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

March 4, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Mar-04 vol. Array (PDF)

L151 - Wed 4 Mar 2020 / Mer 4 mar 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 March 2020 Mercredi 4 mars 2020

Orders of the Day

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour connecter la population aux services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire

Members’ Statements

Education funding

Child care

Northern Health Travel Grant

Parry Sound–Muskoka athletes

Tenant protection

Coldest Night of the Year

Long-term care

Play for a Cure

Big Brothers Big Sisters

Heart and Stroke Foundation

Wearing of pins

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Education funding

Education funding

Education funding

Job creation

Licence plates

Education funding

Mental health and addiction services

Ambulance services

Services for persons with disabilities

First responders

Food safety

Food safety

Child care

Equal opportunity

Flooding

Abattoirs

Deferred Votes

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

Introduction of Visitors

Motions

Adjournment debate

Adjournment debate

Order of business

Petitions

Palliative care

Agri-food industry

Long-term care

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Autism treatment

Agri-food industry

Water quality

Public transit

Social assistance

Public transit

Orders of the Day

Concurrence in supply

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Concurrence in supply

Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour connecter la population aux services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire

Adjournment Debate

Ring of Fire

Mental health and addiction services

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 20, 2020, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 156,

An Act to protect Ontario’s farms and farm animals from trespassers and other forms of interference and to prevent contamination of Ontario’s food supply / Projet de loi 156, Loi visant à protéger les fermes et les animaux d’élevage en Ontario contre les entrées sans autorisation et d’autres actes susceptibles de les déranger et à prévenir la contamination de l’approvisionnement alimentaire en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Apparently, the member for Timmins had the floor when we last debated this bill, and so now we are going to do questions and comments related to Mr. Bisson’s presentation.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Our records indicate that the member for Timmins had the floor and made a presentation, and now we’re doing questions and responses with respect to the presentation that was made by the member for Timmins.

Member for Niagara West.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I did not have the opportunity, Speaker, to hear the member opposite’s speech, but I do have some questions with regard to the member’s and the party opposite’s plan for rural Ontario. We know that we hear a great deal from the members opposite about some of the concerns that they might have in urban centres, but for a great deal of time we know that rural Ontario was not represented under the former Liberal government.

My question to the member opposite is why, when they were propping up the Liberal government, did they support so many destructive policies that ended up hurting rural Ontarian communities? And why were they willing to do so when they claim, when speaking to this type of legislation, to be willing to stand up for farmers in rural communities?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to point out to the member across the way that there was a majority government in place. I want to explain how a majority government works. It’s just like yours: You decide what you call off the order paper when it comes to debate. You get to design the legislation that you want to have debated, and you get to pass it because you have a majority. It’s as simple as that. This whole notion is a bit of a silly one because the government had a majority, and as this government does, the government used its majority to move its agenda forward.

I’ll agree with you. A lot of their policies were pretty bad. The electricity policy, specifically, hurt a lot of northern communities and rural communities and people in their own homes. There are a lot of things that we can agree on that they didn’t do a very good job on, but don’t forget, they were a majority government.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: When the member from Timmins was speaking to Bill 156, he referenced our long-standing tradition to support freedom of expression and freedom of the press. I’m referencing a letter that was done by 38 legal professionals from across the country. They say, “If Bill 156 is passed as drafted, it would effectively cut off an important source of public information and a driver of policy change. It would silence journalists and those who advocate for animal protection by exposing the abuse of animals at agricultural facilities and violate their charter rights.” Does the member think this piece of legislation will be challenged in the courts?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further response? The member from Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think you were going to say “Timmins–James Bay,” but that was the other riding.

Listen, I think there is a distinct possibility that that’s going to happen. If you listen to people who have talked to us about it—because they have come to our offices, on both sides of the House, to talk about what they like in the bill—there are some things in this bill that, quite frankly, we can support. We agree with the government that we need to make sure that we deal with food security in a way that is good for both the farmer and good for the community etc.

But there are concerns, and that’s really the balance here. How do you do what you are trying to do in this bill without stepping on the ability for people to express their views about whatever it might be that you may not agree with? That’s always a challenge in a democracy. Any time that a Parliament tries to limit that, I think we’re treading in pretty dangerous water.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Question?

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s nice to be able to take

part in questions and responses today. The member from Timmins was able to take

part in mine, and unfortunately, I wasn’t here to take

part in listening to him.

But I just wanted to ask him—in a general sense, he’s really concerned about limiting people’s rights and freedoms and freedom of expression. But is it okay for someone to, essentially, break into your private property, take pictures, and potentially harm what’s happening as far as biosecurity on your farm, contaminating our food supply? Is it okay for someone to come in and do that on private property when they have not been invited? That is the question that I put to the member.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to borrow a line from Kathleen Wynne, to that question: That was a stretch question.

I just have to say, listen, we all agree, on both sides of the House, that we need to make sure that the farm is made safe, that food processing facilities are made safe, that we don’t have a situation where people can just go in and do what they want and that you’re able to control that in some way. But the way that this particular legislation is drawn up does represent some issues.

I’m hoping that when it goes to committee that the government will hear what has to be said about some of the friendly amendments that can be made. For example, to go from having somebody show up on your property and not having to call the police and going right to a citizen’s arrest, I think, is skipping a spot. There should be a place in there where we say that the first thing is you ask the person to leave. If not, call the police, and if you have to, then do a citizen’s arrest.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: To the member from Timmins: When he was speaking to Bill 156, he also referenced the letter that was delivered to the Attorney General and to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. It reads as follows: “We the undersigned Canadian law professors and constitutional and criminal law experts write to express our concerns with Bill 156.... Aspects of the bill would infringe individuals’ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and therefore violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

We know that this government is in court with the teachers, with the midwives, with the students, with the environmentalists. This piece of legislation likely will end up in the courts. How will this benefit farmers in the province of Ontario, or in the country, for that matter?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to thank you for the question. You forgot one group that’s before the courts: corporate Ontario. There’s a whole bunch of companies that are actually bringing the government to court when it comes to the breaking of contracts that were signed.

Now, did I like those contracts? Did the government like the contracts? Absolutely not. We think what the government did when it came to some of their energy contracts, quite frankly, was beyond the pale. But one of the difficulties once you start breaking contracts is, you put it out there that—if you’re a government that’s prepared to negate a contract, then how does that provide stability for businesses?

And then to the question, specifically to what the member says: Yes, I agree. There is an issue here, and it’s something that we’re going to have to resolve at committee, because I can’t believe that, in this day and age, we want to find a way that’s going to take away the right of individuals to their lawful ability to do what they’ve got to do.

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

Mr. Parm Gill: I also want to thank the member, even though I didn’t have the opportunity to listen to his remarks either, but I do have a question. A lot of people might not know, but I represent a significant rural part of my riding in Milton, so we’ve got a lot of farmers. This is a serious concern that’s raised by a lot of them when it comes to food safety and security. As mentioned by a number of my colleagues, for a lot of the farmers, they obviously live and work at the same place, so it’s a concern, especially when it comes to trespassing.

Just this morning, I was attending a reception downstairs hosted by Chicken Farmers of Ontario Women in Leadership, and I was talking to one of the attendees there, even. She’s a single mother, she has got three children, and she raised a similar concern. It really concerns her, the fact that she lives on a large farm, and she’s constantly worried that there may be trespassers—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Response?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I attended, along with a number of our colleagues, not just that meeting, but I was actually with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who raised some of the same issues.

Our critic, the member for Timiskaming, has already said, and we have said, there’s much in this bill that we support, but there needs to be some amendments at committee. One of the points that we make is that when it comes to the ability to do a citizen’s arrest, that’s something that already exists in the existing laws, but there should be a step in between where you first try calling the police before you do a citizen’s arrest.

There are a few other items, such as were raised by my colleague, that we need to deal with, and I think when this bill goes to committee we should be able to amend it in some way to make that happen.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Finally, to the member from Timmins: In your comments, you commented on the right of peaceful protests not being made illegal, and obviously we’re worried that this bill might impact people’s basic rights in this province. We can’t forget that farmers feed us, but people also have a charter right to express their views, as our critic has also identified.

To the member from Timmins: Where do you see this piece of legislation going, and can it actually be fixed by the opposition?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, through you: I definitely think the bill can be fixed, but the government is going to have to listen to what is said at committee. I can’t believe, in this day and age, that any government of any stripe would want to have a bill passed at third reading and enacted that would take away a citizen’s right to be able to assemble, to be able to protest or to express their views. I may not like what they’re saying, and you may not like what they’re saying, but they have a right to say it so long as they don’t do anything that puts people into danger. We need to be able to find a balance with all of that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. Good morning. It’s nice to see you in the chair this morning, Speaker.

It’s a pleasure for me to join in the debate of Bill 156,

An Act to protect Ontario’s farms and farm animals from trespassers and other forms of interference and to prevent contamination of Ontario’s food supply. This was a bill that, prior to its introduction, was discussed in my riding by local farmers when Minister Hardeman came and had an agricultural round table. It’s a bill that I think is very important. I certainly support it.

Because of that priority to move this bill forward, I move that the question be now put.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Clark 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 since there has been over nine hours and 53 minutes of debate.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? 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.

Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour connecter la population aux services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 3, 2020, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 175,

An Act to amend and repeal various Acts respecting home care and community services / Projet de loi 175, Loi modifiant et abrogeant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire.

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

Ms. Doly Begum: Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House, like always, and to speak to a bill—I believe an issue, actually—that is so close to my heart, because this is something that has affected me personally for many, many years, but also it affects the people of my riding very closely. I get to talk to a lot of people in my riding who have home care, who have PSWs, and have some really, really telling stories that are so important to share in this House. So it is really powerful, I believe, to share some of these stories in this House as well.

I rise today to speak to Bill 175, the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act. First, I want to begin by talking a little bit about the title of this bill because I think, just in itself, it gives a lot of hope to people about connecting them to the care that they truly need. This act is intended, in its essence, to really provide people in our province with the right type of care that they need, whether they are home after a hospital visit and need that support, or elders who need the support at home, be it any of those.

I want to begin by talking a little bit about some of the things that are in this bill in the sense that it really focuses on how we have encouraged PSWs in this province. I think that was one of the core things that I took away from this bill—even though it gave that hope to people that we are really going to provide care for the people of Ontario, it wasn’t actually doing this. That false hope, especially to our elders, is a really scary thing, because people—families, children, all of us in this province—will really rely on that.

I want to begin by sharing my personal story because, at a very young age, a family member, my father, faced a situation where he ended up in the hospital. After a few years in rehab, he was at home. We had social workers, occupational therapists, personal support workers, physiotherapists, speech therapists—the full team—that really supported my father to get back up, along with my mother. I have to say that from the age of 12 or so, I have watched how they really transformed—it was like watching a baby learning to walk again. That’s how it was in my home.

First, I want to say to the folks out there, if you have someone named Jeremy, Rick, Kim, Joey, Anne, Ruby—all of these people were such amazing people, and especially Jim Peasant, who passed away and my father attended his funeral because he was our social worker. It broke my dad’s heart when he passed away because that person became a family member. So these people have a real, real impact in the lives of these individuals and what they do.

One of the things I noticed was how they really helped my father learn to walk again, learn to speak again, and learn to basically become physically and mentally independent, which was so important.

I have to say, when I remember these days, I cannot imagine how we would be—how any of us in our family would be—without the support of these wonderful individuals, especially our PSWs. They were there early in the morning, despite having so many patients, despite having such a busy schedule. And the work they do is really mentally and physically strenuous. The work that they do, it’s so incredible. I know that my father, who was in pain all the time, wasn’t the nicest person at that time. So they’re really dealing with a lot of issues. Every patient—they go from door to door.

Sometimes they might have a really nice day; sometimes these workers are facing really difficult days. We have to make sure that we are rewarding them the best way possible. We have to make sure that we allow for them to have good pay and to have good benefits.

I know I sound biased in this, but I think all of us should be. I think in our own right, we should be, because these people who help us get back up, we should make sure that they have good pay and good benefits. I share this because—it was almost more than 15 years or so that we had the support. I know that some of them were really tired; they actually left that profession and moved on to do something else, because they felt that they didn’t really have a path in this profession. That breaks my heart, because they were wonderful people doing their job so gracefully.

It really happens in this province a lot in terms of retention. We lose a lot of these professionals because we don’t have the right sort of encouragement, the right way of keeping them and retaining them in this profession.

When I look at this bill—at first I thought, “Wow, this is great,” because we’re going to make sure that we allow for people to have that care. We are going to make sure that that gap that was created in the last two decades or so for people receiving this care that we so badly need, this bill is going to fix that. Then when I take a closer look—I want to go a little bit

schedule by schedule. When I look at

schedule 1, the first thing when I’m looking at the language of it, I get a little worried. That’s because there are a few things that have been added that make me a little concerned. These are the hints in this bill, throughout this bill, that lead towards privatization of our care system.

When I’m looking at the issue of more choice—every time that this government has pointed to more choice, Mr. Speaker, I get a little concerned because what essentially they are saying is not about choice, but that we’re moving towards a system of privatization. Why that worries me is because when we look at care—just like education, when we look at health care and home care, the services that we so essentially need, it has to be about care; it cannot be about profit. That’s the bottom line. It has to be about the care of the people of this province.

It has to be about the care of the wonderful people who have paid their dues, who worked so hard, who built this province; it has to be about them rather than profit. When I look at some of the language in this bill, I am really, really concerned that we’re going to shift towards a system of privatization where we will actually hurt people and we will face a situation where it will be about the money of certain organizations and certain corporations, and not about the people of this province who so badly need the support.

Also, then I look at how much are we really making it possible for PSWs—are we really encouraging them—to stay in their profession. I don’t think so. The way this bill is put together, it doesn’t actually help a lot of the PSWs, not to mention it doesn’t even talk about occupational therapists. Occupational therapists are such an essential component in terms of making sure of the entire plan for somebody to have the support and what sort of care they need.

It’s like a team: You have a team and you have a team leader, and you have to make sure that, “We need one, two, three, four, and here is the person.” I remember what a relief it is to know that there is an actual plan for your family member.

The fact that this bill completely ignores the whole

section about occupational therapists, OTs, worries me, because just around a decade ago was a time when we started noticing that occupational therapists were slowly pushed away from our health care system, in a way where we were seeing that there were pieces of the care team missing. That makes it really difficult for families, because now what they’re trying to do is go out of their way to have that conversation with the PSW, to see, “Well, maybe my husband needs this. Maybe my mother needs this.

How do we do that?” If we take away certain professionals who are actually creating that plan, the safety plan, for these individuals, it’s really difficult for the PSWs to do their jobs, and they’re not paid very well.

I’m going to refer back to the education system again. If we don’t give them time to plan, if we don’t give them time to actually look at the curriculum, if we don’t give them the time to make sure that they’re actually doing the planning ahead for what they need to do with their patients, they will only have that time when they come in. So if we’re looking at 45 minutes to an hour, that’s all they will have to care for that individual.

Then I look at the other section, about the voucher system, which is what I hinted at, which is basically the way of self-directed care, which doesn’t really guarantee the quality of care. What I’m talking about here is that Bill 175 removes the restriction on self-directed care, where currently only in LHINs can that component be found. It is very concerning, because self-directed care doesn’t look at what the patient needs, doesn’t look at the quality of care.

It will cause a lot of problems because it will move away from the essential needs of a certain individual who, let’s say, just left the hospital or an elder who is at home and needs home care, because it will have that gap growing in our system.

The extraordinary powers that are also in this bill—actually, I want to remind folks about Bill 74. Bill 175 also provides for new extraordinary cabinet regulation-making powers that previously did not exist. Time and time again in this House, I have talked about the power that this government is giving itself throughout their many bills. Previously, last week, I talked about the bill for our justice system allowing the Attorney General to have more power; or the bill about transit—I forget the number right now—that allows for the Minister of Transportation and Metrolinx to have a lot of power. This bill, Bill 175, also gives a lot of power to the cabinet to make a lot of regulations.

The reason it’s concerning is because we have seen this government make a lot of policies in legislation where they have not consulted. When they do not consult with the people of this province and they go ahead and make something, it worries me because you’re missing a huge component of it.

Actually, the proof of that is really clearly shown in this bill, which is what the nurses’ association has told us. The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario has pointed out that they’re concerned about 4,500 care coordinators and nurse positions that may be eliminated. That’s really concerning, because this many nurses will possibly lose their jobs because of this bill, it has been pointed out. I’m really concerned about that because it really shows how this government has missed out on key stakeholders, key ground people, key folks who have not voiced their concerns in the sense that they are making sure that this bill actually points out a lot of problems.

I want to point out how important it is that we make sure that we consult with the right people and right organizations and the people on the ground—make sure that we actually talk to the people on the ground. That’s the key component of that.

Over the last six or seven months, I had the opportunity to meet with a lot of folks in Scarborough who are advocating for home care and for long-term care, who are residents of long-term care or are receiving home care. I have also had the opportunity to talk to a lot of family members who have family that are receiving home care. And one thing I have to tell you—first, I have to say thanks to Seven Oaks, a team that actually provides excellent care, but also thanks to the residents in that home for telling me how their lives have been.

I also want to thank Naomi D’Souza, a wonderful woman who has been advocating for the last 12 years or so for residents in Scarborough to receive proper long-term care and proper home care.

What I have learned over the past six months is that there is a huge gap—well, first, the home care system that we have within our health care umbrella is completely broken. I think both sides will agree to that. And I think both sides will have a sense of compassion for that because I’m sure that members on both sides of this House have had family members who have had home care services. I’m sure that members on both sides of the House have had dealings with PSWs or social workers or nurses, or have been to the hospital just recently. And I’m sure you feel how important these components are in our health care sector.

When I tell you some of the stories that I have received, some of the stories that I have heard during the last six or seven months as we met and as we had many town halls—we even invited the Minister of Long-Term Care to come to one of our town halls, which she unfortunately was not able to do, but we have shared what we found, as well, with the ministry because it is so important that we have consultations, that we hear from our residents and we hear from the advocates for what we really need. One of the things we heard was that there is a shortage of PSWs, which this bill does not fix at all.

You cannot legislate things without actually putting in the money and putting in the effort and making it easier for these people who are in the job to do their jobs. This bill does not do that at all.

Just like housing: If you don’t have enough housing and if you don’t have the right policies to provide people with housing, you are not going to fix the problem. When we look at the shortage of PSWs, it’s a real problem because people will press their bell in their rooms and—I have shared this story before. One of the stories that a resident told me in Scarborough is that if someone falls down in the washroom, if someone slips, it takes a very long time for someone to come and answer that call. And it’s not because these people don’t want to.

It’s not because these PSWs, these nurses, these workers don’t want to; it’s because they have way too many people that they are taking care of, and they are running from one room to another and trying to do their best.

Forget about their own health. Forget about their mental and physical health. Many of them end up dealing with WSIB just a few years after. Many of them end up having a lot of back pain and a lot of chronic pain problems after doing this job because of how strenuous this job is.

What happens if someone slips and falls down? You’re looking at 15 or 20 minutes of someone bleeding on the floor and not having anyone answer their call. That breaks my heart, because we have to make sure that we’re providing the right care and we’re giving enough people to actually provide the support. Now, does this bill do that? No, it doesn’t, but it gives people that hope that it will connect people to the right service; it gives people that hope that it will give us community and home care. But when you look at the actual details of this bill, it does not do that.

It really worries me, because no matter how flashy the language is, no matter how many times we say Ontario is open for business—first of all, Ontario is not a business; Ontario is our home, and we have to make sure that it’s liveable. We have to make sure that we take care of this province, and we have to make sure that we are allowed to grow in this province, because that’s what our home should be about, and not business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is time for questions. I recognize the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Mike Harris: Well, I recognize you too, Mr. Speaker.

The current system for patients here in Ontario is not working. Models of care are not providing personal support workers with the job security that they need. The system is not based on patient outcomes. Our approach, through Bill 175 and our regulations, offers a real solution to this problem.

Why are the members opposite consistently standing up and defending the status quo?

Ms. Doly Begum: I think the member’s question answers itself. First of all, we are not standing up for the status quo. The last 15 years is where we are right now. Because of the failures of the previous government, we are in this position right now. Instead of fixing it, this government is making it even worse. That’s what the problem is. You have a majority government, just like they did, and you can fix it. You can actually fix the problem.

In your question you said, “We’re going to focus on the care from the people’s perspective, from the ground up.” Are you actually doing that? No, you’re not. If you read the bill carefully—and there are lots of copies right in the front there; please take a look at it, because it does not do that. Instead, it actually makes it about profit. It opens up a lot of doors to privatization.

The other problem is, when we have a shortage of nurses, when we have a shortage of PSWs—

Interjections.

Ms. Doly Begum: If you ask the question, you might want to listen to my—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Further questions? I recognize the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: It’s a great name. Thank you, Speaker.

As many times I want to bring the perspective of home care in northern Ontario, I’d like to ask a question that I think I know the answer to, but we do that in this House often anyway.

What I’d like to know is, when I speak with home care providers in my riding, and PSWs and others who work in the home care field, they talk about the challenges of, first, not being consulted about this bill, and a fear of not wanting to comment too rigorously about it because they’re afraid that they may not be part of the chosen few to provide home care after the new system comes into place. Although I do understand contracts—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Back to the member from Scarborough Southwest.

Ms. Doly Begum: I want to thank the member for the question. Actually, if I may take a moment to share an important story about why I’m passionate and why it’s so important that we focus on care from the people’s perspective: I have a constituent who recently reached out to us, actually, before this bill was even tabled. She’s 89 years old. She’s legally blind, she has dementia and she’s totally bedridden, and spent three to five months at a hospital. I don’t want to disclose the name of the hospital.

She wears diapers, she needs to be changed at least three to four times a day, and she needs a lot of care. The amount of care that she needs will cost about $5,000 per month. If she were to actually do that, this woman would be bankrupt, and we’re looking at a point where she would not receive that care and actually might have bedsores from the way she is right now. So we really need to make sure—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Further questions?

Mr. David Piccini: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and ask a question and thank you for your comments. To the member who offered a northern perspective, I’d like to humbly offer a rural perspective, being from Northumberland–Peterborough South.

The member spoke about a broken system under the Liberals—I think that’s something we can both agree on—but I would like some tangible ideas. What we’ve seen in my community: After 25 years of no movement on home and community care, it’s now being embedded in Ontario health teams. My community was one of 24 selected. We now have a robust volunteer network. We have community paramedicine rolled out, thanks to this government. We have rural health hub clinics rolled out, thanks to this government. So we have better patient-centred care. We’re centring home care—embedding it in better patient-centred delivery of care, and we’re embedding it into Ontario health teams.

My question to the member is: What’s your solution, then? What about what I described in rural Ontario isn’t fundamentally a step forward for better patient-centred care?

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you for that question and for the perspective that you have given for rural Ontario. I think in every corner of this province, we have to make sure that we provide care for every single family member that we need to. For that, what I would do is make sure that we have proper funding in our health care system, proper funding in our long-term-care and our home care system. But also, what I wouldn’t do is open doors for privatization. I have to really emphasize that, because we cannot—we cannot—open the door for privatization when it comes to our health and when it comes to the care of our family members.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: I think the member from Scarborough Southwest correctly outlined the challenges that exist in home care. I was at a home-care home visit on Friday and meeting with the former CCAC and LHIN manager. They basically said that it’s out of their control because the contracts were signed with the CCAC, and they were grandfathered into the LHIN. You’re doubling down on this model through privatization.

How does the member feel about there being no accountability measures with Bill 175? There’s almost no legislative provision to hold the Ministry of Health, the Ontario health teams or Ontario health service providers accountable for the hours and the service and the quality of the care that clients are receiving in the province of Ontario.

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you to the member from Waterloo for her question. I think she has really beautifully outlined what the problem is with this bill, but also what we have to do for making sure that we provide better home care.

You know, I don’t have a lot of trust, just like a lot of people in this province don’t have a lot of trust, in this government, because when we look at the opportunities that this government has had in terms of fixing problems—and that goes back to the idea of the recommendations in the Wettlaufer investigation. If we were really passionate about fixing this problem and creating accountability, then this government would have taken those recommendations and made sure that they implemented those, because there were some really good recommendations in making sure that we create accountability and measures that actually help protect our family members.

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

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank the member opposite for her remarks. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the PA for health, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, for all the hard work that she has been doing on this file.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the current legislation was last updated in 1994, and that’s a quarter of a century ago. These regulations will now allow our system to do well, with full transparency and accountability to the public, instead of letting it stagnate for another quarter of a century. I am wondering if the member opposite believes home care services are going to look the same, say, in another decade or two.

Ms. Doly Begum: I thank the member for his question. It’s really unfortunate that this bill wasn’t looked at. We didn’t make sure that we keep up with the needs of this province in many of the different sectors, and this is one of them. The fact that, since 1994, we haven’t had any improvement shows, really, the failed legacy of the Liberals. That’s why I’m really concerned and I’m kind of worried as to why you haven’t done a better job in this bill.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: The member from Scarborough Southwest referenced the word “trust.” I think that is the heart of the problem, because members across the aisle say, “Why don’t you trust us?” Well, you’ve messed up pricing pollution, you’ve added pressure to the court system, you’re in court with almost everybody and education, for instance, is in chaos.

To the member from Scarborough Southwest: The fact that Bill 175 has no strategy whatsoever to address the PSW shortage in the province of Ontario—how do you feel this will impact the overall goals of home care without having a PSW strategy?

Ms. Doly Begum: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious bill. This is a serious issue. The long-term care, the home care, the health care system in this province is in crisis. This government should take that very, very seriously.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Niagara West.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you very much, Speaker. Today, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peterborough South-Kawartha.

I appreciate all of the work that you do, Speaker, in your chair. I know it’s important on a Wednesday morning to be able to make sure everyone is keeping things civil and engaged, and I appreciate that work as well.

It’s such a privilege to be able to rise in this House as the member for Niagara West to speak to a piece of legislation that I believe is vital to our government’s commitment toward ending hallway health care.

I have had the great privilege of serving the people of Niagara West for a little over three years now. I was elected in 2016. When I was elected, we were coming to the end of a Liberal regime that had been in place for 13 years at the time. By the time that our government was sent to this place as a government, of course, it was 15 years.

Nearing the end of those 15 years, a recurring theme came through time and time again. That was about the quality of health care in our province, where there was a need to address so many challenges that existed and there was a need to also ensure that there was patient-centred care when and where people needed it. That’s something that was very carefully thought about by the people I spoke with when they were making their choice at the ballot box.

Because of the importance of this issue, we know the Liberal government was one that talked a good talk but didn’t end up providing the services that were necessary. In many cases, when they did provide the services that existed, they did so in such a way that it wasn’t, in fact, the best use of taxpayer dollars.

Now, of course we recognize that health care, education and social services are areas that Ontarians depend upon, and we have made historic investments in them. But it’s not just about spending more money. You can spend a lot of money and not necessarily see a great result for that money. At the end of the day, it’s not money that the government owns; it’s tax dollars that we are given in trust from the people of this great province. So we have, I believe, a fiduciary duty to those taxpayers to ensure that we are getting not just value for money, but seeing improvements in the system as a whole with regard to what systems are in place to provide the care that Ontarians depend upon.

Since forming government, I’ve had many people who have come forward and said, “We supported you for a number of different reasons: getting the economy back on track, restoring trust and accountability in government, and also ending hallway health care.” In my riding, specifically with regard to the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital, this has been a major area of concern that people are very pleased to see our government taking action on.

But it doesn’t just end there. Over the 10 years before our government came to office, there were only 611 long-term-care beds built in the province of Ontario—611. It’s practically a joke to see that that’s how few, but it would be a very, very sad joke.

We recognize that long-term-care beds and hospitals are incredibly important pieces, integral to providing for a safe and healthy society. But we also know that not everyone wants to, nor should, be serviced in those particular types of facilities. They provide a very important role and one that we recognize as important, which is why our government has, as I said, committed to the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Niagara, the expansion of the Hotel Dieu Shaver rehabilitation site, as well as a new south Niagara hospital—a significant expenditure on the capital front for physical locations that are so important.

We also recognize that many people do not want to, and should not, in fact, be treated or be kept in those types of facilities. But in order to make the changes that are necessary to provide for adequate home care, providing compassionate care for people as they age in place or even just to provide the care that people need at particular moments throughout their life—perhaps it’s not long-term care in the later years of life or those who have chronic illnesses; perhaps it’s even just for a period of time to get someone back up on their feet.

I know in my riding I’ve had many different people reach out to me with concerns about the lack of access to that care, that after 15 years of Liberal government it was not coming through. I’m very proud to tell those people, the people of Niagara West and the people of the Niagara region as a whole, that our government has been making significant moves to address this issue.

One of the first steps that our government took under the Minister of Health was, of course, Bill 74, The People’s Health Care Act. That really ensured that we broke down a lot of the barriers between organizations, to make sure that organizations were speaking to each other about the need of the patient, and that a patient can flow through efficiently. Of course, as part of that, that means winding down the LHINs, incredibly expensive and bureaucratic levels of bureaucracy that simply add to the costs of the health care system without providing the type of care that patients expect and deserve.

It’s why Bill 175, the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, is so important.

It removes some of the archaic structures focused around the home and community care space that have been in place for 30 years and didn’t recognize much of the innovation and opportunities that have arisen here in Ontario, which we’ve heard about from individuals, yes, who have raised particular concerns with the level of coverage they or their loved ones are getting, but also from organizations that see opportunities to provide better levels of care in a way that can address the changing challenges we’re facing through demographic growth, through an increasing number of aging population, and of course recognizing that we need to look at innovative solutions to doing so.

If passed, this legislation will allow Ontario health teams to deliver more innovative models of home and community care. It will ensure that patients will benefit from primary care, hospitals, home and community care, and long-term providers, being able to collaborate directly together to provide care that best meets individual care needs.

Speaker, this is such an important piece. Just looking through some of the various emails and letters I have received, there was a line that stuck out to me. One individual, Tom from my riding, reached out to me and spoke about his brother’s frustrating journey for a geriatric placement in Niagara. He says, “The present state of our efforts to try to get” a long-term “placement started for this patient have been frustrated by what I can only describe as ‘paralysis by analysis,’ which leaves my brother stuck in miserable circumstances ... underserviced ... where he consistently misses morning meals and cannot participate in community activities that have been recommended for his benefit.”

Speaker, the reality is this is a situation that has arisen because of a lack of connectivity between organizations that are supposed to be providing care to the patient when and where they need it. That’s really the fundamental issue we’re trying to address here. That type of paralysis by analysis can happen when organizations don’t have a clear path for where the patient has to go, and the patient himself or herself doesn’t have the supports in place to make sure that they’re able to get through to an appropriate level of care.

Not everyone should be in an ALC bed; not everybody should be in a long-term-care bed either, and some people need to ensure that they have those levels of support in home.

This legislation will make sure that those organizations that work together in the Ontario health teams can work together to understand a patient’s full health care history, directly connect them to the different types of care that they need, and help patients 24/7 in navigating the health care system. This is through ensuring greater access and flexibility in areas around the provision of digital services, so those who have lower needs are able to access that service when and where they need it, instead of needing to go all the way to a hospital.

It also removes maximum levels of care, which is a very, very exciting piece for people across the province—

Interjection.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: —absolutely, worthy of applause—to see that our government is taking that extraordinary step to ensure that if you only get three hours a day or two hours a day or however much service that is, it’s as much care as you need to ensure that you get back up on your feet, you don’t end up in a hospital emergency room and you are taken care of where you need to be taken care of.

We also ensure that, through this legislation, we are winding down the LHINs in a phased way, as home and community care services are being transitioned to Ontario health teams. Our efforts to modernize the delivery of home and community care address a key pillar of our comprehensive plan to end hallway health care.

So this prevention and health promotion piece, alongside providing the right care in the right place, includes expanding access to home and community care. This legislation provides the framework—the legislative framework and the legal framework—to ensure that we can work with agencies, we can work with organizations that exist within the Ontario health teams, to move forward in a way that provides the level of care that constituents in my riding expect.

I have here a number of different letters from constituents who have a great deal of concerns. Much of it is just frustration with having to navigate through this system. Whether these are letters that have come under the Liberal government, or even since we took office—we recognize these changes don’t happen overnight.

People do have a deep frustration with not being able to see their loved ones being taken care of when they are people, sometimes at the end of life or sometimes who are bright and healthy and just need a little bit of extra care and support to get back up on their feet—there is a great level of frustration. That’s why this legislation provides to break down those barriers, so families can enter the health care system when and where they need it, and they can get the level of support that they need from home care, community care and also institutions that are part of the Ontario health teams.

I have a great privilege to be able to speak to this on behalf of my constituents. I know they will be well-serviced by this, and I now look forward to seeing the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South speak to this as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now I turn it over to the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South.

Mr. David Piccini: I’m pleased to rise today to speak about Bill 175, Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act.

I’d first like to thank the MPP from Eglinton–Lawrence for her phenomenal work on this, for the very important work she has done to better support patients in the province of Ontario, and of course to my colleague to my right here from Niagara West whose important work—we’ve seen breaking ground on new hospitals and all sorts of great work happening thanks to his leadership.

I’m going to get real with the residents in Northumberland–Peterborough South and provide a bit of background and shoot straight with them. Let’s look at the history and then talk about the steps we have taken to better home and community care. We had a broken hospital funding formula when our government was elected. We had Campbellford Memorial Hospital on life support. We had crowded hallways, merged in-patient units. Quite literally, the broken funding formula led to historic underfunding of both of our hospitals, Northumberland Hills Hospital and Campbellford Memorial Hospital.

The opposition like to throw around the “privatization” word. But, fast forward a year and a half later, what do we see in my riding of Northumberland–Peterborough South and across the province? We see a commitment to fixing the broken funding formula; we’ve seen $13.5 million invested into our public hospitals in Northumberland–Peterborough South alone. We’ve seen transitional bed funding, taking alternate-level-of-care patients out of the emergency room, putting them into long-term care.

We’ve seen the launch of Ontario health teams, which is wrapping our arms around the patients to deliver the right care at the right time at the right place. We’ve seen a launch of community paramedicine, which is going to, in a non-emergency setting, allow our health care professionals to support patients in my community. We’ve seen hospices breaking ground all over Northumberland–Peterborough South. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, their fearmongering just doesn’t add up when you look to ridings like Northumberland–Peterborough South.

So to home and community care—if passed, this will lead to more people being able to receive health care in the comfort of their own home, continue to reduce hospital overcrowding and contribute to our promise to end hallway health care. It will lead to cost savings that can be reinvested back into the front-line services. We know that crowded hallways and emergency rooms aren’t always the best place to deliver health care for Ontarians, which is why better home and community care will support people in getting the right level of care at the right time.

It’s important to provide some context for this bill. The existing legislation hasn’t been changed in 25 years. And, Mr. Speaker, 25 years—I mean, 25 years ago, I didn’t even dream of entering this place, and I was a lot smaller and a lot younger. That was around the time when the Jays last won the World Series—even longer, actually. It was in sore need of an update, because our health care system is changing, our needs in Ontario are changing, and after 15 years of neglect, we’re not going to stand by on the sidelines. We’re committed to bettering patient-centred care. That’s exactly what this bill is doing. Health care and home care have changed significantly.

We’ve heard from families, from patients, from the Premier’s Council on Improving Healthcare and Ending Hallway Medicine and from front-line health system partners that the current framework was putting up barriers, needless silos that were complicated and tough to navigate. I know the member who spoke prior had letters from his residents. I get them every day too. We hear about a difficult system that’s tough to navigate. We’re breaking down those silos and barriers. We’re embedding home and community care into our Ontario health teams.

If you look locally, what does an Ontario health team mean? It’s 13 community partners, in my riding, who are experts in health care front-line service delivery, not politicians. They’re designing this system, and it’s going to be a better system. We need this new legislation to address these changing dynamics, and that’s exactly what this new legislation does.

If passed, the legislation will allow Ontario health teams to deliver more innovative models of care that I spoke to. Patients will benefit from primary care, hospitals, home and community care and long-term-care providers being able to collaborate and provide the care that best meets individual needs.

I’m from rural Ontario, as I often say, and it’s a wide and vast community. In fact, my community is larger than the country of Belgium. Those diverse needs require innovative models of care. It doesn’t always mean that the answer is to rush to the emergency room. Better enabling our health care partners to work in tandem, like the 13 planning members on the planning committee from my OHT, wrapping their arms around the patient, is what they’ve been asking for. It’s what our front-line health care providers have been asking for: “Let us deliver the right level of care at the right time in the right place.” That’s exactly what this modernized framework is going to do.

Our health care system, quite literally, was on life support under the previous government. I think we got elected on a mandate to bring government into the 21st century. I look in front of me and I see the President of the Treasury Board who’s digitizing government. We’re quite literally taking this government, dragging it out from the shackles from which it was under, under the previous government, and modernizing health care that’s better centred around the patient.

As I said, the broken system didn’t allow various providers to work together. We saw the LHINs and the bureaucratization of our health care system, where folks in Scarborough were making decisions for folks in Bailieboro and in rural Ontario. What we’ve replaced that with in Northumberland–Peterborough South are expert clinicians and health care professionals working together at the planning table.

I don’t think anyone on this side of the House is saying, “We’ve got all the answers.” What we’re saying is, “We’re listening to our health care professionals.” We’re saying, “Let’s get our health care professionals around the table. Let’s let them deliver home and community care. Let’s wrap our arms around a system that’s going to better support patients.”

That’s exactly what we’re doing. I’ve been elected for a year and a half. Just a year and a half later, we’re launching pop-up community hubs in Colborne. We’ve launched community paramedicine that’s going to provide not only better patient-centred care, it’s going to allow our health care professionals in a non-emergency setting to practise their important skill set, to better support our patients.

We’ve seen alternate-level-of-care funding that has taken alternate-level-of-care patients—and for those who don’t know what that is, those are seniors who don’t need to be in the ER—out of the emergency room, putting them in long-term care. When we talk about the right level of care at the right time—hospice and palliative care. We’ve seen an expanded announcement in Clarington. We’ve seen shovels breaking ground on Ed’s House in Cobourg. We’ve seen the Bridge in Warkworth continue to do the great work we’re doing, and we’re working on Norwood now, as well.

Quite simply put, in a year and a half, we have fundamentally transformed health care. I didn’t even think we’d accomplish as much as we have in the last year and a half. It’s better, patient-centred care—

Interjection.

Mr. David Piccini: The member opposite can laugh and moan and groan, but she’s bringing no ideas to the table. The NDP would bankrupt this province, just like they’re bankrupt in ideas when it comes to the health care system.

We recognize that to put patients first, we need to end the current one-size-fits-all—

Interjection.

Mr. David Piccini: Again, she continues to moan and groan, because that’s what they want: a socialist, one-size-fits-all system. We understand that listening to patients, that better designing rural care centred around the needs of the patients is what we need to do.

Our municipal members and our health care professionals support the fact that we are emboldening and we are supporting our community paramedicine program, enabling paramedics to support patients, enabling rural health care hub clinics and modernizing the legislative framework for home and community care so seniors in my riding can age in place with supports and confidence in living in their home, knowing that the health care system has wrapped its arms around them in the comfort of their own home.

As I said, care providers working as a team, modernizing this health care system—knowing that we don’t just need to deliver health care in the emergency room but that, in fact, to better support the vital professionals in the emergency room, we can go upstream and support our patients in their home. We can go upstream and support community paramedicine clinics. We can go upstream and support rural health hub clinics. We can launch Ontario health teams that don’t answer to bureaucrats but bring our health care professionals together and put them at the decision-making table, wrapping their arms around the patient.

This is what our modernized home and community care program is doing. It’s delivering better front-line, patient-centred care, and I’m proud to be part of a government that is welcoming the challenge, that’s standing up to meet the needs of patients in the 21st century.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is, this morning, my colleague the member for Scarborough Southwest gave an extremely thoughtful analysis based in her own family’s personal experience about what PSWs actually need and what would actually help to enhance the care that you say you want to provide.

I would like you, please, to respond directly, cut the “arms around patient” stuff—we all want to put our arms around patients, not literally. Cut the ideological nonsense and actually answer the questions and the proposals that the member made. Thank you.

Mr. David Piccini: I appreciate the personal examples. I’ll use a personal example to give an answer to the member opposite that she would well know. My grandmother, who recently passed away—whose funeral you were at—got patient-centred care. She wasn’t getting the—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. I ask the member to indulge for just a moment.

Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been, in fact, six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned, unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

Government House leader?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Debate to continue, please.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member may continue.

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you, Speaker. So that was an excellent question. Let me give you my grandmother’s example, or any frail and elderly senior who was constantly being rushed to the emergency room.

I remember looking at my mother, who struggled with balancing a full-time career and looking after aged parents—with dementia as well. This was very complex. But navigating that system was tough. The home and community care supports piece was very difficult to navigate.

I think if my grandmother were in Northumberland–Peterborough South today and had an Ontario health team coordinating that care, enabling our clinicians to prescribe a program that bounces off the 13 subcommittee members locally—I’m just using a local example—she would be fundamentally better looked after. It would provide much-needed ease for, for example, my mother and myself, who supported as well.

These are the sorts of things we are doing. When we talk about wrapping our arms around the patient, that sort of—

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

Over to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga for questions.

Mr. Mike Harris: We’ve heard the members opposite today talk about trust. We sit here with a pretty large majority government. The people of Ontario have put their trust in us. They have not put their trust in the NDP. Not only that, they’ve only done it one time in 152 years in this province.

My question to the member across the way here is, I’d love him to highlight some more of the good things that this bill will do for the people of his riding.

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you very much to the member opposite. He’ll know I’m proud to be part of a government that’s actually moving on the health care file, that’s bringing ideas.

Again, to build on his question and the member opposite’s: These restrictive health care plans that required multiple assessments for home and community care—we’re modernizing the legislative framework. We’re modernizing the delivery of that care, embedding it into Ontario health teams. What are Ontario health teams? It’s health care experts on the front line. We’ve got my hospital there. We’ve got our Indigenous First Nations. We’ve got the paramedics chief. We’ve got our county. We’ve got everybody involved in the delivery of patient-centred care at the table.

Rather than the multiple barriers that were previously constructed under the previous legislation, this is going to be better patient-centred care that’s not designed out of Scarborough or out of big LHINs; it’s designed by clinicians and health care providers on the front lines—and no disrespect to Scarborough. I’m from Northumberland. It was a long way to go to get a plan.

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

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I am grateful that the debate was able to continue, because I would like to make the point to the member that, yes, I loved your grandmother very dearly and was very honoured to be at her funeral. Your grandmother was in a very privileged position, and she was able to have the very best care that is available to people. What we need to ensure is that Ontarians across the province, most of whom do not have that ability and that privilege, also have access to the very best care.

That is why the comments of the member from Scarborough Southwest are so very important. I would be grateful if you would answer those directly, and the points that she was making about her constituents.

Mr. David Piccini: When we fundamentally transform health care, we don’t look at someone’s bank statement. We want a better health care system for all Ontarians, regardless of their race, religion, creed or how much money they have in their bank account.

Mr. Speaker, let’s look at some of the most marginalized in Northumberland–Peterborough South. Right now, we talk about better home and community care—I said Ontario health teams are doing the decision-making here. Home and community paramedicine—the member opposite, please listen to this: In Alderville First Nation, in some of the most remote areas of our community, community paramedics can now visit patients in their homes and support them. That’s critical. That’s what this legislation is enabling us to do.

That’s what better home and patient-centred care means—going to the most marginalized in our community, delivering a home care plan that best suits their needs, designed by clinicians in their community, not by bureaucrats at the LHIN headquarters in Scarborough. That’s what this is about.

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: In his remarks, the member talked about the right care at the right place at the right time. This really shows the fact that that is not happening right now, and that home care recipients have long faced restrictive plans, and that the status quo right now is a one-size-fits-all.

Can the member elaborate on how this new bill is bringing hope to the health care system by not treating everyone with a one-size-fits-all approach?

Mr. David Piccini: You’re right; it’s not about a one-size-fits-all. Home and community care—again, the siloed approach that was under a legislative framework that’s 25 years old didn’t embrace digital health.

The other day, I spoke to a single mom from rural Ontario who uses OTN and is able to get the health care she needs more frequently, thanks to embracing digital health, thanks to going to a clinic in Grafton, thanks to transformative health care changes by this government.

It’s not just the digital piece. Should there be more complex comorbidity, should there be more complex needs, there’s now a rural health help clinic coming to Colborne. It’s a powerful example. It’s in rural Ontario, and it’s a tangible example of what our government is doing to better wrap our arms around the patient—and I’m going to keep doing that, regardless of what members opposite say. Too often, patients who were left out in the cold, left to get through multiple assessments and multiple providers, didn’t get the support they need. Thanks to Ontario health teams and home and community care—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is now 10:15, so there will not be any further time for questions and responses, unfortunately.

Members’ Statements

Education funding

Mr. Joel Harden: I’ve had the occasion, in the last number of weeks, to get around our community in Ottawa and talk to education workers, who unfortunately have had to go on strike to get this government’s attention. It has been an educating experience in and of itself. I’ve had the occasion to talk—in my capacity as critic, disabilities—to many education workers, clerical staff and support staff who work with kids with disabilities. Speaker, it has been shocking for me to learn the degree to which the current system is underperforming.

While I hope we will see a resolution at the bargaining table, Speaker, I want to remind all of us in this House that we cannot continue to do public education on the cheap. We cannot continue to ask education assistants, early childhood educators, teachers, or clerical support—who today are acting almost as quasi-nurses when children injure themselves at school—we can’t continue to ask these people to get in harm’s way.

I want to talk briefly about an EA I met who had scratch marks all the way down his arm from having to interrupt a violent incident between two children. I want to talk about what was behind that. Speaker, it was a child with a disability whose needs have not been met.

What I’m encouraging this government to do is to abandon the rhetoric, stop talking about how child care tax credits are somehow education funding, put proper amounts of money into the system, fund the people on the front line, stop spinning, get a deal, and get it done.

Child care

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I had the pleasure of recently announcing that the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board has been approved to tender a child-care retrofit at Father Michael Goetz Catholic Secondary School in my riding. The $1.4-million investment will add a new, quality learning environment for the students of Mississauga East–Cooksville.

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board chair Sharon Hobin said, “This is great news for families, as there is significant demand for conveniently located child care spaces in our communities,” and she expressed gratitude to the ministry for the opportunity to tender this project.

Mr. Speaker, this retrofit would provide 49 new child care spaces and three retrofitted child care rooms. I’m thankful that our government is protecting what matters most and providing this funding, which will benefit so many families in Mississauga East–Cooksville.

Northern Health Travel Grant

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: This House passed the Northern Health Travel Grant Advisory Committee Act, Bill 144, on second reading, and now it sits waiting to go through committee. Meanwhile, the situation for those who rely on the Northern Health Travel Grant is getting worse.

It is heartbreaking when people contact our office, unable to attend critical medical care because they do not have the money or credit to pay for their travel. Those who can pay are waiting longer and longer for reimbursement. When you try asking for your money, the Ontario government phone lines state that if it hasn’t been eight weeks, hang up and wait. How is that an acceptable standard of service? Even emergency situations and repeat regular appointments are not granted any exceptions. Wait times now are routinely 12 to 20 weeks, and that is only if there are absolutely no problems with your claim.

Besides being ill, these folks now have financial stress. Rates have not been adjusted to keep pace with rising costs, and too many treatments are not covered. This is all unacceptable in Ontario.

I urge this government to move this legislation forward. It is within your power. Ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are upheld and that equitable access to health care becomes a reality for the people in northern Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We are in members’ statements. I will say to members on both sides of the House that we need to have quiet in here while we have the members’ statements. I would ask, if you are entering and exiting the chamber, to please keep the noise to a minimum so we can hear the member who has the statement, and I say this to both sides of the House.

Parry Sound–Muskoka athletes

Mr. Norman Miller: I rise today to congratulate some exceptional young athletes from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Liam Brearley is a grade 11 student from Gravenhurst who, in February, took home a bronze FIS Snowboard World Cup medal in Calgary. Liam’s win adds to another impressive performance at the Youth Olympics in January, where he won two bronze medals and one silver.

Along with Liam, Parry Sound’s Megan Oldham won bronze in women’s slopestyle at the World Cup Freestyle Skiing event in February. This follows a gold medal win that I mentioned in the House last year.

After being sidelined by injury for a year, Dara Howell of Huntsville is back on the freestyle skiing circuit. She started the season with a bronze medal in big air, and is currently ranked sixth in the world in that discipline.

Last but not least, I want to congratulate Aidan Dudas from Parry Sound, who, along with his team, won a gold for Canada at the 2020 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. As a forward, Aidan contributed greatly to his team’s success, assisting with two goals in Canada’s semi-final win. He also played a key defensive role when the team was on penalty kill.

These athletes exemplify the world-class talent that Parry Sound–Muskoka and Ontario bring to the world of sport. I hope that their success will inspire other young men and women to take on snowboarding, freestyle skiing, hockey and any other sport that they may be interested in. Congratulations to all.

Tenant protection

Ms. Suze Morrison: Speaker, 650 Parliament Street is a high-rise rental building in St. James Town that’s home to over 1,500 tenants. On August 21, 2018, the building experienced a large electrical fire as a result of faulty and poorly maintained electrical systems. Residents had to be evacuated, and I want to give thanks to the first responders, to the city of Toronto and to the Red Cross for the immediate supports that they provided in the wake of that crisis.

For the past 18 months, 1,500 of my constituents have been displaced from their homes. For many of my colleagues, a population of 1,500 might be the size of entire towns in your ridings. Imagine an entire town being evacuated for a year and a half.

Today, I’m happy to report that tenants have started moving back home, and to those tenants, from the bottom of my heart, welcome home.

I would also like to thank our local city councillor, Kristyn Wong-Tam, and her office for their tireless work supporting these tenants.

I want to be clear: This fire never should have happened in the first place. This is why I tabled the St. James Town Act, which, if passed, would require that landlords of high-rise apartment buildings maintain reserve funds for repairs, the same way that condos are already required to. Landlords would be better prepared to handle significant maintenance and repairs, and tenants would be better protected.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will support the St. James Town Act. In the midst of a housing crisis, we must do everything in our power to protect tenants and to ensure the safety of our aging stock of high-rise apartment buildings across Ontario.

Coldest Night of the Year

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise today to thank everyone who participated in the Coldest Night of the Year walk on February 22. Across Canada, 23,648 walkers raised over $5.9 million for charities that serve hungry, homeless and hurting people in our communities.

In Guelph, I joined 344 walkers to raise $98,845 for HOPE House, an organization that works to alleviate poverty by building community. I want to thank everyone who supports HOPE House, and organizations like HOPE House, for the good work that they do.

I see we have members of Chicken Farmers of Ontario in the gallery today, and I want to thank them for their donations of food to HOPE House.

I agree with many of the walkers who told me they want the provincial government to do more to support the homeless and to support people with mental health challenges. In Guelph-Wellington, 43% of the people experiencing homelessness report having a mental illness. But the wait-list for supportive housing continues to grow.

I urge the government to make yesterday’s mental health announcement meaningful by allocating money in the budget for supportive housing to serve the most vulnerable in our communities.

Long-term care

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I rise in the House today to share how our government has been working hard to build long-term-care beds across Ontario, including building and upgrading over 700 new beds in Niagara.

Under the previous Liberal government, in office for 15 years, at times backed by the NDP, only 152 long-term-care beds were built in Niagara. Under the previous Progressive Conservative government, almost 700 long-term-care beds were built. This clearly demonstrates our party’s and government’s commitment to long-term care. When it comes to building beds across the province and in Niagara, we’ve lived up to our promises and continue to follow through with our pledge to the growing number of seniors who require care.

This is why our government has created a ministry dedicated to long-term care. It’s why our government is investing an additional $72 million this year in addition to the $1.75 billion allocated to build and update 30,000 new long-term-care beds across the province.

Our government has committed to a great number of projects in Niagara, with an estimated 300 beds, including: the Westhills Care Centre and the Linhaven long-term-care home projects in St. Catharines; the Foyer Richelieu and the Royal Rose Place projects in Welland; the Pleasant Manor project in Virgil, as well as new beds allocated to Shalom Manor.

These new long-term-care-bed allocations are part of our government’s commitment to adding 15,000 long-term-care beds over the next five years and part of our transformational strategy to end hallway health care in Ontario.

I want my constituents to know that I will continue advocating for more long-term-care beds in Niagara, including future projects—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Members’ statements?

Play for a Cure

Mr. Taras Natyshak: This morning, I want to recognize a great initiative in Windsor and Essex county that combines our shared love of hockey with the incredibly generous spirit of the people back home. Play for a Cure is a Pro-Am tournament that challenges hockey teams on the ice and in the community to raise money to support cancer research locally.

Players are challenged with a fundraising goal in order to improve their draft position to choose the former pro who will join their team for the tournament. It’s pretty neat. Former NHLers like Paul Coffey, Adam Graves, Al Iafrate have generously donated their time to make this event a huge success.

Play for a Cure raises funds to support initiatives in both patient care and treatment care directly in the Windsor-Essex region. You can learn more by visiting playforacure.ca. They have a draft party on March 26 and the game takes place at the Vollmer recreational complex in LaSalle on March 27.

I want to congratulate the hard work of the event chair, Jeff Casey, who is just an incredible champion for this issue, the organizers, the sponsors and the donors for all their efforts. Congratulations to the teams’ research fund: Bello Metal; Kingsville Brewery, my friend Mark Muzzin, who has made a donation to his team; and the LIUNATICS, the members of LIUNA Local 625.

I wish I was playing. It sounds like a ton of fun. But we certainly wish them well. We know it’s a great cause. Congratulations, and go get ’em, boys.

Big Brothers Big Sisters

Mr. Mike Harris: It is a pleasure to rise today and welcome Big Brothers Big Sisters here to Queen’s Park.

Big Brothers Big Sisters is comprised of over 100 agencies, serving more than 1,100 communities across this country. Think back to a role model you had when you were growing up. Maybe it was a friend, a family member or a neighbour who helped shape you into the person you are today. I count myself lucky to have had strong mentors and individuals who gave me guidance when times were tough.

The mission and vision of Big Brothers Big Sisters is to provide all young people the opportunity to realize their full potential through mentorship relationships.

Our Attorney General is a former chair of his local Big Brothers Big Sisters, and I’m sure he would say it was an incredibly rewarding experience.

Last year, over 20,000 young Ontarians benefited from a mentor from the Big Brothers Big Sisters in Ontario. Locally in Waterloo region, 550 incredible volunteers mentored 1,300 youth last year. But even still, there are thousands of children and youth in Ontario still waiting for that mentoring opportunity.

Strong mentorship leads to remarkably better outcomes for children, and every child deserves the opportunity to have the confidence to go after their dream.

I would encourage you all to drop by room 228 following question period today to connect with some of the volunteers and administrators, and if you can, consider donating some of your time to become a “big” for a child in your community.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll remind members on both sides of the House that we are currently in members’ statements. I would ask them to keep their private conversations quiet so as to allow the member who has the floor to make their statement without interruption, and I remind both sides of the House that we need to do this.

Heart and Stroke Foundation

Mrs. Robin Martin: Today is Heart and Stroke’s annual advocacy day at Queen’s Park, called Heart at the Park. Representatives from Heart and Stroke will be here on behalf of their 15,000 volunteers and 490,000 donors across Ontario, meeting with members to discuss several important issues, including their Restart a Heart campaign.

Cardiac arrest can strike anyone, anywhere, any time, at any age without warning. In Canada, there are 35,000 cardiac arrests every year, and less than 10% of people who have out-of-hospital cardiac arrests survive. Because of its sudden unexpected nature, every second counts when a cardiac arrest occurs. When an automated external defibrillator and CPR are used, survival is more than doubled. Defibrillators are easy-to-use, portable devices and will only shock when needed.

I have had the opportunity to work closely with Heart and Stroke on my private member’s bill, Bill 141, which, if passed, would ensure that defibrillators in public places are available and accessible in an emergency, and their support and advocacy on the issue has been invaluable.

But as individuals, we can all do more. Heart and Stroke will be hosting a reception this evening in the legislative dining room from 5:30 to 7:30 and will include drop-in CPR training. I encourage all members to join them there.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I am advised that the member for Eglinton–Lawrence has a point of order she wishes to raise.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I seek unanimous consent of the House for members to be permitted to wear Heart and Stroke Foundation pins.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Martin is seeking unanimous consent of the House for members to be permitted to wear Heart and Stroke Foundation pins. Agreed? Agreed.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have in the House today Andrea Donkers from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, who’s from my riding, as well as representatives of Big Brothers Big Sisters from Wellington–Halton Hills. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to recognize two London North Centre constituents this morning. I’d like to welcome Dr. Peter Donahue, the director of the School of Social Work at King’s University College, as well as Janet Tufts, the executive director of Big Brothers Big Sisters of London and Area. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Harris: I also have a constituent here from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario today: Wendy Lantz, all the way from Kitchener-Conestoga.

Ms. Doly Begum: I’d like to welcome Youth Employment Services here to the Legislature. We have Alan Ott, manager; Kofi Achampong, member of the board of directors; career counsellor Emma Ricci; as well as members D’Angelo, Rhojay, Nicole, Andrea, Amira, Aprajita and Neer.

Mr. John Fraser: We have a very special person here today: Lauren Kennedy is here with the Chicken Farmers of Ontario and their women in leadership program. More importantly, Lauren was a page here, I don’t know how many years ago, and she worked for me, so I just want to welcome her back. Lauren, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Amy Fee: I’d like to welcome Julie Phillips from Big Brothers Big Sisters of Waterloo Region.

Also, my executive assistant, Grace Camara, and my daughter Irene are here to visit today as well.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I rise once again to introduce the family of York South–Weston’s page, Irma: Her mother, Irma Saldana Ramirez, and father, Oscar Mendoza, are here again. They are joined by uncle Santos Arnoldo Flores, family friend Felipe Ramos, who is also a former page here at the Legislature, and his mother, Livia Maria Andrade Ramos Gaertner. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to introduce two of my constituents who are in the west members’ gallery: Andre Nichol and Janice Folk-Dawson. Janice also serves as the executive vice president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: As we lead up to International Women’s Day, I’d like to welcome the following Chicken Farmers of Ontario members who are at Queen’s Park today celebrating women in agriculture—I know some have been noted already: Sue Munroe, Kathryn Goodish, Carolyn Cornelissen, Wendy Lantz, Krista Lansink, Andrea Donkers, Laurie Weber, Lauren Kennedy, Melissa Devries, Donna Jebb, Andrea Veldhuizen and Penny van den Ouweland.

We also have Jennifer Huberts, Jeannette Poole, Inge Koskamp, Janet O’Rourke, Gina Benjamins, Kory Preston, Nicole Bernard and Patricia Shanahan; and two men who have joined the ladies today, Rob Dougans and Ed Benjamins.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome Amy Moledzki, Angela Brandt, Amanda Mooyer, and Michau van Speyk, all from the Ontario Autism Coalition. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: I’d like to introduce Laurie Weber, from Chicken Farmers of Ontario, from the riding of Cambridge; and one of my constituents, Julie Phillips, from Big Brothers Big Sisters of Waterloo Region, also from Cambridge.

Mr. Chris Glover: From Heart and Stroke, I want to welcome Brenda Moore; and from Youth Employment Services, I want to welcome Aprajita Mukherjee, Hofsa Abshir, Jessica Oliver, Shemeka Lennard, Amira Djerbouha, Andrea Okocha-Ray, Neer Mistry, James Rhojay Ahtwain and D’Angelo Gordon. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Bill Walker: I’m pleased to welcome Krista Lansink from my great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound to Queen’s Park. Krista is here today with the Chicken Farmers of Ontario. Welcome, Krista.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to the House today and thank them for a great breakfast this morning.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: I’d like to welcome Angela Bactol, who is a Ryerson student doing a political placement in my office. Welcome.

Mr. Jamie West: I’d like to introduce Colleen Dietrich Sisson from the Educational Assistants Association.

From the OFL, I’d like to welcome president Patty Coates; secretary-treasurer Ahmad Gaied; executive vice-president Janice Folk-Dawson; and executive director Rob Halpin, who are all here to speak about their challenge to Bill 124.

As well, I’d like to introduce Chandra Pasma of CUPE, and Stephanie Taylor, a paramedic and CUPE member, who are at Queen’s Park for the release of a report on the serious pressure on paramedic services in Ontario.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to welcome Joseph Moodey, the proud father of Hannah Moodey, who is our page captain today. Welcome, Joseph.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I’d like to welcome Andrea Veldhuizen, Melissa DeVries and Catriona Decaire, who are here today with Chicken Farmers of Ontario for their women’s leadership program, from my riding of Niagara West. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The time for introduction of visitors has expired.

I will remind members once again that the standing orders strictly say that introductions should be introducing your guest, perhaps introducing the riding they’re from, as well as the organization they might represent, and no other comments.

Question Period

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is for the Premier.

For months, the Ford government insisted that larger class sizes and mandatory online learning would be welcomed by parents and educators, and parents and kids paid the price. The Premier said it would make students more resilient. They hid reports in which parents, teachers and educators warned them it would not work, and they picked a fight that closed schools across Ontario.

Yesterday, the Minister of Education revised the government’s position yet again.

But parents want to hear from the Premier that these cuts were a mistake and the government will be repealing them entirely. Will he do that today?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Parents, students and teachers want a deal. We’ve put a great deal in front of them, and we’ll see which way they go. Minister Lecce confirmed the major moves we’ve made at the table—massive, massive moves—to get the kids back into the classroom. It’s a deal that keeps class sizes low, invests in special education and math, maintains full-day kindergarten, ensures merit is part of hiring, and keeps compensation increases reasonable.

What’s more, Minister Lecce announced that parents will have a choice on online learning. I think that’s going to grow organically. The kids are going to want to go online. So let’s see what happens.

Most important, the unions have known about these moves for weeks, and yet they continue to escalate.

We want a deal to keep the kids in—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, with all due respect, the minister made the announcement at a podium, not at a bargaining table.

The Ford government is frantically backpedalling in the face of overwhelming backlash from parents, teachers, students and school boards, all of whom have rejected the Premier’s short-sighted and reckless classroom cuts.

But the Ford government has a long way to go if it wants to earn anyone’s trust. The Premier could start today by acknowledging that he was wrong from the beginning and apologizing to parents, to students and to educators for the way that he has handled this mess.

Interjections.

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

Premier to respond.

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Education has done an incredible, incredible job. For the first time in 50 years, the teachers’ unions are being held accountable.

We support the hard-working front-line teachers. We talk to the front-line teachers who want to get back into the classroom and teach the students. That’s their expertise. That’s what we’re doing, working day in and day out, to get a deal.

We’ve increased spending on education—$1.2 billion. That’s $1.2 billion. We’re investing $3.1 billion in special education funding—the highest levels this province has ever seen in the history of this province. We’ve announced a four-year, $200-million math strategy, Mr. Speaker, and we’re going to continue doing everything we can to get the teachers’ union to sign a deal and put an end to this nonsense.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The fact remains, Speaker, that it’s this government that created the nonsense in the first place.

The Conservatives spent months and months pretending that they were being reasonable. They said that everyday Ontarians were on board with their plans to fire thousands of teachers, to kick kids out of the classroom and force them onto the Internet, and to cram everyone else who was left into overcrowded, underfunded and crumbling schools.

Is the Ford government finally ready to admit that their failure to listen to parents led to the hot mess that we’re in right now?

Interjections.

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

If this starts again as soon as I start the clock, I’ll stand up again and stop the clock. We could be here until 12:30, 1 o’clock—your choice.

Start the clock. The Minister of Education to respond.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, it’s time for a deal in this province, and we’re taking action to deliver a deal for students in Ontario.

That’s why yesterday, I was proud to put forth a pragmatic plan that heeds the perspective and advice of parents. In our announcement yesterday, we are ensuring that classroom sizes are effectively frozen for elementary and for high school students in Ontario. We are ensuring a 100% investment in special education to help the most vulnerable. We’re protecting all-day kindergarten. We’re ensuring that merit guides the hiring of new teachers in Ontario. And Speaker, yes, we are standing strong in the defence of a 1% fair increase for workers and for teachers.

This is a good deal. It’s a program that’s going to help students succeed. It’s about time the teacher unions get to the table. Let’s get this done.

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my next question is also for the Premier—but I do have to say, it is long past time for a deal. It’s not time for a deal; it’s long past time for a deal in this province.

This government spent the last year making life worse for parents, for teachers and for students. They don’t get to take a victory lap now that they’ve been shamed into backing down on the cuts that they never should have put on the table in the first place.

This government’s changes to class sizes and cuts to school boards threw the lives of everyday families across this province into chaos. Thousands of teachers were laid off. Some still haven’t found work. Some went from full-time to occasional part-time work.

Why did this government care so little about the damage they caused that they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the right thing by the kids of this province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response? Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, we’re fighting to ensure that your son and your daughter are able to stay in school with a positive plan that ensures that every child in Ontario is given the investment they need to succeed. In this deal, a plan we proposed yesterday, we are listening. We have ensured that classroom sizes are effectively frozen. We’re ensuring that special education support is a 100% annualized investment to help those in need. We’re giving an opt-out. We’re putting parents in the driver’s seat—not the unions, not a politician—the parents of this province to decide what’s best for their child.

This is a positive plan, and the time is now. Enough with the dithering. Enough with the delay. Get to the table. Let’s get this done.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Oh, wow. What a delusional government, Speaker. What a delusional minister, that the Ford government can’t expect to get praised by teachers, by parents or by students for taking six months to admit that they were wrong. The time for them to listen was during the consultation that they utterly ignored. But thanks to their stubbornness, students across the province had to deal with thousands of their classes being cancelled.

The government knew that their plan was putting students’ graduation and their very futures at risk. They knew this all along, and continued down their ill-informed path. Will this government apologize to the students, apologize to the parents and apologize to the education workers, the teachers, in this province, whom they went out of their way to attack?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Minister of the Environment, come to order. Member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, come to order. Member for Kitchener–Conestoga, come to order. Everybody else, come to order.

Start the clock. Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We will never apologize for ensuring that merit guides hiring in this province for new educators in Ontario. We’re not going to apologize. We are not going to apologize for standing strong in the defence of a 1% fair increase for wages and for benefits. We believe that this is the right thing to do. What we also believe is that the program we’ve unveiled is absolutely consistent with the priorities of parents.

Now there’s a choice before the unions, and I’m asking to do two things: one, during this period of negotiation, given the policy change of government, the unions should cancel their strikes. I hope, in the supplementary, the member opposite will stand with us and agree that strikes should be cancelled during a period of negotiation. That’s a yes or no to the member opposite.

The second point in my request to the unions is to accept that we need to see incremental movements when it comes to merit-based hiring. I want the best teacher to be at the front of your child’s class. It’s a mission we’re on. We’re going to work hard at the table to get this deal done.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It is unbelievable that this minister continues to behave the way he has behaved all along that has created the problem that we now have in front of us and that parents, teachers, school boards and kids, most importantly, have had to deal with for months and months and months on end. The fact is, this government has made a mess of our education system. They won’t fix it with hastily arranged press conferences.

The Premier can take a first step today. Make it clear that all of his cuts are cancelled—not amended; cancelled completely. Get a team back to the table with a minister who’s actually serious about getting a deal, not just getting attention. Will the Premier do that?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Just let the record be clear: When given the opportunity to affirm that the opposition stands against strikes during the period of negotiation, there was no response—silence from the member opposite. Parents want action. They want the teachers at the table. Parents and students deserve every party to be at the table to deliver a deal that’s good for students, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do, by keeping classroom sizes low, by ensuring merit-based hiring and by ensuring we stand strong in the defence of a 1% fair increase for public servants in this province.

The member opposite mentioned school boards and their concerns. Let me read what the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association said yesterday: “In our view, this is a positive development.”

The fact is, school boards, parents, students and education workers acknowledge themselves that this is a positive path to deliver a deal. The time is now for the unions to cancel the strike and get to the table. Let’s get this done.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Education tried a new spin on his disastrous plan to cut classrooms and on the government’s terrible mandatory e-learning plan, and it is not hard to see why. Thanks to the consultation documents that we released this week and that this government tried to bury, it is plain to see just how massively unpopular this plan is among parents and students and educators. We are talking about 220 hours of in-person learning replaced by computers. We’re talking about an average of 35 kids in each online class, and we know that could go higher.

And now the government thinks making parents jump through hoops to spare their kids will make it somehow more palatable.

Speaker, instead of putting the onus on parents to opt their kids out from this terrible plan, why not just scrap the plan for mandatory online learning now?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The members opposite have asserted that this discussion should happen at the table. We agree, and it has. In fact, yesterday, when one teachers’ union president was posed the question, “Did you know about the classroom size reduction that the government is proposing?” they asserted no. I have confirmed, and the media now have access to letters from February 24 where it says, without reservation, that class sizes, excluding online learning, shall not exceed 23.

The fact is, we have been transparent with our intention to deliver a deal that keeps classroom sizes low and ensures investments return to the front of class, that ensures that we maintain the line on 1%. But it enables us to keep classroom sizes low.

Mr. Speaker, to the question of online learning: You or anyone else is not in the best position to make a decision when it comes to a child’s education. Their parents should make that decision. We believe in that principle, and parents should be in the driver’s seat on that.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The minister is spinning so hard he’s going to lift off.

Back to the Premier: Preparing our kids for the future should not mean pushing them into isolating online courses at the expense of in-person learning. For months, people have been trying desperately to understand: Why is this government refusing to back down from a scheme that so clearly jeopardizes student success?

Well, Mr. Speaker, a private panel this afternoon may shed some light. At the Canadian Club later today, a group of private e-learning companies are gathering in Yorkville to discuss business opportunities in our public education system. Will the Premier tell us today who stands to profit from this e-learning mess you’re forcing on our kids?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: This government believes parents know best; not politicians, not bureaucrats and not union leaders in the province of Ontario. The plan that we brought forward ensures that students get to make that decision. We put them in the driver’s seat.

Speaker, over the past 24 hours, I’ve heard from many parents, many students and teachers themselves. I want to speak to you about one example: Giovanna, who reached out to me. She said, “As a parent of the system for 12 years, I can confidently say it is broken—so many investments made that never went to [our] kids. We need these investments to help support kids directly.... Let us start teaching for the century we are in, not the past. I do not want the status quo; I want change. I want my kids in class!” Giovanna, this government agrees.

Job creation

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: My question is to the Premier. Premier, over two years ago, my riding, my home of Barrie, was leading the province, and the country, in the wrong way. In April 2018, Barrie had the highest unemployment rate in all of Canada. That was followed in May by the highest unemployment rate in Ontario. This left families without hope and with a loss of the dignity that comes with a job. It meant increased hardship and uncertainty for many community business leaders that were uncertain about their fiscal future. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is hope yet again. Since our government has come to office, Barrie has turned around, especially when it comes to job creation.

Could the Premier share with this House our government’s actions and the positive results that we’re having in Barrie?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank our all-star member from Barrie–Innisfil. The plans that the mayor and our MPP have up there are absolutely staggering. I’ve got to tell you: In 2018—yes, before we got elected—unemployment just shot through the roof right across this province, losing 300,000 jobs. The good news is, my friends, in November and December of 2019, Barrie created the environment for 2,700 new jobs, so congratulations. StatsCan says 900 new jobs came in January 2020. I’m so proud to say that unemployment is the lowest in decades now, below the Ontario average of 5%. They’re doing an incredible job, creating new jobs.

As a matter of fact, I’m going to just quote Mayor Jeff Lehman, who said, “We have seen strong hiring locally; that strength has come from the manufacturing”—where we lost 300,000 jobs between the NDP and the Liberals—“and health care sectors.” Our plan—

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Back to the Premier: Premier, you are right about the tremendous turnaround happening in my riding. The numbers are truly showing the potential.

I want to take this opportunity to highlight an innovative manufacturing company in my riding. SBS Drivetec is the first North American subsidiary of a German-based automotive parts company called Burger Group, which opened its operations in Barrie. I was proud to announce that they received over $89,000 in investment from our government to help them operate and expand.

Our government is creating an environment where businesses can focus on what they do best: developing great products and building successful companies and successful communities. Can the Premier share with this House the investments we’ve made in Barrie and the positive impact they’ve had all across province?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our great member. The investments we made in Barrie—we invested over $20 million in 11 new transportation routes and also invested in 30 new buses. That’s $20 million back into Barrie.

The economy is very simple. The way you generate jobs is by making sure you take the burden off the backs of companies—companies that are debating whether to stay in Canada, in Ontario, or go down to the United States. We’ve made those concessions, Mr. Speaker. We made sure we created an environment, by lowering the WSIB premiums by 47%, by making sure that we can have the accelerated write-offs of $3.8 billion—76% of all jobs in Canada were created right here in Ontario.

We lowered the small business tax—because we know the vast majority of people are employed by small businesses—by 8.75%. We’ve cut the red tape and regulations by $400 million—

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

The next question.

Licence plates

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. A month ago, the Premier unveiled, with great fanfare, his brand new, shiny PC Party-blue licence plates that he claimed would be more durable and more effective. Speaker, even I had faith that if there were one thing that this Premier could get right, it’s making licence plates. But clearly, a lot can happen in a month.

After the government initially denied that there was a problem, the Premier finally backtracked and said that his new plates would be recalled. Then he signed a non-disclosure agreement with 3M so that Ontarians would be kept in the dark.

Speaker, will the Premier today do the right thing and table all the costs to Ontarians for issuing his new plates, including all the shipping—

Hon. Doug Ford: There is no cost. Zip, zero.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: You’ll be able to answer in one second—handling and manufacturing costs?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Government and Consumer Services to reply.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I want to be crystal clear in all of this. We actually listened to the concerns of Ontarians. We have taken their feedback very seriously, we have shared our plan forward, and we’re delivering very diligently a plan that is going to work and reflect the feedback that we heard from Ontarians. Because of that, we’re very proud of the path we’re on, and we certainly look forward to updating you as the plan progresses.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, thanks to the Premier’s non-disclosure agreement with 3M, we have no way of knowing what the Premier and 3M have agreed to in order to make the Premier’s embarrassment go away. That’s why today we’ve written to the Auditor General, asking her to conduct a full review of this mess. In her role as Auditor General, she’ll be able to review the contract’s details without revealing any sensitive information about the contract.

Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing, back our call to the auditor and fully provide all documentation to the auditor so that she can do the work that Ontarians are asking for?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, Speaker, on the path forward, our government has responded, our vendor has responded and we’ve listened to concerns.

Education funding

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday, the minister announced that the government had finally decided to listen to reason. The government’s new position is a significant backdown, and credit for that backdown goes to all the clear voices of students, parents and educators, who made it clear that raising class sizes, taking 5,000 to 10,000 adults out of schools across the province and forcing students to take online courses when no jurisdiction has demonstrated that mandatory online learning works for all students were all bad ideas.

The minister yesterday made it sound as though he was withdrawing all of those egregious policies, but, in fact, that is not the case. There are already hundreds of fewer adults in schools across the province this year than last year, and the move to an average class size of 23 students will further reduce the number of teachers in our schools, which in turn will mean thousands of fewer course options for students.

Why is it still the position of this government that students in Ontario’s high schools should do without thousands of courses because of this government’s cuts?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, how is it the position of that member to consent to a hiring of new educators in Ontario 100% based on union seniority? How is that conceivable and consistent with the best interests of quality education in the province? That is the fundamental question, I think, parents, principals and education leaders would like an answer to.

But this government seeks to remedy the failures of the past by bringing forth a plan that ensures that merit, diversity and quality guide the hiring of new educators in Ontario. With respect to teachers in Ontario, we’re ensuring that they’re at the front of the class and we’re ensuring that we’re able to keep classroom sizes low by ensuring we hold the line on the 1% wage and benefit ask.

We want to see a deal. The time for delay is no longer. We have to see action. Parents have seen 300 days of bargaining, and our government made a move yesterday to deliver a positive outcome that ensures every child remains in class. The time for a deal is now.

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

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: Although the government has somewhat changed its tune on the mandatory aspect of the two online courses, the two courses will still be the default unless parents opt their students out. Now, Mr. Speaker, as a mom, my experience was that my children worked with their guidance counsellors and were quite capable of putting together a plan for their learning. I can only imagine, when my kids were in grade 11 or 12, if I or their dad had chosen to intervene.

In response to the announcement, the Ontario Students Trustees’ Association has said, “We are still troubled by parents having to opt their students out of the e-learning course mandate, as opposed to high school students being able to make this decision for their own education.”

Will the minister take the voices of these students into account, and will he and his team now put together a real proposal to take to the negotiating table?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the nanny-state principles of the Liberal Party are clearly alive and well. But we believe, as Progressive Conservatives, that parents know best, and that’s why we’re giving them that decision. We’re arming them with the information. We’re empowering them and their students to make the best decision for their child. That’s why we’re providing an opt-out. We’re providing them with that optionality that I think they deserve.

This plan keeps classroom sizes low. It ensures merit-based hiring. It ensures spec-ed support is at 100%. It’s a good deal. It’s a deal that should be implemented. I call on the unions: Cancel the strikes, get to the table, and let’s get this done.

Mental health and addiction services

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is for the Minister of Health. This is a government that listens to Ontarians. For years, Ontarians have been asking for a plan that will properly address mental health and addictions. While 1.4 million Ontarians experience a mental health or addiction challenge each year, care has too often been out of reach. As the minister made clear yesterday during her announcement, our government knows how important it is for Ontarians and their families to have access to high-quality services. That’s why our government has introduced a new plan for a comprehensive and connected mental health and addiction system.

Can the minister tell us about the work that went into this mental health and addiction plan?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member from Brampton West for this question.

Yesterday, the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and I were very pleased to launch Roadmap to Wellness, our government’s plan to build a mental health and addiction system in Ontario. This announcement follows extensive engagement with people with lived experience, families, caregivers, front-line organizations, researchers and first responders.

With this plan, we are enhancing the availability and quality of community-based mental health and addiction services. We are improving access, finding innovative solutions like the Mindability program, expanding existing services and improving the quality of these services. Our government has brought forward a plan that will ensure that all Ontarians receive the care and support they need, when and where they need it.

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

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Thank you to the minister for her answer. It is clear that the Roadmap to Wellness provides a clear path towards offering Ontarians easier access to high-quality care and support in communities across the province.

I’m glad that the minister mentioned Mindability. This program is the first of its kind in Canada offering therapy for Ontarians struggling with depression or anxiety, two of the most common mental health issues. I’m happy that this innovative new care option will be funded just like OHIP and made available for no out-of-pocket cost to patients.

Can the minister tell us more about Mindability and some of the other parts of our government’s plan to better connect Ontarians with mental health and addiction services?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to thank the member from Brampton West for his question. I want to begin by thanking our Premier, Doug Ford, and our Minister of Health and Deputy Premier, Christine Elliott, for the great work that they’ve done. The media this morning was talking about the strategy and said that this is a game-changer for the province. I couldn’t agree more.

Our government is providing $20 million in annual funding to launch Mindability, which will provide accessible, evidence-based cognitive behavioural therapy to Ontarians. Through Mindability, individuals receive an assessment from a trained clinician and are offered a therapy program that addresses their unique needs. It’s important to note that Mindability includes face-to-face, group and individual therapy as well as online modules, work books, telephone coaching, and clinical counselling. The Roadmap to Wellness will also expand community-based mental health and addiction services to improve the supports available to Ontarians.

Ambulance services

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Today front-line paramedics released a shocking report showing that ambulance shortages are on the rise in Ontario. Because of years of frozen health budgets under the Liberal government, there are more and more hospital off-load delays while emergency calls skyrocket. Instead of providing the necessary funding to fix Ontario’s emergency services, the Ford government is busy looking for ways to cut.

Front-line ambulance workers make it clear: “Emergency medical services need adequate funding or the pressure on the system will increase until it reaches a breaking point.” Can the Premier tell us why he is plowing ahead with cutting and merging Ontario’s emergency services?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Patient safety is our top priority, and we are working with emergency services to provide better services to Ontarians, improving the dispatch system so that emergency services can get to patients faster. We want to enhance what’s already happening out there. We have Mr. Jim Pine, who, as I think everyone knows here, is working with our public health units and working with emergency paramedics and so on to make sure that we can enhance the services and better the quality of services available to all Ontarians. Mr. Pine is continuing with his consultations regionally.

We are awaiting the report of his recommendations, which will be expressive of everything that he has heard from emergency service providers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Joel Harden: The paramedics’ report is actually very clear. I invite the minister any time to visit the Civic hospital campus to see the backlog of ambulances that can’t unload because of the cuts. It is putting Ontarians at risk. Increasingly, when they call 911, there’s a chance there will be no ambulance available. And do you know what, Speaker? Despite the laughing I hear from the opposite side, it’s not a funny matter. Yesterday, in Ottawa, there were 19 ambulance crews who were unable to respond. They were stuck waiting at the Ottawa general hospital. I don’t find that funny.

Let me be clear: Ontario paramedics are doing their very best despite these circumstances. So I have a serious question for the Premier or the Deputy Premier: Are you going to be prepared today to tell front-line paramedic staff who are here with us that this is unacceptable and this has to change?

Hon. Christine Elliott: This is a very serious matter. We take it very seriously. We are working very hard to deal with that situation. The situation in Ottawa, I know, is particularly of concern. We want to make sure that we can have the right people responding to care at the right time. We have put over $16 million to assist municipalities with funding for dedicated nurses to receive ambulance pa