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

April 11, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Apr-11 (PDF)

L011 - Wed 11 Apr 2018 / Mer 11 avr 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 April 2018 Mercredi 11 avril 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Visitors

Report, panel on code of conduct

Ronald George Van Horne

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Ontario budget

Dental care

Hospital funding

Government fiscal policies

Dental care

Youth services

Consumer protection

Services for persons with disabilities

Government accountability

Water quality

Public transit

Building code

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

North Grenville Rural Summit

Ron Jones

Cancer awareness

Bill Rea

River Valley Park

Girls’ Government

Jonathan Pitre and Humboldt Broncos

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

Community Foundation Grey Bruce

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Ministry of Correctional Services Amendment Act (Parole), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels (libérations conditionnelles)

Time to Care Act (Long-Term Care Homes Amendment, Minimum Standard of Daily Care), 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le temps alloué aux soins (modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée et prévoyant une norme minimale en matière de soins quotidiens)

Esquire Ventures Inc. Act, 2018

Education Amendment Act (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur l’éducation (ensemble des troubles causés par l’alcoolisation foetale)

Motions

Appointment of Financial Accountability Officer

Petitions

Landfill

Road safety

Landfill

Health care

Consumer protection

Landfill

Pharmacare

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Landfill

Injured workers

Lyme disease

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Plan for Care and Opportunity Act (Budget Measures), 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour un plan axé sur le mieux-être et l’avenir (mesures budgétaires)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 10, 2018, on the motion for time allocation of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment / Projet de loi 3, Loi portant sur la transparence salariale.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: It is always my privilege to be able to stand and speak in this House on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton Mountain. Today, we are debating another time allocation motion. This time it’s on Bill 3, the Pay Transparency Act.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I apologize, but I don’t believe we have a quorum.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A quorum count, please.

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. You may continue, the member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: As I was just about to say, the Liberal government has had 15 years to do something about the gender pay gap in Ontario. This certainly has been a problem for longer than any of us can remember, and despite knowing about the disparity, it has continued to happen.

Today, it leaves us with a pay gap of 30%. Women are paid 30% less than men. In terms of lifetime earnings, what that means is that if a man retires at the age of 65, a woman will have to continue to work until the age of 79 to make up the difference in earnings. And the gap continues to increase for racialized women, who experience a gap of 32%.

Recognizing that this ongoing problem is an issue, the pay equity coalition, an organization that was founded in 1976, called on the government a year ago to bring in transparency legislation. As they pointed out at that time, the gender wage gap had changed very little over the last 30 years, unchanged over that time because the enforcement wasn’t there and the funding wasn’t there to back it up. They correctly called for transparency, for legislation that would force employers to prove they pay men and women equally. As Fay Faraday, the co-chair of the coalition, said at the time, “It imposes an obligation to actually expose what you’re doing.”

They even sent draft legislation to the Minister of Labour back a year ago, but as with so many other things, the government did nothing. They did nothing over the past 15 years, and they figured, just a few short weeks before the election, that it was necessary to get it done.

We had a bit of a false start way back in March when this bill was first introduced, but we didn’t get the opportunity to debate it then. Instead, the government chose to put forward silly motions to serve their own partisan political agenda, taking up valuable House time—time that could have been spent considering important legislation like this.

Then, of course, they prorogued the House, wiping everything off the slate. This government bill, along with others and private members’ bills, simply died with the stroke of the Premier’s pen. Many, many pieces of legislation that people all across Ontario had a stake in died when Premier Kathleen Wynne prorogued this House. Legislation that we were hopeful would be passed or at the very least debated by this Legislature was sent back to square one. Everything has to start at the beginning again.

So all that time has been wasted and now here we are being limited by time allocation here with this debate.

Legislation that comes before this House deserves an opportunity to be thoroughly debated, and we have an important role to play and to make sure that we do not take it lightly. Our constituents send us here to Queen’s Park to speak on their behalf—that is what we’re here to do—but the never-ending time allocation motions that come before us stifle our debate time and time again. It’s truly a slap in the face to our democracy and to the people we represent.

Proper debate is particularly important when legislation comes before us that is inadequate, and that is certainly the case with the Pay Transparency Act because I’m not sure that this really does anything to actually improve the situation for women in Ontario. We already have the Pay Equity Act here in Ontario, but this government has never been able to ensure that even they meet their pay equity responsibilities within the government.

We have a Pay Equity Commission that saw their funding cut by the last Conservative government, funding that has never been restored in 15 years of this Liberal government. This is a commission whose job it was to make sure that everyone was in compliance with the Pay Equity Act, and we expect them to do more with less money, which is something that this government has continuously done regardless of what the sector was or what the piece of legislation was.

Enforcement and a lack of funding was a problem and it continues to be a problem. Over the years, the government has put pay equity requirements on organizations that they fund. There can be no doubt that that’s a good thing in itself, but the problem is that they never increased the funding that allowed them to meet those requirements without making cuts elsewhere in their budget. I have met people who work with developmental disabilities, for example. To meet their pay equity requirements their employers had to lay people off, freeze pay and cut other benefits. Workers fell further and further behind, and our most vulnerable were left without the necessary services that they needed.

The government had an opportunity, when they tabled this bill, to make a difference in the lives of many, but in so many ways, again, they have failed. What we have before us is nothing more than a desperate attempt to win votes before the June election, and it’s actually a step back for the women of Ontario.

This bill, the new Pay Transparency Act, doesn’t even match the existing obligations of the Pay Equity Act. The Pay Equity Act, for example, as the federal legislation that was planned, applies to both private and public employers with 10 or more employees. This legislation, at first, will only apply to the Ontario public sector, with the private sector only coming along later—first, with those workplaces of more than 500 employees, and then those with 250 employees.

We already have a requirement in Ontario law that all employers must provide equal pay; yet, for some reason, certain employers are exempt from this legislation. For the life of me, I don’t understand the reasoning behind this decision—that this doesn’t apply to every employer in the province.

As members know, yesterday was Equal Pay Day. I had the pleasure of meeting with the Equal Pay Coalition. As I mentioned earlier, they have a long history of working to reduce the gender wage gap, going back to 1976. They have done a huge amount of work and research over the years on this issue, and they have a good idea about what works and what doesn’t work. They presented draft legislation to the Minister of Labour a year ago and had high hopes that it would be achieved, but, again, they were disappointed. Now they have suggestions about how it can be fixed.

This, Speaker, highlights why we are opposed to time allocation. This legislation, like other legislation, can be improved, but it requires careful consideration and consultation. Thankfully, there are people like the Equal Pay Coalition who have been considering this type of legislation for some time, so they’re able to respond quickly. They are suggesting a number of amendments, and they have prioritized eight of them.

The first is that the act be applied to all employers with 10 or more employees in the public and private sectors to match what already exists in the Human Rights Code, the Pay Equity Act and the new federal legislation that was announced in the federal government’s budget about six weeks ago.

Transparency reporting obligations should be set out in the act and not in regulations. They should also reflect what already exists in the Employment Standards Act, the Pay Equity Act and the Human Rights Code.

The act should include mandatory timelines for filing transparency reports. Again, this isn’t something that should be left to regulations.

A purpose clause should be added to identify the core principle that can be used to interpret the provisions of the act.

They suggest that the Pay Transparency Act be enforced through the Pay Equity Commission rather than the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

They call for penalties to be identified in the act for non-compliance to ensure that annual pay transparency reports are filed.

Recognizing the impact of systemic discrimination, the Equal Pay Coalition would also like to see a clear statement in the act that an employer cannot consider or rely on compensation history in any way that undermines an applicant’s right to receive pay that is free of discrimination.

Finally, they call for a

preamble that establishes the context of the act; that is, a

preamble that clearly states that the act is a means to address widespread non-compliance with existing laws.

These are proposals, along with others that we will hear, that deserve serious consideration so that this bill can have a real, positive impact on the gender pay gap in Ontario.

Speaker, I speak to women regularly in my riding, I speak to women in my family, I speak to friends, and I speak to people in the community, women who struggle each and every day. Many of those women work as PSWs; they work as developmental service workers; they work in very heavily women sectors. They are the ones who struggle the most, and yet they’re the ones who are taking care of our most vulnerable.

I know a women, very close to me, who has been a developmental service worker for over 20 years. She went to school, she paid for a good education, she came out, she started in the field and, of course, worked part-time for years, not being able to get a full-time position—because that’s the way the sector works—at a very low wage. After 20 years of being there, and being now a team leader in a home that takes care of our most vulnerable, Speaker, I was disgusted, I have to say, to learn that this woman makes $22 an hour. She is responsible for taking care of the people who live in the home that she works in.

She is responsible for ensuring that the house is cleaned, that the laundry is done, that the meals are cooked, and then she has added responsibilities as a team leader to ensure that she is doing bookwork. She’s actually doing taxes for people who live in the home. She has a huge amount of responsibility, and she makes $22 an hour. That’s not even close to what she should be making. This is a field that we know is very heavily—the workforce is women, who are doing these types of jobs.

To make $22 an hour to completely ensure that our most vulnerable people have a full, wholesome lifestyle is absolutely disgraceful.

But this is what this government has done. For 15 years, they have just done nothing about it. And now, at the last second before the election, they are bringing out legislation to once again make a group happy, in hopes that they can desperately scramble in some of those votes.

I think time’s up for the Liberals in this province. I think it’s time for them to hang up their hats and allow somebody else the opportunity to do the work that needs to be done, to have fresh eyes on different government sectors, and to be able to ensure that the people of this province have an opportunity for something better. They do not any longer have to choose between bad and worse. There is something better on the horizon, and New Democrats are looking forward to that opportunity come this June election.

Thank you for the opportunity to have a few moments to speak about pay equity today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to you.

I rise today to speak to this Pay Transparency Act. It is part of what we call the women’s economic empowerment strategy.

I just want to say that sometimes, when we talk about ensuring women get fair pay for their work, we forget about all the mothers, sisters and daughters that work in factories, that work cleaning offices; many of them work in all kinds of manual labour. They, essentially, are sometimes the forgotten women, when we look at fair wages for women.

I recall this mother who lives on Hopewell Avenue in my riding. Her husband, unfortunately, passed away when she was a young mother with two daughters, so she had to get a job working at a factory. She lived at Dufferin and Eglinton; the factory was at Finch and Dufferin. In order for her to have enough money for her two daughters—she was widowed—she would walk to work, up Dufferin to Finch, and work all day in a factory; being from Hamilton, you know how difficult factory work is, Mr. Speaker.

Imagine working eight or nine hours in a factory with a half-hour for lunch, and then having to walk back home to save the TTC ticket. The TTC ticket, at that time, she told me, was about a buck each way.

These are the working sisters, mothers and daughters that are still working in these jobs that are hidden. They don’t make the front page of the newspapers. They don’t make television programs. This is what this legislation tries to do. It tries to at least say that we have got to start to recognize that our mothers, our daughters, our sisters deserve a fair wage. Right now, they are not—because there’s been this historical gap between men and women. It’s not only in Ontario; this is worldwide. The same thing occurs worldwide.

That’s what this is trying to do. This legislation is not going to solve all the problems, but at least it’s moving in that direction. Hopefully from this type of legislation, we’ll get the people that employ and own the businesses, that own the factories, to start to recognize that our mothers, our sisters, our daughters deserve respect for the work they do. Right now, not enough of them are getting respect for the work they do.

Think of all the immigrant mothers, daughters and sisters who have done all the dirty work in Ontario for the last 50 or 60 years. They do the cleaning. They do the care work. I think of all the amazing Filipino immigrants we have who take care of our vulnerable elderly and our sick. They work day and night, and their wages certainly don’t match the guys in suits downtown. You ask them, “What do you do in that suit downtown?” “Oh, I make 500,000 bucks. I’m a CEO.” “But what do you do?” “Well, I’m a day trader.”

Never mind the guys in the suits downtown, like us with the suits here; think about the working mothers, daughters and sisters in the factories, cleaning, cooking. Then, on top of it, as you know, Mr. Speaker, our mothers, sisters and daughters are expected to come home and take care of the kids. They’re expected to come home and cook.

I remember my dear mother; she was a seamstress and tailor. We lived downtown. She would go and work as a seamstress and tailor on Spadina. That’s where they had all the sweatshops, on Spadina, where you worked in no air conditioning. You worked all day in these factories on Spadina. She would go to work, come home, cook, clean, do the laundry. You know, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you went through the same thing. In the early days, when we moved into Toronto as an immigrant family—we came from Italy—we also had four boarders in the house. She would also cook for the four boarders.

So on Spadina all day in the sweatshop—usually it was piecework. A lot of these young people here in the Legislature have no idea what piecework is. My mother would come home after working piecework and not only cook and clean for us, the kids—and there were four of us—she would also have to cook for the four boarders.

In the house, a small semi-detached house on Bellwoods Avenue here in Toronto, with three storeys, up and down stairs, she would have to come home and also take care—we had the boarders. People say, “Wow, you had boarders. Why?” That’s the only way you could pay for the mortgage. And we had one bathroom in the house: four of us, mom and dad, and at one time we had my aunt and uncle on the second floor with their two kids. We had one boarder, and then a couple of boarders upstairs—one bathroom. A lot of the young people in this Legislature probably have not ever gone through that.

That was the early immigrant experience, and you know who carried the load? Certainly the incredible immigrant men that came and worked construction—pick and shovel and all this stuff—they worked like dogs and ruined their backs. We know the history of the injured workers. But then there were the silent heroes behind the scenes: the mothers, daughters and sisters. They were getting paid peanuts in the sweatshops on Spadina, then had to come home and do double duty as cook and cleaner, and then they had to essentially always be compassionate and caring. I don’t know how they did it.

But nobody talks about these unsung heroes. I’m sure in Sarnia it was the same thing: the working mothers and grandmothers.

So this bill isn’t just about the white-collar jobs or this thing called gender pay equity. It’s about being fair and recognizing working mothers, sisters and daughters, and that we’ve got to move the yardsticks on this. That’s all we’re trying to do here.

The sooner we do it, the better, because this is still going on today, the incredible burden on women—I see them on Vaughan and on Eglinton Avenue rushing at 6 or 7 in the morning. These young pages have probably never seen that. They’ve got the two kids on the streetcar at 7 o’clock in the morning—rushing, with two children under their arms, to go work in a factory all day. Then after they work in the factory, they go pick up the kids and rush home.

What do they do when they come home? Do you think they’re going to sit down, watch TV and play with their computer or their iPhone? Who has got time for that? They’ve got to cook, clean, make sure the kids are fed and help the kids with the homework. Then you know what they get paid? They get peanuts on the job, and we say, “Well, why are these women complaining?”

That’s what I want to put on the record. I know nobody likes to listen to this. I know you, Mr. Speaker, understand that Hamilton experience. I know we had a lot of good relatives in Hamilton who worked very hard.

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

Seeing none, Madame Des Rosiers has moved government notice of motion number 4 relating to allocation of Bill 3,

An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment.

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

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be deferred to after question period to be voted on.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day.

Time allocation

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 6,

An Act to enact the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Act, 2018 and the Correctional Services and Reintegration Act, 2018, to make related amendments to other Acts, to repeal

an Act and to revoke a regulation, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 19, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

From 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

On April 26, 2018, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period, pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, April 30, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

That, notwithstanding standing order 81(c), the bill may be called more than once in the same sessional day.

Oh, there’s a back side.

Interjections.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Thank you again for your indulgence.

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, three hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties; and

That, during this time, there shall be no motion for either adjournment of the debate or adjournment of the House permitted. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the votes on second and third reading may be deferred, pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Minister Leal has moved motion number five.

Minister Leal?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I have no debate to add at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Respectfully, listening to the minister, I’m very disappointed. I mean, it’s time allocation again. This is a very serious bill pertaining to corrections and yet they are time allocating it and then, as a result of that as well, they’re only going to have one day of hearings. Take that up with the corrections officers. Take that up with probation and parole officers. Take that up with that entire ministry and the people in the field who are working and who are suffering because of the fact that this government is refusing to support them in terms of making their workplace safe as well.

Having said that, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address what I believe to be a very serious problem. This Liberal government has a history of producing incomplete, skeletal and poorly thought-out legislation. This bill is no exception to that rule. The Correctional Services Transformation Act, 2018, is supposed to be a thorough overhaul of a broken correctional system, but it has the same deficiencies as most other Liberal legislation. The bill will not solve what has come to be called the crisis in corrections.

Before I get into the meat of the bill, let me tell you a little bit about that crisis. Last year, a report by the independent advisor on corrections reform described shocking abuses and disorder in Ontario’s detention centres. Detention centres are overcrowded and cell block violence is a huge problem. In fact, it’s at an all-time high. After violent incidents, inmates are often held in solitary confinement without access to rehabilitation programs, and lockdowns are often the only recourse due to short-staffing. This has the potential to invite serious abuses, but even when solitary confinement or segregation isn’t used as a punishment, it still poses a huge problem.

On the Liberals’ watch, prisoners like Adam Capay have been held in solitary confinement while awaiting trial. Capay was held for four years in conditions so degrading that previous inmates of the same cell had died. But the Liberals just didn’t seem to care. They ignored repeated coroner’s inquests warning of unsafe conditions. Fifty reports went up to the minister’s office and they were all ignored—50 reports. It would be convenient to say that the corrections minister was simply asleep at the switch but, in fact, the minister at the time had made a personal visit to Adam Capay’s cell. Sadly, not even that prompted him to act, and the Liberal government continued to ignore the problem.

Now, in fairness, I’m not going to put all of this on the current Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ shoulders. Since I have been the critic of this particular file for almost four years, we’ve had numerous ministers, and they’ve been refusing to act in a proper way, which would show respect not only to the inmates, which this bill is a lot about, but also respect to the officers, the staff working in our detention centres.

Back to Capay: It only became a problem for the Premier and her government when Adam Capay’s case finally reached the newspapers—so much for the myth of social justice government and the social justice Premier. That’s how the Premier said she wanted to be remembered. I don’t really think it’s working.

Also released last year, a surveillance video from the Elgin–Middlesex Detention Centre in London shows just how bad violence in detention centres can be. In that video, an inmate can be seen beating his cellmate to death. A staffing shortage prevented the kind of intervention that might have stopped the altercation and probably saved a life. That’s part of the systemic problem.

Sadly, assaults on correctional officers and other staff have more than doubled over the past seven years. That’s a very alarming increase, and my contacts within the world of corrections mention it whenever we speak. Much of the violence in Ontario’s detention centres is derived from smuggling weapons and drugs. Full-body scanners would do a lot to keep those things out of detention centres, but not all Ontario jails have scanners yet.

A year ago, the Attorney General promised to install full-body scanners in all of Ontario’s prisons, but we’re still waiting. I might add, at that same time when that promise of full-body scanners was made, he wasn’t the Attorney General at the time; he was the Minister of Community and Social Services. What’s the holdup? Why does it seem to take so long? Why does the government treat the corrections file as an afterthought?

But, Speaker, it gets worse. Ontario’s probation and parole system is a joke. Yes, that’s exactly what criminals have called it—not me; criminals are calling it a joke.

Our probation and parole officers are not to blame. In many cases, they are actively discouraged from checking up on criminals by making house visits because of insufficient resources. Many are told that they’re not even allowed to work outside of business hours. But guidelines published by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services explicitly state that community visits are a valuable method of verifying information and enhancing supervision, yet they’re not happening. Offenders are left to self-report. But, obviously, very few do.

A 2014 report by the Ontario Auditor General drew attention to this problem, and a shocking Global News documentary on corrections published last year came to the same conclusions. In that documentary, the corrections minister was unable to answer any questions seriously, and she was unable to explain why violent criminals were not being properly monitored. I found this to be outrageous. It’s clearly a pattern from this low-information government.

Here’s what stakeholders are saying. Under the Liberal regime over the past 15 years, probation and parole policy-makers have put enormous emphasis on probation and parole offender risk assessments, such as domestic violence, sex offences, enhanced offender-needs risk assessments and so forth. Strangely, this has basically transformed the role of the probation and parole officer from that of a public safety peace officer to that of a psychotherapist or mental health clinician.

Nothing brought this to light better than Carolyn Jarvis’s Global News National investigative report entitled Probation and Parole: Who’s Watching? The current minister, as I said, was interviewed in that documentary. It didn’t go well. I wonder whether anyone in the government saw it.

Anyway, Liberal probation and parole policies prohibit officers from conducting compliance checks and monitoring their offenders’ adherence to probation and conditional sentence orders in the community.

My friend Scott McIntyre, vice-president of OPSEU and probation and parole MERC representative—as he puts it, “The Liberals have removed the ‘community’ from community corrections.” Scott has a way with words, so I’ll quote him again: “Excessive workloads and a lack of appropriate safety and security measures for probation and parole officers has handcuffed us to our desks.” Handcuffed us to our desks, Speaker: That’s a shocking image. But I’m afraid it’s what I would expect from a tired, out-of-touch, low-information government that doesn’t respect its stakeholders.

The ministry says that the police are responsible for performing P&P compliance checks. However, Global’s investigative report clearly confirmed that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police do not agree that it is their responsibility to do so.

Honestly, who’s monitoring and who’s performing the compliance checks on the near 45,000 criminals who reside in our communities? When we realize that 60% of those criminals are medium to high risk, the crisis in corrections seems even more severe. That is an outrage: 60% of 45,000. If I do quick math in my head, that’s about 27,000 criminals in our communities who are deemed to be medium to high risk.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Sorry; I apologize, Speaker. Can you check if we have a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Clerks’ table, please check for a quorum.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. William Short): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. William Short): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member may continue.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: As I said, of the 45,000 criminals who reside in our communities, 60% of them have been deemed to be medium to high risk. That’s roughly 27,000 criminals in our communities who are dangerous. An investigative report showed that offenders described probation and parole supervision as a “joke,” and it’s getting worse.

Howard Sapers released his report in the fall of 2017, and we’ve seen an astonishing increase of more than 40% of criminals being released on parole. If this statistic were more widely known, people would be furious. It would appear that the Ontario Liberals have foolishly released criminals from custody in a probation and parole system that has a critical workload crisis and which does not perform offender monitoring in the form of compliance checks. The Liberals have utterly failed at ensuring the safety of Ontarians by way of having sufficient staffing numbers of PPOs—probation and parole officers—in a system that actively monitors offenders in our communities.

One of the most basic duties of a government is to maintain an orderly and safe society, but if criminals on parole or probation are not being properly supervised, then the government has failed to perform a key part of that duty.

Front-line stakeholders such as corrections officers represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union are justifiably outraged. Not long ago, the union began a letter-writing campaign to bring awareness to the crisis in corrections. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what was said. I am quoting from an OPSEU media release here:

“For decades, the Ontario government has neglected our correctional facilities. As a result, there is a constant threat to the safety of inmates and staff.

“Further, our probation officers have such high workloads that they are unable to safely and effectively monitor offenders released into our communities.”

That justifies the number I said earlier, when I stated that of the 45,000, 60%—or roughly 27,000—are not being properly monitored in our communities. To me, that says our communities are not safe.

“These are just two issues that have created a crisis in corrections. The crisis poses a clear danger to staff safety, inmate safety, and public safety—and it must be addressed without further delay.” And so forth.

Emails went out to MPPs, with copies to the Premier, the corrections services minister, the Attorney General and the crisis-in-corrections team. It was a great example of civic engagement. But the response was appalling.

Let me quote Chris Jackel, who was chairman of the bargaining team for the correctional bargaining unit. I’m referencing another OPSEU media release. Here it is: “It’s very discouraging when government MPPs try to deny that our correctional system is in crisis.... It shows just how completely out of touch the government is with the reality in corrections.” That’s exactly what he said.

Furthermore, OPSEU condemned the canned, low-information response from the government. Mr. Jackel called the prepared messages “highly politicized.” He said that it was “the kind of non-response politicians use at question period to avoid answering difficult questions. When you use them to respond to the genuine concerns of workers on the ground, they’re just a slap in the face.”

“Just a slap in the face”: These are strong words. But I’m afraid I have to agree.

By way of example, Mr. Jackel came down hard on the government’s assertion that “Ontario’s streets are safer than ever.” That was the government’s assertion. Mr. Jackel “described the claim as ‘preposterous.’ He pointed out that a Global News investigation revealed there are no compliance checks for 50,000 offenders in the community—including sex offenders. Further, Ontario has the country’s highest recidivism rates.”

That brings us back to the origin of this bill that we’re now debating. The Liberal government, which is about to shuffle off this mortal coil, wants us to believe that they’ve had a deathbed conversion—or maybe we might call it a pre-election conversion. That might be more accurate.

I suppose the Liberals didn’t want to go down in history as dumb on crime. They wanted one last shot at addressing stakeholders’ anger, and maybe even at correcting their own mistakes. So less than 100 days before the next election, they finally introduced a bill which purports to resolve the crisis that I just described. Well, I really want to emphasize that word “purports,” because this bill is really the triumph of hope over experience.

I note that OPSEU was pleased about one major aspect of this bill, however, which is that the government seems to finally have decided that there really is a crisis in corrections. Otherwise, the bill leaves much to be desired.

When it comes to criticizing the bill, the problem is not where to begin but where to stop. So let’s start now.

Let me draw your attention to one of the strangest aspects of this bill. Would you believe me if I told you that the government is giving itself 10 years to bring this bill into effect? That’s right: 10 years. Yet we just heard at the very beginning that the minister talked about—and that would be the Minister of Agriculture, who introduced this for time allocation; he said that we will have a total of two hours for a sham of a plan that would take the government 10 years to implement. Ten years to implement, and they are time-allocating.

They are only having one day of committee, allowing people to come and state their case with regard to this bill. But it’s going to take them 10 years to implement?

They talk about referencing or discussing aspects with their stakeholders, and I question who their stakeholders really are and how much time they spent getting the facts from their stakeholders. You can see it for yourself in

section 147(2).

What kind of government needs 10 years to pass and implement a law? Ten years? Did the Chrétien-Martin government pass legislation only to have it finally implemented under Stephen Harper a decade later? I don’t think so. Did the McGuinty government spend its early years passing and implementing legislation from the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves government? I don’t think so. Is Prime Minister Gerald Butts—I mean, Justin Trudeau—busy passing Stephen Harper’s bills? No, that would be laughable.

So there are many things a reasonable person might conclude about this strange timeline. One is that the Liberals think that they deserve to be in power forever. They think they will be in power forever, or at least 10 years from now, so the ridiculous 10-year timetable will suit that fantasy just fine.

Another, more likely, possibility is that the Liberals don’t know how to solve the crisis in corrections and don’t expect to be able to do so ever. Well, Mr. Speaker, my instincts tell me that the second one is true, not the first. This absurdly long timeline is a good enough reason on its own to reject the bill altogether.

There are, of course, other good reasons. Let us remind ourselves again of the context of the crisis in corrections. The bill comes in response to a series of damning reports and investigations by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Ombudsman, the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre Task Force and the independent adviser on corrections. Sadly, some of their findings highlight problems that were already old but haven’t yet been addressed.

My friend Monte Vieselmeyer, who is chairman of the ministry employee relations committee for correctional services at OPSEU, had this to say in a press release earlier: “The ministry has failed to give front-line staff the tools they need to properly manage segregation. I refer to these tools as the three Ts: training, technology, and time.” He goes on to say, “Of course, none of these things come without a price tag. They require substantial funding and staffing investments by the ministry. If they’re serious about easing the crisis around segregation, they have to address the larger crisis in corrections.”

OPSEU president Smokey Thomas had some strong comments also. In response to the Ombudsman’s report on segregation, he had the following to say: “None of this is new—it’s all about a properly funded corrections system and properly funded public services. There’s just no getting around it, and nothing is going to change until this government finally takes responsibility for easing the crisis that its austerity agenda has created.”

We’re talking about a serious breakdown in an important part of our justice system and a failure to enforce law and order. We’re talking about problems which extend to every part of the corrections system. Minor tinkering is not going to help.

Let me repeat so that I’m not misunderstood: Detention centres are crowded. Cellblock violence is a huge problem. After violent incidents, inmates are often held in solitary confinement without access to rehabilitation programs.

A newly released surveillance video from the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre in London shows how bad the violence can be. In that video, an inmate can be seen beating his cellmate to death. I talked about that earlier. A staffing shortage prevented the kind of intervention that might have stopped that altercation and, as I said earlier, may have saved that individual’s life.

Assaults on correctional officers and other staff have more than doubled over the past seven years. Too many inmates are now held in solitary confinement, often in appalling conditions, and sometimes for years. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has taken the government to court over such terrible costs and abuses.

Why am I reminding you of this, Mr. Speaker? Well, let me tell you. People often say that Canada’s founding motto is “peace, order and good government.” That’s from the British North America Act, the BNA Act, as we all call it. Apart from that, the maintenance of order is an important conservative principle.

But what about order? Let me answer that question by quoting American historian and political theorist Russell Kirk. He says, “‘Order’ is the principle and the process by which the peace and harmony of society are maintained. It is the arrangement of rights and duties in a state to ensure that people will have just leaders, loyal citizens, and public tranquility. It implies the obedience of a nation to the laws of God, and the obedience of individuals to just authority. Without order, justice can rarely be enforced, and freedom cannot be maintained.”

In our political tradition, we do not separate order from justice and freedom. Again, Russell Kirk explains: “‘Justice’ is the principle and the process by which each man is accorded the things that are his own—the things that belong to his nature. This concept the old Greeks and Romans expressed in the phrase ‘to each his own.’ It is the principle and the process that protects a man’s life, his property, his proven rights, his station in life, his dignity. It also is the principle and the process that metes out punishment to the evildoer, which enforces penalties against violence and fraud.

The allegorical figure of Justice always holds a sword. Justice is the cornerstone of the world—divine justice and human justice. It is the first necessity of any decent society.”

Then Kirk goes on to say, “‘Freedom’ is the principle and the process by which a man is made master of his own life. It implies the right of all members of adult society to make their own choices in most matters. A slave is a person whose actions, in all important respects, are directed by others; a free man is a person who has the right—and the responsibility—of deciding how he is to live with himself and his neighbours.”

Speaker, again I say that the most basic duty of government is to maintain an orderly society. That is the foundation of justice and freedom. But if the detention centres are inhumane, and dangerous criminals on parole or probation are not being properly supervised, a government has failed to maintain an orderly society.

The current Liberal government and its supporters should ask themselves how they allowed this to happen. They should start by asking themselves why they allowed appalling violence in detention centres to get so out of control. How did they allow detention centres to become so badly crowded? Why are they over capacity? There are those in the ministry who will deny that statement and say, “Oh, no, no. That’s not the case.” You know what? I would prefer not to talk to the ministry on that and use their numbers.

I would prefer to talk to the correctional officers and those in our detention centres, because that’s where you will find the real truth of what’s going on in those detention centres. But I’m not calling the ministry any of those bad words that they might when the truth doesn’t really come out. I’m just suggesting that we need to talk to those in our detention centres to find out exactly what’s going on. That’s where the rubber meets the road.

Why has it not occurred to the minister that crowded jails could, at least in theory, be combatted by reducing excessive wait times for corrections investigations and by providing the resources necessary for staff in detention centres? Why is it not obvious that the proper supervision and enforcement of probation and parole officers is absolutely essential? Why does no one seem to realize that it’s high time the government did something about enforcing its own guidelines?

This pre-election conversion just won’t cut it. It’s fooling no one. Both recent reports that I mentioned paint a very grim picture indeed. Minor tinkering isn’t going to fix the crisis in corrections. The government must take serious action and thorough action immediately, not 10 years from now, which the bill purports to do: “Well, we’ll have it all figured out in 10 years, when that magical year comes.”

Well, I beg to differ. I don’t think this government is going to be in office for 10 years. As a matter of fact, I’m questioning how long they’re going to be in office considering the June 7 election date. That’s probably somewhere around 62 days. If that’s the case, they’ve got a lot of work to do.

The bill before us is totally inadequate. What does the bill propose? Let’s get at that right now. First, the bill attempts to redefine what “segregation” means. Let me read from the bill:

“Inmates held in conditions that constitute segregation or restrictive confinement retain all rights and privileges of inmates in general population housing except those that can only be enjoyed in association with other inmates.

“Certain inmates cannot be held in conditions that constitute segregation, including inmates who are pregnant, chronically self-harming or suicidal or who have significant mental illnesses or developmental disabilities. Inmates shall not be held in conditions that constitute segregation for more than 15 consecutive days or for more than 60 aggregate days in a 365-day period. The aggregate day maximum can be exceeded if authorized by a decision of the independent review panel. These limits do not apply in prescribed correctional institutions.

“Superintendents may hold inmates in non-disciplinary segregation in certain exceptional cases if all other options to manage the inmate have been exhausted. The superintendent shall maintain a record of the options that were exhausted before the inmate was held in those conditions. The superintendent shall also conduct a preliminary review of the case within 24 hours after they are placed in those conditions. Inmates being held in conditions that constitute segregation for non-disciplinary reasons must be offered the opportunity at regular intervals to associate with others.

“Provisions for regular visits by health care professionals to inmates held in conditions that constitute segregation are provided. In particular, a member of the mental health care service team must review the inmate’s mental health at least once every five days.

“A referral must be made to the independent regional chair to have a hearing before an independent review panel when an inmate has been held in conditions that constitute segregation for non-disciplinary reasons for either five or 10 consecutive days. A referral must also be made for any inmate held in conditions that constitute segregation when they reach 30 and 55 aggregate days of being held in those conditions.”

Are you getting confused yet? Well, do you know what? When you think about all of this, who is going to really monitor that? I think about the administration, the bureaucracy that is layered and layered and layered behind all of this to ensure that this is really going to happen. So then my question is: Is this really going to happen?

“Upon receiving a referral, the chair shall convene an independent review panel to review the inmate’s case and determine whether it is reasonable to continue holding the inmate in conditions that constitute segregation. The panel can also authorize a superintendent to continue to hold an inmate past the limit of 60 aggregate days in a 365-day period.”

Well, that might be an independent review panel for one person, but let’s compound it: how many people in a detention centre times how many detention centres we have. This panel is going to be really, really busy. It’s going to get really, really thick with administration. I’m probably just simply saying this: red tape. Red tape is going to be huge.

Let’s pause for a minute and break that down. The bill aims to redefine segregation as any type of custody where an inmate is highly restricted in movement and association with others for 22 hours or more a day. Certain inmates, such as those who are pregnant, mentally or physically ill, or suicidal, will be exempt from segregation. Segregation will be restricted to no more than 15 consecutive days and not more than 60 aggregate days in a year, subject to review by—here we go—the independent review panel, which will be created by this bill in future regulation.

Here is the essence of the problem. My contacts from the world of corrections tell me that this is a bad move. Why? The threat of segregation as a deterrent or its use as a punishment will be significantly reduced if the penalty for misbehaving will be predictably restricted to not more than 15 consecutive days and not more than 60 aggregate days in a year in segregation. Obviously, the legislation foresees the possibility of extending prolonged segregation, but the precise details of this are vague—that’s right, vague. Typical of a lot of the legislation this government brings forth, it’s vague because it’s left up to future regulations.

My friend Monte Vieselmeyer is chairman of the correctional division at OPSEU. Monte acknowledged that the bill addresses a number of correction-related issues—fair enough—including segregation. But after examining the bill, he said that correctional officers were still awaiting alternatives to segregation. This is what he had to say in a recent news release: “If the government wants to address segregation, they need to provide alternatives for the various reasons it’s currently used. One inmate to one cell would solve the problem. In light of Canadian case law, we need answers.”

What the bill describes sounds not only inadequate, but also pretty bad. I’m referring to the plan to create the independent review panel. Leaving aside the fact that most of what it will do and how it will be staffed and so forth—I kind of touched upon that a few moments ago—are left up to some future, undemocratic regulatory process, this panel sounds like little more than a whole lot of paper-pushing and bureaucracy.

The independent review panel will review and decide cases of segregation after five and 10 consecutive days, and after 30 and 55 aggregate days of segregation over the course of a year. Here’s the description of it from the

preamble of the bill:

“A referral must be made to the independent regional chair to have a hearing before an independent review panel when an inmate has been held in conditions that constitute segregation for non-disciplinary reasons for either five or 10 consecutive days. A referral must also be made for any inmate held in conditions that constitute segregation when they reach 30 and 55 aggregate days of being held in those conditions.

“Upon receiving a referral, the chair shall convene an independent review panel to review the inmate’s case and determine whether it is reasonable to continue holding the inmate in conditions that constitute segregation. The panel can also authorize a superintendent to continue to hold an inmate past the limit of 60 aggregate days in a 365-day period.”

I hope my colleagues across the aisle are paying attention here. I don’t even know if they’ve read their own legislation, but I digress.

The bill foresees an excessively bureaucratic process of report-writing, consultation and deliberation on inmate segregation. The independent review panel would review and make decisions on cases at intervals of five, 10, 30 and 55 days of segregation over the course of a year—potentially 16 or more reports over the course of a year. That’s for one person. It should be immediately obvious why this is ridiculous.

This panel is obviously meant to address the abuse connected with the segregation of Adam Capay, who spent 1,560 days in solitary confinement awaiting trial in conditions so appalling that previous inmates there had died. What’s the problem, you ask? Well, senior bureaucrats at the Ministry of Correctional Services had been alerted more than 50 times about Capay’s segregation, and the minister at the time had visited Capay’s cell and seen for himself the horrendous conditions there.

If 50 reports and a personal visit from the minister didn’t motivate this government to do something about Adam Capay and the horrendous conditions in which he had been confined, how will more bureaucracy and even more reports help?

In this connection, I’m reminded of the quote from John Maynard Keynes: “Government machinery has been described as a marvelous labour-saving device which enables 10 men to do the work of one”—which enables 10 men to do the work of one.

There is also that famous—one of the greatest presidents of the United States, Ronald Reagan. Here’s what Ronald Reagan said: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Obviously, the Liberals are inclined to think that more bureaucracy is a solution to every problem, but I beg to differ. At best, all that the independent review panel will do is chew up and drain valuable resources. At worst, it may create a culture of excessive report writing in order to justify the existence of the independent review panel itself.

The fundamental problem is not the number or frequency of reports; it’s the fact that in the case of Adam Capay, all the reports were ignored. More paper-pushing isn’t going to solve the problem. Only a better, more attentive, more competent minister and staff will do that.

The present minister’s attempt to dodge questions about the dysfunctional parole system and the rest of the crisis in corrections is an appalling abnegation of her ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility means that a minister is ultimately responsible for all actions of a ministry, whether he or she knows about it or not.

Ministerial responsibility is not a statute or a codified part of our Constitution. It is part of our unwritten traditions, but this does not make it any less important. If waste, corruption or any other misbehaviour is found to have occurred within a ministry, the minister is ultimately responsible, even without knowledge of misdeeds or oversights by subordinates. The minister approved the hiring and continued employment of those within the ministry.

Normally, if improper conduct occurred in a ministry, an honourable minister would feel compelled to resign. Obviously this hasn’t happened, which is another indication that the government just doesn’t take its work particularly seriously. In fact, the minister’s attitude and behaviour have seriously eroded ministerial responsibility and decreased the public’s trust in government.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry to say that this half-baked piece of non-legislation isn’t going to get the Liberals out of a mess that they have created and worsened. They think it’s icing on the cake, but in fact, that icing is sour, the cake is flat and there’s no substance at all. This will not fix the crisis in corrections.

Problems with the rest of the bill are basically similar to what I’ve just described. Let me repeat: Forcing bureaucrats to write more and more reports isn’t going to do anything as long as ministers and their staff continue to ignore them. But hang on to your pants because there’s a whole lot more report-writing coming.

Lockdowns are a typical way of dealing with out-of-control cellblock violence, especially in overcrowded detention centres, but this government seems determined to put a stop to that practice and introduce new and more onerous bureaucracy. According to the bill, if lockdowns last for five consecutive days, the superintendent must write a report and send it to the deputy minister and the inspector general. Superintendents must make and submit a new report for every subsequent day of the lockdown—wow.

Lockdowns occur because staff are outnumbered and unable to control cellblock violence in overcrowded detention centres. That’s the root of the problem. Increased report-writing isn’t going to address the root cause and will only serve to burden the front-line workers further.

An inspector general will be established by order in council. That person will have a broad mandate to review the report and direct the treatment of inmates and conditions in prisons. Again, the big problem here is that the legislation leaves all further details about the position to be defined—you guessed it, Mr. Speaker—not in legislation but in regulations. So we’re going to have to say there’s no input, no influence and no control over that regulatory process.

But get this: The inspector general is going to have a lot of work to do, taking care of criminals and making sure they’re comfortable. Why, you ask? The bill requires every inmate to have access to every kind of health care service. Inmates in segregation must receive daily visits from at least one member of a health care service team. This is better health coverage and treatment than most Ontario families will ever get. It doesn’t seem fair, and a lot of people would be justifiably upset if they knew about it.

But it gets worse. Absolutely, it gets worse, Mr. Speaker. It’s as though this government thinks that every problem—every problem—can be involved by more bureaucracy and report-writing. But just let me say that if bureaucracy immunized us from problems, nothing would ever have gone wrong in Ontario.

But let’s get back to the bill. The bill provides for disciplinary hearing officers to be created by order in council. Their job will be to conduct hearings and to sanction serious misconduct by inmates. All further details are left to—here’s that word again, Speaker—regulations—regulations.

Here’s the relevant passage from the bill: “An allegation of serious misconduct shall be referred to a disciplinary hearings officer. The officer conducts a hearing and may impose more significant disciplinary measures if he or she determines that the inmate has committed serious misconduct, including imposing conditions that constitute segregation for no more than 15 consecutive days. The inmate may seek to have a decision of the officer reviewed by another disciplinary hearings officer.”

The silliest thing with this is that “serious misconduct” is nowhere defined in the bill. Once again, future regulations will determine what that means. Again, as I said earlier, Speaker, 10 years? They’re giving themselves 10 years to implement this? They’re not taking this seriously at all. The crisis in corrections is now; it’s not, “Come that magic last day of that 10th year, it will all be taken care of.”

You know what? The silliest thing about this is that “serious misconduct,” as I mentioned earlier, is nowhere defined. I think there are two problems with that right away. First, as I keep saying, the regulatory process is entirely undemocratic, and this arbitrary government will be able to force whatever they want on the corrections community.

Speaker, I could go on and on about this particular bill, but I want to make a couple of points here. First of all, this bill doesn’t do anything to really help and ensure the safety of our correctional officers or our probation and parole officers who are out there. They are dealing with hard-core criminals in many, many cases. They don’t have the resources—for example, full-body scanners—that would identify any weapons or drugs that are coming in. I’ve talked to several correctional officers who have had to pull someone down who was hanging. You talk about PTSD and how horrifying that is.

I’ve talked to correctional officers who have had—forgive me, Speaker—urine and feces thrown in their faces. They’ve been bitten. They’ve been stabbed with little weapons. And then, of course, if they have someone coming towards them, they stop them, and they get written up for using excessive force. That’s not right.

This bill is a sham. As a result, we will not be supporting this bill.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today in attendance for our tribute to a former member, we have in the Speaker’s gallery Mr. David Warner, Speaker during the 35th Parliament; and Mr. Patrick Reid, MPP for Rainy River in the 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st and 32nd Parliaments. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for being here with us.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s always exciting to have someone from your community when you live so far away, and so today I’m pleased to introduce my page, Faraaz Jan, and also his father. This is the second page in his family. The father is Salman Jan, and he will be joining us in the members’ gallery today. Again, a really hearty welcome from the city of Ottawa today.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ east gallery, I would like to welcome Dave Bryans, CEO of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, and all the members who are here today from across the province for their annual Queen’s Park lobby day. I had a meeting with them this morning.

We invite everybody to attend their reception starting at 5 p.m. this afternoon in room 228. These are economic drivers of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Toby Barrett: We also welcome representatives from the convenience stores association; representatives here from Canada’s Outdoor Farm Show; and also those with the Ontario Pork leadership training: Tom McLaren, Travis Jansen, Derek Reid, Philip Van Raay, Tim Halliday, Cindy Rombouts, Jackie Rombouts, Debora Terpstra, Ronald Van De Bruinhorst, Kevin Bosman, Drew De Bruyn and Mike Mitchell.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning. I did meet this morning with members from the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, some of whom are in the gallery: Victor Vrsnik, Yvonne Farah, Noah Aychental and my buddy from Midway Convenience in my riding, Terry Yaldo. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Laura Albanese: It’s a pleasure to introduce, from my riding of York South–Weston, my constituent Dirk Albishausen. He is the father of Eric Albishausen, who is page captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’m very happy to introduce resident Jenifer Walker from my riding. She’s here because she’s quite concerned about what’s happening about the prolonged strike at York University, and she would like to see the answer soon.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: On behalf of my colleague the MPP for Welland, I’d like to welcome some family members of page captain Amelia Wendling: Amelia’s mother, Rosanne, and sister, Ariel, are here today, as well as Amelia’s grandmother, Denise Lafontaine. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Wendy Kadlovski, who is a constituent of mine from Durham and is at Queen’s Park today on behalf of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming, from the beautiful riding of Dufferin–Caledon, Rebekah Jamieson, Preety Lal, Luka Jamieson, Alyssa Savoia and Maya Lynch. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’ve got quite a list here to welcome for the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder day, which is happening today at 12. I’ll just read the names and not the organizations: Dr. Alan Bocking, Allan Mountford, Amanda Taillefer, Brian Philcox, Brian Tardif, Colin Deacon, Diane Greer, Elspeth Ross, Erin Bertrand, Erin Ingard Rau, Dr. James Reynolds, from Kingston and the Islands, Jean Saint-Vil, Karen Catney, Karen Huber, Kathryn Connors, Kathryn Reid, Kathy Unsworth, Len Whelan, from Kingston and the Islands, Dr.

Louise Scott, Margaret Van Beers, from Kingston and the Islands, Margo Russell-Bird, Mark Courtepatte, Mary Ann Bunkowsky, Mary Cunningham, Mary Mueller, Maureen Parkes, Nancy Lockwood, Nicky Lewis, Rob More, Shelley More, Cassie More, Skylar More, Jacob More, Robyn Brady, Sally Seabrook—almost finished—Savanna Pietrantonio, Sean Monteith, Sharron Richards, Sherry Baum, Steve Catney, Sue Brooks, Tracy Grant, Tracy Moisan, and all of those who suffer from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and their families across this province. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I know he’ll be joining us shortly in the gallery; my father-in-law, Harry Bartz, will be here. My wife, Annie, and our daughter—sorry, my wife, Kate, and my daughter, Annie, will be here soon too. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I correct my record.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome Deana Ruston, who is here today from London and who will be shadowing me as an MPP. Thank you.

Hon. Daiene Vernile: I am delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park, from the great riding of Kitchener Centre, Dr. Stephen Roy.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to welcome Bob Willcox, the president of Glacier FarmMedia, who is with us today, and my good friend Doug Wagner, the president of Canada’s Outdoor Farm Show. Also with them today is Will Adams, who is the son of the former, very distinguished member of Parliament from Peterborough, Peter Adams.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I believe there is a point of order from the member from Kingston and the Islands.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I believe that you will find we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear pins in recognition of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kingston and the Islands is seeking unanimous consent to wear the pins. Do we agree? Agreed.

I also believe that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a point of order.

Hon. Laura Albanese: That’s right, Mr. Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize the former member of provincial Parliament from London North, Mr. Ron Van Horne, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

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

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we start our tributes, would you please join me in welcoming the family and friends of the late Ronald George Van Horne, MPP for London North during the 31st, 32nd, 33rd and 34th Parliaments, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: daughter Barb Triantafyllou and friend Sharon; daughter Beth Marcaccio and husband Jim; Mr. Ron Van Horne and partner Scott; daughter Linda Dawdy; son Tim Van Horne and partner Cindy; daughter Kristin Papadopoulos and husband Miros; grandson Andrew Dawdy and partner Courtney; and grandchildren Ryan, Avery and Keeley Van Horne and Jessica, Jackie and Kaity Papadopoulos. Welcome. Thank you for being with us today.

Report, panel on code of conduct

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Also, I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to the order dated May 12, 2016, establishing a panel to draft a code of conduct for members of provincial Parliament, I have now laid the report of the panel on the table. This therefore represents the termination of the panel’s mandate and its work.

The members of the panel—Mr. John Fraser, Ms. Gila Martow and Ms. Peggy Sattler—did a tremendous amount of work, and, on your behalf, I thank them for their dedication to this complicated task.

The panel was formally assisted by the Clerk of Procedural Services, Tonia Grannum, and I also thank her for her hard work and good advice throughout this process.

I also want to take this opportunity, as chair of the panel and on its behalf, to thank the House for the responsibility and the trust that was laid upon and invested in us to undertake this work on your behalf. This makes us better.

Ronald George Van Horne

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would now call upon the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London for the tribute.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the PC caucus, I would like to welcome the family members of Ron Van Horne.

Ron served as a member of this Legislature from 1977 to 1987. Ron was a teacher, a school administrator and a superintendent. He represented London North and of course was part of the Liberal caucus. Prior to election, Ron served as the PUC commissioner in London.

He was first elected in 1977, defeating the PC incumbent, Marvin Shore, by 4,500 votes. Proving quite how well respected Ron was in his community, he maintained that margin in future elections. As an opposition member when first elected, he held various roles, including critic of education and critic of northern affairs.

In 1985, the Liberals took power. Ron became a cabinet minister under Premier Peterson, and he served as minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Mr. Speaker, if I were to raise certain issues such as home care and support for seniors, expansion of the scope of practice of health professionals, a public inquiry into nursing homes, prohibiting of smoking in hospitals, development of coverage for dental under OHIP, and a tax exemption for caregivers who looked after their family members, you would think we were talking about issues of today, but those were issues that Ron faced as the first minister ever named to address the concerns of seniors in this province.

Mr. Speaker, Ron didn’t hold back. He tackled those issues. By collaborating with stakeholders, he tabled a white paper, A New Agenda: Health and Social Services Strategies for Ontario’s Seniors. It was the first time in the history of Ontario that a broad strategic plan for seniors was developed. In my opinion, the strategy laid out the groundwork for an emphasis on home care and improving quality in long-term care that continues to this day.

Ron obviously had a good handle on the issues affecting seniors, and he knew the consequences of not addressing those issues. I do have a quote from him here: “Seniors are a significant constituency in the province. Forty years down the road”—and this was back in 1985—“their numbers will create more demand for chronic care, the province’s health and social services system, and pension financing.” He went on to say: “Coupled with the relentless march of time, concerns of the elderly will be an increasingly important, high-profile area of government attention.” Mr. Speaker, Ron was ahead of his time and very correct in his position.

After the 1987 election, London was well represented by government members. With the Premier himself from London Centre and the election of Joan Smith in London South, Ron did not return to cabinet, but he did continue to have the confidence of constituents in London North. Later in 1987, Ron was quoted as saying, “I’ve been here for 10 and a half years and I feel that I’ve served the constituency and the people of Ontario to the best of my ability. Now with this new government, I feel that my ambition, my heart or soul ... is on the wane and it’s time to move on.

“I am going to my family.”

And home he went, to his wife, Mary Jane, and his children Barb, Mary Beth, Ron Jr., Linda, Tim and Kris.

Speaker, as you mentioned earlier, we’re fortunate to have Ron’s family here: Barb and Sharon, Beth and Jim, Ron and Scott, Linda, Tim and Cindy, Kris and Miros, and his grandchildren Andrew and Courtney, Ryan, Avery, Keeley, Jessica, Jackie and Kaity. I’m sure they’re proud of Ron.

To his family here today: Time is the most precious resource. We want to thank you for sharing your time with Ron with us and our community. Ontario and Canada are better off because you allowed Ron to give his time to his community. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tribute? The member from London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today to recognize the deep commitment to public and community service that marked the life of former MPP Ronald Van Horne, the genial MPP who was liked and respected by all in this place during his 10 years of service as MPP for London North. It is an honour for me to deliver these remarks on behalf of the Ontario NDP caucus.

Ron Van Horne’s family was very important to him and, indeed, his determination to spend more time with his family was a big factor in his decision to leave public life in December 1987, after more than a decade in office as MPP for London North. This makes it all the more meaningful to have so many members of his family joining us today.

I’d like to once again welcome his six children and his many grandchildren. His daughters Barb, Linda, Beth and Kristin are here, along with sons-in-law Jim and Miros. His sons Ron and Tim are here with their partners, Scott and Cindy. And finally, of course, we welcome his grandchildren Ryan, Avery, Keeley, Jessica, Jackie, Kaity and Andrew with his partner, Courtney.

His children noted that their father’s career was deeply rooted in his passion for public service, exemplified through his commitment to public education as a teacher and high school principal at George Ross secondary school, Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School and Clarke Road Secondary School in London, and later, through his service as superintendent of special education for the Catholic board.

In 1970, he was elected to London’s public utilities commission, where he served until 1976, including three years as chair. It is not surprising, then, that in 1977, Ron Van Horne decided to make the jump to provincial politics, winning his first of four elections as the Liberal MPP for London North.

In 1985, with the formation of a minority Liberal government, Mr. Van Horne was appointed to cabinet as the first-ever Minister without Portfolio for senior citizens’ affairs. His work in that portfolio became one of his proudest accomplishments, through his leadership of a comprehensive and sweeping review of all senior citizen services and the release of a major report on the health and social service needs of seniors in Ontario.

In December 1987, with the announcement of his resignation as MPP, Mr. Van Horne received a standing ovation from all sides in the Legislature and a spontaneous flood of tributes. I’d like to share some of the words that were recorded in Hansard at the time.

NDP leader Bob Rae said, “When I came here we were on the same side and I can say that he very quickly, as one does in the atmosphere of the House, made a point of coming over and chatting and talking about politics, quite apart from partisanship, and about family....

“When the government changed and the member became a minister, I took the earliest opportunity to share some concerns I had had ... in terms of care for the elderly. I want to say to the member that I know we all felt he was working with great distinction to talk about and to raise issues within cabinet, within his caucus and within the House that are of great importance to the people of the province.”

PC leader Andy Brandt said, “We deeply appreciate the collegiality, the friendship and the contribution he has made to this House, to the people of Ontario and also to the people of his riding.”

Throughout his career, Ron Van Horne was dedicated to supporting his students, serving his constituents and advancing the public good, which he always did with passion and conviction. As a fellow Londoner, it is an honour for me to pay tribute to his legacy.

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

Ms. Deborah Matthews: It is an honour, indeed, for me to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party. I want to say a big welcome and thank you to so many of his family members who are here today. All six children are here, and many of his 19 grandchildren. I don’t think any of the great-grandchildren are here; he had four when he passed away and a fifth has arrived since then. It’s a beautiful, big family, and family was everything to Ron Van Horne.

Many of his kids, in fact, played a big role in his campaigns. When you took on Ron Van Horne, you took on the entire family. He had a ready-made and formidable team. The family was a big part of his political success.

Of course, you can’t think about Ron Van Horne without thinking about his beloved Mary Jane. They celebrated 60 years of marriage last year. Mary Jane passed away within weeks of Ron’s passing. It was truly a beautiful love story. They were partners in everything. She was a great support to Ron, but she never missed a thing. She knew exactly what was going on. She didn’t take—I’m going to edit this comment. She didn’t take malarkey from anyone. She was a very strong person, and as I say, you can’t talk about Ron without talking about Ron and Mary Jane.

I had the opportunity, as I was preparing for these remarks, to speak to some friends, and one of the people I spoke to was a long-time constituency office staffer of Ron. I think nobody knows us better than our constituency office staff, so I spoke to Carole Echlin, who said that Ron was absolutely beloved by his staff. He was passionate, but he was also calm. As things in a campaign situation got more chaotic, Ron got calmer. He had a big, big heart. He was a very special man. Carol told me that she still runs into people, all these years later, who have something to say about how Ron helped them out, whether it was as a constituent or as a teacher.

When people think about Ron, I think there are three words or phrases that come up over and over again. The first is “family.” Family was first for Ron. Carol said when he had decisions to make about what events to attend, if his kids had something on, they came first. I think we can all learn from that.

The other value is “community service.” Ron was absolutely committed to community service. He learned that from his parents and he passed that on to his own kids—and I’m sure grandkids and great-grandkids—who really believe in giving back to the community.

The other word that comes up when you talk about Ron is “compassion.” He really, really cared about people and had a particular compassion for students with special needs, which is really where he focused his attention as an educator. But he combined all three in everything he did: family, community service and compassion.

We’ve heard about his teaching career. I looked online at the obituaries to see some comments that had come in, and there were several from students that he would have taught decades ago. I’m going to just take the liberty of reading one of the comments. A student said, “What I remember is how sympathetic he was to me, as a new student, and how he recognized my reading and speaking skills.... I don’t remember the books we studied or the essays/tests I wrote. But I do remember him fondly for his generosity, and for his sustenance.” That was the kind of teacher that Ron was.

As we’ve heard, his public service extended far beyond being here as an MPP. He was on the PUC, and he was on the PUC when the pipeline from Lake Huron to London was built.

In 1975, he was asked by Pierre Trudeau to run federally, but Mary Jane said she would kill him if he said yes, because they had six little kids at home.

But by 1977, he was so mad at what was happening to his beloved education system that he decided to run provincially. He ran under interesting circumstances, because in 1975, the people of London North elected a Liberal to come to Queen’s Park. That particular Liberal decided he would be more comfortable as a Tory, and so he crossed the floor and ran as a Conservative candidate in 1977. That did not work out too well for him. He got trounced by Ron.

Election after election, Ron just increased his share of the vote in a way that I think we can all envy. In his last campaign, he got 58% of the vote in what many of us would consider a three-way race.

Now, on election night in 1977—as I’ve said, the person he beat had run as a Liberal in the previous election, so there was a certain special kind of emotion that night. I hope you don’t mind, Ron, that I’m going to tell this story. Election night, the results were in, Ron had won, and it came time for that awful concession event. The previous member had wanted to concede in the parking lot. Mary Jane’s response to that: “You tell that ‘bleep’-head to get the ‘bleep’ in here and concede like a man.” So that tells you something about how straightforward she was and how strong she was.

There are many, many, many stories about Ron. He was truly beloved in London. I want to say a big thank you to his family; he couldn’t have done it without you. You all carry part of Ron in you, and we all are better for having had him here. When I think of Ron Van Horne and when we think of Ron Van Horne, let’s just think about family, let’s think about community service and let’s think about compassion.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am eternally grateful that the member did use the bleeps. It would have been a very unique circumstance where a tribute had to be called to order to withdraw.

Anyway, to the family: Thank you for the gift of Ron. Thank you so much for understanding that public service is as passionate as anything can be. Your gift to us of Ron is much appreciated. I thank all members for their heartfelt thoughts. We will be providing you with a DVD and a copy of Hansard for these wonderful tributes. Thank you very much.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Last month, this government presented an election document in this Legislature, making promises they have no intention of ever keeping. Now we have the proof. The government’s budget bill, Bill 31, includes nothing, absolutely nothing, that would implement or even start to implement any of their election promises. Nothing to start a child care program, nothing on long-term care, nothing on mental health care, and nothing on drugs and dental for seniors is in the bill. The Premier was writing cheques she knew would bounce.

Speaker, I say through you to the Premier: Will you just admit that your budget is full of election promises that they have no intention whatsoever of keeping?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That is absolutely not true. We absolutely are committed to implementing everything that we brought forward in our budget. The budget bill begins that process, building the capacity in order to implement all of the care initiatives that we have in our budget: child care, more support for home care, investment in hospitals, investment in mental health—all of that will be implemented, beginning with the budget bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Not one of those issues is in the actual budget bill that we’ll be debating this afternoon. But the Premier couldn’t help herself, Speaker. Here’s what she did include in that budget bill: All of the $2 billion of tax increases made it into that budget bill. Schedules 32 and 33 allow the government to implement their $2 billion in tax increases on 1.8 million Ontarians and their families and businesses.

But the Premier has gone a step further. She has left herself a loophole to bring in further taxes after the election is over and before the end of the year. That little clause made it into the budget bill, Speaker. That’s right. Ontario: The Premier is planning to hit you with even more taxes after the election to feed this spending addiction.

Speaker, to the Premier: Will she be honest with Ontario families and admit that there is a loophole to hit them with more taxes after the election?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I completely understand why the Leader of the Opposition would not want to talk about anything that they are thinking about doing, (

a) because there is nothing that they are thinking about doing, and (

b) because the only thing we know is that that party, under Doug Ford, wants to take $10 billion out of services across this province.

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to building on the foundation that has already been constructed in this province. We have full-day kindergarten up and operating. Thousands of children this morning went to full-day kindergarten because of what our government did. In the same vein, we have promised and will deliver free preschool child care.

Children across this province already have free prescription medication with OHIP+. In that vein, we will expand OHIP+ and include seniors.

We’ve built the foundations. We’re going to continue to build them up.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Again, none of those promises are in the budget bill, but there are more tax increases that are in the budget bill. The bill allows the government to hike taxes on small businesses. These tax increases mirror Prime Minister Trudeau’s tax increases, introduced last fall. Some 20,000 businesses in Ontario will now each be paying $2,400 a year more in taxes.

To recap, Speaker: There’s nothing in the bill to implement any of the Premier’s big-ticket, big-spending election promises, but she has included everything to implement the tax increases we first told you about—the ones the Premier will never mention. The government simply can’t be trusted.

Speaker, to the Premier: Why do she and the government believe that votes are for sale in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Speaker, the member opposite is talking about a budget bill that is before us to debate right now, and he’s recognizing that we need to enable some of those activities in order to facilitate the actual budget. The year in spending that has been produced is an outline, and everything that we’re doing going forward is very well outlined.

The member opposite, however, has not indicated one iota of what it is that they’re going to do, what it is that they’re going to cut, and how it is that they’re going to hurt the people of Ontario and our economy.

We’ve outlined it very clearly. We’ve displayed very appropriately what we are about to do, and we’ve put it forward to the future, Mr. Speaker, because we must think forward. You can’t look backwards and you can’t just look at the moment; you’ve got to look at what’s going to happen in the future.

These are not election-cycle decisions; these are long-term decisions that have tremendous impact on families across the province of Ontario. They should know that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, we are in warnings. I’ve made it clear to you that I will listen carefully to the first round of questions, and your indication is that you need someone to warn you. It’s on.

New question.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is again for the Premier. The government’s Bill 31 is full of even more surprises. On page 307, the absolute last page of the budget, in the last line, the government built in another massive loophole for themselves regarding what qualifies for cap-and-trade money. Sure enough, it’s in the bill as well. That made it to the bill, Speaker, in

schedule 3. It will allow the government to provide cap-and-trade funds now for anything it deems “likely to reduce ... greenhouse gas.” They could use that money to literally pay for just about anything they plan on. Not only that, but the government, through the bill, will reassign $366 million of 2015 previous expenses to the cap-and-trade account.

Speaker, to the Premier: Isn’t this exactly why Ontario families don’t trust this government? We need them to scrap the cap-and-trade slush tax.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let’s just be clear. The reality is that not every—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m sure we’re going to get it. Here comes the clarity.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned. The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned. The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned. And I have about three more; I’m waiting for the next move.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We’ve laid out a very clear plan for how we’re going to move forward. Not every part of that plan requires legislative change. The budget lays out the areas where there is a need for legislative change.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that all of the revenue from the cap-and-trade system, which is forcing big polluters to pay for that pollution—all of that money is being reinvested in homes to help people retrofit their homes and in businesses to help them innovate. We believe that reducing pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important part of our job. They do not believe that, Mr. Speaker, but we do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: To the Premier: This government has yet another surprise for Ontario businesses in

schedule 30 of the bill. This will require small businesses to install an electronic cash register, but doesn’t specify which businesses would be impacted. So, Speaker, the legislation would allow ministry inspectors the ability to enter their home to make sure home-run businesses are utilizing these registers, and allow for stiff penalties if they aren’t, of up to $10,000.

Speaker, to the Premier: Why doesn’t she trust small business owners? Why is the Premier continuing to wage a war on small business?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re actually consulting with small businesses on exactly that. But I would ask the member opposite: Does he support putting more than $1 billion into mental health, Mr. Speaker? Does he support having an interdisciplinary approach so that young people can get the mental health supports they need? Does he support putting $822 million into hospitals so people can get health care faster? Does he support the notion that if young moms want to go back to work and they can’t find child care, we should put a system in place so that they can do that? Does he support seniors having free pharmacare?

If he does, he might want to speak to his leader, because $10 billion taken out of all of the services that are delivered in this province not only will not allow him to support those things, but there will be teachers, there will be nurses and there will be public servants across this province who deliver those services who will no longer have jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Todd Smith: They can’t be bought this time.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Sadly, none of the promises the Premier is speaking about are in the bill, Speaker. It’s clear the government’s budget and legislation is all about serving the Liberals’ self-interests, not the interests of families or businesses—big talk, election promises, but nothing to implement them. All aspirational, nothing operational.

The Premier wrote many cheques in the budget, Speaker, but the bill is proof she knows those cheques would have bounced—loopholes to allow the government to increase taxes by $2 billion on Ontario families and businesses and loopholes to allow them to continue to pad the pockets of insiders with their cap-and-trade slush fund. It’s clear this is all about trying to fool the people of Ontario just before an election.

Speaker, to the Premier: The party with the taxpayers’ money is over. Our message to the people of Ontario: Help is on the way.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the woman who came up to me when I was standing on the bridge in Pickering at the GO station and said, “Please, please make sure that you get that child care in place”—she’s actually not interested in a slogan. She’s actually not interested in a faulty analysis of a piece of legislation that—the budget bill, Mr. Speaker, lays out the aspects of the budget plan that need legislative change. There is a difference between policy and legislation, and I’m sure that the member opposite knows that.

He’s been handed a piece of paper with a series of slogans on it, slogans that are not going to help one child get child care, not going to help one senior get more home care, not going to help one teenager get mental health support. Those slogans are not going to cut it. We need to make sure that we put the supports in place that people are looking for, and what he is talking about is cutting across government. That will not serve the people of this province.

Interjections.

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

Dental care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Everyone in Ontario deserves to be able to see a dentist to stay healthy and fill prescriptions when they need them. The Premier has a plan that leaves people without the prescription drug coverage that they need and leaves them without the dental care that they need. I have a plan to provide dental and drug coverage to every Ontarian. Why doesn’t the Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will say again to the leader of the third party, I do not disagree with her that we need to have more support for dental care in this province and in this country, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it’s very important.

The reality is that we have put in place supports. We know that there is more that has to be done. We are expanding OHIP+. Right now, kids are getting pharmacare free up until their 25th birthday. We’re expanding that to seniors. We’re putting a new dental program in place that will be $700 a year for a family of four that can be applied to dental costs.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that we need to have more nationally. We will continue to work with Ministers of Health and with Premiers across the country and to work with the Prime Minister and the federal government to see if we can move towards that. But in the interim, Ontario is moving forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, Debbie is from London and she’s self-employed. She hasn’t gone to the dentist in 10 years. She told me, “When something finally went really wrong a year and a half ago, and I had to go, it cost nearly $2,000.” Under the Premier’s plan, Debbie would be left shouldering $1,700 in costs. The Premier called her campaign budget A Plan for Care and Opportunity. She had the opportunity to show she cared for people like Debbie. Why didn’t she take it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do care for people like Debbie. I do care for people who are looking for support. I think it is a very, very serious problem.

There are a number of challenges that people are facing right now. Dental care is one of them, which is why we have put the dental plan in place. As I said, I know that there is more that needs to be done on that front. But there are other people who are looking for support, too. There are families who are looking for support for their beloved elderly parent or grandparent. We need to make sure that we put more home care and more support in place for those people. There are families who are looking for support for one of their members who has a mental health challenge.

We need to make sure that we put that support in place, too, Mr. Speaker. There are young families who are looking for child care who can’t find it. We need to make sure that support is in place, too.

I understand that the leader of the third party is very focused on this issue, as am I. It is a very serious issue. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a whole package of issues that people are looking at.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After 15 years in government, this Premier thinks that she can tell the people of this province she’s suddenly the Care Bear of Ontario? Give me a break. Fifteen years, Speaker; where was she for 15 years?

Amanda lives in London and she works with start-ups—

Interjections.

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

Leader.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Amanda said this: “If people had guaranteed dental coverage for them and for their kids, and they knew it would come with them on that entrepreneurial journey, that would remove a lot of the stress of starting a business. It would be a game-changer.”

Instead, the Premier’s budget allows for a $300 rebate to cover a parent’s drug and dental together, and 50 bucks for children. Guaranteed dental coverage would actually be a game-changer, Speaker, helping people to start their new businesses, for example.

After 15 years, the Premier had a chance to show that she cared. Why didn’t she take that opportunity?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party, but I would just ask her to look at the things that have been done in this province over the last number of years. We have been working for a number of years on this particular issue, expanding the Healthy Smiles program. This is not a new issue for us. It may be a new issue for the leader of the third party, but it’s not a new issue for us. We’ve been working on this for years. So it’s great that the leader of the third party is now advocating for a dental program, but we’ve been working to put in place the support. We’ve been working with dentists to expand that program.

Likewise the issues that are confronting us: I’m only in provincial politics because of the mess that was left after the last Conservative government. I got involved in politics because our education system, our health care system and the relationship between the province and the municipalities were in tatters. That’s why I’m involved. I cared enough then, and I care enough now.

Interjections.

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

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier.

I can tell you this: I have paid attention to the fact that the Liberals sold off Hydro One during their terms in office, that they brought hallway medicine to the province of Ontario, that they had a gas plant scandal where today someone got sentenced to four months in jail for deleting emails on behalf of Liberals. That’s what I’ve been paying attention to.

But you know what? The Premier has an issue here in this province in terms of her track record, and I want to ask her, straight up: Does she acknowledge that she has brought hallway medicine to the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I will acknowledge is that every single year since I’ve been the Premier and before, we have increased the budget for health care in this province. We have increased hospital budgets. We have increased home care budgets.

The reality is that the health care system in Ontario is undergoing, and has undergone, a significant transformation. The demographics in this province are changing. We just heard in the tribute to Mr. Van Horne the issues around the changing demographics that he foresaw and that we are now dealing with.

The reality is that there are more people receiving care in their homes because that’s where they want to be. And so, over the last number of years, we have increased the funding to that home care. We recognize that there needs to be increased funding on that, increased funding for long-term care and increased funding for hospitals. But, Mr. Speaker, every year we have put more money in the budget for health care in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has not ever actually addressed, here in this Legislature, that Ontario’s hospitals are significantly overcrowded or that we are actually in a hallway medicine crisis. Does this Premier deny that there’s a hallway medicine crisis here in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact that we put $500 million more new dollars into the budget for hospitals last year and $822 million this year I think is a clear acknowledgement that there is a serious challenge hospitals are facing that we need to deal with in order to help people get faster health care when they get into hospital.

But it is not a simplistic issue. The reality is that there are people who are in acute beds right now who need to be in other places, and so, along with putting that money into hospitals, we’re creating those other places. We’re creating transitions. We’re creating a continuum of care that will allow people to get the care that they need, where they need it.

I know that the leader of the third party doesn’t want to acknowledge that there’s a complexity to this at all, but there is. People need different care at different times in their lives, and we are working to make sure that they get the right care where and when they need it.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You’d think after 15 years, they would have figured out the complexity and started fixing the system instead of making it worse, which is what they’ve done.

Cutting hospital budgets has left us in a crisis in hospital care that leaves people in hallways every single day in our province. It is unacceptable and it is because of the behaviour of this Premier and her determination to cut those hospitals back as much as she possibly could. It is very cynical that right before an election, she’s suddenly talking about more funding for hospitals. That’s what makes people very cynical about the motives of this Premier and her government.

Look, sometimes you actually do have to make an admission that there’s a problem before you can start to solve it. There is an overcrowding crisis in Ontario’s hospitals. As Premier, I will solve it. Will the Premier tell Ontarians why she didn’t care that she allowed things to get this bad?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just think we have to ask, why would the Premier of the province of Ontario want to create a health care crisis in hospitals? Why would I want to do that?

Now, I know that to paraphrase—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to remind some members that they’re already warned, in case you forgot. The next move is the naming. Others who normally don’t are getting in that kind of area.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There was a former education minister in this province who said creating a crisis was the way to go, but as I said earlier, I got involved in politics because that’s exactly not what I believe. So why would I, who got involved in politics because I believe that government exists to do—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex is warned and the leader of the third party is warned.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Treasury Board president is warned. As soon as you get a warning, if you say something else, you can get named.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government exists to do things people can’t do by themselves, and health care is the finest example of an expression of our value that we care for one another in this province.

I have worked with my colleagues and with the health care sector to do everything in my power to make sure that people get the care that they need. That is the responsibility of the Premier of Ontario, and I take my responsibility very, very seriously.

Government fiscal policies

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is to the Premier. On March 1, thanks to this Liberal government, the basic tax on a case of beer went up for consumers, and there is a further 26% tax hike planned for November. Meanwhile, the federal Liberals have brought in an excise tax on beer that will go up every single year. After those new taxes are applied, beer drinkers will pay HST on top of it all, paying more tax on tax. At the end of the day, 47% of what the people in this province pay for their beer goes directly to the government—47%.

Why should consumers pay for this government’s wasteful spending?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The 2018 budget did not include any changes to beer taxes. There’s an annual indexation of the tax rate based on CPI. It’s baked into the legislation and it takes effect March 1 every year, but this would already have happened in the prior budgets.

As announced in the 2015 budget, the price of beer will increase by 3 cents per litre on November 1 of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. This amounts to about one cent per bottle. This increase has taken place every November since 2015, and the final increase will take place on November 1, 2018.

The price of beer is expected to remain below the Canadian average.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: While this government is making the people of this province pay more for their beer, they’re also using their hard-earned tax dollars for corporate subsidies to beer companies. In fact, just last week this government announced a $1.3-million grant to a Toronto brewery. The Liberals are running up the bill for beer and leaving it all on the taxpayers’ tab.

First they raid our wallets for consumption taxes and then they come back for more to fund corporate welfare. It’s enough to drive people to drink.

Can the Premier explain the logic behind handing out subsidies to an industry with one policy while driving up their costs with another?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We just introduced expansion of beer and wine in grocery stores. We are now providing 20% shelf space for craft beer and microbrew. We announced just earlier this week revisions to reduce their overall tax rate to enable them to have more success, to invest in their product and grow their companies. I don’t see that as corporate welfare; I see that as being a partner to enable those very companies, those small businesses that they seem to care about, to grow and invest and provide them more opportunity. That’s what we’ve done and that’s why we’re enabling them to provide for more jobs.

I’m pleased to say that our craft brew and our small business in the province of Ontario are outperforming every other brewery in North America because of the provisions and the enablement that we’ve put in place.

We’re helping small businesses, we’re helping our microbrewers and craft beer, and we did not increase taxes.

Dental care

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Since 2016, my staff in Windsor have been working with a woman named Julie who battled severe oral cancer. Julie has already undergone a number of medical procedures since she lost a significant part of her lower jaw, but for years Julie has also required surgery for permanent dentures. Without this dental procedure she is only able to consume liquids, and her ability to speak is impaired. This is a significant health issue which seriously impacts Julie’s quality of life, but this procedure is not covered by OHIP or any government program, and the Ministry of Health has failed to offer any concrete solutions for Julie.

What does the Premier have to say to Julie? Will she acknowledge that her Liberal government has failed Julie?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Certainly the case as described by the member opposite sounds like something that needs further investigation. I am now the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and I certainly welcome hearing more about this case. I’m all about concrete solutions. I think my track record shows that.

In this particular case, I would just simply urge the member to approach me with the details of this particular case. I assure the member that I will look further into the specific information, assuming that we have the patient’s consent to do so.

In a more general sense, of course, on this side of the House we care deeply about oral health care. We know it’s an essential part of our health care, and I welcome hearing more about this specific case.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Actually, my staff has been working directly with the Ministry of Health since May 2016, and I handed the file myself to the Minister of Health in May 2017, so if you’re not familiar with the file, perhaps you should look it up and follow up with it.

The promised Liberal dental refund would only provide up to $400 in coverage for a single person’s dental and drug costs and it will only come after people have paid out of pocket—paid up front.

Julie is already struggling to keep up with the costs of her medication, so there’s no way that Julie would be able to get the dentures she needs with the Premier’s inadequate refund.

This Liberal government has had 15 years to create a comprehensive dental care plan, and they chose not to. They have left people like Julie behind. Why does this Liberal government think it’s acceptable to force Julie and others like her to choose between their medication and the dental care they need?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we’re taking the burden of health care costs, including dental care, away from families, and we’re doing this in a historic way at a historic pace. That’s exactly what we’ve done with our new dental program; $700 per year per family of dental costs are now covered.

I know the NDP are trying to obscure our historic investment by saying that we’re just giving $50 per child, but that just simply isn’t true. This is a lump sum for a family of four of $700, and it’s going to make a real difference in people’s lives. It’s going to cover some four exams for a low- or middle-income family without coverage, with enough left over to pay for fillings or additional cleaning if needed. It’s going to ensure those children know the value of growing up with good oral care and that, years down the road, they will have the confidence of good oral health.

Youth services

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services and head of the Anti-Racism Directorate, the Honourable Michael Coteau. Racism and discrimination against any community in Ontario is unwelcome, and that should apply to any candidates who aspire to serve in this Legislature. Solutions deserve more than bumper-sticker pictures and jet skis. Speaker, I’d like to thank the minister for attending a function in Etobicoke, an anti-gun violence forum put on by the Somali community of Etobicoke.

One year ago, our government introduced the Ontario Black Youth Action Plan, an investment of $47 million for the next several years. Of course, this focused on the well-being and success of black children and youth, collaborating with black community organizations that are already doing commendable work across communities across Ontario.

Speaker, my question is this: Minister, can you provide to this House an update on the Ontario Black Youth Action Plan?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke North for his advocacy on this issue. I’ve been in the Legislature for six and a half years and I’ve constantly worked with him on issues, and I want to thank him for being part of the Somali Canadian youth forum this weekend. Thank you very much for your advocacy and your work.

I am so proud, Mr. Speaker, of the work that’s being done by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, specifically around the implementation of the Black Youth Action Plan. These are dedicated public servants who took a concept over a year ago and implemented this brand new plan. In just one year, we have over 70 organizations that are receiving money from this government specifically to work with black youth across the province of Ontario, and 50 of those organizations have never had relationships with the provincial government before. These programs are focused on mentorship, prevention, higher education, career development, community outreach and collaboration.

In the supplementary I’ll talk about some of the specifics of those programs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister, not only for your answer and your commitment to the serious issue of anti-racism, but also for moving beyond slogans and decorative labels from elevator pitchmen who decide selectively to show up in front of the press.

Speaker, this is a sign of care and not cuts. There are 50 programs under way right now, and I appreciate the integrated approach with school boards from K to 12, children’s aid, and the youth justice and correctional services. These programs are having a direct, felt and lived-experience impact on the ground in Etobicoke, the GTHA, Ottawa and in Windsor.

In particular, for example, in Etobicoke, the information technology programs are particularly well received by the youth. These investments take a targeted community-based approach to increased access to culturally focused supports and opportunities for children, youth and families to address a number of different disparities.

Minister, can you share with this House how these programs will support black children and youth to provide an opportunity to grow, learn and succeed in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Michael Coteau: So far, we’ve launched the Together We Can youth mentorship initiative. This funds 25 programs right across this province, and they’re developed by local organizations to meet local needs. We’ve also funded five new industry-led job training, internship and placement initiatives. The goal is to help youth kick-start their careers while increasing black representation in some of our province’s best-paid and fastest-growing sectors, like software development, computer animation and digital media.

Of course, we know that parents, caregivers and families play a vital role in supporting children and youth. That’s why we are funding 10 innovative projects that support black parents, including an app that helps new mothers track their routines and connects them with pre- and post-natal support.

Another project will help young fathers find places and coordinate places for them to meet that they’re comfortable in, to provide mentorship and provide them with the skills necessary to better raise their children.

Consumer protection

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Minister of Government and Consumer Services: Firstly, I’d like to thank the minister for her years of service to her constituents and wish her well after June 7.

Applause.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Speaker, the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services oversees the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. We learned this morning on the CBC that this agency actually has a policy of not keeping records of certain safety inspections. This is unacceptable. The fact that such a policy exists is indicative of just how the TSSA thinks itself above the norms of accountability and integrity. What is it that this government is trying to help the TSSA hide?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: First, I want to thank the member for his kind words—very appreciative. Thank you very much, and thank you for the question, too.

I saw the story as well. As the member knows, the TSSA is responsible for administering and enforcing standards in different sectors, whether it’s fuels, boiler and pressure vessels, and operating engineers, elevating devices, amusement devices, upholstered and stuffed articles, and so on. They are often the first responders in cases when the fire marshal is called in on investigations of public safety, which is at the core of their mandate.

In terms of residential record-keeping, which I believe the member is referring to, the TSSA has advised my ministry that they’ve enhanced their documentation process. Since January of this year, all residential inspections now include a record of inspection. I’ll be glad to answer more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Back to the minister: When Justice Cunningham laid bare the unacceptable situation with Tarion, which had been known to consumers and stakeholders for years, the minister appeared genuinely contrite and stated that the agency had drifted too far from government.

Speaker, the TSSA is no different. For 15 years, the government refused to provide a clear direction towards integrity, accountability and transparency. What was supposed to remain at arm’s length, within the grasp of the government if the need arose, appears to now have moved to another planet. Information that should be disclosed to residents is claimed not to exist. But when the ministry came calling, poof, out of thin air the information suddenly appeared in their mailboxes. Will this ministry finally bring some shred of accountability and integrity to the TSSA and stand up for the residents of Ontario?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Again, thank you for the question. The member knows full well, as my critic, that the TS