by the time they were 18 without getting a call for service. That is wrong. It’s unconscionable and it’s immoral. That’s why we have moved to a direct-funding model and we’re doubling the investment in diagnostic hubs.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: Back to the minister: Speaker, this minister doesn’t seem to understand that these are children that we’re talking about. They are not numbers on a list. Giving each child a minimal amount is wasting the money. You are actually wasting more money than the Liberal government’s failed plan. Your plan is worse.

Tatiana is a mom of three kids. Two of them are on the spectrum. One of her boys is receiving therapy now and the other one is on the wait-list. Her one son is getting $60,000 a year in services. The new program would give her less than $5,000 a year. Tatiana can’t afford to pay for this on her own, and her boys will regress. She’s afraid that they will never be ready to go to school. For her other son on the wait-list, she is willing to wait because she knows that proper services are worth it in the end for her children.

Will the minister listen to the families who have come here today, admit that her plan needs more work and go back to the drawing board—

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

Minister.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks for bringing Tatiana’s story to this assembly. Those were the exact types of stories that were so heartbreaking and gut-wrenching when we inherited this program and found out that Tatiana’s son would be on that wait-list an indefinite amount of time, meaning that he would likely never get off it because of the way this system was broken. That’s why we went to the Treasury Board—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: —to invest an extra $100 million to keep the program—for only 25% of the children—afloat. Twenty-three thousand children may not be a lot to the members opposite, but my job is to protect every single child that has autism in this province and that’s what I’m doing. We’re making sure that Tatiana is going to get direct-funding support so she can make the best decisions for her child who’s already receiving support as well, sadly, as the child that was not going to get off the wait-list. But I can commit today that within the next 18 months he will be off this wait-list.

Police services

Mrs. Nina Tangri: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s government for the people was elected with a mandate to improve public safety across this province and to provide the brave and dedicated men and women of our police services with the tools and resources they need to perform their duties safely and effectively.

Before the last election, the Liberal government passed the most anti-police legislation in Canadian history, a deeply flawed piece of legislation that ignored the everyday realities of the difficult jobs our dedicated and brave police officers are asked to do. To restore respect to these heroes in Ontario communities, our government paused the implementation of Bill 175.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please update the members of this Legislature on how the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will make Ontario safer, and treat police with fairness and respect?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for her important question, and congratulations on becoming a grandma.

Ontario’s government for the people was elected with a mandate to fix the Liberals’ broken policing legislation and to fulfill our fundamental responsibility of keeping Ontario communities safe. I’m proud to say that yesterday, Ontario’s government for the people introduced the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act. This legislation is central to our commitment to making Ontario safer, standing up for victims and holding criminals accountable for their actions. Police deserve our gratitude and respect, not our suspicion and scorn. That’s why our government is providing police with the tools, resources and support they need to do their jobs, often quietly and heroically.

The previous Liberal government’s legislation did not even pay lip service to the principle of fairness or due process for police officers. Not only was this unfair, it was disrespectful to the police officers. We are fixing that with this new legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I thank the minister for her response. I am proud to stand here today knowing that our government is delivering on its promise to restore fairness and respect for our brave and dedicated police officers right here in Peel region, where I was inspired by their dedication by joining them on a ride-along just a few weeks ago. The men and women of our police services now know that our government is listening to them and will continue to work to ensure public safety across this great province.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain to the House how this proposed legislation will keep everyone in Ontario safe by improving training and making governance work better?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you again to the member. There is no greater responsibility for a government than public safety. This government has been focused on this top priority since day one. To act on our mandate from the people of Ontario and keep the promise we made to improve safety across this great province, we have proposed legislation to improve governance, training and transparency. As an early response to Justice Tulloch’s report on street checks, we will mandate human rights, systemic racism, diversity and Indigenous culture and rights training for new police officers and special constables.

We will make successful completion of training mandatory for members of police services boards. Our proposed legislation will also maintain First Nation policing provisions to provide First Nations with the ability to opt in to Ontario’s policing legislation.

Community safety goes beyond policing itself and so does our proposed legislation. We are also proposing amendments to the Mandatory Blood Testing Act, and I look forward to debating this legislation in the days to come.

Autism

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Last Saturday, our office hosted an emergency round table about the government’s changes to autism services. At the round table, I met Laura, who I’m pleased to say is joining us here at Queen’s Park today. Laura’s son Noah is seven years old, living with autism. After years on the wait-list, Noah finally started receiving ABA therapy and he’s making huge strides, including sleeping in his own bed and being able to sit at the table with a non-preferred food item.

Why is the minister ending coverage of therapy for this beautiful seven-year-old? Why is that not helping enough?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I did miss him on Saturday when we were supposed to be playing hockey in his riding. We did win that game.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Really? Really?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: He’s supposed to be on my team. Let’s bring a moment of levity here, because this is an emotional issue.

While we understand that 25% of the children were receiving support, we understand also that 75% of the children weren’t. I have an obligation as the minister responsible for this program to ensure that we allow every child in Ontario the opportunity to get some level of support.

It’s unfair, it’s unequal and it’s unsustainable to continue with the previous Liberal government’s plan. We’re going to continue to support and open this process by allowing for the doubling of diagnostic hubs, as we have at Holland Bloorview and at Erinoak and at CHEO. We’re going to make sure that once those children are cleared off that diagnosis hub, we are going to ensure—

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

Mr. Joel Harden: Unfair? Back to the minister: Let’s talk about unfair. I think it’s unfair to be giving out a tax cut in this province to the richest Ontarians that will cost $275 million while families with autism aren’t getting the support they deserve. That’s unfair.

You want to talk about unfair? I think it’s unfair that this government is cutting corporate income taxes by a billion dollars when families with autism can’t get the support they deserve. That’s unfair.

It’s time for Laura and it’s time for all the families who are here to have a government that will be on their side, and that requires rethinking this plan. That is not giving people false hope, Speaker. That is asking our friends in government to collegially rethink this program so we don’t ruin our public school system, so we support the families that need our support. Will the minister commit to changing her mind, to listening to parents and to working with us?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the member opposite’s passion for this. It’s an important issue for the 25% of parents who were receiving support from this program. But I have to look at all children on this program. That’s why we have to extend support to the other 23,000. That’s why we have increased our budget for this program from $256 million to $321 million. That is why we went in for an emergency $100 million from Treasury Board to ensure that we could keep this program alive. But, Speaker, I have to say, we must ensure that we have appropriate levels of support for all children, not just one in four.

That’s wrong. It’s unconscionable. It is unsustainable the way the previous government had run it.

I’m going to stand here and I will let the member opposite know: This plan is the plan that will be implemented. To suggest otherwise to parents is to provide false hope to vulnerable families, and I won’t have it.

Automotive industry

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Every day, 100,000 men and women across this province go to work in the auto sector, including thousands from my riding of Brampton South. Recently the minister and the Premier were at the auto show, where they unveiled our government’s auto plan entitled Driving Prosperity, a plan to keep these jobs in Ontario.

Ontario was North America’s top auto-producing region in 2017, building almost 2.2 million vehicles, with thousands of those vehicles right in Brampton. I know that our government for the people is committed to ensuring the future of a thriving auto sector in Ontario. Can the minister inform the House about the steps our government is taking as part of Driving Prosperity to ensure the future of our auto sector?

Hon. Todd Smith: I thank the member for the great question this morning. Last week, I did have the pleasure of introducing our auto plan for Ontario, Driving Prosperity, which ensures that we continue to build over two million vehicles in Ontario and maybe even more, so that we can employ hundreds of thousands of people in the supply chain.

One of the key pillars of our Driving Prosperity plan is innovation. I just want to elaborate on how the lines have blurred a bit in the auto industry between an auto manufacturer and a tech company. We have more than 200 businesses that are currently operating in the tech sector in the automobile industry. Companies like Google and Ford and GM and BlackBerry QNX and Apple are all working in this space to ensure that we’re enhancing the autonomous vehicle, the vehicle of the future. That’s why we’ve committed to invest in the AVIN program. That’s why we’re creating a new wintertech development stream.

We certainly have advantages in Canada, in Ontario, to develop that next phase of the autonomous vehicle, Mr. Speaker. That’s why we’re driving prosperity with our auto plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Back to the minister: Speaker, I know the minister is committed to a strong future for the auto sector in Ontario, and the families in Brampton and across this province are counting on his leadership. I know that many of the principles that the minister has laid out as part of our government’s open-for-business strategy are also part of our Driving Prosperity plan for the auto sector.

Right now the government has Bill 66 before the House to try to reduce the burden of red tape on Ontario businesses. Can the minister tell the House how our approach to red tape and regulatory reform is going to work to help our plan for Ontario’s auto sector?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the great member for the great question. We have made a commitment to reduce red tape not just in the auto sector but in manufacturing, agriculture, agri-food and the mining, northern development and forestry sectors by 25% by 2020. That’s so that we can drive prosperity, not just in the auto sector but in every sector of the province’s economy. That’s why we brought forward the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act.

Prior to that, we brought in the Making Ontario Open for Business Act, which undid a lot of the job-killing legislation that was brought in by the previous Liberal government under Bill 148, a bill that actually set off alarm bells at great companies like Magna, who are working in the auto sector and warned that a bill like that would decimate our sector. That’s why we immediately got to work and unwound Bill 148 so that we could continue to create good jobs.

The sector agrees, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that the Driving Prosperity plan we announced last week has been celebrated by the auto sector. Finally, they have a government that’s listening—not boycotting and paying money in advertising.

Autism

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

David Procenko, here today, is the father of seven-year-old Kaley, who was diagnosed with autism just before her third birthday. Kaley requires 20 hours of intensive ABA/IBI therapy a week to maintain the progress she has made. This costs $66,000 a year. When the Liberal government announced their plan to cut funding for children with autism after five years of age, Kaley was cut off, just three months into treatment. She regressed. Now, under this government, Kaley has been let down again.

Her father told me the Conservative government’s changes are disastrous, and he cannot possibly afford the treatment that Kaley needs. David said he might have to quit his job, divorce his wife and possibly leave this great province of Ontario in order to save Kaley’s life.

What does the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services have to say to dedicated parents like David—you might want to look at him—whose lives will be ruined by the government’s changes to the Ontario Autism Program?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, before I ask the minister to respond, I would remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

Response to the question: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks to the member opposite for bringing her constituent’s concerns to the floor of this Assembly. David and Kaley, it’s good of you to be here today.

That said, we are 100% committed to ensuring that we provide more flexible support to David and Kaley. We also have to balance that with the fact that we have 23,000 children on a waiting list that is indefinite. We need to ensure that there is support for all children, which is why we have doubled our investment into diagnostic hubs so we can get quicker diagnoses for children, so we can ensure that those between the ages of zero and five are getting more support when we know, through evidence, that it helps children. That is early intervention and that is key.

We are committed to ensuring that we clear that 23,000-child wait-list so that we can actually directly invest in and empower parents so that they can make the choices for their own family, whether that’s a technological aid, behavioural therapy, respite care or caregiver training.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary? The member for University–Rosedale.

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Since the government’s cuts to autism funding, I have received hundreds of emails and calls from distraught parents, parents like Jen Fitzgerald, whose son waited nearly two years to access a program to help him better communicate and express his emotions. Her son started the program just last month, but now, because of this government’s cuts, Jen has no idea what support her son will receive. She told me she is “staring into an abyss” when it comes to her son’s care and his future.

Jen wants to be able to support him as best she can so that her son can be an independent and contributing member of society, but she needs help. Minister, why are you hurting, instead of helping, Jen’s family and families like hers?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I will ask the members to make their comments and direct their comments through the Chair.

Minister, to reply.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the member opposite talking about Jen and letting us know a little bit more about her story. For the past 13 years, I have travelled across this province and met with families whose children have autism. In fact, I worked with my former NDP opponent Laurel Gibbons to create the South Nepean Autism Centre, which we funded through our community. We fundraised so that we could provide support and respite support for those families. It’s a matter that I have taken to heart with the Minister of Health. In fact, in the 2007 election, she and I had crafted the policy that our then-leader Mayor Tory had presented.

This is very near and dear to my heart, and it’s important for me to continue to speak to the families, but I do have an obligation to all children in the program. I would like the member opposite to understand that there is no cut here. It was a $256-million budget, and I’ve expanded that to $321 million. But I’m also going to clear the wait-list of the 23,000 children who received no support under the previous government.

Autism

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the minister of children and youth services. Minister, yesterday we learned that families earning minimum wage will receive a clawback under your government’s autism program. Can you tell this House why you are choosing to keep families in poverty so that they can look after their children with dignity?

Families are pouring into our constituency offices. They are telling us about the hardship that this program is creating. They are depressed. They are without hope. This program is a disgrace. I see the tears of the people who are in this chamber. We hear them. We see you. Will this minister tell families why you expect that families earning minimum wage are able to provide the services that they need for their children? How are they going to do that?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I think the member opposite is misinformed. Those making minimum wage will be supported in this government in a variety of different ways, including our LIFT Credit. They will also be receiving close to 99% of the entitlement throughout this program, which is up to $140,000 per child throughout their lifetime.

What’s a disgrace is that for 15 years, that member and her party had an opportunity to invest in autism services. Instead they took—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: They cut funding, and they left me a system that wasn’t even broken; it was bankrupt. So I ask the member opposite if she can stand in her place and look at herself in the mirror for denying 23,000 children in this province support.

Interjections.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: You made their plan worse. Well done.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, again to the minister: She told families impacted by autism on the campaign trail that she would look out for them. Instead, she is stabbing them in the back. A fundamental principle of a child diagnosed with autism is that their needs are unique. They are different. They are not the same. Why is your program ignoring this difference? It is a fundamental principle of autism. Why is this government refusing to provide kids with autism with the support that they need? A little bit of care is simply not enough. Why is this government choosing to balance its books on the backs of kids with autism and their families?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Wow. You’ve got nerve.

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

Minister, response.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It takes a lot of nerve for a member of this assembly affiliated with the Liberal Party of Ontario to stand up and speak about defending parents and children with autism. I refuse to ignore the three out of four children in this province who have autism, as her government did. I refuse to cut funding in this program, as her government did. I refuse to allow a program where children wait on a wait-list indefinitely. That’s not going to happen on my watch. We’re going to implement a fair, balanced, equitable and sustainable program that lifts 23,000 children they left on a wait-list off of it and into service. That’s what we’re going to do as a government.

Special investigations unit

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question today is for the Attorney General.

Our government knows that our law enforcement professionals right across Ontario are hard-working women and men who put their safety at risk every day they go out on the job. These women and men are everyday heroes who work tirelessly to keep us safe in Hamilton—my community—in Kenora and right across Ontario.

We’ve heard time and again that the current special investigations unit process wastes time, energy and precious resources investigating the wrong things. Under the current system, an officer who provided CPR could face a nearly year-long investigation if the injured person did not survive their injuries. They deserve better.

Speaker, could the minister tell us about how this new legislation proposes to fix this problem?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to thank the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for her question.

Our legislation will, if passed, provide transparency and clarity to police officers, police chiefs and to the people of Ontario. Under the proposed changes, the SIU would be required to conclude an investigation in 120 days or provide and explanation of why that benchmark cannot be met.

Notification would continue to be required in set circumstances we would all reasonably expect, such as when use of force, custody or detention and motor vehicle pursuits result in serious injury or death, as well as in reported cases of sexual assault and when there is discharge of a firearm at a person.

However, for example, in the CPR case the member outlined or when an officer is unsuccessful in stopping a suicide attempt, those officers do not deserve to be subjected to months-long criminal investigations. If passed, this legislation would clarify the mandate of the SIU and focus its resources where they should be: on possible criminal activity.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Donna Skelly: Thank you, Minister. This is evidence that our government for the people listens to the concerns of front-line officers. This new legislation is balanced. It’s respectful. It is fair.

Mr. Speaker, I know that front-line officers in my community and right across Ontario will be happy with these changes to SIU investigations if it is passed. I think we can all agree that whether an officer is unsuccessful at saving a victim’s life through CPR or at stopping a suicide attempt, that officer should be recognized for his or her efforts and not treated like a suspect in a criminal investigation.

Can the minister tell this House more about these proposed changes?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I would like to be clear: Our government knows that the women and men in uniform are everyday heroes. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to highlight one such hero in our midst, who sits in our caucus: the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington. He was a proud member of the OPP before continuing to serve our community in the House.

Sadly, when the previous Liberal government looked at police officers, all they saw were potential offenders. Their policing legislation, Bill 175, was, plain and simple, anti-police. Bill 175 made Ontario less safe by weakening the trust between the public and the police and by ignoring the everyday reality of the job that the police do keep us safe.

My ministry and our government know that effective police oversight and respect for police go hand in hand and that police officers are the hard-working men and women who deserve our respect and support. We listened to the concerns of our front-line officers. That’s why we’re proposing to restore transparency and fairness to a system that had previously left the police and the people in the dark.

Autism

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, Tyler Stone is a father of three in Timmins. Two of his young children live with severe autism. Tyler has had to leave his career at the hospital to take care of these two kids, leaving his family to rely on one income. Although the Stone family was one of the 23,000 families on the wait-list for IBI therapy, they were hopeful because at least they knew that the care their children need would be coming.

Minister, and to the Premier directly, on one income, how is Tyler supposed to come up with the $60,000 to $80,000 a year per child that is needed to pay for IBI therapy?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Members of the opposition will know that it’s within the standing orders to allow ministers to refer questions to each other. The question has been referred to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I thank the member opposite for his question and for bringing Tyler Stone’s story to this assembly. The member opposite has a distinguished career in this House. I’ve known him for the past 13 years, and so I’m going to level with him. Tyler Stone’s children, if they are on the wait-list, were going to be on the wait-list, under the old program, indefinitely. That means those children would have received no support from their Ontario government. I could not, in good conscience, allow that to continue.

If the members opposite want to provide false hope to parents, they can do that. But I’m here to say today that Tyler’s children will be eligible for up to $140,000 throughout their lifetime, and there will be a flexible ability for them to manage their childhood budget so that they can invest in behavioural therapy, technological aids and other services of the parents’ own choosing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary? The member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Cedric, a young boy from Kapuskasing, requires 20 hours of therapy every week, but under this government’s plan, Cedric will only be offered a mere two hours a week. That is one tenth of what he has been prescribed by his specialist. His family will be forced to pay out of pocket for costs not covered by this government, as well as for the cost to travel for two hours every day to and from Timmins to receive treatment.

Families and children deserve so much better than to be pushed onto long waiting lists or into bankruptcy. We have a moral responsibility towards those in need.

Premier, do you think that Cedric should be without the education, the support and the care he deserves? Yes or no?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the member opposite’s question. I also appreciated his sending me over Cedric’s picture, a beautiful little boy from his community. I want to assure the member opposite that as we move forward with this plan we will be sendin