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

October 3, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2017-Oct-03 (PDF)

L101 - Tue 3 Oct 2017 / Mar 3 oct 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 October 2017 Mardi 3 octobre 2017

Orders of the Day

Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Introduction of Visitors

Pierre de Blois

Oral Questions

Agriculture industry

Government advertising

Hospital services

Hospital services

Consumer protection

Hospital services

Government’s record

Government advertising

Education

Education funding

Ontario Culture Days

Mental health services

Infrastructure program funding

Taxation

Deferred Votes

Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Korean National Foundation Day

Food banks

Shire

Dean Humble

Electoral reform

Diwali

Baseball championships

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Harry Potter festival

Introduction of Bills

Nick’s Law (Opioid Abuse Awareness), 2017 / Loi Nick de 2017 Sur la sensibilisation à l’abus d’opioïdes

Insurance Amendment Act (Life Settlements), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances (rachats de polices d’assurance-vie)

Motions

Private members’ public business

Sign-language interpreters

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Disability Employment Awareness Month / Mois National de la Sensibilisation à l’Emploi des Personnes Handicapées

Petitions

Hospital funding

Pharmacare

Elevator maintenance

Criminal justice policies

Shingles vaccine

GO Transit

Access to justice

Prévention du tabagisme chez les jeunes

Hospital funding

Environmental protection

Criminal justice policies

Water fluoridation

Energy storage

Orders of the Day

Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction

Adjournment Debate

School facilities

Opioid abuse

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 2, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 154,

An Act to cut unnecessary red tape by enacting one new Act and making various amendments and repeals / Projet de loi 154, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles, à édicter diverses lois et à modifier et abroger d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: Good morning. Speaker, our government knows that we need to build Ontario up and deliver on one of our top priorities, and that is to grow the economy and create jobs.

We know that working to reduce outdated, unnecessary regulations is very important to helping businesses so that they can focus on growing their business and also growing our economy.

We made a commitment to introduce annual burden reduction bills, so that all ministries would have access to a regular and ongoing instrument to cut red tape.

We are taking a sensible approach to reduce, over time, the amount of red tape so that the business community is not unduly burdened.

This bill is the second of annual burden reduction bills and will help Ontario ministries in updating legislation and streamlining processes to remove red tape for businesses and to create savings in both time and money.

While previous bills focused on cutting old red tape, this bill will ensure a filter is applied to new regulations to ensure they are modern, efficient and effective, while minimizing impacts to our business community.

This bill, if passed, will enact a new MEDG statute, Reducing Regulatory Costs for Business Act, 2017, that will implement five new burden reduction initiatives. It will also amend existing legislation from five partner ministries, to reduce regulatory burdens that cost businesses time and money, estimated to save between $6.3 million and $8.9 million.

Speaker, we have heard from the members opposite: “Businesses want to be in the business of doing what they’re supposed to be doing and not looking through a maze of red tape to get to what they want.

“It should be something that we can accomplish together, I think, as a Legislature so that we have a friendlier process for businesses, but in the meantime, Speaker, when it goes to committee, that’s when the real work is going to be done.” That is from the member from London–Fanshawe.

Another one: “I’ve been involved with red-tape reduction since I got here, trying to reduce red tape. When our former leader was here, my first critic’s portfolio was small business and red tape. I spent a lot of time travelling across the province hearing from businesses, industries and institutions that were bound up in red tape and just couldn’t move forward.” That’s a quote from the member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

So, let’s help these businesses and get this bill moving to committee.

We allowed debate to continue when we reached 6.5 hours of debate on this bill, so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill.

Speaker, as you know, this bill has seen more than nine hours of debate, and we have had many of our members of the Legislature speak to the bill. However, at this point, much of the debate is now repeating points already made by other members. So it is time that the bill is put to a vote for second reading and hopefully be referred to committee, where important work takes place.

As a result, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The Minister of International Trade has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I believe I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 2, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 148, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi et la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to the concerns of my constituents on Bill 148.

As I am speaking, there are thousands of workers in my riding who are fighting to keep their jobs in Ontario. When I talk to them on the picket line, they aren’t focused on increasing the minimum wage, or scheduling, or any of the other things in this bill. They are fighting to keep those 2,800 jobs in Ontario. I support them in that effort.

Those people on the picket lines are disappointed that, despite their pleas, this government isn’t standing up for them. In fact, this government is taking the opposite approach: They are adding more red tape and costs onto businesses, which is pushing more and more businesses out of Ontario.

We’ve seen it in my riding. In the last 11 months alone, there have been 1,300 layoffs announced in Oxford. That is 1,300 people who no longer have a paycheque to help pay for the mortgage, kids’ hockey, or even food. I know how hard it is for someone to make ends meet on minimum wage, but I know how much harder it is to make ends meet without a paycheque.

Before the government introduced this legislation, that should have been the first question they asked: What impact will this have on jobs in Ontario? Yet they didn’t do any studies at all. But I bet that if we checked, we would find that they did polling on it.

The Financial Accountability Officer actually studied the impact of the minimum wage increase and found that it is going to result in over 50,000 job losses.

In fact, the report said: “However, there is evidence to suggest that the job losses could be larger than the FAO’s estimate. Ontario’s proposed minimum wage increase is both larger and more rapid than past experience, providing businesses with a greater incentive to reduce costs more aggressively.”

The report went on to say, “However, the FAO estimates that just one quarter of the higher labour income would directly” impact “low-income families. Since the income gains would not be concentrated on low-income families, raising the minimum wage would be an inefficient policy tool for reducing overall poverty.” That was the quote from the FAO officer.

At the same time, increasing the minimum wage will force many companies to increase the cost of goods and services. This is going to have a huge impact on seniors on fixed incomes, people on ODSP, and others whose salaries won’t increase. It’s going to squeeze many of the people who are already struggling to make ends meet. Those same people who are having trouble paying their hydro bills and finding an affordable place to live due to this government are going to be the ones paying more for coffee and groceries.

The people of Ontario deserve better than that. They deserve a government that is going to create an environment that attracts new jobs and that is going to put in place policies that are designed to help us prosper, not just something that polls well.

As one small business owner in my riding said:

“I am in the garment industry. I have been in this business for over 20 years. This new legislation sounds like it is designed to get rid of businesses like mine. I have never paid anyone minimum wage but my wages hover within a couple of dollars of minimum wage. So an increase in minimum wage will mean an increase in pay in order to keep my staff happy.

“And with a staff of 15, this can destroy what I have built, as the trend in my industry is to hold all production overseas. Small increases to keep up with inflation are acceptable, but some of the items proposed feel like they are being made by people who have no idea of the effects to Canadian small businesses. At the current rate, I feel like better opportunities are with other countries.

“This bill will definitely force me to look elsewhere, or at least rethink, why have production employees at all?”

That would be a disaster, if they decided that having the employees wasn’t worth the trouble.

Another said, “Our greatest concern is that Bill 148 would make Ontario and its businesses less competitive.”

A restaurant owner said:

“The minimum wage proposal is fine in its current format, with the exception of liquor server wages, which would remain untouched. Our full-time servers and bartenders make $800 to $1,000 a week in tips, plus their wages of $10 to $11.50 per hour. (The majority of servers’ tips/gratuities are cash and are not reported).

“This equates to $65,000 to $70,000 per annum and our government, for political gain, wants to give everyone a raise to $15 an hour? Really? Does that honestly make sense to you?

“Because of the proposed wage increase, there will be a net negative effect on the number of hours available to these servers, as we work on a fixed labour percentage.” This is all part of the quote from the restaurant owner. “We don’t believe this is the objective of Bill 148. Also, other changes such as minimum call-in etc. do not consider that the restaurant business has many factors outside of its control (i.e., weather, holiday times etc.).

“The bill seems to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to business, and I feel nothing could be further from the truth for restaurants, as we never have guarantees on customer counts in and out our doors daily. How does proposed Bill 148 allow us to continue providing our servers and ourselves with a guaranteed

schedule so they can have jobs and financial security for their families as well?”

I think that pretty well says it all for restaurant owners as to how this bill deals with their business.

Mr. Speaker, our agriculture industry is also concerned about this bill, and I’m sure that you have talked to them and have heard the same thing.

In the competitive food industry, increased costs will mean that our farmers will lose their competitive edge in the global market. Profit margins for fruit and vegetable growers are as low as 5%. Raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour would mean a 32% increase in labour costs for these growers.

The Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis, for the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, apparently reveals that if government were to change nothing other than to implement the minimum wage increase over five years instead of the next 15 months, jobs at risk would decrease by 74% in the first two years. I think that’s the really important part. It isn’t just the value of the $15. If we did the increases in a more incremental fashion and put it over a longer period of time, the adjustments could be made. I think that would be very important if they did that.

Most of the discussion about this bill has focused on the impact of the minimum wage increase. There are a number of other provisions in this bill that will have a serious impact on businesses.

For instance, the requirement for advance scheduling may have unintended consequences. It is one thing in a restaurant or retail store, where planning the

schedule in advance may be easy, but what about manufacturing operations where there is an unexpected shutdown on the line and there is an order to fill?

I know that in my riding, Toyota operates on just-in-time delivery. That means that the parts show up at the plant just as they are needed. In fact, it is so detailed that the seats show up, packed in trucks, with the colours in the order that they are needed.

Right now, if there is a delay on the 401 and the line gets behind, they

schedule overtime on Saturday morning to catch up. If Bill 148 passes as is, and that delay happens on Thursday or later, they won’t be able to

schedule the overtime, which means they won’t catch up the work over the next week. It will put the whole next week out of order, because the trucks will keep on coming. That throws off all the suppliers, and it puts our plant at a competitive disadvantage with all the other Toyota plants, when we are pushing for new lines.

What about the suppliers to the plants like Toyota? If they can’t meet their scheduled delivery, those companies face huge financial penalties.

These are very good-paying jobs that the government is putting at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I have also heard from numerous municipalities who are worried about the impact.

There are numerous signs that the government simply didn’t think this legislation through. For instance, their requirement to provide payment for being on call included volunteer firefighters who are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This would bankrupt many small municipalities. The legislation still needs to be amended to address composite fire departments, to clarify the difference between full-time firefighters and volunteers.

The legislation also would have meant that municipalities couldn’t respond to emergencies, because they would have to give everyone several days’ notice before they could be called in to work.

I want to acknowledge that the government has started to address these problems, but AMO has reviewed the amendments and said that they don’t go far enough to make it actually work on the ground.

It isn’t just fire and paramedics. After the recent flood in Windsor, we saw that garbage pickup was one of the services urgently needed to clean up after the flooding.

AMO has asked for a blanket exemption from on-call provisions for employees who are delivering services that are a statutory obligation. They have also asked for an exemption for municipal management. The reality is that the director of public works is always on call.

I think of our visit to Pelee Island, which has a limited staff and needs to ensure that the pumps are going when it rains, or the island will flood.

I’ve heard from businesses, farmers, municipalities and others who have concerns about the impact of this bill. It will cost us jobs.

I encourage the government to rethink this bill and take it to committee and amend it in such a way as to deal with these.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Agriculture Week, where we celebrate our agriculture industry and the importance of farming in Ontario. Agriculture in Ontario is a multi-billion-dollar industry and a huge contributor of jobs and products to our economy. The changes in Bill 148 mean less sustainable prices, less investment in farm technology and innovation, and loss of farmland when our agriculture industries can no longer afford their farms.

We saw how our agri-food industry moved out of Ontario with the increasing hydro rates. Greenhouses and manufacturers moved out of Ontario to save money on their production costs. I don’t want to see that happen again, Mr. Speaker. We need to ensure that we are working with our agriculture sector and ensuring their prosperity for the future, instead of making it harder and harder for them to stay in business.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a letter here from one of my constituents: “Hi, guys. Hope you are both well. Looking forward”—incidentally, that’s addressed both to me and my federal member. He’s writing us the same letter and that’s why it says “Hi, guys” instead of just me.

“Hi, guys. Hope you are both well. Looking forward to upcoming elections for both. Our continued support is understood; thank you.” Obviously, I’ve got him marked in the “decided” column, Mr. Speaker.

“It appears there is a hearing loss at Queen’s Park and in Ottawa these days as the pointy heads develop whimsical policies aimed at serving their own purposes, with little derived benefit to those for which their policies are intended.” Obviously, this is a constituent who doesn’t support this legislation 100%.

“On the provincial front the rapidity with which we need to adjust payrolls is clearly developed by someone that has never been personally responsible for making a payroll using their own money. I have no problem with wage increases, as we presently have full-time workers at $15 per hour in both stores; and those part-time and students that are worthy, are already paid more than minimum wage since they have value.

“My issue is that with the speed of the application, I have no time to adjust, hence a reduction in both hours and employees to counter the increased wage percentage.

“In addition, there will be another 175 provincial civil servants hired to chase down those who do not comply. That makes perfect sense—private sector job loss; public sector hire. Where does this insanity end?

“This then ties in with the new middle class” for which there is no definition. The letter goes on to speak more about the problems in Ottawa.

But the first part of the letter was specifically sent to us based on what this piece of legislation was doing to an individual who has two stores in different cities in the province of Ontario, and who sees great detriment in the cost of that wage going up to $15 an hour. He’s not concerned about the $15 going up; he’s concerned about what we call the “domino effect.” The people who are now making $15 and $16 in his store—when the new hires have to make $15, those people are going to need more money in order to be satisfied with that.

He did sign it. He has sports centres; that’s where he sells his goods.

Mr. Speaker, other businesses have many questions about the new legislation. Our businesses are working hard to keep their businesses operating while also trying to understand the new legislation and the impacts it will have.

I had one local business from my riding contact me with many questions on Bill 148. They have scoured the Ontario government websites to find the level of detail that they need, to understand the changes and begin preparing for the changes so they can comply when it gets royal assent.

They find it unclear, exactly what types of businesses will be able to use weather exemptions and what types of weather will count in these exemptions.

They are unsure how seasonal workers differ from full-time workers; if various new provisions are pro-rated; or if things like 10 personal leave days will apply for someone working 12 months, the same way as it does for someone working for four or five.

That, I think, would be a problem that the government should have addressed in the bill a long time ago, in the original writing. We’re talking about the difference between full-time and part-time workers, but when you put in the mandated new conditions that must apply, are they pro-rated for the individual who is working part-time? The bill doesn’t say. I think we go back to the issue about the volunteer firefighters and equal pay for equal work. That’s what comes here. The equal pay would include: Do they get the 10 days?

Do they get them even though they only work five months of the year, or is that pro-rated to the five months of the year, or is that pro-rated to five months based on the 10 days being for a full year?

Volunteer firefighters, when they go to the fire and you talk about equal pay for equal work—and we will all know that I spent 25 years being one of those firefighters. When you go to the fire, the fire is the same heat regardless of whether it’s a volunteer or a professional firefighter who is there to fight the fire. Does that mean that the pay for volunteer firefighters should be the same as the professional firefighters when they’re working? I don’t know. The bill doesn’t deal with that. But I think people would have concerns about that and I think that would be a very important thing to be looking at.

Again, on part-time work and occasional work: We talked about the agriculture one. When farmers hire part-time help to help in the fields and the person who works for him full-time is there and making a certain amount, does everybody who comes in to work—because it’s equal pay for equal work—get that same pay? Is there no designation that a class, a job or a title in the organization gets paid differently with equal pay for equal work, unless it’s defined?

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have equal pay for equal work, but we have to make sure that that doesn’t change the way our society works—that people who have seniority there get paid more and, in many cases, particularly in the agriculture area, somebody who works full-time year-round at the farm get more per hour than someone coming in to help out for a day. I think that’s a very important thing that should be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank you very much for the opportunity to bring some of these concerns about this bill to this House. I hope that the government, when they send this bill to committee, will look at some of the changes. Again, when you look at the press release, the reason they brought this in was to deal primarily with the minimum wage. The amount of it is not the problem; how quickly they’re trying to do it is.

Some of the other things that they’re putting in—I heard a lot of complaints about scheduling from people working in the fast-food industry who didn’t want to be sitting at home for hours and days not knowing when they were going to go to work, so prescheduling works well. It doesn’t work well for my employer Toyota in my riding. I would hope that we would look at this to make sure that when Toyota needs to find another line or to expand in Woodstock, they don’t take it somewhere else because they can’t work under the legislation that this government has put forward. We need to protect all those well-paying jobs in Oxford county.

Thank you very much, again, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad, as always, to stand in this Legislature and add what I hope are thoughtful comments on behalf of the folks in Oshawa.

I would like to address some of the points that the member from Oxford brought up. As he talked about part-time work and precarious work—we have a lot of folks across our ridings, certainly in my own riding, who deal with part-time work and precarious work: the inability to have benefits, the inability to plan their work week, to have any kind of definite scheduling, to pay their bills, to make plans. So I’m glad that we’re talking about those folks because they don’t really have the time necessarily to lobby for themselves because they’ve got two or three jobs to hold down.

A lot of the conversation we’ve had in this House about this bill has been about the minimum wage. I’m glad that we are finally going to be paying closer to a living wage to the folks who deserve it who work so hard to keep all of our systems running. We absolutely should be having the conversation about what that will look like and the challenges faced by employers and everyone involved in this conversation, but we certainly need to be putting more predictable wages in the hands of those who are working so hard to earn them.

He mentioned equal pay for equal work. I take his point that he was speaking about agricultural jobs when he said that we have to make sure it doesn’t change how people work in our society. We actually do have to change how people work in our society. Specifics to consider about agriculture and different industries: Absolutely, we want to look to make sure that if we’re going to talk about offsets or supports—or let’s lower hydro rates for some of our businesses that can’t make ends meet.

But we absolutely do have to change how people work in our society. Yesterday I had a young woman here who works beside 17-year-old students who make almost a dollar less for the same work. Women should be earning more. We need to have this conversation and change the face of work in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to add my voice to Bill 148, the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s the right thing to do, because we all know that the labour laws have not been changed since 2003. As society evolves, as businesses evolve, it’s very important to keep pace with the changing and current economy.

This bill is all about protecting workers’ rights and strengthening collective bargaining. We all know that everyone benefits when workers’ rights are protected and collective bargaining is strengthened. Employees benefit, employers benefit and the economy benefits.

I was listening to the member from Oxford when he said the government didn’t take any consultations. I disagree with that. The Minister of Labour was criss-crossing the province during the summer, and he did take consultations in Brampton, and I was a part of that consultation. There were business leaders, there were labour organizations, and there was the public as well. The purpose of holding that round table was to listen and to learn and to look at this issue from all viewpoints. Even the minister from Peterborough—small business—also held a round table in Mississauga two to three weeks before. I was there, too. The purpose was the same. So consultation was done.

This bill is all about fairness, so that no one in the province is left behind. We need to play a role to be a force for good, as a government, and this is an important step in the right direction.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to offer a couple of comments about Bill 148. It is certainly something that has caused, and continues to cause, a great deal of concern in my riding. To focus on small business is appropriate, but not to leave out the fact that this impacts on larger businesses as well.

I want to take an example of someone in my riding who is in the restaurant business. I think that a lot of the pressure of this bill will manifest itself in employment fields such as restaurants, and ones which are family-owned, with maybe one or two employees. One of the restaurant owners said to me that she had a staff person come to her all excited because the restaurateur was going to have to pay her $15 an hour. The owner then said to her, “Well, let’s get a piece of paper and a pen and write down the deductions that will come from your $15.” “Well, it’s my money,” she said.

She’s 18. “It’s my money, and so nobody can take this. I’m getting $15. The government says so.” Welcome to adulthood. Along with that comes a whole set of obligations, and those don’t get the recognition in terms of the reality.

On this side of the House, there was a recognition of the importance of being able to adjust to changes in how people are paid and minimum wage. We supported that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise not only on behalf of my constituents, but every unionized worker across the province, especially auto workers. I’m going to get into that because the member from Oxford talked about supporting CAMI workers from Unifor Local 88 that are out on strike.

I find it interesting that a party that said, “Let the auto industry die”—that is something that their members actually said.

Interjections.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: You should talk to your members, because they did.

But regardless: “Let the auto industry die. We don’t pick winners and losers.” Now they’re saying that they stand with auto workers—auto workers who actually fight for a livable wage for every person in this province; auto workers who create many spin-off jobs in the parts sector and other sectors; auto workers who fight for fairness for other people in this province, other people like the member from Oxford and members of his family, to make sure that they are making a fair wage. So I think it’s interesting. The member from Oxford should go back and maybe talk to some of his members. There have been quotes of them saying, “Let the auto industry die.”

I can say that I have always stood with auto workers—not just today, going into an election and looking for some political points at the eleventh hour. My husband is a proud 444 member. He works at Chrysler. If it was up to the Conservatives, my family would have been on the streets a long time ago because his job would be gone, along with thousands of others.

People deserve a living wage. It’s not about making employees happy. It’s about giving them enough money to live on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Oxford for final comments.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the members from Oshawa, Mississauga–Brampton South, York–Simcoe and Kenora–Rainy River for their kind comments. I’ll start from the member from Kenora–Rainy River.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Windsor West.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Windsor West, okay. I got the wrong one. Sorry.

The member from Windsor West: I just wanted to point that I was on the committee that originally helped negotiate the deal to get CAMI into Ingersoll when I was a municipal politician. I’ve been fighting and working with them ever since to make sure we keep those jobs in Oxford—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would just point out that when she wants to talk about who is there when the election is approaching, I want to say that it’s all the NDP members who want to take advantage of the situation by stopping on their way by to sign the flag, when in fact they didn’t do a thing to help put it there or keep it there so far. I think maybe she would want to check her own record. I never made the comments that she suggested.

I do want to point out to the member for Mississauga–Brampton South that I didn’t say that they didn’t do consultations; I said they didn’t do studies on the impact this will have on the businesses. That’s why we’re getting so many letters from businesses around the province. Again, it isn’t the amount of the increase. I think we all agree that we need to have the minimum wage go up, and $15 is not more than it should be. It’s just that we can’t go from $11.40 today to $15 in 18 months and not, according to all the professionals, lose jobs in doing it.

We need to find a better way to get there so we don’t lose those jobs. There’s one thing worse than working for too low a minimum wage, and that’s not being able to work at all.

I think if we would look at the impact and fix that impact—and even the Premier has said that we’re going to have to make some adjustments to help small business deal with this. I think we should have studied this so we didn’t need to make adjustments.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate today, and pleased to speak on behalf of the good people of my great riding of Essex on an important topic that we’ve talked about since the government proposed these changes. It’s been a hot topic in my riding and, I would imagine, across the province.

I highly respect, admire and genuinely like the member from Oxford and appreciate and believe he’s sincere in his comments. I wonder if he realizes the history that the party in which he sits has when it comes to debates around the minimum wage. I’ve been elected for six years. I’ve been a follower of provincial, federal and municipal politics since I was born, I believe. I can tell you, in my experience, I have yet to hear a member of the Conservative Party, at any level, make any tangible reference to increasing the minimum wage. If anything, I have heard them, time after time, talk about decreasing the minimum wage or freezing it and pandering to big business.

I respect the fact that that’s where they sit ideologically. I respect the fact that they bring the concerns that are prominent in business as it relates to the impact of minimum wage on their businesses.

But what is the converse of this issue? It’s the impact that the minimum wage has on our communities and our society.

The member from Oxford began his 20-minute hit talking about the CAMI workers in his riding who are currently on strike. Speaker, if you look at the specifics of why they are on strike, they’re not talking about a higher wage. That has been negotiated. They’re talking about stability and productivity and maintaining a footprint in this community, because they know how important those good-paying jobs are. They know that if they don’t fight for those jobs for the next generation of workers who will come after them, they won’t exist, and it will decimate the economy of that area.

How do we know that? We’ve seen it time and time again. Much of the damage that has been done to communities as it relates to good-paying manufacturing jobs leaving is due to the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and its predecessor, the free trade agreement, the FTA—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Canada-US.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The Canada-US free trade agreement.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m just trying to help.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

He’s very aware. He understands, I would imagine, that in Mexico, if you open up a new auto parts assembly plant, it’s possible that you set up in an area of Mexico in the northern

part called Ciudad Juárez, where many of these multinational manufacturing plants have set up. It has seen an explosion of growth in the manufacturing parts sector and other different businesses. At this very moment, you can hire a production worker or an assembly worker for $2.50 an hour.

So when they talk about a higher minimum wage in Ontario making us unproductive—well, yes. Compared to $2.50 an hour, there is no way on earth that we would ever, and should ever, compete with that. Yet free trade agreements put us in competition with those jurisdictions. That’s not free. That’s not fair. That’s a disadvantage to our domestic footprint and our domestic manufacturing.

It’s all good that these corporations can set up and hire labour. That’s obviously the regulations that they have. Those are the rules that the government of Mexico has imposed when it comes to minimum wage. Those are the labour standards that they have.

But what are the ramifications for that society? There’s a correlating pattern when it comes to civility of those areas. Ciudad Juárez is one of the most dangerous places on earth to live. It has one of the highest murder rates per capita on the planet. In March 2017, there were 384 murders—in March. I think we barely get to that figure nationally in this country.

When we talk about a minimum wage, we often wonder if there is a minimum that the Conservatives would actually implement. There is no minimum that they would implement. It would be bottom of the line, $2.50, if that’s what the market demanded. I wonder, because I have yet to hear what their number would actually be. It’s a question that has been left out there that I would love to have answered.

What we’re doing here is trying to find some economic justice, some economic stability and financial security. We know that in developed economies, it’s our responsibility to acknowledge when there is disparity in what the minimum wage workers and others should make.

Speaker, there was an

article this morning that I read in the Toronto Star, credited to Fatima Syed, who is a staff reporter. The title of the

article is that Toronto residents do not make enough money to thrive, report says. In the report Thriving in the City that was commissioned by public health at the University of Toronto—the report states that for a single person aged 25 to 40, the thriving wage, a wage in which you could afford some of the basic elements of life, public transportation, additional health care such as dental and glasses, personal care costs like laundry and haircuts and clothing—to be able to thrive with those extra costs, you’d have to make around between $46,000 to $55,000, which is more than double the current minimum wage.

After the proposed changes to the minimum wage under Bill 148, that rate will be $25,000, so we’re still well below what would allow someone to thrive.

Isn’t that what we want? We want people in this province to be able to thrive, to save for retirement, to allow them to have those basic necessities met, like affordable housing. Being ever-cognizant of the stresses and the pressures that are put on businesses, we have to do that. We have to ensure that there are some offsets so that the level of growth is commensurate with their stresses, but let’s ensure that we recognize that people are struggling out there and that there is a disparity when it comes to income that needs to be addressed.

It is our responsibility to do that, or else we start to slide down the economic ladder to jurisdictions like Ciudad Juárez. That’s what we could potentially head towards. That’s the cautionary tale.

I don’t think anyone in this province, business owners and workers alike, want to see that type of economy. It’s not functional. It doesn’t support growth. It doesn’t support health. With a staggering number like that coming out of Mexico, you would wonder: What do their civil services look like? Well, their police officers are paid—these are public servants—$350 a month. I often hear, mainly from the right wing, that our public servants are paid too much.

I’ll tell you, when compared to our crime rate and that of Mexico, I think we’re getting pretty good value for the dollar when it comes to our police forces and our first responders. They keep us safe. There is a direct correlation to them having a good wage and being financially secure.

This is about income insecurity. It’s something that New Democrats have fought for for a very long time. Our leader, Andrea Horwath, has been raising the issue around the minimum wage for over a year now. Public pressure has resulted in the government finally addressing it in this bill. But there’s much left out, Speaker. There are still two-tiered wages in place for servers in bars and restaurants. There is still a glaring omission when it comes to people who have extenuating circumstances around sexual assault and abuse who need paid leave. We can do that. We can make this bill better. I certainly am happy to play a

part in that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I’m pleased to play a

part in it too, Mr. Speaker. I’m always enthralled by my good colleague and friend from Essex, who speaks truth to power. I think he did an honourable and very good job in presenting his case.

This is about fairness and balance. Some say it’s too much too fast, but for those falling behind, these changes can’t come fast enough; it’s as simple as that. We know, Speaker, that there is a connection between health and wealth. We also know or intuit that anyone working full-time shouldn’t be living in poverty. That just is not a reality that we want to embrace in this great province.

In my community of Hamilton, we have a code red area where 29% of the children are living in poverty and where the life expectancy in certain communities is 20 to 22 years less than for the community I happen to reside in, which has better care and higher incomes. So we need to do what we can to narrow the gap between the richest of us and the rest of us, and this is a good start.

I don’t know if members in the House know this, but the majority of the users of food banks today in Ontario work full-time, so we need to be about ensuring, with a growing economy leading the G7 nations, that the benefits of that economy accrue to everybody. A rising tide should lift all boats and not just the yachts.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the comments from the member from Essex this morning.

The reality is, Speaker, everybody would love a raise. It doesn’t matter what your wages are, where you work or who you work for, we would all like to get paid more money.

So when you bring out a bill such as this, or this portion of the bill, which is completely based on the politics of the issue and was never even part of the workplaces review—it was specifically said that it would not be dealt with in the workplaces review. The authors said specifically it was not going to be touched in the workplaces review.

The government decided—they’re desperate. They’re worried about 2018 and the votes in 2018, and they had to come up with something that was really, really revolutionary. It is quite revolutionary when you take a wage that—of course, today it’s $11.60. It went up 20 cents on October 1. But when you take a wage that is $11.60 and in basically a one-year period move it to $15 an hour, that would certainly be called revolutionary. It is a big change. They recognize that and they are hoping that the change is one that is popular among enough people that they receive votes for it in the next election. I get that.

Unfortunately, the studies that are being done—and the government chose not to do any studies—are showing that in households where there’s a minimum wage earner, the households themselves are not low-income households. The vast majority of minimum wage earners come from a household where the income of the household is much above the average. So they need to do their study, get their facts straight, and make sure that this is done right.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad to add my comments after hearing the remarks from my colleague from Essex on Bill 148. I appreciated his analysis and his talking about wages not just here but elsewhere—in Ciudad Juárez, for example—talking about the idea of wages and minimum wages, minimum standards, below minimum, and the concept of free trade versus fair trade.

You know what? I don’t know why we would ever call it free trade, because there is such a cost: a human cost, a community cost. We should be having conversations about what is fair: fair trade, but also what’s fair to our communities. Certainly, I hope the Conservatives wouldn’t suggest that we look at that $2.50 minimum wage and see that as a good thing. They seem so afraid to actually pay a fair wage.

Going back to fair wages, the member from Essex read a quote about a thriving wage in the Toronto area, what people need to thrive. I’m going to take it back a step and talk about just a living wage. They did a living wage study in the Durham region, and that was $17 an hour. So $17 an hour is a living wage so that people can get by and be able to sleep at night, pay their responsibilities, look after their kids, put one foot in front of the other. That’s a living wage.

Here we are losing our minds over $15 an hour when a living wage in my neck of the woods just down the road is $17 an hour. When we’re talking about income security, that’s not just something to talk about, that’s something where people can’t sleep at night, they can’t make plans, they can’t feed their children. We’re talking about full-time workers who are using our food banks.

This has to be more than a conversation. This has to be that we switch how we do things and that we look after the folks in Ontario, starting with this.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m really happy to have an opportunity to weigh in on this.

I do know, Speaker, that there are people who think there should be no minimum wage. There are people who think that market forces should determine what people get paid. It’s kind of horrifying to think that when the PC Party was in power, they froze the minimum wage. It was $6.85 for many, many years. They did not raise it because they did not think there should be a minimum wage.

On this side of the House, we are firmly in support of a minimum wage and that minimum wage should mean that someone working full-time at a minimum wage job should have a decent standard of living. So there’s a fundamental difference between them and us: We believe in having a solid safety net. We think there should be a minimum level of pay for people, and that it should be an adequate level of pay.

So it’s disappointing. I have been around here long enough to remember earlier debates on minimum wage, and the very arguments we heard then are the arguments we are hearing today. The reality is that with a decent minimum wage, it supports not just those earning the wage, but those around them. They will spend that money. People earning a minimum wage will spend that money and they will spend it locally. That will benefit merchants in their communities because that money will be used to support their families. We will all benefit.

Even those of us who earn above minimum wage will all benefit from having a society that is strong, where people can have an adequate diet and live in a decent place.

We are all better off when those of us who have the least have at least an adequate amount.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Essex for final comments.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to thank my colleagues, the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, the member from Oshawa and the Deputy Premier.

It’s incredibly important to have this debate. It has so many ramifications for our communities, for our businesses and for our society. That’s ultimately what I think we have to be focused on: What type of a society do we want to live in? What type of society do we want to help build and create?

Government has an enormous role. If you don’t think it does, I don’t think you would be in this room. Therefore, it’s something that requires us to be very, very thoughtful and focused and honest, because people’s lives are directly affected by what this decision will be, ultimately, and what this bill will ultimately look like.

There are people in our ridings in every community who wake up each and every day and wonder how they’re going to eat. That’s their first thought. There are lots of people who wake up every morning and wonder how they can avoid eating, they’ve got so much. We have to be cognizant of that disparity and find a balance, so that everyone in this province can have the certainty and the security in their lives that their basic needs will be met.

I am aware and I recognize the concerns that our small-business community has. I am optimistic and I truly believe that we can find the appropriate balance to ensure that they are able to sustain this change. We can make sure that their hydro rates are not exorbitant. We can ensure that they have access to good social safety nets in their communities: good roads, good schools. These are all things that create a climate for economic growth, and we’re prepared to do that hard work.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s a great honour for me to speak on Bill 148, Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act. I stand today in my capacity as the member of provincial Parliament for Ottawa Centre, a job that I take very seriously, a job I know all members take seriously when it comes to representing their communities. I really wanted to take the opportunity, the 10 minutes or so that I have available to me as I speak on this bill, to bring the point of view and perspective of my community of Ottawa Centre.

Speaker, as you may recall, the government tabled this bill back in May, which means that, at least from my perspective, I have now had ample opportunity to discuss the details about the proposals in this bill over the summer months. As many members know, one of the things I love doing the most is knocking on doors in my community every weekend. In fact, in the summer months, I was out three or four times a week knocking on doors in my community and just talking to people. I’m lucky to represent a downtown community so it’s easier for me to do that.

But, Speaker, what it allows me to do is to really speak about things and hear from my constituents about things that are important to them, and to be able to then advocate for them in this chamber and in the government, day in and day out.

And you can imagine, Speaker, that the families and the individuals who make Ottawa Centre home were very keen to talk about what the government is doing. What is the government doing when it comes to creating fair workplaces? What is the government doing when it comes to helping their children in terms of the health care they receive and the education they receive? What is the government doing to make it easier for their children to go to college or university? That was a recurring theme of the conversations I had in my community of Ottawa Centre.

What was clear to me, again and again, in those conversations—whether I was in the Glebe, talking to families there, or I was in Westboro or I was right downtown in one of the Ottawa Community Housing buildings on Gladstone Avenue or on McLeod Street—is what people really want their government to focus on. You know that people don’t make a distinction between which level of government, whether it is federal, provincial or municipal. What people want from their governments is fairness. They want a fair shot at success. That’s the message I continue to receive.

They want to make sure that we are fair to everybody in this society and that we make decisions that will allow them to succeed. Of course, that varies from where you are in life and what socio-economic status you’ve got, or whether you’ve got children or you’re a single individual. I’ve got the full array, of course, of individuals, from very high-end incomes to single moms who live in affordable housing, and everything in between. And that was a recurring theme.

I engaged in a conversation with them around the work we’re doing through Bill 148 increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour and the work we’re doing through Bill 148 around making sure that there is equal pay for equal work—it doesn’t matter if you are a temporary worker, a seasonal worker, a casual worker or a part-time worker, as long as you get the same wages and benefits as somebody who works full-time and does the same job—and whether that’s fair or not. I’ll speak to that in a little bit more detail in a moment.

When I spoke with families, their point of view and perspective on how do we encourage more children to attend colleges and universities—because everybody understands and accepts that going to college and university is like going to high school. The time has gone where a high school diploma was more than sufficient to move ahead in life. Now, it’s almost needed that you have a diploma from college or you have a degree from university as a bare minimum. So what are we doing to assist in that direction?

When we talked about the reform of OSAP and we talked about how 210,000 students now will be able to attend college or university without paying tuition fees, people said, “Well, that’s fair. That’s the right thing to do.” I have not met anybody in my community—and I could be proven wrong, but most of the people I spoke with felt very strongly that when you’re building an economy that is based on knowledge—when we speak on building a knowledge-based economy, you’re actually building that supply chain, that pipeline of individuals who can then have access to education, and that everybody in society has a fair shot at accessing that information, not just the privileged few.

Similarly, Speaker—I speak of it as a parent of two beautiful young children—when you talk to families and parents about OHIP+, the pharmacare plan for children and youth, when you say to them that, starting January 1, all prescription medications for children up to their 25th birthday will be covered by OHIP, the response is, “It’s about time. The government is in the right direction.”

That is exactly what we need to do, because, Speaker, you know that as moms and dads, as parents, we will do anything to keep our children healthy. We will do anything. Parents make a lot of sacrifice, especially those parents who are low-income. When I go to Rochester Heights in my community, when I go to Debra Dynes and meet with families and moms who are immigrants from Somalia, they’ll tell you how difficult it is for them to make ends meet. By creating that reprieve, they will be able to save money and focus on other things.

A woman in my community thanked me because her daughter is going to Carleton University. Six months ago, that was not even a conversation in the family because they couldn’t afford it. They learned about the new OSAP plan. She is the first person in that family to attend post-secondary education. You know we are turning them around. That family is going to break away from the cycle of poverty they’ve been subjected to. That young woman wants to be a neuroscientist. I said to her mom, “She will be a neuroscientist.”

That’s the fairness agenda. That’s what this government and this Premier are focused on when we talk about building a fairer and better Ontario. Bill 148 is very much part and parcel of that plan. I know there’s a lot of conversation and time spent on just the minimum wage aspect, but it’s an important debate that needs to be taken. I personally take offence on behalf of my community when the official opposition makes it a plan about something around political expediency, that somehow the only reason it’s being done is to gain some votes.

I think that denigrates the issue and really does not reflect the point of view of those hard-working women and men in this province who live on minimum wage and the positive impact that is going to be made in their lives on a daily basis because of that very important change.

But there’s more to Bill 148 than just minimum wage. There’s a lot more in there. The point I appreciate is equal pay for equal work. You speak to people about that and ask them the simple question, no matter what community you’re in, “Do you think people should get paid equally for the work they do?” I don’t think you’re going to find anybody who says, “No, not in our society.” They will say that people should get paid equally for the work they do.

Whether you’re a casual worker, whether you’re a part-time worker, whether you’re a temporary worker or a seasonal worker, if you’re doing the same work as somebody who is full-time, you should get paid equally for the work you do, you should get the same benefits, and Bill 148 does that. That is a fair thing to do. There’s nothing nefarious about that. There’s nothing to hem and haw about. There’s nothing like, “Too soon, too quickly.”

Sometimes in our political lives, we’ve got to do the right thing. We’ve to pick a lane and take that lane. Our government is doing that. We made sure that minimum wage has been increasing since 2004 in this province, from $6.85 to $10.25. Then we made sure we did a catch-up on that minimum wage, because there was a four-year freeze, to $11 and to index it to the cost of living. The economy was still struggling and working through. Now that our economy is booming, let’s make sure we raise the minimum wage, bring it as close to the living wage as possible and index it. That is the fair thing to do.

That is why I’m proud to represent Ottawa Centre and I’m proud to be part of this government.

I hope all members will support Bill 148.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Unfortunately, we don’t have enough time for questions and comments following debate. We will pick up on the additional questions and comments at a later date when this bill is brought forward.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): This House will now stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today I would like to introduce some guests of mine who are in the Speaker’s gallery. We have a resident of Brant and a friend from the OFA, Larry Davis, OFA director Rejean Pommainville from eastern Ontario, and OFA vice-president Peggy Brekveld from Thunder Bay. Welcome, and thank you very much for being our guests today.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m proud to welcome the grandparents of page Nicola Noordermeer today. Anne and Don Walker are here from Strathroy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to welcome all of our friends and directors from the OFA here today. The farmers of Ontario do an incredible job for Ontario, and so does the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I would like to welcome the OFA here today, which represents over 36,000 family farms: Keith Currie, Peggy Brekveld, Mark Reusser, Brent Royce, Don McCabe, Larry Davis, Debra Pretty-Straathof, and of course Steve Brackenridge—he’s not here today—who represents the OFA for my riding of Peterborough.

We welcome everybody. The reception this evening is in rooms 228 and 230.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d also like to welcome to this House a very special provincial director from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He’s from the Bruce: Patrick Jilesen. Welcome.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I see a friend of mine has returned to join us here in the Legislature. I would introduce my friend the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Michael Gravelle.

Applause.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome some of my constituents here with us today. They’re the family and friends of Cole Banville, our page captain today. I would like to introduce Shirley Bryant, Patrick Banville, Ursula Bryant and Susan Track. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you for your service, Cole.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to introduce Brent Royce, who’s here with the OFA from Listowel in my home riding.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Page Alessandro De Simone has some very important guests with us today. His mother, Emilia, and his younger brother Angelo have joined us. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Soo Wong: Students from St. Sylvester Catholic School, grades 6 and 7; their principal, Roy Fernandes; Brian Meli, a teacher; Barb Stoner, a teacher; Maria Aricci, an educational assistant; and Mireya Mondaca, a parent volunteer, will be joining us very shortly. I want to welcome all of them.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I also would like to welcome some students who are not here yet; they’ll be here shortly. They’re from Dr. Emily Stowe Public School, here visiting Queen’s Park today, along with some of their parents and their teachers. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I note today that there’s a flag raising for the Korean community outside the Legislature. I’d like to welcome all of our guests of Korean heritage to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Todd Smith: I don’t see him here right now, but I did see him downstairs earlier. From the Ontario Federation of Agriculture—he’s a regional vice-president for the east region. Bruce Buttar is his name, the director of zone 12. He represents Hastings, Prince Edward county, Lennox and Addington and Northumberland. We welcome him to the Legislature today.

Mr. Michael Harris: I noticed Mark Reusser from the Waterloo Federation of Agriculture here with the OFA today. Mark, I’ll see you later this afternoon. Thanks for coming.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Last call for introductions.

Minister of Children and Youth Services on a point of order.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I believe that you’ll find we have unanimous consent that members be permitted to wear ribbons to recognize child abuse prevention and awareness month.

I also would like to invite all of the men to join me on the Polished Man campaign. We’re painting one fingernail to recognize the one in five young people who are subject to some form of abuse. I invite all the men in the Legislature in front of the Liberal caucus room right after question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services seeks unanimous consent to wear ribbons on behalf of the issue today. Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome Don McCabe. The former president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is here at Queen’s Park today. Welcome, Don.

Pierre de Blois

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and responsible for francophone affairs on a point of order.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence before question period as a sign of this House’s condolences for the sudden passing of Mr. Pierre de Blois, one of the Franco-Ontarian community’s most prominent activists and builders.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence in respect and tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask everyone in the House to please rise for a moment of silence and paying tribute.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Please be seated.

It is therefore now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Agriculture industry

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The new chair of the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers is pretty well-known around this building. She is the old chief of staff to the former Minister of Agriculture, a relative of a former Liberal MPP and a well-connected Liberal lobbyist—the same old, same old Liberal patronage. It looks like Liberal entitlement at its finest. It does not send a good message to Ontario farmers.

Was the chair appointed because of her Liberal connections? Was it the Premier’s office that drove this patronage appointment?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Simple answer: no.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: It seems the Liberals don’t want to reconcile their patronage and Liberal entitlement. I’ll try a different question on behalf of Ontario farmers. For 14 long years, Ontario farmers have seen broken promises after broken promises, and one of the best examples of that is the natural gas expansion. They’ve been waiting and waiting, and that promise keeps on coming. Frankly, the funding for it seems to be diminished year after year.

So, a very direct question to the Minister of Agriculture: Will we actually see this natural gas expansion, at the amount funded, finally honoured this year?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Municipal Affairs, come to order. The Minister of Indigenous Relations, come to order. You’re not going to get the last word.

Minister?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thank you very much—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Just say yes. Just say yes—one word.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Infrastructure, who has been a real leader on this file.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. While it is appropriate to move to another minister, it’s not appropriate to add anything else.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’ll withdraw that.

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

Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: When we announced the $100-million Natural Gas Grant Program, we became the first government in Ontario’s history to make a significant investment in rural natural gas expansion. The program was a direct response to what we heard from Ontarians, that residents, farmers and small businesses want to reduce their energy costs. Our government believes that the expansion of natural gas access, particularly in rural and remote communities, is an absolute priority. We are expanding natural gas access in underserved communities, including those in rural and northern Ontario.

The expansion will help families, farmers and small businesses save up to $1,500 in heating costs in each year.

Speaker, this $100-million program is leveraging millions more of investments from the gas utilities. In light of significant uptake for this program, we are working hard to win the federal—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Agriculture: Now the natural gas expansion is contingent on the federal government; they know how to make up any excuse to not honour their promises.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask a more local question on behalf of farmers in Simcoe county. The sheep farmers of Simcoe county have been dealing with an increase in predatory animals, particularly coyotes. They are a persistent threat. The Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program is supposed to be there to assist them, but there are serious concerns about the implementation of this program. Farmers are not getting the assistance they need and were promised by this government.

Since I can’t get a commitment on walking away from their patronage or on natural gas—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development, come to order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: —can I at least get a commitment that on this program the Liberals will ensure that the Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program will actually give farmers the help they were promised?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case the minister missed it, the Minister of Economic Development, come to order.

Minister of Infrastructure?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: To the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Indeed, the compensation program that we have in the province of Ontario is very important to our farming community. We have trained staff that actually go out in the field to assess the damage that’s been done by a predator. In fact, not too long ago, I took the opportunity to be at a farm in my riding of Peterborough to see a sheep that was attacked by a fisher to see the damage that was done by that particular predator.

I know, in that particular case, that the assessor, who comes from the municipality, in that case, Asphodel-Norwood, goes into the field and assesses the damage to make sure that the farm community is adequately compensated. From time to time, we continue to monitor the situation to make sure that for any farm animal that’s been damaged by a predator, you get compensated.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order. Because this is happening, we’re about an inch away from warnings. If you would like to do that, we will.

New question?

Government advertising

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As the days go by, so does the government abuse of government-funded advertising. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, they not only have abused it, they have more than doubled the government ad buy for this year. It’s one thing to use Liberal Party funds to campaign; it’s another thing to use taxpayer dollars.

My question is very direct. To the President of the Treasury Board: Will they cancel the $5.5 million—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. We’re in warnings. We are in warnings. If I sit down and it starts, I might name.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Auditor General has said these are partisan ads that would not have been approved by her office. The question is, this latest $5.5-million ad buy—will you do the right thing and cancel these partisan ads?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to talk a little bit about the process for government advertising. There actually is a bulk media buy, which is consolidated at my ministry. However, the process for approval is, a ministry approaches Cabinet Office; Cabinet Office makes a maximum allocation—Treasury Board actually isn’t party to that. But, presumably, the figure that the member is citing is the maximum allowable allocation. In order for the ads to ever go to air, they have to be approved according to the Government Advertising Act.

I would point out to people that we continue to be the only jurisdiction in Canada that has a government advertising act.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: $5.5 million may seem like nothing to a government that wastes billions. But these millions could have been spent on much more worthy purposes—helping people with a hydro bill, or helping children who need services for autism. There are so many better uses than using taxpayer dollars to fund government advertising, to fund partisan ads.

Let me ask this very direct question: Does the Treasury Board president believe it’s appropriate to use taxpayer dollars for Liberal propaganda? Because that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Are you on the side of taxpayers, or are you going to continue to ignore the Auditor General? Do the right thing. Cancel these partisan ads. Do the right thing. Make sure it’s not charged to taxpayers.

Interjections.

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

President?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Well, I obviously don’t—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Cancel it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

Carry on.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I obviously don’t agree that the advertising that we’ve supported over the years is partisan ads. Think of some of the advertising that we have done as a government. Think of the #WhoWillYouHelp campaign about sexual violence. If you go to that particular advertising campaign, the video was viewed internationally. The video was viewed by over seven million people in the first 10 days alone. It eventually generated more than 85 million views worldwide. But what’s really interesting about that ad is that it actually changed public opinion.

What we set out to do with that was to change the attitude towards sexual violence, and in fact that ad achieved that. We don’t think that’s partisan. We think that’s good social policy.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is again to the minister.

I’m talking about a $5.5-million hydro ad buy. You say they’re not partisan. The Auditor General, the non-partisan legislative oversight, has said they are partisan. They would not have passed her office’s approval, but you took that approval away. So rather than try to distract the public with a different ad campaign, be very clear, we’re talking about these partisan hydro ads.

Let me give you an example of something that would have been more of a worthy cause. The member for Nepean–Carleton challenged the minister today that we could have used those funds on opioid awareness. This is a real challenge. This is a real crisis. So will you accept the challenge—

Interjection.

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

The member from Etobicoke North is warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, will the minister accept the challenge from the member from Nepean–Carleton and do the right thing, rather than have these partisan Liberal propaganda ads on hydro? Will you use those funds for an opioid awareness campaign?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, we use government funding for—

Interjection.

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

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We do advertising for a variety of reasons, including extensive health things. Think about the campaigns about getting a flu shot. Think about the campaigns about the Healthy Kids Community Challenge and quitting smoking. So, yes, we do advertising about health, but we do advertising about a variety of things.

Think about the climate change ads that we did, because unlike the people opposite, we actually think that climate change is one of the most serious problems facing us today as citizens of not just Ontario but citizens of the world. That ad campaign, again, helped inform the public about the fact that climate change is real. It’s not—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

New question?

Hospital services

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre par intérim. Yesterday, my leader, Andrea Horwath, told this House that over the weekend, 22 sick people in my hometown of Sudbury received their medical treatment in hospital hallways, TV rooms, patient lounges and a shower room. This isn’t the first time that the Deputy Premier and her Liberal government have been alerted to the overcrowding crisis in Ontario hospitals.

What is the Deputy Premier’s plan to fix the crisis in Sudbury?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Our plan is to continue to invest in health care as we announced and are now implementing as a result of the spring budget: a $1-billion investment in the health care budget this year. We’re investing seven billion new dollars in health care over the course of the next three years and $500 million specifically this year to hospitals on top of an equal amount last year.

We’re investing in our hospitals, ensuring that they have the operating funds necessary to run their institutions properly and provide that high quality of care, but we’re also investing specifically in those hospitals that are facing capacity challenges. We’re working with those hospitals that are coming forward with proposals with regard to how we can further make available beds for them to improve the process through which people who require admission are admitted in the hospital.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The minister knows that the Brampton Civic Hospital has been officially over capacity every single month of 2017. He also knows that this crisis did not start in 2017. The hospital has been over capacity for more than two long years.

Since the minister has known about this crisis for years now, what is his plan to fix the mess at Brampton Civic Hospital?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite’s figures are simply not true.

Interjections.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me the hospital occupancy rate for every single hospital across this province. They are delivered quarterly, although we do track them on a daily basis. In the most recent quarter, from April through July 2017, Brampton hospital is at 86% capacity. It’s important that we all in this Legislature work with the facts. I’m happy it provide her with, as I have—in fact, these are often generally publicly available very soon after I receive them myself. We’re happy to actually work together for those hospitals that are facing specific capacity challenges.

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

M me France Gélinas: The budget shortchanged Ontario hospitals by $300 million, and the minister knows that because the Ontario Hospital Association has taken the step to write to the minister to tell him just so. They have demanded immediate funding in order to avoid an even more acute crisis when the flu season, which is just around the corner, will hit us this winter.

How much funding can hospitals expect from this government, and when can they expect it to deal with the overcrowding crisis?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know what’s happening here. Despite the NDP voting against our budget, which included $24 million specifically to address capacity in hospitals, and despite the NDP seemingly being absolutely opposed to the Humber River proposal, the Finch site, to add more than 150 beds for transitional patients who no longer need to be in hospital, now they’re trying to set themselves up as somehow this is their idea: an investment that we made long ago and work that we’re currently doing with our hospitals to address not only capacity, but the potential for surge due to the flu season, which is upcoming.

We’ve been working with this intimately with the OHA, with the hospital system. We’ll continue to work. It has nothing to do with—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not quite sure.

A wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hospital services

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est encore pour la première ministre par intérim. In January this year, Humber River Hospital in Toronto was forced to admit 94 sick patients in unconventional beds. In February, it went up to 97 sick patients; in March, 61 sick patients; and in April, 68 sick patients were admitted in unconventional beds. That’s 320 sick people forced to receive medical treatment in a public hallway with no privacy and no dignity—and that’s just one hospital.

When will the minister at least tell us what is his plan to make sure that the sick patients admitted to Humber River Hospital will actually get a hospital room?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Health and Long-Term Care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Our plan, Mr. Speaker, is the one that they oppose. Our plan is to create in excess—at least we’re considering a proposal from Humber River Hospital and a significant number of other hospitals in the GTA. They’ve come forward with a proposal to address precisely what that party is asking us to do.

Their proposal is in excess of 150 beds opening up for ALC patients in those hospitals, including Humber River, that know they’re not acute. They no longer need to be in that hospital environment. The plan from Humber River Hospital is to actually bring those people into an appropriate transitional setting where they can get expert rehabilitation care.

I can’t for the life of me—I mean, this is such a direct question that runs contrary to their expressed opposition to this proposal. They’re calling it “warehousing,” they’re calling that site “mothballed.” They obviously don’t like it. The actual solution being proposed by Humber River that we’re looking at, they oppose.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: SickKids hospital reached a high capacity last winter of 107% of its acute care beds. Its mental health unit reached an astonishing 136% over capacity at the exact same time. Again, the minister has known about this crisis for years.

What is the minister’s plan to make sure that no sick child admitted to SickKids will ever feel the burden of this government’s neglect of our hospitals? When will he stop risking the health and lives of those little sick children just to balance the bottom line?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I’m so disappointed, once again, in the NDP rhetoric. The fact that that member is suggesting that Ontarians cannot trust the Hospital for Sick Children—with their hundreds, if not thousands, of front-line health care workers, volunteers and administrators who are working day in and day out to provide world-class health care for the youngest members of our society—to suggest that somehow, this government is, or I as minister am, putting those lives at risk, is unbearable for me. But it’s in line with the rhetoric that they’re increasingly using, which is creating fearmongering.

The fact that they addressed our long-term-care system as being in chaos, the fact that they’re talking about mothballing of individuals in facilities and the fact that they’re opposing every effort we’re making to address the challenges we face, I find unconscionable.

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

M me France Gélinas: Those little sick children get very good care once they are admitted, Speaker, but this is what the issue is all about.

The minister is refusing to listen to the opposition. He has refused to listen to the Ontario Hospital Association. He says that he cares about the facts, but he has been presented with the facts time and time again in this House and by the people of Ontario, only to continue to deny that there is a real crisis of overcapacity in our hospitals.

What will it take for this minister to take some real action, to take some decisive action and to help Ontario families throughout our province who need hospital care and end up admitted into a hallway?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I have lived and worked in many countries and in their health care systems. I know that we have one of the best health care systems in the entire world, and it’s here in this province. I know that that party has given up on our health care system. I know that that party is fearmongering for partisan political reasons.

We’re not going to stand for that. We’re going to defend the health care system. We’re going to defend the doctors and the nurses and personal support workers and the thousands upon thousands who are working every day to provide that highest quality care.

We have one of the best cancer care programs in the entire world, bar none. We have one of the best hospitals down the road in SickKids hospital.

If you continue to disparage our hospital system the way you are, I’m going to continue to defend it. I believe in it. I love the health care system that we have in this province, and we have to defend it.

Consumer protection

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

In July, your government gave $1.5 million to support the Carrot Rewards app. The minister’s announcement described Carrot Rewards as “an innovative health promotion mobile phone application that rewards users for being active, eating healthy and quitting smoking,” with the goal of reducing the risk of chronic diseases.

Now Carrot Rewards is encouraging users to check their credit score. Can the minister explain what credit scores have to do with reducing chronic diseases?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It seems to be the trend this morning, Mr. Speaker. I can’t believe it. It seems the opposition have reached new depths in twisting information and vilifying Canadian companies in the interest of scoring cheap political points.

I believe it’s critical that we support Ontarians by encouraging people to make healthy and active lifestyle choices. That’s why we partnered with Carrot Rewards. It’s an innovative health promotion mobile phone application rewarding users for being active, eating healthy and quitting smoking. We invested in Carrot Rewards—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think that’s enough.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, Carrot has absolutely no affiliation with Equifax, and if she or her staff had done their research, she would understand that.

This is the PC Party of 2017, and 14 years in opposition have not been kind.

Interjections.

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

I’d like to remind members, particularly those who have already been reminded, that we’re in warnings.

Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The arrogance of this government is beyond the pale. You are throwing away $1.5 million, and you call me—political points? Unbelievable.

Back to the minister: Carrot Rewards contracted Borrowell—follow the dots, Minister—a company partnered with Equifax, to check Carrot Rewards users’ credit scores. Borrowell admitted in September that the Equifax breach could “put you at the risk of identity theft.” The government gave Carrot Insights $1.5 million but did not do their due diligence to ensure the money was in fact used to encourage healthy living. Carrot Rewards is still directing Ontarians today to a service using Equifax during what is reported to be the largest breach of social insurance numbers in North America.

What steps has the minister taken to ensure that the personal information of Carrot Rewards users—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, Mr. Speaker, Carrot no more has a relationship with Equifax than CIBC has a relationship with Equifax, let alone it’s a third party twice removed. I think members of this House would—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My lenience is exhausted. The member from Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you. Carrot Rewards was actually launched in partnership with the Harper federal government in July of 2015, when Rona Ambrose was Minister of Health. Carrot worked with the federal government for an entire year before they signed its contract in January, when Patrick Brown was still a federal member. In fact, the $5 million was provided by the Conservative federal government to Carrot Rewards.

So this had its genesis with the federal Conservative government, but of course the member opposite didn’t look into any of that before trying to attack a good Canadian success story without merit. The Progressive Conservative Party of Bill Davis is long since gone. I can’t see—

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

Interjections.

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

You won’t know when I’m going to say so, and if you had said it one more sentence after I had started, you would have been warned. The minister knows better. We refer to anybody in this place by their title or their riding. We must elevate our debate.

New question.

Hospital services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Acting Premier.

Judy Congdon of London waited more than a year for her knee surgery. Now she’s waiting even longer, in pain, for her hip replacement surgery. Her surgery date last month was cancelled due to a lack of funding. And now, Judy, like so many Londoners, will wait two long years for the surgery she desperately needs.

London, Strathroy and Stratford have some of the longest wait times in Ontario for hip and knee surgeries. That’s not just me saying that. The head of the LHIN says, “Our wait times are some of the worst in the province.”

When will this government stop squeezing our hospitals and start making sure that patients like Judy don’t have to wait years for surgery that they need now?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, since we came into office, our government has invested over almost $2 billion for more than three million additional procedures to help reduce wait times. In fact, as a result of that, the Wait Time Alliance report card continues to give Ontario straight As in five key service areas, including hip replacement surgery and knee replacement surgery—straight As.

Now, we know that there is variation across the province. That’s one of the reasons why, this past summer, we made available publicly to both health care providers, patients and Ontarians information about wait times for a whole set of procedures. It’s publicly available so individuals can see, for example, which hospitals have longer wait times and which hospitals have shorter wait times, and they can work with their health care provider to make a decision that suits their particular and unique needs.

We know that we need to continue to invest. In the supplementary, I’ll talk about those investments in this budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The crisis in health care in London is a direct result of years of hospital cuts by the Conservatives and the Liberals. Since 2013, London Health Sciences has been forced to cut $141 million, and at least 488 full-time-equivalent jobs have been cut. That is the Premier’s legacy in London.

Now we have the longest wait times for surgeries. Our hospitals are overcrowded and pleading for dozens of new beds, and the Acting Premier just sits there and makes excuses instead of standing up for health care in her own city.

When will this government stop cutting health care like the Conservatives and start fixing the damages the Liberals have done to hospitals across southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As part of the budget, we announced an additional $50 million to improve access to and wait times for hospital services, including specifically knee and hip surgery. In the South West LHIN, this included an additional half a million dollars for more hip and knee replacement surgeries.

But it’s important that Ontarians understand the situation in the province. According to data from CIHI, Ontario continues to beat the national targets for hip and knee surgery wait times. Also, compared to other jurisdictions: It is 121 days across the OECD, 86 days in Canada, 75 days’ wait in the UK and only 70 days in Ontario. Similarly, for knee replacements, the wait times in Ontario are half the average of what it is in the OECD.

We absolutely have more work to do. That’s precisely why we made the wait time investments for hip and knee in this year’s budget.

Government’s record

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Finance. In 2010, this government promised to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget by 2017-18. This was not very long after the 2008-09 recession, which had very extremely negative impacts on countries around the world, and Ontario, of course, was not immune.

However, rather than slash the programs and services upon which Ontario families rely in order to eliminate the deficit, I am very proud of the fact that our government chose to build Ontario up. The investments that we have made in transit, schools, hospitals and education have led people to choose Ontario as their home now more than ever. And I, for one, am happy to see that there are more supports for municipalities. Ontario cities and towns are now receiving four times the level of support they got in 2003, more than $4 billion in support.

Can the minister remind the House how on this side of the House we’ve been able to invest in the people of Ontario for 14 years without the slashing and cutting that they would do on that side of the House?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I thank the member for the question. For the past 14 years, our government has taken a balanced approach to keeping Ontario at the forefront of a global economy. We managed our expenses and transformed how we deliver public services, making them more efficient and more effective.

This is the type of financial responsibility that the opposition doesn’t understand. By investing in progressive policies, we’re stimulating growth in our economy. We’re making historic infrastructure investments: $20 billion into hospitals, $16 billion into schools, free tuition for our students and free pharmacare for our young people. Meanwhile, our program-expense-to-GDP is lean and lower than pre-recession levels.

Let me remind you: Under the previous PC government, Ontario taxpayers were paying 15 cents for every dollar earned just to service the debt. Now in Ontario we’re paying only 8.4 cents, and next year it will be even lower. We’ve eliminated the deficit, we’ve balanced the budget and that means more money to invest in health care, education and other public services that—

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

Mr. Arthur Potts: Back to the Minister of Finance: If you listen, Speaker, to what the opposition are saying, they want people to believe that we’ve made no advancements over the last 14 years. They would like people to believe we have had no improvements in businesses and no investments in industries like the tech sector and the STEM sector. They would want you to believe—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: They advanced, but they all advanced backwards. They advanced backwards.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Too late. The member from Nipissing is warned.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case the member needs a reminder, we’re into warnings.

Mr. Arthur Potts: They would want us to believe that Ontarians have not been working hard to grow this economy into one of the strongest in Canada and all of North America. It’s hard to rectify that with what the Minister of Finance has just spoken about: how, under Liberal leadership, we have dug Ontario out of the recession, and how, because of this, we are now able to make very progressive investments in new policy that will attract foreign investment.

Can the minister tell us about the great progress that this side of the House has made over the last 14 years, to make Ontario the best place to create and grow jobs?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m very proud to stand up today to say that we’ve worked tirelessly with our business community and Ontario workers to build Ontario up and to turn our economy into one of the strongest in Canada and North America.

Yes, we’ve weathered one of the worst recessions we’ve seen in recent memory. Since then, we’ve added 760,000 net new jobs. Since then, and for the last three years, we’ve been leading the G7 in growth. Since then, we’ve brought our unemployment rate down to 5.7%, the lowest in 16 years. Since then, we’ve invested $3 billion in partnerships with businesses, leveraging $27 billion in private sector investment, supporting 170,000 jobs and, just as importantly, we’re now poised to lead in the new global economy.

We’ve transformed our economy; we’re heading in the right direction—

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

Government advertising

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. The opioid crisis has been gripping the province for about a year now. Cities like Toronto, Ottawa, London and Kitchener are not immune to the spread of the deadly opioids that have claimed the lives of 865 Ontarians in 2016.

The best way to prevent Ontarians, particularly the youth in our province, from taking potentially deadly drugs laced with fentanyl is through greater awareness and better education. Given the government’s bulk media buy, or its advertising budget, which has grown in the last year from $25 million to $56 million, will the government commit to dedicating 10% of that to the public fight against opioids?

Hon. Liz Sandals: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I genuinely appreciate the question. I think that we share the same assessment that we have a public health crisis, a public health emergency, with regard to opioids in this province and in this country. We need to do everything we can, including education and awareness. It is an important tool. It’s one of those touch points. It’s not the only one, but it’s an important touch point where we can alert people to the dangers and the risks inherent in both licit and illicit drug use, particularly, as the member opposite has said, with regard to young persons.

The education and awareness component of the opioid crisis is an aspect of our response that we’ve been working on for quite some time. In fact, we’re working closely across ministries—higher education, for example, and others—to make sure, as we roll out this aspect of our efforts to fight the epidemic, that it is also having that intended impact.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much to the Minister of Health, but I’ll go back to the President of the Treasury Board. The government spent $5.7 million on ORPP ads after the program was scrapped or during the program’s scrapping. You’re also slated to spend at least $5.5 million on the fair hydro plan that the auditor called a pat on the back. I’m asking, basically, for $5.6 million to be dedicated to opioid awareness in a public health and safety campaign that could save lives.

Later today the family of Nick Cody will join me at Queen’s Park to introduce Nick’s Law. Nick died of a drug overdose after fighting addiction. His parents, Steve and Natalie, believe we need a province-wide awareness campaign.

More money for awareness is just one more tool in the tool kit in the opioid crisis, but I believe it is a very important one. Will the government commit at least $5 million to an advertising and education campaign to tell Ontarians about these deadly drugs?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, again, I share the member opposite’s concern, and the objective, as well, in terms of that one component: education and awareness—

Mr. John Yakabuski: The President of the Treasury Board says people need to know about things. Well, let’s talk.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We need to be sure that we’re reaching young persons in school, in colleges and universities, and that we have a campaign that reaches people who go to nightclubs and bars, for example, where they may come into contact with tainted drugs.

The problem that we’re facing is an increasing amount of fentanyl and that many, if not most, individuals who consume drugs are completely unaware of its existence and of the risks inherent in that. We’re funding safe injection sites, including in the member’s city of Ottawa. We’re funding test strips so you can test for the presence of fentanyl. We just released $21 million out of a nearly $300-million investment over a three-year period to fight the crisis, $21 million to go specifically to harm reduction workers on the front lines so they have the tools that they need as well.

Education

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier. Ontario families and education advocates were shocked to discover that this government is welcoming US Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to Ontario. DeVos is an outspoken proponent of voucher programs, which divert public dollars to private schools and undermine a strong publicly funded education system.

With a $15-billion backlog in school maintenance and repair, with rising violence in Ontario schools and with chronic underfunding of special education, why is this government giving a platform to someone who believes that government should be spending less, not more, on public education?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I am so proud of our education system in Ontario. We have actually transformed education over the last 14 years. Our graduation rate has gone from a shameful 68% to over 86%. It is a remarkable turnaround. The more we can spread the word about what has happened in education in Ontario, the better.

I actually think that Secretary DeVos has a lot to learn from the Ontario experience. I welcome the opportunity to be able to educate her about how public education can work and can be strong and can benefit all students. I think there is a lot to learn, and I’m glad that she is actually taking the opportunity to learn about our education miracle.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Acting Premier: It’s not just DeVos’s position on school choice and privatization that has people worried. She rolled back rules on gender-neutral washrooms in schools and watered down college policies on handling sexual assault. Public education advocates strongly denounce her views. The president of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation wants DeVos to keep her backward ideas out of Ontario.

Why won’t this Liberal government listen to teachers and take a strong stand against privatization, against trans exclusion, against gender-based violence, and retract its invitation to allow DeVos to tour Ontario schools?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: This is a disappointing question coming from the NDP, because when it comes to public education, Ontario has one of the best public education systems in the entire world. When it comes to focusing on student achievement and equity, Ontario has one of the best public education systems in the entire world.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: If Secretary DeVos wants to learn about public education, there is no better place in the world to come than to Ontario to learn about public education and how we are serving the needs of Ontario’s two million students. Some 95% of students in Ontario attend our public education system because we have an excellent system, and we are proud to tell the secretary and anyone else—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Again, my patience. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned, and I think Windsor West is looking—I’m not sure.

New question.

Education funding

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Education. Over the last 14 years, our government has worked hard to improve the quality of our publicly funded education system. I also know, as a teacher and a union leader, that we inherited a system that was severely underfunded and in disrepair. However, our government has made historic investments and we continue to build on our proven track record of supporting student success.

I know that we have made many accomplishments during this time and that we have been recognized by the international community for our excellence in education. We always want to make sure that our young people are equipped with the supports they need to reach their full potential both inside and outside of the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: After 14 years of progress, how has our government improved the quality of education—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook is warned. It doesn’t matter where you hide; I’ll still find you.

Carry on.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member from Barrie for this question. I know how passionate she is about Ontario’s public education system.

We are starting right where it belongs, with the investments in our classrooms. After 14 years, we have increased education funding in this province by 66%, to more than $23 billion each year. Our historic investments in education are paying off, contributing to a high school graduation rate of a historic high, 86.5%, up from 68% in 2004.

Over 14 years, we’ve invested more than $17 billion in school infrastructure, 820 new schools and more than 800 additions and renovations, which is part of our plan to create jobs and grow our economy.

Let’s talk about full-day kindergarten, Mr. Speaker—

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you to the minister for the response. I know how enthusiastic parents were when sending their children off to school this fall, and it’s clear just how much families value Ontario’s publicly funded education system.

Thanks to our supports and investments, our students consistently rank amongst the best in national and international student achievement outcomes. Over the last 14 years, our plan for our education system has been clear: We are committed to supporting student achievement, equity and well-being for all students in Ontario.

We’ve also heard that we are collaborating with education partners to prioritize student success and well-being. Minister, can you please tell us more about our plan to pave pathways to success for all students and to support all education workers within our publicly funded education system?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to say thank you again to the member from Barrie. As she well knows, the excellence in our education system begins with our excellent teachers and education workers across this province, who show up each and every single day on behalf of all of our students. I just want to say thank you to them.

We have invested in our system of education because we know this is the best investment we can make in the skills and in the talents of our students. We’ve introduced new programs to prepare students for the workplace and for life after graduation.

Hon. Jeff Leal: High skills major.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: The Minister of Agriculture is talking about our Specialist High Skills Major program, including our agriculture program. These Specialist High Skills Major programs are having an extraordinary impact on our students.

But we’re not stopping there, Mr. Speaker. We’ve invested an additional $190 million over three years to create 40,000 more work-related integrated programs for students, giving them the experience they need to—

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

New question.

Ontario Culture Days

Mrs. Gila Martow: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. This past Friday, Saturday and Sunday, Ontario celebrated Ontario’s Culture Days 2017. Beginning the last Friday of September, the annual Culture Days weekend features hands-on, behind-the-scenes, community-engaged activities, inviting the public to contribute to arts and culture across Canada.

This year, Ontario Culture Days fell on the important Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, unfortunately. This means that many in Thornhill and the Jewish community across Ontario were unable to participate—and I’m not talking about just attending. I’m talking like actually participating in the events that foster engagement and support for the diverse arts and culture community in Ontario.

I’m wondering if the minister can explain why there isn’t a plan in place to accommodate special days like Yom Kippur.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I know how important her faith is to her, Speaker, and in recognition of that, I want to say how much I respect her question.

I want to point out, though, that Culture Days, which we celebrate right across Ontario, encompass about 200 cultures in Ontario. With a busy calendar season every year, sometimes it’s difficult to choose a day that doesn’t affect a particular faith and a particular religion.

I will take this back to my officials, having had the question now from the honourable member, and see what we can do to avoid such duplications in the future. But I know she appreciates that there are hundreds of cultures across Ontario and that sometimes, again, it’s difficult to

schedule these kinds of events and celebrations, given that there’s one almost every weekend, on days that don’t impact a particular culture or faith.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: Again to the minister: I just want to read from a message from Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on Yom Kippur, where she said just last week, “Yom Kippur—the Day of Atonement—is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.” I can understand that everybody here can appreciate that there are a lot of Jewish holidays. It’s a never-ending cycle of holidays in the Jewish community. But Yom Kippur is a little bit different. It is the holiest day. We don’t need the Premier to tell the community that. But maybe the Premier’s words need to ring into some of the ministry staff to understand that.

We have artists—we lost Leonard Cohen this year. Eugene Levy is a famous Canadian actor. Even Drake was bar mitzvahed, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to see a little bit of recognition that, for the High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, events like the Culture Days can accommodate those special days.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I thank the member opposite for the question. I want to take this opportunity to wish the Jewish community in Ontario and beyond our very best wishes for the High Holidays season, which, of course, as the member opposite has just mentioned, is just behind us now. Having Jewish members in my own family, I am very proud, as we all are, of our Jewish community here in Ontario. There are enormous accomplishments. In fact, in the arts and culture sector, there are many artists who are Jewish.

I want to just respond by saying again that we will look at the calendar. I also know that the member opposite appreciates the diverse nature of our province. When it comes to Kathleen Wynne and her support for the arts and culture sector and her support for the various faiths in this province, nobody can question that commitment because she is absolutely committed.

Mental health services

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Acting Premier. In 2015, Toronto was rocked by the death of Andrew Loku, a 45-year-old black man in mental health distress, in an incident with police. Rightly, a coroner’s inquest was called and, earlier this year, that inquest made 39 recommendations that would give the police the training and tools they need to de-escalate situations with racialized populations and those who need to be heard and helped, so that incidents such as the death of Andrew Loku may never happen again.

Today I am joined by a group of concerned mental health professionals on the front lines of this issue who are calling on this Liberal government to act on the coroner’s inquest recommendations. My question: When will the Premier implement the Loku inquest recommendations?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I thank the member for his question. First, I want to express my sincere condolences to the friends and the family of Andrew Loku.

I know that police officers are increasingly interacting with vulnerable individuals, often with complex mental health issues. This is why we need to modernize police service training. Police officers need the necessary tools to defuse crisis situations and protect both themselves and their communities. Through our Strategy for a Safer Ontario, we will promote a collaborative partnership between police, the public and other sectors such as education, health care and social. This will improve interactions between police and our vulnerable Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Back to the Acting Premier: Notwithstanding those assurances, the reality is that it’s been two years since the tragic death of Mr. Loku. The jury is in and those recommendations have yet to be implemented.

The time for talk and good intentions is over. The people of this province don’t need another coroner’s inquest gathering dust on someone’s desk. When will this Liberal government act to implement the coroner’s inquest recommendations into the death of Andrew Loku?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Our government is very committed to making sure that people with mental health issues get access to the services they need. Through the Strategy for a Safer Ontario, we will be improving de-escalation training for all new recruits and existing officers across the province, incorporating use of force and de-escalation into our upcoming legislation to ensure police can fully respond to individuals in crisis. We will establish the most appropriate model for police interaction with persons who are in crisis.

My ministry is also working diligently with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to provide people with mental health issues with the right care in the right place at the right time. We will be bringing legislation this fall.

Infrastructure program funding

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Infrastructure, the Honourable Bob Chiarelli.

Speaker, at the outset, I’d like to thank Minister Chiarelli and the Premier for joining me in my riding of Etobicoke North for the latest and greatest infrastructure development, the $400-million expansion of Etobicoke General Hospital.

Fourteen years of dedicated Liberal leadership such as this has resulted in the largest infrastructure renewal in Ontario’s history. Under the leadership of this government, whether it’s hospitals, schools, public transit projects across Ontario—and, of course, these were precisely the projects ignored egregiously by both the PC and NDP governments.

At the heart of our $190-billion, 13-year plan is a commitment to creating better lives for the people of Ontario. In Etobicoke North, whether it’s communities, schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure, there are developments all around the riding. But the opposition is opposed to this every step of the way.

Could the minister please elaborate on Ontario’s current infrastructure developments?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question.

Speaker, our government invests an average of $12 billion per year on infrastructure, on track for $20 billion next year. In their last year in power, the Tories spent $1.9 billion. They killed transit projects and let social infrastructure rot.

Our Liberal government has been building Ontario up for 14 years. We’ve invested $280 million in broadband, connecting tens of thousands to high-speed Internet. We’ve carried out 100 major hospital projects and children’s treatment centres, with 35 more under way. We were the first Ontario government to invest $100 million in rural natural gas expansion. We tripled to $300 million the annual Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund for smaller communities. We are funding nearly 1,400 clean water and wastewater projects.

Speaker, there is no debate to be had. Of all the parties represented in this House, only ours has delivered on infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister, for the flurry of developments and your leadership. I know that the investments that we’ve made over the past 14 years in every corner of this province will benefit today’s generation, but these will also lay the foundation for a fair and prosperous Ontario for our kids and grandkids.

Speaker, whether we’re making infrastructure investments in health care, in education, in transportation, these are of course a top priority for the community that I represent in Etobicoke North. From rapid transit to GO regional express rail, these new transit options will allow people in my community of Etobicoke North to get to work or school and back and forth from home faster than ever before. As an example, we have a $1.2-billion Finch LRT, custom designed with eight stops, right in Etobicoke North.

Would the minister please provide more information on what our government continues to do to reverse the chronic underinvestment, the legacy of the governments opposite?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m delighted to have a chance to answer the member from Etobicoke North’s question. He is absolutely correct. Since 2003, we have gotten a lot done; for example, the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, which will open up in 2021. When you think about that, it will be more than 20 years since the Conservative Party killed and filled the Eglinton subway.

We also know that when the Conservatives were last in government, they invested between 10 to 15 times less per year than we have in GO Transit and other rapid transit projects.

Of course, an oldie but a goodie: We can never forget that Mike Harris and the Conservatives sold Highway 407.

Now let’s take a look at what our Liberal government has done over the last 14 years. We’ve extended the GO rail network by nearly 90 kilometres. The Toronto-York Spadina subway extension is merely weeks away from opening. And we have already opened the first phase of the publicly owned Highway 407, which will be going out to the 115/35 in no time.

Our record is clear and so is the Conservative record.

Taxation

Mr. Monte McNaughton: To the Acting Premier: Canada’s Premiers are gathered in Ottawa today with Finance Minister Bill Morneau to discuss the Liberal proposal to raise taxes on small businesses. We already know that Premiers from across Canada are standing up for their small businesses and family farms, but so far, Ontario has refused to condemn the action of their federal cousins.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier be on the side of our small businesses and family farms, or Justin Trudeau’s?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The federal government, as everyone knows, has proposed changes to close loopholes used by consulting firms and professionals. We need to understand the implications of these changes to small business, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that Ontario continues to grow and thrive.

Regardless of the federal government’s decisions, we will continue to take action to support growth of small business in Ontario. We have already lowered business corporate tax rates from 5.5% in 2009 to 4.5%. We’ve eliminated capital tax, lowering overall tax rates. We’ve accelerated the capital cost allowance to enable them to invest.

We’ll continue to work with our small-business community to ensure that they are protected and that, whatever the federal government does, we will continue to suppo