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

May 3, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-May-03 (PDF)

L076 - Wed 3 May 2017 / Mer 3 mai 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 May 2017 Mercredi 3 mai 2017

Time allocation

2017 Ontario budget

Introduction of Visitors

Ken Black

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Hospital funding

Pharmacare

Hospital funding

Consumer protection

Public libraries

Road safety

Road safety

Housing policy

Family Service Ontario / Services à la famille Ontario

Medical assistance in dying

Children’s mental health services

Education funding

Executive compensation

Visitors

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Canadian Hearing Society

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Groves Memorial Community Hospital

Day of Mourning

Glengarry Agricultural Wall of Fame

Children’s mental health services

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act (Freedom of Conscience in Health Care), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées (liberté de conscience en matière de soins de santé)

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Access to justice

Energy policies

Primary health care

Primary health care

Grandview Children’s Centre

Hydro rates

Access to justice

Employment standards

Elevator maintenance

Dental care

Privatization of public assets

Dental care

Orders of the Day

Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et en meilleure santé (mesures budgétaires)

Adjournment Debate

Lyme disease

Road safety

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 2, 2017, on the motion for allocation of time of the following bill:

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la location à usage d’habitation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Hon. Chris Ballard: It’s great to be here this morning to speak to Bill 124, the Rental Fairness Act, 2017.

Speaker, we’ve all heard stories of rent gouging going on in today’s rental market. It’s wrong and it’s not fair. The proposed legislation would, if passed, provide immediate protection for close to a quarter of a million people to protect them from unreasonable rent hikes.

If passed, the legislation would require any rent increase served on newer units since April 20, 2017, to be rolled back to the rent increase guideline amount. Although the proposed legislation is retroactive, tenants are still facing unacceptable rent hikes. That means the longer the opposition stalls, the longer tenants will have to go without protections from unreasonable rent hikes. The third party knows that.

The NDP member from Toronto–Danforth has repeatedly called for the 1991 exemption to the closed. He has said that there’s a crisis, there’s urgency. Recently he said, “They should be acting now.”

In fact—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order: The member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, do we have a quorum this morning?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Clerk?

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Trevor Day): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Trevor Day): A quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The minister may continue.

Hon. Chris Ballard: As I was saying, just yesterday the NDP member from Kitchener–Waterloo said, “New Democrats will not be supporting this time allocation motion,” and went on to say, “We are, of course, obviously disappointed that the government side of the House has decided to fast-track this piece of legislation....”

PC leader Patrick Brown has also stressed concern and mused that the legislation has created uncertainty. He further went on to say, “Neither tenants nor landlords nor builders know what to expect.”

Mr. Speaker, the faster we can act, the more clarity we can bring to the rental system. However, the PC housing critic seems to want to draw out the uncertainty. Yesterday he said, “I can tell you that I am willing to start committee earlier, sit later, meet on extra days and do what it takes to hear from the experts.” Yet this same member has a track record of filibustering committee every chance he gets.

The PCs, too, have expressed that they plan to vote against the time allocation motion, which would create certainty by providing a clear legislative path. Frankly, it’s time for both the PCs and NDP to stop playing political games with Ontario’s renters and help provide certainty that they can expect to see rental fairness achieved this spring. This legislation not only addresses rent control but is a comprehensive suite of reforms that will address issues across the rental housing system.

We’re also taking steps to lessen the abuse of a provision in the Residential Tenancies Act known as landlord’s own use. Currently, landlords are able to abuse this provision by evicting tenants, claiming that they or a family member intend to move in. But in many cases, the landlords will re-list the unit at a higher price once the tenant is evicted.

In one case, Ginette and Kyle, who had been living in their Toronto apartment for five years, were asked by their landlord to move out because the landlord’s mother was moving in. However, two months after moving out, the couple found an ad for their old apartment. Their rent was listed at almost twice what they had been paying.

To prevent landlords from abusing this provision, we’re proposing to require landlords to pay one month’s compensation to tenants who would be displaced. Landlords would also be required to provide written intention that they or their family will live in the unit for at least one year.

There is a pressing need to protect tenants from landlords who abuse this provision. We want to prevent tenants from experiencing what Ginette and Kyle went through. That’s why I urge all members in the House to time-allocate this bill so we can get on with business.

I’ve outlined some of the reforms today that we’re proposing in order to transform the rental housing system and improve housing stability for Ontario’s renters. These changes would also help to improve the province’s transitional housing system.

As the Premier has said, there’s no one silver bullet to fixing the housing affordability crisis that we have on our hands. Too many hard-working individuals and families are struggling just to make their rent every month, and they continue to live in dread of unexpected rent hikes.

This has gone on for far too long. It’s time to give these families a break. I would encourage all members not to stall this bill. The time to act is now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Recently the Liberal government announced a slate of measures that you’re well familiar with, Mr. Speaker, aimed at cooling the cost of buying or renting property in Toronto and the greater Toronto area. The most prominent items at the top of this government’s list were a 15% tax on foreign buyers conveniently called “non-resident speculators,” and the expansion of rent control to all private rental units in Ontario. But both of these ideas raise serious concerns. Taxing foreign buyers may seem politically expedient, but this policy stands on anecdotal, rather than substantial, evidence.

It was only a few days ago that the Liberal government said it would start tracking the nationality of homebuyers. It’s also unclear whether such a tax will have any meaningful effect. You’ll know that last year the government of British Columbia implemented a similar tax. The result was that sales volumes dropped, as they had for months before the tax, and have since rebounded, making it hard to draw conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the policy.

Rent control, the Liberal government’s other flagship move to cool the housing market, is a discredited policy strategy that has been attempted in various jurisdictions over the past few decades, almost always with disastrous consequences, as you well know. In fact, the Fraser Institute’s first major study conducted back in 1975 was entirely dedicated to rent control, a policy seeking to artificially cap how much landlords could raise rents.

The core problem with rent control is that it doesn’t help renters in the long run. By capping rents, governments create a disincentive, Speaker, for prospective builders to construct new units, and this reduces growth in the rental housing supply. It also leaves less money in landlords’ budgets, as well as reduced incentives for renovating or repairing apartments over time. As a result, there is a consensus among economists that rent control policies reduce both the quantity and quality of the rental stock. Consequently, a policy that is typically designed to help renters actually hurts them over time.

But it’s not only economists and the Fraser Institute that take issue with this bill that we’re debating this morning. Several stakeholders also have very serious concerns about the Liberal government’s proposed measures. For example, the president of the Ottawa Real Estate Investors Organization said, “I think it’s a terribly misguided initiative. It’s actually going to hurt the people it’s supposed to protect.”

The president and chief executive officer of the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario said, “Today’s announcement by the Wynne government will put thousands of units, and millions of dollars in provincial revenues at risk. It is a rash, politically motivated decision, which will hurt, not help generations of Ontario renters.”

Toronto’s mayor, John Tory, has said, “I think it would be a real problem for this growing marketplace, this growing city, if we shut off, again, investment in affordable purpose-built rental housing, because we need it so badly.”

So, Speaker, what should be done instead of the government’s proposed measures in Bill 124? Buried at the bottom of the list of this Liberal government’s bill are glimpses of solutions to what may be the most important driver of the greater Toronto area’s housing woes: The supply of new homes is not keeping up with demand. Speaker, as you well know, Ontario, and specifically the greater Toronto area, is a large factor in driving Canada’s economic engine forward. As such, people move here from all over Canada, and indeed the world, to live, work and enjoy everything that the greater Toronto area has to offer.

Between 2011 and 2016, the region grew by roughly 340,000 people, roughly equivalent to a city like Markham. All of these people need places to live, making it imperative to encourage the construction of new housing units.

Beyond natural barriers to the construction of more housing, such as Lake Ontario and flood plains, city governments across the region can slow down the supply of new homes by burdening developers with red tape. The Fraser Institute measured these regulatory barriers, including how long it takes to obtain a building permit, how much it costs and the opposition home builders face from local council and community groups. Their research found that long and uncertain approval processes can severely restrict the supply of new homes.

Speaker, the measures in this government’s bill simply do not go far enough to reduce the amount of red tape that prevents or delays the construction of new homes, condos or rental properties. Instead, this Liberal government is proposing small changes which we are concerned will have very little impact in addressing the housing crisis. For example, this bill would rebate a portion of the local development charges some builders may face. There are also plans to create a new “housing supply team” with the goal of identifying specific regulatory barriers to new home building.

Both of these moves acknowledge the importance of supply in the housing equation, but if the Liberal government is serious about affordability, it should go a lot further. Rather than being swayed by anecdotes, or digging up failed policies from the past, the Liberal government should face the roots of the housing crisis head on by addressing the fundamental imbalance between the demand for housing and its supply. A long-term solution can be found that is to the benefit of homeowners, renters, landlords and home builders. But this strategy requires co-operation between the province, municipalities and all of the relevant stakeholders in this sector.

Speaker, as I said earlier, many of the housing-related stakeholders are concerned that Bill 124 simply won’t have the impact that there needs to be; or, worse yet, that it will have adverse impacts. Taken with the experience of other bills debated in the Legislature, it suggests a pattern of rushed or less-than-robust consultations conducted by this Liberal government.

In several of the conversations that I’ve had with stakeholders in my riding and in other parts of the region of Durham, I’ve heard that their concerns are completely absent from pieces of the legislation before us, despite these stakeholders receiving positive impact from ministers and their staff at meetings. We’re concerned that this is becoming a pattern with the Liberal government. Their consultations are merely window dressing to ram through their political agenda.

On that point, let’s turn to the time allocation motion that’s before us this morning. A few months ago, as the associate critic for education and the official opposition critic for post-secondary education, I led the debate on Bill 92,

An Act to amend the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2017. Bill 92 was also motioned for time allocation. Because this government is ramming through more legislation in this manner, I’m extremely concerned that they will treat motions for time allocation as a standard process for how we create laws in Ontario.

Speaker, you’d be interested to know that there’s also a history of current members of this government who took issue with motions for time allocation while they were in opposition. For example, the member of provincial Parliament for St.

Catharines and the chief government whip, who has had such a long, distinguished career, said in opposition: “Each of the time allocation motions which close off or choke off debate in this House seems to be more drastic as it comes forward, seems to be more sinister as it relates to the privileges of members of this House and as it relates to healthy, democratic debate for the people of this province”—“as it relates to healthy, democratic debate for the people of this province.”

This feeling is not unique to that member alone. The member for Eglinton–Lawrence once had this to say about time allocation: “That’s what this government is doing. It’s saying: ‘We got elected. We are now going to rule by edict. We’re going to rule by closing down debate. We’re going to cut off debate....’ That’s the type of thing people are getting pretty fed up with.” And that’s what I’m hearing, Speaker. People are getting pretty fed up with these types of motions.

We can only wonder what happened to this government. What happened to it? They appeared to have such a strong moral compass in opposition but seem to have lost their direction after 14 years of scandal, waste and mismanagement.

Speaker, if there was ever an issue that required extensive debate, in-depth consideration and a wide consultation process, it is the housing crisis that is facing Ontario today; you’ve spoken on it, several members of this Legislature have spoken on it. This crisis in Toronto and the greater Toronto area is one of the most complex problems facing the government today. It involves homeowners, renters, rental property owners, home and condo construction businesses, and multiple levels of government, particularly the 442 municipalities across this province.

An extensive consultation process and a rigorous debate are both required. There is no evidence that shows that the former has occurred—none whatsoever. You’ve heard it, Speaker, I’ve heard it in my riding, and several members on this side of the Legislature have heard it as well, and regularly, and this Liberal government is now cutting off, once again, the opportunity for the latter.

Despite this government’s actions, we will carefully consider, as we have been, Bill 124, and continue to scrutinize it to arrive at what the most effective measures are to alleviate and, by extension, resolve the housing crisis. It takes collaboration. It takes a partnership. We need to take the opportunity to listen carefully and regularly.

In closing, this Liberal government’s closure of debate simply does not allow members of provincial Parliament to adequately debate important issues within the framework of this Legislature. We have great concerns—I underscore: great concerns—as a result, that the proposed measures are rushed, reckless and potentially ineffective. That is why we continue to urge the government to refrain from using time allocation motions moving forward.

Speaker, I reference the level of consultation that I’ve undertaken in my riding and across the region of Durham. I’ve done that because, like you and others in this Legislature, I’ve come from a municipal background on council. At one time, as a regional councillor, I was the president of the Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corp. and also the chair of the region of Durham’s Health and Social Services Committee, and had a hand in developing and leading the development of our 10-year housing plan.

What I learned out of our wide consultation to develop that plan was that hard-working families, whether they live in Durham region or they live in other parts of Ontario, deserve a legislative process that benefits them, not one that is expedient and only benefits the Liberal government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Good morning to my colleagues. I am, as always, honoured to join the debate on this specific bill, Bill 124, the Rental Fairness Act. This bill certainly will be a welcome bill for those renters specifically in the GTHA who live in an era that I can only surmise as one where unaffordability and lack of access to affordable homes is the norm.

Speaker, you would know that I come from an area of the province in the southwest. Essex is a rural area; it borders Windsor, and we don’t see this. Toronto is a unique animal when it comes to housing affordability and access to rental properties. We do have some challenges around affordable housing stock and the upkeep of that stock, but nevertheless, it’s a completely different environment, I would say, from that of Toronto. You only get that sense if you live here and you are challenged with trying to find a place to live.

I’d never lived in Toronto before until I was elected. Thankfully, we are given, as members of this House, a stipend to find a place, but it was a challenge when I was first elected to find a place that fit the monthly budget that we are given, which I would say is generous and allows us to live and to work here.

However, if you are someone who has to support a family, a dual-income parent with a couple of kids, that has got to be incredibly challenging—let alone being a single parent of multiple kids on a single income. I would imagine that it is nearly impossible to not only find affordable housing, but to then ensure that you can afford that housing.

I was speaking this morning with the Minister of Children and Youth Services, Mr. Coteau. We met in the elevator, and we were briefly talking about where we live and our housing. Between his home and my home in Essex—I mean, they’re not even comparable, the level of affordability. You should all move to Essex.

But it’s amazing, because here is the similarity—those folks in Toronto aren’t making much more on an annual basis, per capita, than they would in Essex. So the affordability just doesn’t exist. I guess it is one of the reasons why our area in the southwest is exploding in terms of new housing and also some new rental stock. People are figuring out, in this day and age, in this economy, when you can telecommute or you can work from your home—folks are selling their place in the GTHA and now moving down south and into all parts of the province simply because they can’t afford their homes. That makes good economic sense. But some people, of course, can’t simply uproot their home.

Speaker, this bill, Bill 124, contains some mechanisms that tenants will appreciate and that are welcomed. It’s something that tenant and rental advocates and affordable housing advocates have fought for for quite some time.

In doing a little bit of research on this issue, I saw an

article from August 12, 2003, where then-Premier Dalton McGuinty promised tenants, “We will get rid of vacancy decontrol which allows unlimited rent increases....” That was a promise back then, 14 years ago. It was evidently an issue back then. Unfortunately, this bill does not get rid of vacancy decontrol and does not provide for a rent registry. We wonder why a promise made 14 years ago wasn’t kept and wasn’t made to be a provision within this bill. Maybe it’s because Dalton McGuinty is no longer here. Maybe it’s because they’ve abandoned that provision or the need for that.

But New Democrats certainly see that that’s something that is a glaring omission in this bill and something we hoped the government would have put in, and potentially could still put in when this bill passes second reading and moves on to the committee stage. I would expect that we will hear from those advocates who continue to push for reforms and continue to push for fairness in affordable housing and tenant protection. That’s a marker that we’ll put out, as New Democrats, that we’d like to see the government take some initiative on.

I heard the Minister of Housing talk about our colleague Peter Tabuns, the member from Toronto–Danforth, and his legacy of fighting for tenants during his tenure here. He has consistently raised issues. He has presented bills. He has fought on behalf of tenants in an unwavering fashion, Speaker. You could certainly point to his initiatives in this House as being the impetus for many bills that have come out of the government side—specifically, this one.

It wasn’t just a couple of weeks ago, I believe, that our colleague from Toronto–Danforth put forward Bill 106, Rent Protection for All Tenants Act, which repeals subsection 6(2) of the RTA, which currently exempts rentals occupied after 1991—the infamous 1991 loophole. This bill closes the 1991 loophole which, again, will be something that will be strongly supported by tenant groups and advocates. It’s also something that New Democrats have pushed for for quite some time.

So time and time again in this House, Speaker, we see that those good initiatives, those pure intentions, come from the New Democratic side. It’s not for political gain. It’s not for anything other than it is the right thing to do.

Whether it’s tenant protection, whether it’s inclusionary zoning—again, another initiative pushed forward by our member from Toronto–Danforth, our member from Parkdale–High Park and our former member from Beaches–East York—they have always been on the front lines, standing shoulder to shoulder with affordable housing advocates to quell this explosion in rental increases and unaffordability in the GTHA. So, I guess, in layman’s terms, it takes New Democrats to put forward these ideas, these initiatives, to push this government to finally do the right thing.

I would say that it shouldn’t take 14 years to get there. It should be done immediately. I would speak directly to those who are tuning in today through the telecast. We can skip this whole process. We can avoid having to take 14 years to get to the right place on legislation. We can do that by getting rid of the Liberal government, getting them out of here, because they can’t do the right thing until they’re pushed to the brink of extinction, and that’s what we see today.

Certainly in the polling numbers province-wide and now specifically in the GTHA, which was their stronghold and was their beachhead, their numbers are flailing, with the Premier at about 9% popularity, the lowest in recorded history for a Premier of the province. It took that to finally get this government to make the right decision. We would say that we can skip that process. Next year, we would hope that folks all across the province would see that initiatives put forward by New Democrats are of good intent, are sincere and are ones that are done because we are listening.

We listen to the needs of the people, not to the polls.

There couldn’t be a clearer example of why, in fact, this government is making this move today. They can make all the noise they want about us not voting for time allocation. We don’t vote for time allocation. Our job is to debate bills in a complete way. No matter how complex or simple they may be, it is our right, it’s our obligation, to debate bills fully and to allow all members of this House to have the ability to debate. On that side of the House, when their hair catches fire, they throw a time allocation bill at us because that’s all they’ve got left. That’s all they can do to try to impress upon—

Interjection.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Well, it’s a figure of speech. As a redhead, I know what it means.

That’s all they can do to try to make amends for their 14 years of failure. So we’ll let them have that talking point. They can say that we and the PCs vote against time allocation—I’m not certain if the PCs will but certainly we will, because we respect the process here, Speaker. We respect the need for due process and due diligence, something that this government doesn’t seem to have a grasp of. They had 14 years to do this.

Nevertheless, the bill has, again, essentially the same provisions and the same mechanisms that were put forward by our colleague the member from Toronto–Danforth, and it’s something that, again, will be welcomed by tenants. There will be some need to reform the bill. I expect that the process at committee will be one that will be lengthy and one that you will hear from multiple organizations on, which are going to ask for even tighter regulations and oversight on the unaffordability of housing in the GTHA and surrounding areas and, of course, around the province. We want to ensure that people can afford to live, can afford their housing. It is one of the basic needs that humans require.

Speaker, this bill is supportable in its current form. We will certainly be putting forward amendments. We hope that the government listens not only to us, because when New Democrats are putting forward initiatives, again, it is ultimately the voice of our constituents, not the voice of pollsters and public research firms; it is coming from our communities, from people that we meet each and every day. Time and time again, it has been proven that eventually, no matter what government comes into play, it is the right thing to do. We support the intent of this bill and we will be looking for reforms.

I appreciate the time given to me this morning to debate this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? Further debate? Last call for further debate.

Seeing none, Ms. Sandals has moved government notice of motion number 9, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This requires a recorded vote and will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

2017 Ontario budget

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 1, 2017, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate. The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you for recognizing me, Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, member from Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I was actually the last speaker and I had eight minutes left this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m sorry, Minister.

The member from Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to get up and talk a little bit about the budget.

This morning I only have about eight minutes, so I actually want to talk about the Niagara Health System. I’m glad that my friend from St. Catharines is here as well, because the budget cuts from the Liberal government for the last nine years—and I know the government will say, “Well, we gave the hospitals 2%,” but 2% actually equals a cut in terms of inflation; and the four years of freezes, which were really a cut, probably a 3% cut—have led to one of the largest health systems in this province—in fact, it was the largest health system in this province.

The Niagara Health System, eight or nine years ago, had hospitals in Niagara-on-the-Lake; two in St. Catharines; and one in Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Welland. Since the Liberal government took power, we have lost one hospital in St. Catharines and we have lost one hospital in Niagara-on-the-Lake. We have a state-of-the-art hospital in St. Catharines, but unfortunately, if you visit there, it is exploding at the seams. There are not enough beds. The number of beds in the Niagara Health System has been cut dramatically.

I think it was yesterday in question period that we heard about Kevin Smith. Kevin Smith was the supervisor who actually was appointed to bring recommendations around the Niagara Health System, but it became a known fact yesterday that while he was sitting on the HOOPP board, he was also sitting on the Home Capital board. He was spending many hours at board meetings for Home Capital, where he had $1.6 million in shares and was earning $357,000 a year, in addition to the almost $800,000 a year that he was earning as the CEO of the Niagara Health System and the St. Joe’s health care system.

I think if somebody is earning $800,000 a year looking after two major health systems in the province of Ontario, they actually should be there and available to do that work and not sitting in board meetings for a private company, where they’re earning another $400,000 with shares on top of that.

At the same time that they’re closing beds, they’re proposing to actually close my hospital in Welland, which was probably built in the 1960s—a fully functioning hospital, but they’re closing it because of budget cuts.

Today, I was down speaking to the paramedics who were here. I’m sure many of you went down and joined them for breakfast. I talked to Tim Borowski, a local paramedic, and Jim Simpson, a dispatcher. They were telling me about the off-load delays, which are ever-increasing, particularly in the Niagara region, because of the reduction in beds that have been made because of Liberal budget cuts.

There are 32 ambulances on any given day shift and 17 on any given night shift, but when all of these paramedic teams end up in off-load delays in our emergency departments because we don’t have enough beds in Niagara, then there aren’t ambulances actually on the road to be going out to the calls. He said that some nights there may only be three or four ambulances on the road. The rest of them are all tied up in the emergency department with patients who can’t be off-loaded because there aren’t any beds.

The Niagara Health System is planning on closing more beds. They’re planning on closing the Welland hospital; they’re planning on closing the Port Colborne hospital; they’re planning on closing the Fort Erie hospital.

They’re building a new hospital in Niagara Falls. They call that the Niagara south hospital. Speaker, I can tell you, there are 90,000 people who live in south Niagara, and the hospital that’s being built in Niagara Falls is not in south Niagara. Niagara Falls absolutely needs a new hospital, but not at the expense of all of the residents who live in my end of the riding. That population doubles in Port Colborne and Fort Erie in the summertime, when the cottagers go to their cottages to enjoy their time at the lake. What is going to happen to our ambulances’ off-load delays? What is going to happen to our patients—our constituents—when they close more acute-care beds in our hospital system?

The problem that we always hear from the media—I don’t know who came up with this term “bed blockers,” but it really is an insulting term, Speaker, because these are people who really, at the end of the day, are patients who have nowhere to go. They can’t stay at home because they can’t get any CCAC hours. They can’t get any home care hours through the CCAC. At best, they’ll get an hour or two. Their families can’t look after them because they’re still working.

There are no long-term-care beds available for them. In Niagara alone there’s a wait-list of 1,400 waiting for a long-term-care bed in the Niagara area. They can’t go into a retirement home—although I hear that the government is perhaps subsidizing some of that these days—because they can’t afford it. Many of our seniors who are on the Guaranteed Income Supplement, getting perhaps $1,400 a month, can’t afford a retirement home bed that starts, in my area, at a minimum of $2,300. I hear that in downtown Toronto it could be as high as $5,000 a month to get a retirement home space.

And they physically might not be able to be in a retirement home because there is very little care that is provided there.

What is going to happen in the Niagara Peninsula, Speaker? I ask the government, “What’s going to happen in the Niagara Peninsula?” when they continue to move forward with this proposal to close the hospital in my riding—actually, two hospitals in my riding: one in Port Colborne and one in Welland.

Those significant numbers of beds are drastically needed. We have a high senior population. We have one of the highest senior populations in this province, and, Speaker, as you’ll know, people are moving to southern Ontario. Every day we see people in my community buying houses, coming from Toronto, coming from the north, even coming from southwestern Ontario and moving into Niagara, into Welland and Port Colborne because the price of housing is considerably less than it is in Toronto and Mississauga. So the problem is just going to be compounded. We need more hospital beds in the system, not less.

I noticed in the budget that there are some increases in hospital beds coming in some areas that are exploding, like in London, but I think that the government needs to take a look at the Niagara area as well. They need to make sure that whoever is overseeing the Niagara health system, and making $750,000 or $800,000 a year, is actually available to do that work.

I thank you for the opportunity to have been able to speak to the budget on health care issues in Niagara.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s an honour to have an opportunity to respond, to speak to the budget motion and respond to the member from the NDP. The member spent a good amount of her debate time speaking about health care and the challenges facing her constituents around health care. That’s important for us all to hear and take note of and see what we can do. When I look at the budget, I think that it’s designed to address a lot of those types of issues, not just in the member’s riding, but in my riding of Etobicoke Centre and in ridings across the province.

Just some examples to share with you what I mean, Speaker: For example, there’s going to be $9 billion over 10 years to build hospitals. Obviously, the impact of that will be felt differently in different communities, and the specifics of how it will impact that member’s community will have to be determined. This is a recognition by this government that this is something that’s much needed, that we need to build and continue to build hospital capacity, and to make sure that that will allow us to get those wait times down and provide better quality care.

Also, there’s funding for the operation of hospitals, over $500 million for hospital operations, allowing existing hospitals to provide better access to care, better-quality care, which is really important—some of the issues that the member spoke about.

There is money in there specifically to reduce wait times. There are initiatives there to help people access a specialist. There is money in the budget to enhance the patient experience. And there’s a dementia strategy in place, which will not only provide care to some of the folks the member was talking about, but also to support the caregivers who provide care to their aging parents and grandparents.

I think there’s a lot in the budget that addresses the issues that the member has spoken about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m happy to rise and comment on the member from Welland. I think she made a lot of good points throughout the discussion.

The case about the hospital—you look at health care across Ontario, and it is a mess. You look and the new area for beds in the hospitals seems to be the hallways, the empty offices, anything they can find to put beds in. The Cornwall hospital is up to 138% of capacity.

It just shows that we’ve got a government that keeps promising infrastructure, infrastructure that’s $100 billion over 10 years. Then they quote $120 billion over 12 years. Now they have a new number over 13 years. But we aren’t getting the money today. You’re always talking about the future, but the money is not being spent.

In Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which includes part of my neighbour’s riding, not one of the townships received any infrastructure funding last year. I won’t say it’s because there were no requirements. We had one township that had to close three bridges last year because they aren’t safe. You can comment on your programs, but when they apply and they spend money on consultants to put the projects together, they get turned down. It’s not right.

It’s interesting: You look through the budget and they miraculously find that they’re over-exceeding and they’re not spending the money—well, they’re not spending it on programs that they have direct control over. They’re not funding the infrastructure programs they talk about.

We look at just so many areas of this that are failed. There’s a reason, when you look around at rural education, that communities are upset. Sometimes you have to sit back and look at how the system is rolled out and make those changes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again, it’s always a privilege to stand on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. The member from Welland talked about the issues that she’s facing in Welland, which is in southern Ontario. For me, being a member from northern Ontario, it’s quite remarkable how those issues are exactly the same, or that you can relate to those issues: hospital closures and cuts in hospitals, delays, processes, lack of funding.

We need to highlight that in this budget, although there is funding that will leave many hospitals forced to continue with the cuts—the 3% that is going to be added—many from the sector said the 2% for each hospital is below what is needed, according to the Ontario Hospital Association, and it leaves these hospitals at $300 million less than what is there to actually come back to the level that they once were at and repair some of the damage.

So is this budget going to repair the damage that this Liberal government has put the health sector in? No, it’s not.

An individual in my riding, actually, called me just a couple of weeks ago and told me that he went in for an urgent visit to his doctor. He was sitting with his doctor having a discussion. The doctor said, “You’re going to go for an MRI. I’ll put an urgent request on your MRI.” He’s going to be seen in two months. Luckily, he got in on an urgent matter, and it takes him two months to get in. Why does it take so long? Because hospitals have had to reduce their MRI and OR times in order to meet and balance their budgets, which is something that this government has required.

Long-term-care homes: The PSWs and all the support workers who are there are getting burnt out because there aren’t enough funds in there for front-line workers. It’s not that they don’t want to do the work; it’s just that they’re burnt out, they’re tired, and administration cannot just give them the time off they need.

We need a bigger and better focus on this—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. James J. Bradley: I didn’t have the opportunity to hear the first part of the member’s speech. I was wondering if she had made any reference to the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority in the first part of her speech. She probably didn’t have the time to do so, but she will, I know, later on, because there have been concerns expressed to the member and to all of us in Niagara about the new direction that is being taken at the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

I’m told by people who contact my office that a number of people who are noted as environmentally inclined have been shown the door by the conservation authority. There have been what people describe to me as some questionable land deals. There are some interesting contracts which have been let. And, of course, the hiring of new personnel: There are questions asked as to how particular people were chosen for particular positions which pay six-figure salaries.

I know the member herself has been very active in this particular field and would be concerned generally, because it fits into budget, as to how, if there’s any provincial money—there’s not that much that is directly transferred to conservation authorities—that it be given for the purpose of improving the environment and protecting the environment in the area. We have seen some interesting happenings that the member no doubt will be referring to, not only in this particular instance, but as she has for some period of time in other instances. It’s a matter of genuine concern.

The volume of calls and emails and letters, and simply conversations that have taken place, to her office, my office and, I’m sure, the other two members from the Niagara Peninsula, has been rather remarkable. I want to commend her on taking the actions that she has to this point in time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Welland has two minutes.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you to everyone for their comments.

To the member from St. Catharines: I’m glad that he raised the issue of the provincial dollars going into the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. For the last six or eight months, I have been trying to get the Auditor General in to the NPCA to do a financial and an operating audit. Things continue to decline there, from my perspective. Just yesterday, one of the board members, well-respected regional councillor Bill Hodgson, was censured by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority for speaking out and voicing an opinion on the whole RFP and audit process at the Niagara region.

I’m going to talk more about that this afternoon in my audit, but I really would call upon the government—the Ministry of Natural Resources is saying that they have no control over the NPCA. It seems that no one is taking any responsibility to look into the issues that we continue to hear about at the NPCA, whether they be the large number of employees who have been let go—most recently, a very well-educated person who had worked at the NPCA for eight and a half years has been laid off while at the same time they’re actually hiring new management positions. It is problematic.

It clearly isn’t entirely a budget issue, because the province only contributes about 5%, but I think that gives them the opening to go in and have a look.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to rise. I didn’t mean to supersede the previous speaker; I honestly thought it was my turn when I stood up there in the past. It was great to hear from the other member.

It is a pleasure to rise today in support of the budget that was presented to this House last week. I have to say, on an anecdotal basis, when I go back to my own community and I get feedback on the budget, it has been tremendously positive. The one element that has been the most positive is the introduction of OHIP+: pharmacare, free prescriptions to those people in our province who are 24 years of age and under. Hopefully, it’s a first step in a movement we see across the nation, because it’s something that I think people have been bringing up on a regular basis.

While we have a health care system that is based on the universal principles of medicare, it’s nice to see some expansion of those universal principles. Drug coverage certainly is an integral part of the health care system, and people now realize that their children are covered.

The impact on the small business sector or, really, any business sector when it comes to what I would anticipate would be a reduction in premiums on benefit plans is also something that I think is viewed very, very positively in the community.

In relative terms, the province of Ontario is doing very, very well when it comes to economic indicators. Since the depths of the recession, we’ve seen almost 700,000 jobs created, the vast majority of them full-time jobs that pay above the average wage. The unemployment rate is the lowest in the country: 6.4%, and it has been that way for about 24 months or two years. We’re leading the country and we’re leading the continent in direct foreign investment. We’re ahead of California and the states of Ohio and Michigan, for example. Exports are up in the province of Ontario almost 1% in the third quarter alone.

What we’re seeing is a robust economy that has emerged. What happened in 2008-09 was something I had never witnessed in my life and something that I certainly hope I never do in the future either. When my parents and my grandparents talked about the depression and the recession, I’ve got some taste now of what they lived through, when I see what we all lived through in 2008-09 when the markets collapsed.

As I share my time with the Minister of Housing, the member for Beaches–East York and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I know that they’ll be bringing along various parts of the budget that have met with approval in their own communities. I think it’s all based on the idea that came forward that we had an option.

In 2008-09, various governments, various jurisdictions, had an option as to which way they should proceed. One was to go the route of austerity. It was to kind of curl up in a ball, protect what you have, wait till the recession is over and see what you can build from there. The other was the route that we chose, and that was the route to invest in our people. We know that we inherited an infrastructure deficit from the previous party and from parties before that needed to be addressed. We knew that we had to invest money in our health care system, in the buildings and the services that are provided there.

We also knew that one of the keys to ensuring that Ontario continues to enjoy this economic prosperity and what attracts that investment in the first place is the excellent public education system we have here. When you talk to employers, they talk about a number of things that they look for before they invest, but they look for that skilled workforce first. If we’re going to compete in a global economy, it has to be on the basis of that. It has to be on the basis of what would attract somebody to invest in this province in the first place—why are they investing? Time after time again, it comes down to the skills that our people have.

You worked in the steel industry, I know, Speaker, yourself, and one of your competitors, I believe, had the—their slogan was, I think, “Our Product Is Steel. Our Strength Is People.” I think that in Ontario, our strength is our people as well. It really is the skills that they bring to the table, and that goes from the skilled trades to those people who are working in the finance sector to those in the service sector.

There’s an emerging skill base in this province that I think is second to none. We need to continue to invest in that, and that’s what we’ve done. What that meant is that for a few years, our budgets weren’t balanced. In this case, the budget is returned to balance, and it’s allowing us to do some of the things that I’ve talked about, and it’s why it has been received so positively in my own community in this short period of time.

I hope the opposition parties will find a way to support this budget, because there’s something in this for everybody.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for the poverty reduction strategy.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’m happy to be able to stand and speak for a few minutes about this budget motion. Not a day goes by where I’m not stopped as I’m out and about in the great riding of Newmarket–Aurora or my constituency office isn’t hearing from people who are very pleased with a number of the key provisions that this budget is putting forward, among them pharmacare.

Just to reiterate the high points: 2017 is a balanced budget—the first balanced budget since the global recession. We have balanced the budget this year, and we are on track to do it again next year and the year after. A balanced budget means more funding for the programs and services that people rely on most, like health care and education.

On that theme of making life more affordable, the balanced budget is strengthening those public services that matter most to people while lowering costs. I can give you a few examples of the ones that really have resonated in my riding.

We’re helping 100,000 more children get affordable, quality, licensed child care. In 2017-18, Ontario will support child care for 24,000 more children up to four years old, through new fee-subsidy spaces and support for new licensed child care spaces in schools.

The government is also taking action to make housing more affordable for homebuyers and renters with my favourite part of this bill, Ontario’s Fair Housing Plan.

The government is committed to lowering household electricity bills by 25% on average beginning this summer, and to holding rate increases over the next four years to inflation.

The budget does more than that. It also creates opportunity and security. We’re committed to helping people acquire the skills they need to find a good job and receive a secure and predictable retirement income. We’re also creating opportunities for businesses to grow and prosper. We’re helping small businesses to scale up into medium-size and large enterprises, and we’re investing in transformative technologies that will create the jobs of tomorrow and attract investment from around the world. You heard the member before me talk about Canada being a leading destination for direct foreign investment.

To ensure that opportunities are available in all regions of the province, we’re fostering an environment where everyone will benefit from and contribute to Ontario’s prosperity. It is government’s job to make sure that we raise everyone up.

Speaker, we’re creating and retaining more than 37,000 jobs across the province through our 10-year, $2.7-billion Jobs and Prosperity Fund, which helps government partner with businesses to enhance productivity, innovation and exports.

We’re moving forward with a Basic Income Pilot Project, something that I’ve been deeply involved with. We want to see whether a basic income pilot could provide security and opportunity in a changing labour market and improve health, employment and housing outcomes.

Speaking of infrastructure, we know that investing in public infrastructure is vital to growing the economy and ensuring a high quality of life, whether people live in large, small, urban, northern or rural Ontario communities.

Speaking of housing again, something that I’m intimately familiar with, we have invested approximately $4 billion since 2003 to create and repair affordable housing throughout the province. We’ve created more than 20,000 new affordable rental housing units, supporting more than 275,000 repairs and improvements to social and affordable housing units, and provided rental and down payment assistance to more than 90,000 households in need.

Speaker, this budget contains many items that are great for Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted for the opportunity to follow my esteemed colleagues and speak to the budget motion here today. While this document is, of itself, a stand-alone document doing incredible things, I believe, for the province of Ontario and the people of Ontario, I think it’s important that we recognize that this budget is part of a continuum of a vision that the Premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, had, particularly in 2014, when she brought her second budget forward in the spring of 2014, in which she had a chance to establish the direction that she wanted to take this province.

It was a direction that would invest, build up Ontario and fiscally manage the funds of the province of Ontario such that we could get to a balanced budget.

That was, of course, the budget that the government fell on and called an election on, leading up to the June election in 2014, in which I was elected. We ran on that budget as our platform. Subsequently to the election and winning a majority government, we brought back that budget, word for word, as it stood, an investment in the people of Ontario, where the deficit did stand close to, I think, $12 billion or $13 billion. Part of the plan then was to get it to where it is today, where we can announce a balanced budget.

This is not a new construct of the province of Ontario. This is a deliberate direction that the Premier set off to take almost three and a half years ago. It was like she was prescient, like Nostradamus. She had this vision of what should happen and, Speaker, here it is: promise made, promise delivered. It is happening.

So much of what’s in this budget is about the long-term future of the province of Ontario. We’ve heard a lot about health care spending. I’m absolutely delighted with the $9 billion of additional spending in hospitals.

When I ran in 2014, one of the really serious issues confronting my community was the danger of losing the investments in Toronto East General Hospital at that time—now renamed the Michael Garron Hospital—because the previous member had not supported that bill. We were, in our community, standing to lose the investments. Had another party been elected and we hadn’t moved forward with that plan, Michael Garron Hospital would not have been able to continue in its reconstruction bid.

Now we are pleased to say that we are in the middle of an RFP process to choose the builder that is going to inject—who knows?—$400 million, $450 million into my community to create, in the east end of Toronto, one of the best health care institutions in downtown Toronto, dealing with a very diverse population, a very poor population with complex needs.

I’m so thrilled. That was a platform that I ran on in 2014: that we would get to balance and that we would be rebuilding Michael Garron Hospital. I am pleased to see that that is, in fact, happening.

A lot of the debate we’ve heard in the leadoffs to this motion and the leadoffs to the budget debate, particularly from the members of the official opposition, is about this being some kind of a fake balance. It’s as if they want to rewrite the general accounting principles in how we do this. The reality is, the budget is balanced because revenues come in, revenues are expended, and in generally accepted accounting principles, this is a balanced budget.

The notion that revenues from the sale of assets are not forming part of our revenue stream—it’s just as if they were new tax revenues. If you realize a capital gain on an asset, that is a benefit that goes to balance. It’s the same thing with cap-and-trade revenues. The cap-and-trade revenues represent an asset in the province, which are accounted in the books as an asset in order to then be used in outflowing for very specific purposes, particularly with cap-and-trade, on introducing the low-carbon economy in Ontario.

There’s no myth about the balance here. This is a true balance, and what’s particularly exciting is that we can project out over the next two or three years that we will continue to be in balance, that we haven’t been relying on specific asset sales, as is being charged by members of the opposition. We, in fact, are projecting out over the next three years to have a continuous balanced budget.

I’m very thrilled about that, and I believe that all members of this House who have repeatedly voted against the trajectory that we have been on to get to a balanced budget should see in their hearts that this is the right place for Ontario to be in and should support this budget, should support our budgetary measures.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: I would like to add a couple of pieces of information that are out there, floating around in the world of media. I am particularly attracted by the comment of the former leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, Tim Hudak, who is now the chief executive officer of the Ontario Real Estate Association. In his new job in the private sector, looking at things objectively rather than from a partisan point of view in this House, as he usually would, he said, “We,” meaning the Ontario Real Estate Association, “put a # of home ownership proposals before Premier Wynne.

We’re pleased to see them reflected in the” budget. That’s a quote from the former leader of the PC Party.

The PC member for the riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, who is a pharmacist himself and who has stood in this House and been very critical of many things the government is doing: What has his professional association, the chair of the Ontario Pharmacists Association, had to say about this budget? His president of his professional association said, “We’re supportive of anything that’s going to help children and youth get medication that they need without any financial barriers. We’re ... looking forward to learning more about ... the program.... We’re looking forward to hear more about what’s involved with” the program.

“We’re truly pleased to see from an access to medication perspective that that won’t be a barrier from a financial perspective.

“We’re happy to hear that access to medication is being improved.”

That’s some of the PC leadership’s thought on the budget, but we have something here that might interest the NDP. The Service Employees International Union on health care said—and I quote from their health care president, Sharleen Stewart—“Ontario’s 2017 budget provides a much-needed boost to health care.” That’s a quote from the SEIU president. She goes on to say, “I applaud the Ontario government for making necessary” budget inclusions. When we start question period, I hope that that thought is uppermost in the minds of the NDP during question period.

What does the Ontario Hospital Association say? Their president and CEO, Anthony Dale, said, “The government’s significant investments in hospital capital will help to support a sustainable health care system for the future.”

You see, Speaker and members of this House, once the opposition gets out of this bubble in here and looks at things—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you, Minister.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Bill Walker: It is my pleasure to introduce Mary Anne Alton from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound; her grandson Nathaniel Durkacz; and friends Evelyn and her son Andres van Maanen, who are actually from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Andres is from Venezuela, originally, and he wants to be Prime Minister of Canada someday.

M me France Gélinas: J’ai de la belle visite de Sudbury. J’aimerais vous présenter M me Carole Lamoureux, la directrice générale du Centre de counselling de Sudbury, et M me Claire Narbonne-Fortin, qui est présidente du conseil d’administration du Centre de counselling. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today I would like to welcome paramedic Cory Schepers, who is from my riding of Barrie, to the Legislative Assembly.

I would also like to welcome Catholic Family Services of Simcoe County board members Michael Kodama and Steve McDonald, executive director Michelle Bergin, and fund development coordinator Ryan Lay.

We also have several other board members from Family Service Ontario. Welcome to Ray Houde, Natalie Parnell, Connie McLeod, Leo Heuvelmans and Brad Davis. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to introduce to you and, through you, to the members of the Legislative Assembly, two constituents from my riding of Leeds–Grenville who are here with the IBAO delegation. I want to welcome Jeff Gatcke and Brian Purcell. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On behalf of Monique Taylor, MPP for Hamilton Mountain, I would like to welcome a guest of page Claire Le Donne: her sister, Gabrielle Le Donne, who was a former page in the fall session of 2013. She’s in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a warm welcome to Terry Baker, a paramedic from OPSEU, and welcome to all paramedics from OPSEU; as well as Donna Forster, the executive director at K3C Counselling in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m very pleased to welcome to the Legislature Elizabeth Pierce and Stan MacLellan from Catholic Family Services of Durham; Ryan Willis, who is from Durham region and a CUPE representative for the paramedics; and finally, Sean McNamara, who is the president of the board of directors of the Boys and Girls Club in Durham region. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to welcome paramedics and dispatchers and EMS workers from across the province but, in particular, Tim Borowski and Jim Simpson are up there in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome Anushka Kurian to the members’ gallery today. Anushka is joining my Status of Women office for the summer as an intern. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to welcome Mark Preston from Burlington. Mark is here with the insurance brokers today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: There are a number of people here from the city of Ottawa today, and I’d like to welcome Mark Zarecki, Sarah Caspi and Andrea Gardner, all here for Jewish Family Services of Ottawa; as well as Peter Hominuk and Bryan Michaud from AFO; and, obviously, anybody else who is from the city of Ottawa here today. I welcome you here.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I would like to welcome everyone here from Family Service Ontario, and a very special welcome to Joyce Zuk, who is from Family Services Windsor-Essex.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome the following members from Family Service Ontario. We have Alan McQuarrie, the board chair; Susan MacIsaac, executive director; and the following board members are with us as well: Shelley McCarthy, Sharon Mayne Devine and Michelle Bergin. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I extend a welcome to Susan Wells, newly appointed service director with Haldimand-Norfolk REACH.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to welcome my sister-in-law, Nancy Bollinger; my nephew Jordan Bollinger; and Janet Bollinger, from Oakville, here—first time visiting Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to introduce and welcome interns from the Liberal Caucus Service Bureau. We have Kris Day, Gari Ravishankar, Mahbod Haghighi, C.J. Jeyanathan and Holden Wine. Welcome.

Ms. Laurie Scott: For Ontario paramedics’ day, I’d like to introduce Jason Fraser, Ryan Moloney, Dave Jeffries, Tim Rose and Heidi Brown. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome, from the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, Doug Heaman, Ryan Wallace and Matthew Carr.

Aussi, de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario et la Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne : Carol Jolin, Alain Dupuis, Josée Joliat et Ali Boussi.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Having just passed the one-year anniversary on post-traumatic stress disorder legislation, please help me to welcome paramedics who are here today from all over Ontario and who serve us well.

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s a pleasure to welcome, from Pointe au Baril, down for lunch with their MPP, Lauralee and Bill Kennedy.

Ms. Catherine Fife: On behalf of Family Service Ontario, welcome, everyone.

I’d also like to say a special welcome to Leslie Josling, from KW Counselling, in Kitchener, and Tracy Elop, from Carizon counselling. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I have several introductions this morning: from Thunder Bay Counselling centre, executive director Nancy Chamberlain and board member Dominique Chénard; from Family Service Ontario, Connie McLeod, board member; from the Catholic Family Development Centre, Jack Cleverdon, executive director.

I also have an intern here today, Nicholas Ryma, from Sudbury, who is working in our office. I’d also like to welcome my office manager from my municipal affairs office, Melanie Moscovitch.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: In the member’s west gallery, I’d like to introduce, from Family Service Kent, Brad Davis and Leo Heuvelmans. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: Moi aussi, je viens de voir que Peter Hominuk de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario est là également. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park, Peter.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature the family of page Kate, from my riding of Etobicoke Centre: her mom, Jennifer Krikorian; her dad, Mark Winterton; her brother Andrew; and her aunt Jacqueline Krikorian. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’m very happy to welcome Soon Young Lee. She is the chair of For You Telecare Family Service. This organization provides excellent telephone counselling services.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to welcome guests of page captain Iman Chowdhury: her mother, Bably Chowdhury, and her cousins Teashan, Khadiza and Fatema; as well as two interns in my office: Isaac Crawford-Ritchie from Western, and Ema Ibrakovic from U of T.

M me Gila Martow: Nous avons des représentants de trois organismes francophones aujourd’hui.

De l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario : le président, M. Carol Jolin; le directeur général, M. Peter Hominuk; et analyste politique de l’Assemblée, M. Bryan Michaud.

Des représentants de la FESFO : Camille Sigouin, Pablo Mhanna-Sandoval, et Kelia Wane.

Et aussi les représentants du RÉFO : le directeur général, Alain Dupuis; la coprésidente, Josée Joliat, et Yacouba Condé, le coprésident; et le directeur adjoint, Steven Ogden.

Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to welcome, in the west gallery, Joanne Young Evans, who is the executive director of Family Counselling and Support Services for Guelph-Wellington.

In the east gallery are four members of my staff: some new staff members, Kema Joseph and Adanette Frederick, as well as two summer interns, Jack and Jason. Welcome.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Don Pitt, the executive director of the Family Counselling Centre in Sarnia–Lambton, here today as part of Family Service Day.

Also, Chris Stolte, a Lambton county paramedic with the EMS, is here.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to introduce the best interns ever, in my office: Josh Loeffler, Veronica Cesario and Alice Hansen. They’re up in the east gallery. Welcome.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I’m proud to recognize, from Catholic Family Services of Simcoe County, Patrick Kodama and Michelle Bergin, who are in the House today.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It’s always a special day here at Queen’s Park, but it’s an extremely special day today since I have my son André here in the west gallery, who is visiting today with his teacher, Miss Bourdon, and their grade 7 class.

In the gallery across the way we have Mr. Merenda with the grade 8s. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We have Alan McQuarrie, executive director, and Derek Thompson, volunteer board chair of the Community Counselling Centre of Nipissing here today.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I very much want to welcome, from Catholic Family Services of Durham, the executive director, Elizabeth Pierce, and board chair Stan MacLellan.

A warm welcome also to Durham paramedics and to the Durham Boys and Girls Club folks who are here today, and two interns working in my offices this summer: Houman Tahavori and Christina Alulio.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to welcome to the Legislature a very great advocate and a great paramedic in Ottawa. He is a resident of our great community of Ottawa–Orléans: Norm Robillard. Welcome. Bienvenue.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of my Ottawa colleagues I want to welcome Kathryn Hill, who’s the executive director of Family Services Ottawa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’d like to welcome Elizabeth Pierce and Stan MacLellan, who are here today with Catholic Family Services of Durham.

I’d also like to welcome Mike Merriman, Peter Shirer and Joel Usher, who are visiting Queen’s Park today for paramedics day.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome Janet Irvine, executive director of the Northumberland Community Counselling Centre, and Jason Fraser from the great village of Warkworth, who is a paramedic in Peterborough county. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Just in case there’s anyone else in here who hasn’t been welcomed yet, with your permission, Speaker: Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I’d like to welcome Rob El-Sayed from Family Services of Peel.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: We’re very happy to welcome in our ministry our summer intern, Chris Stewart.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d like to welcome the members of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario who are here today for their Queen’s Park day. They’re led by their president, Traci Boland, and chairman of the board Doug Heaman.

I invite all members to join us at the reception this evening in the Legislature dining room from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I would like to welcome Sharon Mayne-Devine and Rob El-Sayed, who are here from Family Services of Peel today visiting from my riding.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a few introductions. Please join me in welcoming a special guest of mine in the Speaker’s gallery: my sister, Roseanne Levac, and her friend Brian Shaw. Welcome to Queen’s Park for the first time. She is my baby sister, so—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Watch it.

We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery Mr. Mugurel Stanescu, the consul general of Romania. Please join me in welcoming the consul general. Thank you for joining us.

Finally, would the members please join me in welcoming the family and friends of the late Ken Black, MPP for Muskoka–Georgian Bay during the 34th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery. I will name only a few: Beth Black, his wife; daughter Kendra Black and her husband, Peter O’Blenes; daughter Debra Selkirk; son Greg Black and his wife, Nancy Gamble; grandchildren Gillian Smart, Maui Paraskakis, Jordan Black, Ashley Gilbert, Lily Gamble, Joanne Sevier, Jordan Hyde and many other friends who are here today. Welcome, and thank you for being here.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery, representing the former parliamentarians, is Mr. David Warner, Speaker during the 35th Parliament, and Mr. George Smitherman, MPP for Toronto Centre–Rosedale during the 37th and 38th Parliaments and MPP for Toronto Centre during the 39th Parliament. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for being here for support.

Ken Black

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would entertain the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize a former member of provincial Parliament for Muskoka–Georgian Bay, Mr. Ken Black, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

We’ll turn to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka to start our tribute.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Speaker. Let me begin by welcoming all of Ken’s family and friends who have made the trip to Queen’s Park today. You mentioned some. Ken’s wife, Beth, his kids—they’re not kids anymore—Greg, Debbie and Kendra—I believe David is still in the Yukon—and grandkids, friends, nieces and nephews have all made the trip here. It’s great to see such a huge group here to pay tribute to Ken today.

My family has had a long association with the Black family. Ken’s brother Lyle was our family doctor when I was growing up. Lyle was also president of the Muskoka Progressive Conservative association. He did my aviation medicals, and when I learned to fly—I was about 20 years old—he very generously let me fly his beautiful Cessna 182 whenever I wished, for many years. I’ve always wondered why he entrusted that to me.

I have to admit, with his older brother so involved with the PCs, I always assumed that Ken must be a Conservative, and I was a little shocked when I heard he was running for the Liberals. It was around the time that Lyle passed away, so I always assumed he waited until his older brother passed to show his true Liberal colours.

The Blacks lived just down the road from us, on the Muskoka River. Ken’s wife, Beth, played the piano for singsongs we had at our lodge when we hosted seniors’ bus tours. I still find myself whistling some of the songs without realizing I’m doing it. His son Greg and I played hockey together on Monday nights in Port Carling and in the Lovable Losers hockey tournament for many, many years.

Ken was principal of Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes Secondary School, which I attended. Ken certainly commanded respect at the high school. He kept his finger on the pulse of the school by walking the hallways on a regular basis. Actually, I would say he strutted the hallways, often wearing a bow tie to go with his dapper suit. As a student, you knew not to question his authority. He took pride in his work, and he ran a tight ship.

Thank you to Ron Jacques and Bill and Jan Dickinson for sending me information about Ken at school and about his involvement with environmental causes. The Dickinsons sent this story:

“During our second year in Bracebridge we had some monstrous snowfalls and as you know we were living in the gatehouse at P-K Lodge (owned by the Miller family). Ken was always insistent that if you chose to live out of town you had to get to school ‘no matter what.’ On one of those wild snowy mornings, Ken picked up Ron Jacques on his snow machine and in they went.

“We were still snowbound and thought we were excused. Didn’t happen! Ken found out that Knowles had a plumbing truck in the area and he arranged for that truck to pick up the Whitelaws, Dickinsons and Agnes Tough”—who was the secretary—“in the back of the truck and ship them to school. Ken ran a tight ship and he worked hard. Consistent with his personality, he expected those around him to do so as well.”

Thanks to Greg Black for digging up this letter from my father to Ken after the graduation of June 26, 1975.

He wrote, “Dear Ken:

“I’m not one, as you know, to write letters patting people on the back. I did want, though, to compliment you on your address to the students and parents during the graduation ceremonies.

“You expressed very well the very feelings I have had over the past two years. We have been living beyond our means; we have been using our resources at an unseemly and unjustifiable rate. Whether we like it or not, life will change in the near future.

“This may not be a bad thing. For all the wealth and affluence around us, there are far more unhappy people today than there were 30 years ago.

“The world has begun to look upon their rights rather than their responsibilities, with the result that everyone wants something more for doing less.

“I’m sure your speech was accepted very well by both the parents and the students.

“Yours sincerely,

“Frank S. Miller

“Member for Muskoka”

Ken Black was elected to the Ontario Legislature in the riding of Muskoka–Georgian Bay in 1987. Thanks again to his son Greg, I have a poem handwritten by my father to Ken. I can’t remember my father ever writing a poem, so I don’t know where this came from, but he did give me a copy of it, so I’m trusting this. This is the poem:

I give you this tie that is plaid,

To remind you of times I once had,

When Conservatives reigned

And the Liberals complained

About all of the things that were bad.

I was able to reach for top spot

And to get there I struggled a lot

So you’ll have to agree

That the tartan for me

Once helped me to hit the jackpot!

However, the voters were fickle

And my charisma was not worth a nickel

Don’t let Bay Street schmoes

Make you change your clothes

Stick with plaid, and you won’t be in a pickle.

Ken went on to serve as the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, and he was appointed a special adviser to the Premier to coordinate the government’s assault on drug use in Ontario. He conducted a one-man task force and coordinated the anti-drug strategies of seven ministries.

However, politics was just one

chapter in Ken’s remarkable career. After his term in office, Ken served as president of the Muskoka Heritage Foundation and founded the Muskoka Watershed Council in 2001.

Bill Dickinson wrote the following for Ken’s nomination for an environmental award, the Wayland Drew Award:

“Perhaps Ken’s greatest contribution to the Muskoka environmental scene was the conception and development of the Muskoka Watershed Council. He saw the need to somehow partner the district of Muskoka with a local NGO environmental organization, the Muskoka Conservancy (the Muskoka Heritage Foundation at the time) to attain a new level of environmental awareness. Ken used his role as president of the Muskoka Heritage Foundation to facilitate this. With great perseverance and determination he was successful in achieving this goal.”

Prior to the council there was no conservation authority in Muskoka and no single agency responsible for water quality throughout the watershed. Ken has left a legacy of watershed report cards, research partnerships and position papers that will measure Muskoka’s watershed health and guide governments.

Later in life, Ken continued to advocate for environmental protectionism and focused on volunteering and writing columns for the newspaper, including “In My View” for the Weekender and muskokaregion.com. His last column was titled, Time for an International Agreement on Sharing Great Lakes Waters. And his blog dated August 22, 2016, asked us to take better care of our freshwater resources. He wrote, “I suggest individual citizens, the business and corporate sectors, and the governments we elect all need to get serious about a resource that is under threat from a changing climate, and is also one we all too often take for granted.”

Ken cared deeply for Muskoka, for its people and its natural heritage. Sadly, we have lost a strong advocate and a strong voice for our area. He was passionate about his community, a proponent of equal opportunity, and a true champion of Muskoka, and that is how he will always remain.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s an honour to be asked to pay tribute to Ken Black on behalf of my caucus. I didn’t have the opportunity to meet Mr. Black, but I have to say it was an honour doing research on his past and his contributions. I’d particularly like to welcome his family, in particular his wife, Beth. They just celebrated 62 years of marriage.

The first thing that struck me about Mr. Black, and that told me he was an incredible individual, is that he was elected as a Liberal in that part of the country. There are places in the province where you can get elected on the party ticket, and there are places where you can’t. In Parry Sound–Muskoka—I believe that Muskoka–Georgian Bay was the riding at that time—in that part of the province you don’t get elected on the Liberal ticket. You have to be an incredible individual, and that was testament to the fact that he was.

Further testament to the fact that Mr. Black—and, as I go on, I’m going to start calling him Ken—was an incredible individual is because he was given, off the topper, an incredible task: to be a one-man task force to look at the use of and how to control illegal drugs in this province, in particular with youth. Imagine the weight of that issue and the respect that he must have had, for the Premier to say, “We need you to look at this.” He was later made the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and also responsible for drug issues in this province—again, an incredible responsibility. I think, having read through the history, that he did some great things on that front.

But before he came to this place, he was involved in education. He was a teacher, a principal and a superintendent. One of the obituaries that I found—I like this quote because it spoke to me: “Ken Black was old school.”

I also had a principal who was old school, and we had not such a great relationship. I spent a lot of time in the old school principal’s office. I spent a lot of time in the hall. I even spent some time—and I don’t even think this is legal anymore—on the steps of the bus. I was a bad boy in the bus, and I had to sit on the steps of the bus. Every time the kids got on the bus, I had to get out. I was pretty wet by the time I got to school.

But it was people like that—our old school principal was known as “Strap Wilson.” I’m not saying that was Mr. Black, but I got the feeling that Mr. Black demanded respect. He is the kind of educator that people will remember for their whole lives and he, I am sure, has developed students that have benefited this society greatly. He is the one who I’m sure hundreds of students remember, because he set them straight at a time they needed to be set straight, like Mr. Wilson did for me.

As I read on, it became apparent that Mr. Black was very interested in and very committed to the environment. If you look up Ken Black: Community Leader and Conservationist, on August 29, 2016, you’ll see a beautiful picture of Mr. Black in a kayak, and you can see he is in his element. He’s done great things for the environmental cause in the Muskoka area and throughout the province.

As was mentioned by Mr. Miller, he wrote a blog. I’d like to just read the titles of the last few articles that he wrote. I think they’re a testament to his continued work for all of us. The last one he wrote was Our Casual Treatment of Canada’s Fresh Water Supply Must End; the next one was Time for Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba to Trade-in Cap-and-Trade for a Carbon Tax? So he wasn’t always a Liberal. Then, It Is Time for Serious Reform of Canadian Senate; and, finally, Time for An International Agreement on Sharing Great Lakes Waters.

It’s been an honour to share this time. Congratulations, and thank you to the family for sharing him with us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tributes?

Mr. James J. Bradley: It’s always difficult when you’re the third person paying tribute, because much of, or almost all of, what can be said about Ken Black has been said, appropriately, by the representatives of the two other parties. I had the privilege of serving with him—in many of these tributes, I have that advantage—of having served in the Legislature with Ken Black when he was a member of the same cabinet I was in. Because there are so many things you could say, I’ll try to limit them. I’m going to pick some excerpts from his eulogy, which was done before over 600 people in Bracebridge.

I do want to say I was particularly pleased, as Minister of the Environment at the time, to have Ken Black as a strong advocate for the environment. I think representatives from that area—and the present member will agree with this—have a special affinity for the environment, the Muskoka, Bracebridge and Parry Sound area of the province, that central part of the province where many people have cottages—or as northerners would say, “camps.” I’m not one of them who has had that privilege but I know that many people have. The residents there have a special affinity for the environment.

Ken Black had that, as a member of the community before he became a member of the Legislature, and during his tenure as Minister of Tourism, and of course subsequent to that, when he left public life at the request of the electorate in his particular riding. I think he said semi-retirement was imposed upon him by the people of his riding.

But I do remember him very well, as being a very principled person, as well as being a principal. I admired the fact that he was prepared to leave the field of education, which, as members of this assembly would know, probably pays better than the Legislature. All my members of the Legislature always want to point out something Ken would find interesting: that the members of the Legislature have now been living under a pay freeze for the last nine years. I’m sure Ken would have spoken vociferously against that, to ensure that we could attract people of his ilk to the Ontario Legislature.

But his educational background was helpful. I looked at his approach, first of all, to special education, but also to drugs. There was a special incident that happened that triggered this, but he could see the effect that it would have on children, on young people going through the education system—what drugs would do when they were involved with illicit drugs. He took that on as something very personal. I was pleased that Premier Peterson appointed him to investigate this problem and to come up with some of the solutions, none of which he said were easy solutions.

Charles Beer, who spoke at the funeral, indicated that Ken was assertive in cabinet and assertive in caucus. When you say “assertive,” that of course means many things, but he certainly knew where he stood on the issues. But he was also able to bring people together, both in his community and here in the Legislature. Once he announced what his views would be, he was prepared to take into account the views of others.

He was involved with the Rotary Club, involved with the historical society and with many things within the community. That’s what you like to see with members of the Legislature or of any elected body: somebody who has roots in that community and has been involved. It’s certainly an advantage, at least, to be involved in the community.

He indicated an admiration for President Kennedy. Those of his ilk, and my ilk, I guess, and many in this Legislature saw President Kennedy as a hero, politically, and certainly Ken did as well. He indicated that in some of his comments, and certainly in the way that he approached his job at Queen’s Park.

But to go back to the issue of the environment, watersheds are so important, right across our province, wherever they happen to be. The fact that he would take this on as a special cause in his community is to be admired by those of us who are members of the Legislature, and certainly appreciated by those in the community.

Some of the comments about him, and I won’t go on at length because others have already mentioned many of these: “He was a dreamer of immense proportions,” his son said. That was something that resonated with people who were at that particular service.

He was a role model, with whom discipline was a priority in instilling his values. The representative of the New Democratic Party indicated how important discipline is for students at a particular point in time, that it sends them in the right direction. Ken certainly felt discipline was very important, and shared that with his colleagues. He also was mentioned as “masterfully understated in his walk of life, yet gave us a hint of the essence of the man.” That was on his work with the Muskoka Watershed Council.

He was a valuable business person, although I think he was the first to admit that his business experience wasn’t exactly the same experience he had in education, to put it kindly.

He was a person of self-deprecating humour, which is, I think, an asset in life and in politics. He was replacing, of course, Frank Miller, who was a person I remember very well as having that same self-deprecating humour and an affinity for the riding. It’s interesting to hear, particularly in this day when it is alleged that hyper-partisanship is more the norm everywhere, that the two families were very close, the Miller family and the Black family. They admired one another even though there were different political affiliations, and certainly respected the decisions of the electorate.

As I say, so much has been said about Ken, who I knew personally. I got a note from the member for Guelph, who says, “By the way, mention that his granddaughter, Lily Gamble, is past president of the University of Guelph Young Liberals.” I thought I’d mention that for the family.

So much has been said about Ken, and all of it is true. When we get up here, we want to always put the best face on anybody who has been a member of the Legislature. I can say genuinely—and you can see it by the number of people in the Speaker’s gallery—that he was admired by people from all backgrounds.

It’s a great sacrifice for the families of the members who are here to have their member come to the Legislature, particularly to serve in the cabinet, where the responsibilities are more onerous than perhaps others are. It was very kind of them to allow him to come down here to serve in this capacity. Our province, our country and certainly those who live in the Muskoka area are all better off because Ken made that decision to come to the Legislature. The people endorsed that decision.

I look back with great fondness for Ken Black and our many exchanges that we had as members of the Legislature, members of a caucus and members of cabinet. Ontario is a better place because of Ken Black. We thank his family.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to thank all members for their very heartfelt and kind words for Mr. Black. To Mrs. Black and the entire family and friends, we thank you for the gift of Ken. As a small token, we will ensure that you receive a Hansard copy of the tributes, including a DVD that gives you the visual as well. Again, thank you for the gift of Ken Black.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to read you some lines from economic expert Ben Eisen’s recent op-ed on the provincial budget:

“Over the past three years, Ontario’s net debt has increased by $34.8 billion.

“Over the next three years, the province expects to add $34 billion in debt—almost exactly the same amount.

“In this context, the government’s rhetoric—that a balanced operating budget has dawned a new fiscal day and the province can now afford to spend more freely—rings hollow.”

So instead of a new fiscal day, what we have is more being spent on interest payments, $10 billion more in debt this year and the crowding out of front-line services. Can the Minister of Finance tell this Legislature, what did he have to cut to pay for these higher interest payments?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question from the member opposite, who, by the way, voted in the largest deficit in our country’s history—$55 billion.

This is from the same member who, by the way—they had accumulated deficits throughout their time, more than double Canada’s overall debt, and never once did they ever pay down debt.

Furthermore, interest on debt, which he refers to, now, today in Ontario, is the lowest it has ever been, especially when compared to the Conservatives at 16%. Today it’s 8.4% of our overall budget, and it’s locked in for 30 and 40 years in many respects.

Going forward we are addressing debt, and the first way to address debt is to balance the books. We’re balancing the books this year, next year and the year after.

We’re investing heavily in a number of programs and services for the people of Ontario. I ask that member: What will he cut going forward?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Finance—and you’ll notice he did not answer the question about the skyrocketing debt in Ontario. He chooses to attack, rather than defend a budget that is struggling in debt. Those are shell games Ontarians can see through.

The reality is, when they’re adding so much debt, it means there’s no ability to help. A good example of that is in the city of Toronto. The conclusion from the city manager of Toronto, Peter Wallace, in his words, was that there are “no new investments” for Toronto. Despite the Liberals telling Mayor Tory they were going to invest in the city of Toronto, Toronto is receiving nothing from this government.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister come clean? Are the Liberals attacking—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. We’ve had two exchanges, and both sides are interrupting their own questioner and their own answerer, and we’re going back and forth. I’m more than willing to jump into warnings, and your next little foray will dictate whether I will or I won’t.

Finish your question, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, are the Liberals simply attacking Mayor Tory because they’re embarrassed by their own budget, which is suffocating in high debt and does nothing for the city of Toronto?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer the first part of the question. We’re investing $11.5 billion more in health care; we’re investing another $6.5 billion more in education; and we’re making record investments in infrastructure and transit for the people of Ontario, all of which, in good part, is going to be supported by increased debt to the extent of those capital improvements and capital investments.

What will he cut as we move forward on those very issues that are important to the people of Ontario?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Does that mean we’re making government? Have you elected us?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing will come to order. And I believe that one might be close enough for me to go to warnings. We’ll check.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we are investing in Toronto—heavily, in fact. Toronto has set its priorities. We said we will match and support ongoing investments in social housing as well as in infrastructure.

The member opposite has opposed the revenue request. The member opposite has not even agreed to Toronto’s issues. We have.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Finance: For a second time, the Minister of Finance refuses to acknowledge that we have $34 billion in new debt over the next three years. Debt is still skyrocketing in Ontario. What it means is, we have so much debt and so much in interest payments, and no ability to invest. And, frankly, despite what the Minister of Finance says, when the mayor and the entire city council are saying this government does nothing for Toronto, it speaks loudly.

The reality is, they have made choices. As an example of the lack of support for Toronto, the Liberals cut $1.4 million from the Toronto Public Library.

Where are this government’s priorities? How can this minister justify $1 billion to pay for their gas plant scandal, but $1.4 million for the library in Toronto is too much? It’s not right, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Here are the priorities of this budget: pharmacare, free for every child under 25; tuition for our children—210,000 going to school this year—free for them as well; we’re continuing to provide for junior kindergarten; and we’re making investments and working with business to provide for more economic growth.

What will he cut? Will he cut pharmacare going forward? Will he cut free tuition for our students? Will he cut the supports we’re making for business?

Mr. Speaker, we are the largest contributor to the city of Toronto by far. He has never once supported their initiatives—or, for that matter, any municipality in Ontario—because they downloaded, and we’re uploading.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Hospital funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

I was pretty optimistic when I heard that the Liberals might finally do the right thing and support our hospitals. But according to the Ontario Health Coalition, the Liberal budget will barely make a dent. They said the funding will hardly even cover inflation, and it certainly won’t be enough to sustain the current system. That’s from the Ontario Health Coalition. It seems it was just enough to get a few Liberal-friendly quotes.

After years of freezing budgets and cutting health care in hospitals left, right and centre, will the minister admit that this money doesn’t cut it and they’re not actually meeting the needs of Ontario’s hospitals?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I honestly don’t know where to begin. I don’t know if I should be talking about the two dozen hospitals that they closed when they were last in power. I don’t know if I should talk about when the leader of the official opposition was part of a government in Ottawa that ended the health services provided to refugees in this country. There are so many examples—or their promise to cut 100,000 jobs, many of them in health care.

But I am going to choose to talk about our investments—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m giving you what you want. We’re going to warnings, and I’ll immediately use them.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: But I choose to talk about our investments, as articulated by the Minister of Finance in our budget.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to talk about all your cuts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Answer.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: An additional $9 billion to construct new hospitals in this province, making a total of $20 billion over the next—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook is warned.

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Health: There is a trend here. When the government can’t defend their own record, they point fingers; they blame others; they blame past provincial governments, past federal governments.

Defend your own record. Be proud of your own record. If you’re actually not embarrassed by what you’re doing for the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

The member from Beaches–East York is warned.

And if you’d like, I’ll move to naming. We’re getting through this properly.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, if you can be proud of your record, you don’t need to attack others.

Let me give you another example. Jamie-Lee Ball spent five days on a stretcher in a hallway, and this is what she had to say about this government’s budget:

“When you explain it’s just inflation, it’s really shocking to me.

“I don’t understand how this is even negotiable. To offer Canadians their basic rights in regards to health care shouldn’t be something they even have to discuss.”

Jamie-Lee Ball is right. When this Liberal government has cut and cut health care for the last five years and you have patients being stuck on stretchers for five days in hallways, it’s not right. So I’m asking Jamie-Lee Ball’s question. You didn’t do enough for her. You haven’t done enough for patients. When can we expect the government to do the right thing?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, on this side, we’re proud of our record. The member opposite should be embarrassed by his own record. When he was a part of government in Ottawa, they closed the Health Council of Canada. When he was a part of government in Ottawa, they voted against the refugee Interim Federal Health Program. They closed the National Aboriginal Health Organization. I can’t imagine what the member opposite has planned for the health care system—cutting and slashing.

We’re investing $7 billion over the next three years to further reduce wait times—wait times that are the best in the country—to provide better access to care, and to further enhance the patient experience. A 3.3% increase in health spending over the medium term, Mr. Speaker; a 3% increase to our hospitals’ operating budgets—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —an infusion of more than $500 million on top of last year’s $500 million, for a billion dollars to hospitals.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Health: Once again—typical response—they attack others. They can’t be proud of their record. Why would they be proud of Jamie-Lee Ball? Five days—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Etobicoke North is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, they shouldn’t be proud of their record. Jamie-Lee Ball, five days on a stretcher in a hallway—and they’re proud of what they’re doing to health care?

Interjection: It’s awful.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s awful, Mr. Speaker.

According to the last Auditor General’s report, just 30% of patients observed in hospital ERs made it to an acute care ward in less than eight hours. They’re proud of that eight hours as the Ministry of Health’s own target?

Why was that? Maybe it’s because Ontario has the fewest number of hospital beds per 1,000 people across the country that they accept this. It’s not good enough.

The people of Ontario—our patients are sick. They deserve better. This government has not delivered. When will they support our patients?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite is just making it up as he goes along. You can make it up, but the Fraser report says that 85% of ER patients are getting treatment within the eight-hour target for complex patients, and 89% within the four-hour target for minor patients. In fact, ER wait times for the sickest patients have been cut by almost 30%, while at the same time the volumes that we’re seeing in our ERs have increased by 40%—more patients being seen, shorter wait times.

It’s to the point where also CIHI, the Canadian Institute for Health Information—it’s further proof that our government has made great progress. Hip replacements: 85% completed within the medical benchmark, higher than the national average; knee replacements—higher than the national average; 99% of radiation therapy within the medical benchmark, also above the national average. In every single metric, we are near, if not at, the top of the national performance in wait times.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Alternative facts.

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

New question.

Pharmacare

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Acting Premier. Can the Acting Premier tell the 2.2 million Ontarians with no drug coverage why the Liberals are refusing to introduce a universal pharmacare program and ensure access to the medications they need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I don’t really understand why the third party wants to get into a squabble about whether their plan is better than our plan, or our plan is better than their plan. We agree that the time has come for pharmacare in Ontario and in Canada.

One significant difference between their plan and our plan is that ours will start in January 2018. Everyone under age 25 with an OHIP card will have access to free drugs, with no copay, with no annual deductible.

We are very proud of the investment that we’re making in pharmacare, and we invite the NDP to join with us and support pharmacare in the province of Ontario and beyond.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: The difference is that what we’re proposing is actually pharmacare.

Here’s an example: Tracey from Newmarket saw the NDP pharmacare announcement on TV and called us to tell us her story and what pharmacare would mean to her. She spent two years without benefits, first taking care of an ill relative and then working part-time without benefits. She has diabetes and high cholesterol. Her prescriptions cost $300 per month. Paying for these medications put her into credit card debt, and she’s still struggling to pay that off.

Tracey is older than 24. Our universal pharmacare plan would cover Tracey. Why are the Liberals refusing to bring in a universal pharmacare plan, leaving people like Tracey going into debt just to pay for the medication they need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know the leader of the third party will be in Peterborough later today. I hope while she’s there—and I know she’s planning to talk about access to medications. I hope that when she’s speaking to the crowd and the media, she’ll be telling them, in Peterborough alone, of the—

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’m going to invite her to an event on Friday.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I hope the leader of the third party will be telling the citizens of the great city of Peterborough that 34,000 children and youth will, as of January 1, be receiving free full pharmacare, or how 11,500 households in Peterborough with children—those parents will no longer have to worry about paying for asthma inhalers or antibiotics or insulin. This begins at the start of next January—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West is warned.

Final supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: New Democrats have a universal pharmacare plan that will give drug coverage to 14 million Ontarians. Under this plan, no diabetic or HIV patient will celebrate their 25th birthday knowing—

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It’s not universal with so few drugs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Infrastructure is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I’m maybe about three questions away from naming. If you want that, you’re going to get it.

Finish your question, please.

Mr. John Vanthof: Under this plan, people with asthma or high blood pressure receiving social assistance can enter the workforce, knowing they won’t lose their drug coverage.

Why is this Liberal government leaving millions of Ontarians without drug coverage by refusing to bring in a universal pharmacare plan for people above age 24?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think the member opposite knows that we have a program involving Ontario disability support as well as Ontario Works and Trillium, programs that provide supports to the kinds of individuals whom he is speaking to.

However, under their plan, no one in this province will be covered for cancer medications. Under their plan, no one in the province will be covered for drugs for rare diseases. I have to say that the leader of the third party, who was first elected 4,700 days ago, prior to last week only mentioned in this Legislature the word “pharmacare” three times. Once, she referenced it in the context of an op-ed that I had written about pharmacare. The other time she referenced it with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, erroneously referring to the concern about pharmacare.

Mr. Speaker, she had 4,700 days to talk about pharmacare. I appreciate the fact they’re late to the game, but their advocacy is important as we try to secure pharmacare nationally.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Acting Premier. Does the Liberal government think it’s okay that, as a result of the Premier’s cuts and underfunding to our hospitals, people going to an emergency are being treated in hallways, in a shower room, in a broom closet or in a TV room for days and sometimes weeks on end?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. It’s not acceptable, and that’s why last year and again this year, we’ve made significant investments in our hospitals, both on the capital side—for example, the recent announcement at Trillium in Mississauga last week, where we announced that we are moving forward with the construction of a new hospital tower with acute beds, a new ER, as well as at the other sites of Trillium—but also, importantly, on the operating side, in terms of operating budgets, immediately moving to add to the resources provided last year an additional 3% increase to hospitals across this province.

That includes specific funds that will enable hospitals, in a flexible way, to address the unique challenges that they may be facing, whether that’s in their ERs because of growth, the 40% increase of patients that are being seen in our ERs, which I referenced earlier, or whether it’s with regard to bed capacity and other issues. We’re there to support our hospitals.

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

M me France Gélinas: Olive is 84 years old. She lives in Sudbury. She was admitted to the hospital with sepsis. While she was being treated, she spent her first two nights on a stretcher in a busy ER and the next 20 days in a TV room, including one night in the shower room, which was quieter than the very busy TV room that she was in.

The Premier’s cuts caused this crisis to happen and her budget is not going to come close to fixing it. When is the Liberal government going to admit to the severity of the hospital overcrowding that the Premier has created and stop pretending that a 2% increase is going to solve it?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First of all, the member is wrong with her percentage. The increase in operating budgets to our hospitals is 3%, and that includes a significant amount of funding specifically to priority services. It includes over $1 billion invested over the next three years specifically to improve wait times, whether they occur in our ERs, whether it’s the 2,800 more hip and knee replacements that will be provided, whether it’s the 29,000 more MRI hours, the 2,100 more cataract surgeries, whether it’s $70 million to adopt the latest digital technologies, $74 million for mental health services, $357 million for priority services in hospitals or $66 million for telemedicine.

Altogether, including the increases already locked in from last year, there’s $11 billion more into health care over the next three years.

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

M me France Gélinas: Well, people across Ontario go to the hospital and they end up being treated in hallways. That’s because for a decade, hospital budgets have been cut or frozen. We’re talking about years and years of this Liberal government doing damage to our hospitals, and the Premier isn’t undoing this damage. Instead, her hospital budget falls at least $300 million short of what is needed to keep the crisis from getting worse—not even to get things better.

Why is the Liberal government refusing to take responsibility for the damage the Premier has done to our health care system and make a real and meaningful commitment to ending hallway medicine in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, let’s hear what those who truly know about how meaningful the investments of last week’s budget are.

Theresa Agnew, Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario: “Today’s provincial budget provides great news for the people of Ontario. With significant funding increases to hospitals, long-term-care homes, and primary care, we can better meet the needs of an aging population. NPAO is thrilled to hear about free prescription drugs for children and youth.”

Anthony Dale, president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association: “It ... signals a renewed commitment from government to expand and enhance access to care across the continuum.”

“The government’s significant investments in hospital capital will help to support a sustainable health care system for the future.”

The Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario: It’s the same thing, championing and celebrating the investments we announced last week.

Consumer protection

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the finance minister. We’ve been asking you questions about Home Capital, the troubled mortgage lender also under securities commission investigation. Depositors left and the share price tumbled. Then they received a $2-billion bailout from the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, or HOOPP.

Kevin Smith, the board chair of Home Capital, was a member of HOOPP’s board, and Jim Keohane, HOOPP’s CEO, was also on the board of Home Capital. After the $2-billion deal was done, they then resigned from each other’s boards within 24 hours.

All this happened right under the minister’s nose. We want answers from the minister. Is an investigation into this perceived conflict of interest under way, or does the minister agree that what went down in that 24-hour period somehow passes the smell test?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. In fact, as I’ve replied already on occasion, investigations are under way. The Ontario Securities Commission is doing its job and has already made public some of the allegations being put forward.

OSFI, which is the federal regulator that oversees Home Capital, is also taking the appropriate steps to protect the interests of consumers and investors. FSCO, which is the regulator here in Ontario, has already performed and laid some of the charges with regard to fraud.

The member opposite is now making allegations in regard to some of the executives, who share ownerships, and the chair as well as the trustees, and the resignations. We get all that, but our primary concern is to ensure that consumers and investors are protected, and that we take the appropriate steps through the regulators. In fact, they’re doing their job to that extent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: Kevin Smith is also the $720,000-a-year CEO of St. Joseph’s health centre in Hamilton. But while he’s at his $357,000-a-year job at Home Capital, here’s what is happening back at his hospital: 600 cataract surgeries stopped, 58 registered nursing jobs cut, mental health treatment unit closed, and 136 more positions cut, including 61 RNs.

Where was Kevin Smith through all this? Not in Hamilton, but in Toronto, attending 31 board meetings, earning $1.5 million in stock.

You have to ask: How could he possibly run St. Joseph’s while heading up a multi-billion-dollar company?

I ask the minister: Is it right that a hospital CEO, who should be focused on health care, have another full-time job, where he earned over $1.5 million?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Again, we’ve made investments in the hospitals. We’re investing more in operating and in capital, and supporting the well-being of Ontarians as we proceed forward on those matters. The member—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry is warned.

Hon. Charles Sousa: They have fiduciary duties. In fact, Home Capital, as well as HOOPP, act independently of government. They take the decisions as they see appropriate. We, through the Ontario Securities Commission, as FSCO, make sure that they’re operating to the extent that they protect consumers and investors, including the members and the beneficiaries of the pension plan. It’s their discretion. They don’t report to the government. They are separate of government.

We will take the appropriate steps to ensure that they’re protected.

The member opposite has very clearly stated that they have resigned now, as directors and as chair of their respective operations.

Public libraries

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, the Liberals defended cutting 20% from Toronto public libraries. The government says that the library’s digital archives project isn’t being used. Actually, the fact is, Mr. Speaker, usage is up.

The government said that the library isn’t spending the money. Actually, Mr. Speaker, the library says exactly the opposite is true.

The Toronto Public Library says these Liberal cuts will mean less service at Toronto libraries. Why is the Liberal government cutting from Toronto libraries, and what library services do they actually expect to disappear?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for the question. I want to be very, very clear on this: There is no change whatsoever to the base funding for Toronto public libraries. We continue to invest $4.1 million in annual base funding to Toronto public libraries. On top of that, there is an additional $1 million to Toronto through the Ontario Libraries Capacity Fund over the last three years, to support the important work they do.

What has changed, Speaker, is funding for the virtual reference library—funding, by the way, that is 20% provincial and 80% city of Toronto, to the Toronto public libraries. We did contribute 20%. We have seen a reduction of use, and we have chosen to reallocate that money to improve digital services, support leadership and innovation, and invest in rural and remote communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again, back to the Acting Premier: Only in a Liberal world is a cut of $1.4 million not a cut.

One of the great things about public libraries is that everyone uses them. Young people use them; seniors use them; new Canadians use them. They are where people go to take out a book, use the Internet, learn, take a language class, polish up a resumé or catch up with friends and neighbours. Public libraries are at the heart of local communities