Journal des débats 2019-juin-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters / Projet de loi 107, Loi modifiant le Code de la route et diverses autres lois à l’égard de questions relatives au transport.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? Further debate?

Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 15, 2019, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Yurek has moved third reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Third reading vote deferred.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Orders of the day.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: No further business, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There being no further business this morning, this House stands in recess until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 0904 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I invite the members to introduce their guests, I wish to introduce special guests who are in the Speaker’s gallery this morning: a former member of the Ontario Legislature, the member for Mississauga West in the 36th Parliament and the member for Mississauga Centre in the 37th Parliament, Rob Sampson, who is now a councillor for the Town of the Blue Mountains. He’s joined by Mayor Alar Soever and CAO Shawn Everitt. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature. We’re delighted to have you here.

The member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. With your indulgence, I have four very special friends to introduce to you today: in the Speaker’s gallery, the love of my life, Gale Simko-Hatfield, married almost 44 years. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Our friend John Luttrell is visiting from Florida. John, welcome to Ontario’s provincial Parliament. My son, Andrew, is here today. Andrew, welcome to Queen’s Park. Andrew’s buddy Mark Oleynik, a family friend and a former corporal in the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry—Mark did two tours for Canada in Afghanistan. He was there on his second tour when his cousin Corporal Andrew Grenon of Windsor paid the supreme sacrifice. Mark, welcome to Ontario’s Parliament, and thank you for your service.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I’m pleased to welcome to-day’s page captain Hillary Brown, who lives in my great riding of Pickering–Uxbridge, and I would also like to introduce her family: her mother, Beth Yarzab; her father, Patrick Brown; and her grandmother Nancy Sutton.

I’d like to thank Hillary for her service to the Legislature. This is a proud moment for her family, and I want to thank them for joining us here in the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I’m honoured to have the students from Lamberton Public School and Crawford Seventh-day Adventist Academy, who will joining us at Queen’s Park later in the day. They’re part of a monthly series of school visits put on by Inspiring and Empowering Youth Network and the youth-focused Canadian Black Caucus, led by Gwyn Chapman. Thank you so much for organizing, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

M^me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I’d like to introduce Ty Greenburg who is in the members’ gallery. He is from North York and is a student at Georgetown University who has been volunteering for the Liberal Party. He’s heading up to Haliburton to be a summer camp counsellor shortly. Welcome, Ty.

Hon. Todd Smith: I have an important announcement to make. I rise to welcome the Consul-General of Japan, Ms. Takako Ito, and the Deputy Consul-General as well, Mr. Ominato Satoshi, to the House. We look forward to the reception with the Japanese community and business leaders tonight, and wish to acknowledge here and tonight the tremendous contributions made by Japanese Canadians and the people of Japan to Ontario. Thank you.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome back to the Legislature once again autism parents and advocates Amy Moledzki, Faith Munoz, Jeremy Changoo, who is Faith’s son, Tangerine Stanley, Stephanie Ridley, Amanda Mooyer, Bruce McIntosh, Michau van Speyk and Angela Brandt. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I have three very special guests here with me today in the members’ gallery. I have my uncle Jim Larocque; my mother, Janine Roberts; and my grandfather Wilbert Larocque.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s a real honour to welcome two members of my youth council who are here at Queen’s Park today, Jananey Rajagopalan and Alexandra Elmslie, who are in the members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Glover: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to welcome to the House today Jack and Theresa Van Fraassen from your own riding, and Rebecca Van Fraassen, who is an OCAD student in my riding. Rebecca has SMA, which is a degenerative disease. Their family raised almost $2 million in order to do research to create a drug that would actually arrest the degeneration. This drug is now available, but unfortunately this family can’t access it because it costs half a million dollars a year. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, they would like to meet with the Minister of Health at the end of question period. They will be in the hallway just outside of the Legislature. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I too would like to welcome the Van Fraassen family to the Legislature today. Thank you for coming.

Hon. Bill Walker: I would like to introduce Mayor Alar Soever and Councillor Rob Sampson from the Town of Blue Mountains. I look forward to meeting with them in my ministry later today.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’d like to introduce Lee Tenenhouse from Kensington-Bellwoods Community Legal Services, Katie Remington from the Grey-Bruce Community Legal Clinic, and Daniel Smith from Downtown Legal Services. Thank you for coming, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Will Bouma: It’s my great pleasure to welcome to the House today my friend and mentor Karen George and her husband, Erle, and also students from Pauline Johnson Collegiate.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I would just like to also say welcome to Queen’s Park to Rebecca and your family. As the culture critic, I am absolutely blown away by the work that OCAD students create every single day. Thank you for your art.

Mr. Billy Pang: I would like to introduce my staff, Boyun Leung and Summer Hou, who are here in the Legislature and sitting in the members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I’d also like to welcome a member of my staff, Robyn Yakiwchuk, who is here in the members’ gallery.

Mr. Roman Baber: I’m delighted to welcome, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Sophie Helpard, and a campaign volunteer of mine, Jessie Muller.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome my good friend Gwyn Chapman, who is here with her very good friend Carol Shirtliff, from Shirtliff Hinds Law in Newmarket. They’re here with the Canadian Black Caucus, inspiring the next generation of young people to get involved civically.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d just like to welcome anybody that we left out.

1040

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to welcome, from my constituency office of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Vicki Welton. Also, Vicki’s son is Cody Welton, who is our executive director of issues management. Thank you, Mr. Speaker—a big welcome.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I’d like to welcome Chris Poulos. He was my first staff as I serve here. He’d gone back to school during the summertime and is now an intern again at Queen’s Park. Welcome, Chris.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to wear the pins for ALS Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and Deputy Premier is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear pins in recognition of ALS Awareness Month. Agreed? Agreed.

World Eating Disorders Action Day

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s has a point of order.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I believe we have unanimous consent for a moment of silence and also a UC agreement to wear ribbons—a moment of silence to acknowledge the millions of people who have died from eating disorders, eating problems and the consequences of body-based and appearance-based discrimination worldwide.

June 2 was World Eating Disorders Action Day. Over 45 countries across the globe, including ours, and over 200 organizations participated last Sunday.

In Canada alone, one million people are struggling with episodic and chronic EDs. Almost half live in Ontario. Each year, about 1,500 Canadians die from—

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

The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s, I believe, is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear purple, as well as have a moment’s silence in memory of the people who have been affected by eating disorders. Agreed? Agreed.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for London North Centre wanted to raise a point of order.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’m seeking unanimous consent to wear rainbow ribbons to show LGBTQ+ Ontarians that we stand with them during Pride month and every month.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London North Centre is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear rainbow ribbons. Agreed? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Beverage alcohol sales

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Finance, someone we are hoping is willing to answer the questions the people of Ontario are asking.

Yesterday, the president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce wrote to the minister concerning the government’s proposal to rip up the contract with the Beer Store. In his words, “breaking a legitimate contract is a short-sighted approach.”

Does the minister agree, or would he now characterize chamber of commerce members as “beer insiders”?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Nowhere else in the world does a government give the biggest beer companies special privileges at the expense of consumers and at the expense of the industry. The three global beer giants are for profits, not for the people. Most people in the province of Ontario do not know—and I’ll tell you, when I was first elected as an MPP, I did not know—that the Beer Store is not owned by the government. Well, it’s not owned by the government; it is owned by three global beer giants, who got a sweetheart deal from the Liberal government. The Liberal government put profits ahead of people, Speaker. The result is a lucrative deal for the Beer Store and their insiders.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Rocco Rossi isn’t just the president and CEO of the chamber of commerce; he’s also a former PC candidate who the minister has enthusiastically quoted in this Legislature. He has now joined the chorus of concerned citizens telling the government that the hundreds of millions of dollars they plan to spend on their Beer Store scheme could be better invested in true services for the people of Ontario.

Will the minister reconsider these reckless plans?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We campaigned on a promise to put the people first, including by growing jobs, expanding choice and expanding convenience for the people of Ontario.

Our government is open for business and open for jobs. Since coming into office, over 170,000 net new jobs have been created across the province. And just last week, Fitch bond rating agency gave us an upgrade, the first they’ve done in eight years. Speaker, that came after—after—we launched our legislation to bring choice and convenience to the people.

The Beer Store knows that a government need not continue legislation from a previous government or continue with bad Liberal deals. Special adviser Ken Hughes says the agreement “stifles competition, keeps prices artificially high, and prevents new craft beer entrepreneurs from getting a strong foothold in the market.” That’s what the NDP want to see, Speaker.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: The Ford government started attacking people they believed to be their enemies. Now they’re alienating their friends, not to mention the millions of Ontario families who want to see a government focus on better classrooms and ending hallway medicine.

Instead, we have a government that’s cutting those things while they tweet about plans to potentially blow hundreds of millions of dollars because they’re breaking contracts. What kind of government claims to understand business and breaks contracts with companies? The Ontario business community is clear: “Breaking a legitimate contract is a short-sighted approach.” Will the government come to their senses and realize this, and cancel that plan today?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Again, nowhere else in the world does a government give the biggest beer companies special privileges at the expense of consumers and the rest of the industry. The three global beer giants are for profits, not for the people. You have to ask yourself, Speaker, why these multinational companies are so opposed to having the government help them sell more of their products in many stores. It’s because of the lucrative deal, the sweetheart deal, they received from the previous Liberal government.

They’re ignoring the economic opportunity that’s before us: 9,100 new jobs will be created and $3.5 billion added to our economy.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce should join us in supporting small businesses, supporting consumers and supporting our local brewers.

Health care funding

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Minister of Health. It seems the Premier is unwilling or unable to answer questions about this government’s health care spending cuts, so I’ll ask the minister directly.

Yesterday, the minister dismissed a report from the Financial Accountability Office, detailing the Ford government’s health care cuts as “accounting differences.” Among the FAO’s findings was that the government’s budget would reduce health care spending by $2.7 billion, Speaker. Can the minister provide details of what will be cut?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, what we are doing is increasing our health care spending. We’re spending $1.3 billion more on health care in the province of Ontario. We’re adding 174 million new dollars to mental health and addictions funding. We’re providing a new program of $90 million for our dental programs for low-income seniors. We’ve provided $384 million in operational funding increases for hospitals. We are on the increase and we’re modernizing our system, transforming our system in the process of it.

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

1050

Ms. Sara Singh: In the report, the FAO is clear: “The FAO cannot disclose the $2.7-billion reduction in planned spending from the 2018 budget plan to the 2019 budget plan by program area, as the province has deemed this information to be a cabinet record.” In other words, the Ford government is making deep cuts, but they won’t tell us exactly what they’re cutting.

In my community of Brampton, our hospital has been struggling at overcapacity for decades now, with patients routinely being treated in hallways. Those patients want to know: Where is this government planning to find $2.7 billion in health care spending cuts?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are increasing spending, as I indicated before, by $1.3 billion across the province. We are making changes. We are modernizing our system. We want to make sure that our system becomes patient-focused, that people can achieve connected services when they go for health care services. We are going through the spending right now.

I just started this morning in the estimates committee. You’re welcome to come by and listen to some of the explanations we are going through, with specific questions from the official opposition about spending.

Spending is increasing, not decreasing, in health care.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, the Minister of Health must know that this government is on the wrong track. As Patient Ombudsman, she heard from patients waiting in hallways and nurses worried about the care that patients are receiving. She knows that $2.7 billion in health care cuts will have a devastating impact here in this province, but instead of standing up for patients, she’s tweeting photos of herself being at convenience stores and promoting the Premier’s billion-dollar beer boondoggle.

Why is the minister refusing to disclose the details of the $2.7-billion health care cuts?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, it’s very clear to the people in the committee and to the people of Ontario where the money is being spent. I am in estimates right now. I will be there for another six hours. If you have any questions, please come by and ask. The members of your party are asking me questions about money that’s being spent. It’s very clear that it is an increase in spending—

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Which you voted against.

Hon. Christine Elliott: —which you voted against. We are increasing spending and making our care services more connected for patients.

I can certainly say to you that, as Patient Ombudsman, what I did hear about on a daily basis was how disconnected people felt from their services. They felt that once they were discharged from hospital, they were left to their own devices. They had to find their own supports and services. Home care and long-term care were not connected.

We are going to connect patients to the services they need throughout their health care journey.

Violence against Indigenous women and girls

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Mr. Speaker.

Remarks in Oji-Cree.

My question this morning is for the minister responsible for women’s issues.

The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls commission, released yesterday, made 231 calls for justice. We thank the families for coming forward and sharing their truth-telling stories to improve the lives of Indigenous women and girls.

Previous reports and commissions have made over 1,200 recommendations to all levels of government to address the issue of violence against Indigenous women and girls. How many of these recommendations has Ontario fully implemented?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to thank my colleague for raising this very important issue in the Legislature today.

One of the most emotional periods of my life, I think, in public office was sitting there yesterday as we accepted the report. I was pleased to be the only government representative there who actually walked to accept the recommendations with Ontario Regional Chief RoseAnne Archibald. It was very meaningful for me.

We’re working on a number of those recommendations. We’re going to continue to work with our federal government counterparts with respect to Bill C-92 and Jordan’s Principle.

We’re going to continue to ensure that we have a strong Indigenous-led voice within the ministry of children and youth, community and social services with respect to women’s issues, as well.

I look forward to working with the member opposite as he brings forward these very important issues.

I will say this to those who may not have seen it: Standing there yesterday to watch the grandmother of Tina Fontaine, a young girl who was 15 years old when she was murdered in Manitoba—it was probably one of the most poignant things I have ever seen.

That is why this government, under Premier Ford, is committed to ensuring that we support our Indigenous sisters.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary question.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I want to thank the member for her answer. But we have to understand that things have been this way for generations and generations, and now people live it on a daily basis.

It’s not enough to accept a report from the inquiry and say the government will listen. Indigenous people expect action and systemic change. Changes such as cutting the Indigenous cultural fund, making mandatory Indigenous culture curriculum an elective and cutting the child advocate are not acts of positive systemic change. These cuts impact Indigenous safety and the future of our people.

Will the government commit to reversing these cuts as the first step in responding to the recommendations from yesterday, and also provide funding for prevention programs to counter violence against Indigenous women and girls and provide support programs for those left behind?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the members to please take their seats. The minister to reply.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much. I appreciate the question. There are only a few times in this Confederation when there are certain Parliaments that sit where you witness a momentous occasion such as the one I was fortunate to see yesterday, as we talked about the missing and murdered Indigenous women, as well as those from the LGBTQ+ community.

Let me answer the member opposite this way: We are going to be embedding an advocate for children and youth within the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, with responsibilities for children and women.

We have a number of Indigenous-led children’s aid societies in the province of Ontario, one of which I just signed off on a few weeks ago. We’re going to continue to collaborate with our Indigenous-led child welfare systems across the province, and I hope to grow them. I think that we have an opportunity there. I think we have an opportunity to work with the federal government on Bill C-92, so long as they don’t reduce our standards.

Finally, we have an Indigenous-led child welfare round table that will be created in the coming weeks. I’m very excited about this, and I’ll be making an announcement shortly.

With respect to poverty reduction, we’re taking social assistance reforms very seriously. That is why we are consulting our First Nations.

Speaker, this is an important issue that every member of this assembly and every person in the province of Ontario should be aware of. We must stand with our Indigenous sisters and LGBTQ+ individuals as they confront systemic racism across the province and this country.

Skilled trades

Mr. Toby Barrett: My question is for the Premier. The skilled trades are critical to our economy, yet so many jobs are going unfilled. I’ve heard from employers in my riding who are frustrated by the red tape and stifling regulations that the previous skilled trades framework created, and the lack of action by the previous government to make life easier for those in the trades.

I was so pleased to hear, last week, the Premier and our Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities announce our government’s plan to modernize the trades. Tradespeople in my riding are excited to see a government finally taking the trades seriously.

Can the Premier tell us more about how important this plan is for these people, and how it will help Ontario open for business and open for jobs?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my all-star—and he’s a real all-star—from Haldimand–Norfolk. I was up in his area at a fish fry. I can tell you, the people absolutely love him.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, as well as her parliamentary assistant and the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South and the member for Durham, for joining me at the Darlington Energy Complex. We had a great meeting there last Friday. When we went through there, there were 14 different trades, Mr. Speaker, and all 14 absolutely loved this, loved what we’re doing. Those are the people we support: the front-line, hard-working tradespeople.

Through our budget of 2019, we passed the Modernizing the Skilled Trades and Apprenticeship Act, which will reduce red tape for employers and apprentices, streamline services and delivery, and help promote the tremendous career opportunities that the skilled trades offer. And Mr. Speaker—

1100

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you very much, Premier. It’s great to hear that we’re taking decisive action to improve the skilled trades framework ignored for 15 long years by the previous government. I’m disappointed that the NDP would refuse to support our plan to reduce the burden on tradespeople. It’s clear our government is listening. Our plan will cut red tape, promote careers, and open up Ontario for jobs.

We do know that by 2021, one in five jobs will be in the skilled trades. Yet we also know that so many baby boomers are now retiring. I’m very proud our government recognizes this urgent need to fill the skills gap and open up well-paying, rewarding career pathways for young people.

Can the Premier tell us more about our plan for the skilled trades?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the member for the question again. Through you, Mr. Speaker: The member is absolutely right that our government is taking action to reduce the red tape burden on Ontario’s skilled tradespeople. As part of our plan to put our skilled tradespeople first, our government is investing $18.1 million in pre-apprenticeship programs to help prepare hard-working Ontarians for careers in the skilled trades. We’re also investing $12.2 million to support the Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program to help students in grades 11 and 12. They can experience a skilled trade while getting a credit for school.

By investing in the jobs of today and tomorrow, our government is delivering on our promises to get Ontarians working and make Ontario open for business, open for jobs. It’s a shame that the NDP decided to vote against these measures that would make life easier—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The next question.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Minister of Education, given that the Premier seemed unable to answer it yesterday.

Emily Jenkins is a drama teacher at Parry Sound High School. She grew up in the community and she came back to teach, which is a job she loves. But after 12 years, Emily has received notice that her job is now at risk, thanks to this government’s cuts to education. She told the Parry Sound North Star that her family is already cutting back on groceries, curtailing expenses, and considering all options, including selling their house.

Emily’s story is sadly not unique, especially in her board, where 240 secondary teachers have been declared redundant and only 37 are being brought back.

Is the minister really going to stand here again and claim that her cuts won’t result in job losses?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I have to tell you this: I cannot believe that the member opposite, day in and day out, stands up and perpetuates nonsense. The fact of the matter is, I noted that she very carefully worded her question, because she knows full well that teachers across this province, as happens every year, are in the process of being recalled.

Let’s take a look at this: 82 teachers with the Lambton Kent District School Board who were rumoured to be out of work by next school year—and those rumours are continuing to be perpetuated by the member opposite—guess what? All of them are being recalled in Lambton-Kent. The Toronto Catholic District School Board is very much pleased and announcing through social media that 100% of their high school teachers will have a job in September.

The list goes on and on. I thank the school boards in Ontario that are choosing to work with us, putting—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Believe me, I wish I didn’t have to ask these questions every day, either.

Speaker, this minister will try to blame everyone but herself for these painful cuts. It’s real people and real families who have to deal with the impact.

In Toronto, at least 90 child and youth workers, seven occupational therapists, 10 social workers, 14 speech-language pathologists and four ABA facilitators were let go yesterday.

At a time when we know youth mental health should be a priority, students are going to have to do without in-school supports.

At a time when more students on the autism spectrum will be losing funding and spending more time in our schools, there will be fewer qualified adults to support them.

Speaker, will the minister take an ounce of responsibility for this mess and scrap the cuts in our schools?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I find it very rich, coming from the member opposite. She is a former member of the Toronto District School Board, and she knows full well that the fact of the matter is, this is an exercise that happens year in and year out.

The reality is, we’re investing $700 million or more in education, and that member opposite voted against it. The manner in which they’re continually saying the sky is falling is absolutely preposterous.

Let’s talk about what we’re doing. We’re increasing awareness and exposure to technology and skilled trades, like the Premier referenced earlier. We’re increasing funding for financial literacy. We’re increasing funding for math. We’re increasing funding for special needs. The list goes on and on.

Finally, Ontario has a government that believes in education, and we’re investing—

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

Interjections.

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

The general noise level in the House seems to be increasing during questions and answers, and I would ask the members to please come to order to allow us to have a reasonable question period today.

Start the clock. The next question.

Legal aid

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question is to the Attorney General. Recently, legal aid has seen their budget cut by over 30%, which has been described by many Ontarians as simply cruel. Vulnerable Ontarians rely on access to legal aid and the services that it provides.

In fact, when I was 15 years old, my family relied on legal aid when we were sent an eviction notice. If it wasn’t for the Flemingdon Park legal clinic, my single mother and my two brothers may have ended up on the street.

Minister, these services protect families—yet in response to the blowback on the cuts and the chaos it caused, the Premier has confirmed that he will guarantee anyone in this province legal aid.

I want to know: With these cuts, how will the Attorney General assure that every Ontarian has access to legal aid?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I thank the member opposite for the question.

Ontario has the most comprehensive legal aid system in the entire country. The Ontario government funds legal aid up to the amount of almost $433 million.

I am very pleased that legal aid has been working closely with my ministry to ensure that front-line services will be available to those who need them. Families like your family who needed legal representation were able to go to legal aid, and those services will still be available. We are working very closely with them, and we are very pleased to report that they will be able to do it.

The previous government spent almost $100 million more on legal aid over the last few years, and Ontario taxpayers and the clients who rely on legal aid services did not see an increase in the services, as they should have expected, given that level of increase in financing.

Some lawyers may not welcome renewed accountability at legal aid, but the taxpayers of Ontario and the clients who rely on legal aid will.

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

Mr. Michael Coteau: Not all Ontarians have the ability to go out and just hire a lawyer. Legal aid is about ensuring that the government supports the most vulnerable. It’s about ensuring that all Ontarians have the opportunity to defend themselves in court.

1110

There are rumours out there that the Attorney General plans to import a US-style public defender system here in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, will the Attorney General confirm whether she does in fact plan to move towards this American-style system?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’m not sure where the member opposite is getting his information. I’m working hard on reforming legal aid to ensure that it’s sustainable and providing legal aid services to the most vulnerable in our society, as it has been doing now for a very long time.

Our government’s priority is protecting what matters most: health care and education, and legal representation for those who can’t afford to pay for legal representation themselves. Legal aid is working very closely with my ministry to ensure that the front-line services that people need are there for them when they need them. But we will do it in a sustainable way. We are working closely with clinics, with lawyers who provide legal aid, to ensure that they’re able to provide the work that they have been doing now for some time.

We are able to do that in a sustainable way. Rumours about other systems coming into Ontario to provide legal aid in a different way are unfounded.

Public transit

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Recently, the minister introduced a comprehensive piece of legislation, the Getting Ontario Moving Act. If passed, this legislation will include our proposed measures to cut red tape, save businesses and taxpayers time and money, and help keep Ontario’s roads amongst the safest in North America.

This legislation would also kick-start our government’s plan to build more transit that will connect more people to new opportunities.

In my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, the Premier unveiled our government’s bold and historic vision for transit, a plan for the 21st century, a $28.5-billion transit vision to expand the province’s subway network by 50% and get millions of commuters moving again.

We are making life easier for people and businesses in the province by delivering simpler, faster and better government services. Can the minister update the Legislature on the Getting Ontario Moving Act?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I appreciate the work that the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore has done in the last 11 months—almost 12 months, this Friday. She has been quite an advocate for transit but has been wonderful to work with, and I hopefully will continue working with her.

Mr. Speaker, she’s right. Today, we will vote on third reading of Bill 107, which is a very important piece of legislation. The proposed legislation, if passed, will cut red tape for job creators. It will reduce burdens so that businesses and job creators can get doing what they do best, and that’s creating jobs for the people of this province. Simply put, we want to transform how the MTO interacts with businesses and people across this province.

Despite all the great things that this legislation would do, the NDP keep voting against this piece of legislation. Today, I hope they take a look at themselves, and look at how great this piece of legislation is, and stand up for the interests of Ontarians and vote to support this legislation. This bill is cutting red tape, reducing regulatory burdens in Ontario and—

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you to the Minister of Transportation for that great response. I look forward to the third reading vote today, and I hope, too, the opposition does the right thing and votes to get Ontario moving.

We have a plan to finally get subways built, after 15 long years of barely any action on the part of the previous Liberal government. The proposed Ontario Line alone will provide real relief from congestion on Line 1. It will be twice as long, and move twice as many people, as the original relief line project, and we’ll get it done at about the same cost. We know that we can these subways built before 2029, and that’s a target that was set by the city. We’re going to deliver it by 2027.

Can the Minister of Transportation tell us more about the benefits of the Ontario Line?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you again for that question. Simply put, the Ontario Line will provide relief that is desperately needed. People are tired of crowded platforms and of watching three full trains go by before they can get on with their commute.

This is something that everybody wants, and it’s time that the opposition and the Liberals stood up and voted for the legislation that is going to get subways built in this province.

These subways are going to be built in their own ridings, on the opposite side. It makes no sense for those members to vote against it.

I’m hoping members from Parkdale–High Park, Davenport, Spadina, Rosedale, Toronto Centre, Toronto–Danforth, Beaches–East York and Don Valley East and West take a moment and look after their own constituents and vote for the relief that’s needed on our subway system today. We’re going to go forward and build this project. The city of Toronto is going to be with us; why won’t the opposition help us on this issue?

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Since early April, the government has been talking up their transit plan as if it was a done deal, not a few lines drawn on the back of a napkin. Now the Premier has gone hat in hand to the federal government for the Ontario Line, even though the minister himself admitted yesterday that the business case still isn’t complete. The feds aren’t buying it; they say they need to see real estimates and concrete plans before they consider handing over a single dollar.

Did the minister really expect anyone to fund his back-of-a-napkin plan when basic details, like where stations will be and how much the line will cost, are still unknown?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I appreciate the question from the other side.

We made a historic announcement in this province of $28.5 billion to finally build transit that’s much needed in this city and in the GTHA. We’re building the Ontario Line to bring much-needed relief to Line 1. We are going to extend the Yonge subway into Richmond Hill and Markham, we’re going to build the Eglinton into Etobicoke toward the airport, and finally, after years and decades of waiting, Scarborough is going to get their three-stop subway system.

Yesterday, the Minister of Infrastructure and myself had an announcement, and a request for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just to treat us the same as other provinces and give us a conditional approval for the infrastructure funding, much like they did to British Columbia. In 2017, the Prime Minister in his own budget announced funding for a project that wasn’t even supported by the province, not even supported by the city. Eventually, a year later, it was supported. They got the business case. All we’re asking for is equal treatment.

I don’t know why the member opposite is against building subways in this city and in the GTHA. I don’t know why Prime Minister Trudeau isn’t stepping forward and helping support—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary question.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the Minister of Transportation: This government now claims they want to work together with other levels of government when it comes to transit. That’s a bit rich, coming from a Premier who has undercut the city of Toronto every step of the way in the hostile takeover of the subway system. Your reputation is starting to get around. The federal government isn’t too eager to jump on board with a government that, in their words, cuts first and thinks later.

How does the minister expect Ontarians to trust this government with large infrastructure projects like public transit when they can’t even play nice with our federal and municipal partners?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Let me make it perfectly clear: We will take no advice, when it comes to infrastructure, from Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government. In fact—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I need to be able to hear the Minister of Infrastructure reply. I would ask the opposition to come to order.

Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: We have forwarded to the federal government 54 projects for funding. That includes 49 projects in rural and northern communities across the province and, as the Minister of Transportation said, five major transit projects inside of the GTHA. We would expect all members in this House to stand up for Ontario.

Justin Trudeau should treat Ontario like he treats every other province in the country. Like the Minister of Transportation said, the federal government announced their support for metro Vancouver before city council supported it and before the—

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

Next question.

1120

Ontario budget

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Finance. It is a fundamental aspect of budgeting that one must first accurately compile all the approved program spending through detailed estimates from each ministry. These are then rolled up and aggregated for each ministry and for the government’s total budget. The estimates or detailed spending are then tabled and are voted upon in committee and referred back to the House.

I know this is the finance minister’s first time tabling a budget and the first time tabling detailed estimates. My question is: Is the minister confident that the budget is accurate and without significant errors or omissions, or is it possible that he got the cart before the horse?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much. I can tell you that we’re very proud of the budget that we not only presented, but proud of the budget that this government has passed. It’s all about protecting what matters most. That includes health care, education and social services, and the services that our people in Ontario look forward to receiving on a daily basis. That is why we have seen an additional $1.3-billion increase into the health budget and we’ve seen a $700-million increase into the education budget.

Speaker, I’ve said this many times in this Legislature: I simply cannot and just do not fundamentally understand how the NDP can vote against $90 million for 100,000 seniors for free dental care. I simply do not understand why they won’t support our—

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

Interjection.

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

Supplementary question.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again, to the Minister of Finance: On March 26, before the release of the budget, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services stated, “Under the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party,” autism funding this fiscal year “will be over $600 million.” However, her ministry is only seeking approval for $331 million, which is tabled in the provincial estimates under vote 702.

Speaker, one of three things must be happening: (1) The Minister of Social Services is out of the loop and leaving families of autistic children euchred; (2) there’s a hidden deficit of nearly $300 million; or (3) the government will secretly use a Treasury Board order to defund other approved programs and services to fill the gap.

Speaker, I’d like to have the minister answer which of the three it is.

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Finance to reply.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, Speaker. We have been perfectly clear. The budget that was passed by this government is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The opposition must come to order. The independents must come to order.

The minister can reply.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. We have made ourselves perfectly clear. The budget is fully costed, and all efficiencies and all value-for-money initiatives have been accounted for. Budget 2019 lays out our comprehensive plan, and we will continue to roll out a responsible path to balance over the months and the years ahead.

Speaker, our plan puts people ahead of everything. We put people at the centre of everything we do and we will continue our path to balance and protect our front-line services.

Public transit

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Our government campaigned on a promise to make life easier for Ontarians by improving transit, reducing congestion and getting people to home and work faster, leaving them more time for what matters most.

I know we have moved quickly over the last 10 months to increase GO train service for people throughout the region. This includes the largest increases in GO rail services in five years on the Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West lines, more service on the Kitchener line and year-round weekday commuter rail service to Niagara Falls and St. Catharines.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transportation update the House on our GO train services in the region?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member from Markham–Thornhill—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Hard-working.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: He’s working hard to build that extended subway system into Markham. He has been a key part of that project in making it go forward.

As part of the 2019 budget, we announced our commitment to move ahead with the GO Expansion Program to improve and expand GO train service. Just last week, the Minister of Infrastructure and my parliamentary assistant, Kinga Surma, were on hand to announce that our government is delivering on our promise by moving forward with the next stage of the GO rail expansion program and announcing the prequalified teams that will be bidding on the On-Corridor Works project. The four teams were selected based on their experience and ability to design, build, finance, operate and maintain a project of this scope and complexity. EnTransit, MTR, ONcore Transit and ONxpress Transportation Partners are the groups that are bidding.

We want to create a more integrated, seamless system, and that’s what this project is going to do.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you, Minister, for that great answer. It is encouraging to know that our government is putting the people of our province first by moving ahead with the GO rail expansion program.

For years, this province has been plagued by congestion and lack of vital transit infrastructure. With this announcement, our government is showing that we are committed to getting it right and getting this province moving.

Getting it right means having the right tools for the job. Ensuring that this project is delivered on time and delivered on budget will be vital to its success. Can the minister tell us more about how our government is going to get this project going?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to the member opposite for that excellent question, and for his leadership.

Congestion in the GTHA is an $11-billion problem. This has a real impact on people’s lives. Last week, I was excited to announce, with the Minister of Transportation, that our government has launched requests for proposals for the largest transit public-private partnership in Canada’s history.

We asked the private sector for the best and most innovative solution to a simple challenge: Move people from point A to point B within a certain time frame. This project means faster trains, increased ridership and lower maintenance. It will make travelling across the GTHA faster, easier and more seamless.

Partnering with the private sector to deliver this project will minimize construction delays and financial risks to taxpayers. This allows us to protect front-line services and programs that matter to people.

Mr. Speaker, we’re open for business, and we’re putting Ontario back on track.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Today we released a report outlining what we have been hearing from parents since the government introduced its devastating autism program. Frankly, it’s what we heard under the Liberal program as well.

Across this province, we heard that parents aren’t getting the help that they need, and they don’t trust this government to deliver the program that they deserve. That’s why we are calling for an all-party, arm’s-length select committee to transparently design and implement a new autism program that will work for families. This is a chance for the government to take the politics out of autism.

Will the minister agree to our call and strike a non-partisan select committee?

1130

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to respond to the member opposite. Obviously, I’m very excited that we appointed last week a non-partisan advisory panel to the ministry with—

Interjections.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: And I’m looking forward to receiving the report from the New Democrats. I have yet to receive it.

I’m pleased that members of all parties in this assembly, including the Green Party and the Liberal Party as well as the New Democrats, and including members of the Progressive Conservative government, have had round table consultations. I’m happy to provide that to the chair of the committee, who is Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, a former Liberal cabinet minister.

I’m also excited that we had a number of telephone town halls, as well as online surveys, where over 4,000 Ontarians were able to contribute their views, their values and their thoughts.

But, Speaker, I think we must take the politics out of this, which is why I appointed not only a former Liberal MPP to co-chair it, but a number of my own personal critics, so we could get this right for the children in the province of Ontario, with an unprecedented fund of over $600 million—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary question?

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, it wasn’t very long ago that this government was calling frustrated parents professional protesters, the same parents who were told by the Conservatives that they wouldn’t have to protest on the lawns of Queen’s Park under their government. These parents have tried and tried to have their voices heard, only to be stifled by tightly controlled telephone town halls and invite-only community meetings.

Families have lost their trust in this government and this minister to do the right thing by their children. That’s why we’re asking for a non-partisan, arm’s-length select committee to oversee the implementation of the new autism program. It’s time this government introduced some transparency and fairness into the way that it delivers programs.

Will this minister get the politics and secrecy out of autism and strike this committee?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’m very disappointed with the member opposite, who continues to bring partisanship into this issue. An unprecedented $621 million will be invested this year into the Ontario Autism Program. More children are receiving service than ever before in the province, and we have now put forward an expert advisory panel by that rabid Conservative partisan that we know as Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, a former Liberal cabinet minister, and those Lisa MacLeod sycophants at ONTABA and the OAC.

The reality is, we decided to take the partisanship and politics out of this and add an unprecedented amount of money so that we can support every single child in the province of Ontario with autism.

But you know what, Speaker? What frustrates me day in and day out on this file is the irresponsibility of the member opposite, the fearmongering by her leader and the behaviour of that party, which wants to play politics with children—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

The member for Ottawa West–Nepean is anxiously and patiently awaiting the opportunity to ask his questions. Start the clock.

Red tape reduction

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Last week, the minister announced changes to the Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit. Our government is cutting red tape and levelling the playing field for small and medium interactive digital media companies across this province. In 2016, Ontario’s interactive digital media industry employed almost 20,000 people. Members of Interactive Ontario, the association representing companies in the sector, say they plan to hire thousands of new people over the next year, including in Ottawa’s west end.

Could the minister please outline for the House how our government is working to create an environment where interactive digital media companies can grow and thrive?

Hon. Todd Smith: I want to thank the diligent member from Ottawa West–Nepean for that great question this morning.

It was a pleasure to visit last week with Uken Games here in Toronto for an important announcement we made. It was great to speak with business leaders in the interactive digital media sector here in Ontario, where they have an impact of $3 billion for our economy in that sector. These companies are working on everything from video games to digital marketing solutions for some of the world’s largest companies. The video game industry has come a long way since your Donkey Kong days. It’s really, really big business.

Jean-Sylvain Sormany is the president of Snowed In Studios, a developer in west Ottawa, where the member is from. He said, “I think this is great,” and we do too. It’s a great change. Small and medium businesses make up 85% of this space. With our changes to the digital media tax credit, those companies are going to face less red tape when they’re accessing this important support.

As the member opposite says, thousands and thousands of jobs in Ontario are depending on us. We’re coming through to create even more.

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

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I appreciate the minister’s response. It’s always good news for our province any time we can remove red tape for Ontario’s businesses.

I am pleased to hear the steps our government is taking to help our smaller video game developers grow and thrive here at home in Ontario. Through strategic investments, we can ensure that Ontario is a leader in this field and create jobs and keep jobs in this province for years to come.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister please advise the House further on how our government is creating an environment in the media sector where we can attract investment and create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity?

Hon. Todd Smith: I know the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport would like to answer this question.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for the opportunity to answer that important question, and also for the great work that you do out in your constituency.

I’d also like to commend the Honourable Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade for the great work he’s doing to bring jobs to the province of Ontario.

We have tax credits across the media landscape for film, television, music, books and, of course, video games. These tax credits are distributed through a provincial agency called Ontario Creates. These tax credits are used for the industries to simply allow them to access funds to be able to create more work in the province.

That’s why we’re committed to cutting red tape for video game developers, striking film and television advisory panels for those tax credits to ensure we’re supporting job creation—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Next question.

Health care funding

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: This morning I received a media release from London Health Sciences Centre. I’d like to have a page deliver it to the minister in case she hasn’t seen it.

My question is to the Minister of Health. This morning, London Health Sciences Centre announced their budget plans for this year, and it’s not good. They will need to make $28 million in cuts, equal to 2% of their total budget. They have asked all the departments to find between 2% and 2.5% in cuts to their budgets.

Does the minister still stand by her statement that she is not cutting health care?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The answer is yes. We are actually investing, as I indicated earlier, $1.3 billion more into health care this year. We’re investing in the front lines of our health care system with an extra $384 million for hospitals’ operational costs this year. This includes a $12-million increase in base funding for London Health Sciences Centre in 2019.

1140

Our government also announced a $1.2-million investment for London Health Sciences Centre in the fall to help that hospital deal with increases during flu season.

We also invested over $8 million as part of our government’s larger commitment to upgrade, repair and maintain hospital facilities across the province.

Together, these investments will enable all hospitals, and specifically London Health Sciences Centre, to deal with the increases that they are experiencing.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: In order to achieve $28 million in cuts, London Health Sciences Centre is forced to reduce staffing hours equivalent to 1.6% of their workforce. To start, there will be a hiring freeze of non-clinical staff, natural attrition and non-union voluntary exits. But London Health Sciences is clear: This is only their goal, and the exact number of layoffs will be unknown for some time.

How do budget cuts and layoffs help to end hallway medicine? Does the minister still stand by her statement that there will be no layoffs of front-line health care workers on her watch?

Hon. Christine Elliott: As the member will know, hospitals are independent corporations that are run by their own boards of directors, and as such they’re making their own decisions with respect to how they’re going to deal with their operational pressures.

But I would say that we understand that the hospital is working to mitigate the effect on staff by implementing temporary hiring freezes of non-clinical staff through natural attrition and non-union voluntary exits. I understand the hospital is doing whatever they can do to minimize the effects in terms of job losses, but they make their own decisions with their own board of directors.

We will, as a ministry, continue to work with the hospital to ensure that they can get through the next period of time with the additional help that we have already provided them with in monetary terms.

Violence against Indigenous women and girls

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. After more than three years of collecting testimony from Canadians through community meetings and town halls held across the country, the commission of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls delivered its final report yesterday. This report contains testimony from over 2,300 family members, survivors, experts and knowledge keepers collected from heartfelt and often emotional public hearings.

Speaker, the minister was in Ottawa yesterday to receive the report on behalf of our government. Can she please tell us the significance of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to thank the member from Barrie–Innisfil for her strong leadership in defending all vulnerable women in the province of Ontario, and for bringing this important question to the floor of the Legislature today. I really do appreciate it because it is important that every member in this assembly understand what took place yesterday in our country and right here in the province of Ontario.

I was proud, as I mentioned earlier, to represent Ontario yesterday, and also to be the only level of government, the only provincial government, to bring along our Ontario Regional Chief RoseAnne Archibald to receive the report alongside me. I felt that was important, Speaker, not only as a gesture but as the next step after the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls report was tabled.

The prevalence of violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada is entirely unacceptable, Speaker. That is why this government is committed to supporting vulnerable women, particularly in our Indigenous communities, so that we can ensure their safety, their security and their—

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you to the minister for accepting this report on behalf of our government, and standing up for Indigenous women and girls and encouraging all Ontarians, both men and women, to stand up against violence against women and girls.

Speaker, this report highlights statistics that show Indigenous women and girls in Canada are 12 times more likely to experience violence than non-Indigenous women during their lifetime, and demonstrates through testimony how issues such as sex trafficking and exploitation are affecting young girls in our communities. This high prevalence of violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada is entirely unacceptable.

Can the minister please share with us the steps our government is taking to combat violence against Indigenous women and girls across this province?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I take the issue of sex trafficking very seriously. That’s why, later today, I will be meeting with a number of survivors so that we can move forward on protecting women in a much more effective way across the province of Ontario, including our Indigenous sisters.

The ministry will continue working with First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners to support the delivery of culturally appropriate child welfare services as well. That’s extremely important to us. Ontario has signed relationship agreements with three First Nations political territory organizations in relation to child and youth well-being. We have 12 Indigenous children’s aid societies right now who deliver culturally appropriate care in the province of Ontario, and these agreements and others in development demonstrate our shared commitment as a province to working together to improve outcomes and opportunities for First Nations women and girls.

I believe every single member of this assembly stands committed in ensuring that we protect Indigenous—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The next question.

Addiction services

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. London is facing one of the most severe opioid overdose crises in the country. Last April, five Londoners died in a single week.

It was heartbreaking news we received yesterday that the government abruptly pulled Middlesex-London Health Unit’s funding application for a supervised consumption site on York Street and did not even provide a reason why. The Premier doesn’t get to decide the site’s location; London city council does. And yet, this government once again takes its cues from wealthy insider friends and lobbyists, including Amir Farahi and Blackridge Strategy.

There are deep connections between Blackridge Strategy and the Premier’s own office staff. Lobbyists pushed to have the York Street site cancelled and, sure enough, that’s what happened. This is another example of the Premier cutting deals in backrooms and meddling in municipal affairs while vulnerable people pay the price.

Will the minister put the needs of Londoners ahead of the Premier’s friends and immediately fund the York Street supervised consumption site?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank you for the question, but the premise is entirely incorrect. What I will tell you is that a selection site has been made for King Street that was made on the same criteria that all applicants are treated to. All applications are evaluated against the exact same criteria: proximity to other sites, services and community support; ongoing community consultation; integration with primary care treatment and other public health services; and defined pathways to addictions treatment and rehabilitation, primary care, mental health, housing, employment and other health and social services.

That is the criteria that has been applied to all of the other applicants that have been approved—the other 15 sites across the province of Ontario. London is no different. The King Street site has been chosen as the applicant, as the site that’s going to be providing those treatments and services. There’s no question that London needs those services, and they are going to be provided at the King Street site.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry has informed me that he has a point of order.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park today Premila Balasubramaniyan, who is the mother of page Aaryan Harshith from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Premila, welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I believe the member for Scarborough–Guildwood may have a point of order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Point of order, Speaker: I would also like to welcome back to the Legislature Gwyn Chapman of the Canadian Black Caucus, who is leading a delegation of young people here today, along with Nadine Spencer, the president of the BBPA, and many other leaders from the Black community.

It’s also my pleasure to welcome collège La Cité de Toronto and Amy MacDonnell, Illungua Baswe, Sabine Soumare, Bessy Yao and Sébastien Laperrière. Bienvenue.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member from Toronto–St. Paul’s has a point of order.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I just want to invite all the members in the House to join us at the bottom of the stairs for a photo for World Eating Disorders Action Day after question period.

Birth of city councillor’s child

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Toronto Centre, a point of order.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I just wanted to take a quick moment and share with the Legislature that my city councillor in Toronto Centre, Kristyn Wong-Tam, who I know many of you probably know, and her wife, Farrah, welcomed their brand new baby into the world yesterday. So we wanted to say congratulations, and welcome to baby Kiyan.

1150

Official members’ photograph

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before we move to the votes, I wish to remind all members that tomorrow after question period, we are going to be having the official photograph of the 42nd Parliament take place, so I hope you will all be here for that.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 65, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 115, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act with respect to the termination of a specified agreement.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1150 to 1155.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the members to please take their seats.

On June 3, 2019, Mr. Yakabuski moved government notice of motion number 65, relating to allocation of time on Bill 115. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak
Baber, Roman
Babikian, Aris
Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Elliott, Christine
Fedeli, Victor
Fee, Amy
Ford, Doug
Fullerton, Merrilee
Ghamari, Goldie
Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie
Harris, Mike
Hogarth, Christine
Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Karahalios, Belinda C.
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Kramp, Daryl
Kusendova, Natalia
Lecce, Stephen
MacLeod, Lisa
Martin, Robin
Martow, Gila
McDonell, Jim
McKenna, Jane
McNaughton, Monte
Miller, Norman
Mitas, Christina Maria
Nicholls, Rick
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy
Phillips, Rod
Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Roberts, Jeremy
Romano, Ross
Sabawy, Sheref
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, Todd
Tangri, Nina
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John
Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Armstrong, Teresa J.
Arthur, Ian
Bell, Jessica
Bisson, Gilles
Bourgouin, Guy
Coteau, Michael
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris
Gretzky, Lisa

Hassan, Faisal
Hatfield, Percy
Hillier, Randy
Horwath, Andrea
Hunter, Mitzie
Karpoche, Bhutila
Kernaghan, Terence
Lalonde, Marie-France
Lindo, Laura Mae
Mamakwa, Sol
Miller, Paul
Monteith-Farrell, Judith
Morrison, Suze
Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy
Schreiner, Mike
Shaw, Sandy
Singh, Gurratan
Singh, Sara
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Stiles, Marit
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie
Wynne, Kathleen O.
Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 68; the nays are 42.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 66, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 117, An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Call in the members. This will be another five-minute bell.

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Same vote?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1200.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On June 3, 2019, Mr. Walker moved government notice of motion number 66, relating to allocation of time on Bill 117. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak
Baber, Roman
Babikian, Aris
Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Coteau, Michael
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Elliott, Christine
Fedeli, Victor
Fee, Amy
Ford, Doug
Fraser, John
Fullerton, Merrilee
Ghamari, Goldie
Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie
Harris, Mike
Hogarth, Christine
Hunter, Mitzie
Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Karahalios, Belinda C.
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Kramp, Daryl
Kusendova, Natalia
Lalonde, Marie-France
Lecce, Stephen
MacLeod, Lisa
Martin, Robin
Martow, Gila
McDonell, Jim
McKenna, Jane
McNaughton, Monte
Miller, Norman
Mitas, Christina Maria
Nicholls, Rick
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy
Phillips, Rod
Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Roberts, Jeremy
Romano, Ross
Sabawy, Sheref
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, Todd
Tangri, Nina
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Wynne, Kathleen O.
Yakabuski, John
Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Armstrong, Teresa J.
Arthur, Ian
Bell, Jessica
Bisson, Gilles
Bourgouin, Guy
Fife, Catherine
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris
Gretzky, Lisa
Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy
Hillier, Randy
Horwath, Andrea
Karpoche, Bhutila
Kernaghan, Terence
Lindo, Laura Mae
Mamakwa, Sol
Miller, Paul
Monteith-Farrell, Judith
Morrison, Suze
Natyshak, Taras
Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike
Shaw, Sandy
Singh, Gurratan
Singh, Sara
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Stiles, Marit
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie
Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 73; the nays are 37.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

Getting Ontario Moving Act (Transportation Statute Law Amendment), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour un Ontario en mouvement (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport)

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on third reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters.

Call in the members. This is another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1204 to 1205.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On May 29, 2019, Mr. Yurek moved third reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak
Baber, Roman
Babikian, Aris
Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Elliott, Christine
Fedeli, Victor
Fee, Amy
Ford, Doug
Fullerton, Merrilee
Ghamari, Goldie
Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie
Harris, Mike
Hogarth, Christine
Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Karahalios, Belinda C.
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Kramp, Daryl
Kusendova, Natalia
Lecce, Stephen
MacLeod, Lisa
Martin, Robin
Martow, Gila
McDonell, Jim
McKenna, Jane
McNaughton, Monte
Miller, Norman
Mitas, Christina Maria
Nicholls, Rick
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy
Phillips, Rod
Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Roberts, Jeremy
Romano, Ross
Sabawy, Sheref
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, Todd
Tangri, Nina
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John
Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Armstrong, Teresa J.
Arthur, Ian
Bell, Jessica
Bisson, Gilles
Bourgouin, Guy
Coteau, Michael
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris
Gretzky, Lisa

Hassan, Faisal
Hatfield, Percy
Hillier, Randy
Horwath, Andrea
Karpoche, Bhutila
Kernaghan, Terence
Lalonde, Marie-France
Lindo, Laura Mae
Mamakwa, Sol
Miller, Paul
Monteith-Farrell, Judith
Morrison, Suze
Natyshak, Taras
Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy
Schreiner, Mike
Shaw, Sandy
Singh, Gurratan
Singh, Sara
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Stiles, Marit
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie
Wynne, Kathleen O.
Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 68; the nays are 41.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1500.

Report, Integrity Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: the annual report of the review of expense claims covering the period April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, pursuant to the Cabinet Ministers’ and Opposition Leaders’ Expenses Review Accountability Act, 2002, from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Introduction of visitors. I’m pleased to recognize the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It appeared you may have tried to hesitate to allow me the opportunity. Okay, rotation, rotation, rotation.

I have a number of organizations and guests who are going to be joining us in the gallery today for Pride Month as we kick that off here in the Ontario Legislature.

From Pflag, we’ve got Anne Creighton; from Canada’s gay and lesbian chamber of commerce, Darrell Schuurman; from the Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention, Garfield Durrant; from LGBTory, Helen-Claire Tingling, Maddy Stieva, Arthur Conway, Dr. Isaiah von Lichtenberg, Eric Lorenzen, Rick Hall and Glen Miller; from Jake’s House, Kaitlyn Leeb and Danilo Ferron; from Covenant House, Laurie Hamilton-Houston and Tracie LeBlanc; from Egale, Lennox Toppin and Mark Fellion; from the 519, Lisa Gore Duplessis and Karlene Williams; from Pride Toronto, Olivia Nuamah and Amber Moyle; and from Griffin Centre, Tài Vo.

I’m very excited that they are going to be here to join us today as we celebrate Pride Month.

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I believe the member for Orléans has a point of order.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: We would like to ask unanimous consent to share our time among Liberal members for ministerial statements this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Orléans is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow her to share the independent members’ time between the members for Ottawa–Vanier and Orléans in response to ministers’ statements. Agreed? Agreed.

It’s now time for members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Pharmacare

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House to talk about a press conference that we had yesterday with two young women, Tori Lacey and Rebecca Van Fraassen. They’re both young women in their early twenties and they both have an illness called SMA. It’s a degenerative disease; it’s like the childhood version of ALS.

They were here yesterday. Both of their families have raised millions of dollars to research for medication, for a drug that would actually help them to overcome their illness. Miraculously enough, the drug was developed. The challenge now, and the cruel irony, is that they can’t access the drug because it’s too expensive. It costs half a million dollars a year for the treatment, and they cannot get access to that. One family has mortgaged everything to pay for some of the medications, but they have run out.

The drug has been available for two and a half years. I’m happy to report that we met with the Minister of Health this morning, and she has committed to speaking with the ministry, trying to get this drug and make it available to these young women. She has committed to coming back in two weeks. So I’m hoping for good news from the minister, that in two weeks she will be announcing that these young women will get the medication they so desperately need.

Probation and parole officers

Ms. Donna Skelly: I’d like to take a moment to talk about a wonderful event that I was privileged to be able to attend last week on behalf of the Solicitor General. It was the graduation ceremony in Hamilton for Ontario’s newest probation and parole officers.

I was able to spend a few minutes chatting with some of the graduates before the ceremony, and I was extremely impressed with the depth of knowledge they displayed about the situations they will be encountering and with the desire they have to be a positive influence on the people they will be dealing with. Each of these graduates knew they were taking on a responsibility that most people rarely give a second thought to but one that has the potential to make such an enormous impact not only to the individuals involved and their families but on our society as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, as I watched these 22 young people accept their certificates, I felt confident that, as front-line workers in our corrections system, they will live up to the trust and responsibility placed in them by the people of Ontario and work hard to make a difference in the lives of the people in their charge. Mr. Speaker, with these graduates, we are in good hands.

Health care funding

Ms. Jill Andrew: Speaker, nothing matters more than our health. It’s our province’s highest expenditure, and it should be. Each and every Ontarian should be able to have confidence in their government and know that health is top of mind. After all, we can’t buy our health care at a convenience store, and it costs more than a buck.

Sadly, this government has proved that our public health isn’t that big of a concern. How? By ramming through health legislation without consulting the community; by slashing $2.7 billion from health, according to the Financial Accountability Office; and by hiding the details of the cuts from the public. This Conservative government is funding health care embarrassingly below inflation. Ontarians deserve better. The people of St. Paul’s deserve better.

We have listened, and tonight we are hosting a health town hall at Timothy Eaton Memorial Church, 230 St. Clair Avenue West. We welcome anyone in the House to attend, and we welcome anyone in any riding to attend, because everyone in Ontario and Toronto is concerned with health care.

Our guests this evening will include Councillor Joe Cressy, chair of the Toronto Board of Health; MPP France Gélinas, our fantastic Ontario NDP health critic; Ester Dubali, policy campaign manager, Ontario Health Coalition—I think they’ve got something to say about health cuts—and more.

Join us. Join us, Ontario. Join us, St. Paul’s.

Broadband infrastructure

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I rise today with excitement to speak about our government’s recent announcement to expand funding for broadband Internet in southwestern Ontario. The Minister of Infrastructure, my colleague, Minister McNaughton of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, announced that our government will contribute up to $63.7 million towards the Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology project, or SWIFT project. This investment is part of a $315-million commitment being made to ensure communities across Ontario have access to high-speed Internet and better cellphone service, which is one of our key campaign promises.

Too many people in southwestern Ontario, and in my riding of Niagara West, do not have access to high-speed Internet. But this funding announcement means that they are now one step closer to getting reliable, high-speed Internet. I look forward to seeing rural residents and businesses being able to stream high-speed Internet from their homes, farms and businesses. It’s high time that smaller communities across the province joined the digital economy. With better access, people can work remotely, access e-commerce platforms, learn online and research at home. People can also access health care and government services and stay connected to friends and family. Better Internet means businesses will also be able to connect to customers in new markets, making it easier to share information, close deals and process payments.

A new day has dawned for rural southwestern Ontario, all as a result of a promise made and another promise kept.

Better Beginnings, Better Futures

Mr. Jamie West: Since opening 28 years ago, Sudbury’s Better Beginnings, Better Futures has helped over 17,000 children and families have a chance at a good life. It all began with a free recreational after-school program in the old O’Connor community ice shack.

Better Beginnings offers a nutritious snack and a safe environment for homework, for creative and educational games, for arts and crafts, outings and cultural celebrations. They’ve since expanded to multiple locations, offering dozens of free programs such as the Community Closet, which offers dignity while providing free access to clothing and linens; Baby’s Breath, which provides support to pregnant and parenting teenagers, to their families and to their partners; and several nutrition programs. To continue this vital work, Better Beginnings, Better Futures relies on support from the Ontario government. They need the government to be their partner to make investing in these families and our communities a priority.

1510

Their model is designed to prevent young children in low-income, high-risk neighbourhoods from experiencing poor outcomes.

Speaker, I’m an example of a child that grew up in a low-income, high-risk neighbourhood. O’Connor Park is a few blocks from Cabot Street, where I grew up. It’s a short walk from Queen Elizabeth, the primary school that I attended. I was given a better beginning; I now enjoy a better future. All children in Sudbury deserve that same opportunity.

World Eating Disorders Action Day

Mr. John Fraser: Today is the fourth annual World Eating Disorders Action Day. It’s a global initiative that is comprised of thousands of activists and 200 organizations in 46 countries. This year’s theme is “Eating Disorders: We Can’t Afford to Wait.”

Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. They do not discriminate. They affect people of all genders, ages and ethnicities.

Many families are affected by a loved one with an eating disorder. When a loved one is sick, nothing else matters. Eating disorders are pernicious and complicated diseases that devastate those who suffer and leave families feeling hopeless and unable to help. Those who suffer need our support, love and encouragement to get well, but they need the tools and treatment as well.

Speaker, it’s something that our family went through many years ago, and it was a very difficult time. We stuck together, and our daughter, Kïrsten, got well largely due to her courage and strength.

But there are so many individuals and families that are suffering right now. We need to make sure that those things that they need to heal are in place.

Cadets

Mr. Will Bouma: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to welcome an extraordinary group from my riding of Brantford–Brant. Today, we welcome the top cadets as chosen by their commanding officers for their dedication, excellence and willingness to make our community the best that it can be.

Cadets learn to become active, responsible members of our community. They make valuable contributions to Canadian society through citizenship and community service activities.

In Brantford, Brant and Six Nations, the four cadet programs keep 260 youth engaged, off the streets and away from their handheld devices, teaching them structure, respect, community involvement and civic duty from today and into adulthood.

For the Navy League Cadets: Chief Petty Officer First Class Matthew Peach, Chief Petty Officer Second Class Benjamin Austin and commanding officer Lieutenant Julie Bernard.

For the Sea Cadets: Chief Petty Officer First Class Celina Bernard and Chief Petty Officer Second Class Isaiah Loftman, joined by Lieutenant Shane Downey.

For the Army Cadets: Chief Warrant Officer Molly Stamp, Master Warrant Officer Jacob Stoneman and commanding officer Captain Joshua Jenne.

For the Air Cadets: Warrant Officer Second Class Joshua Fogg and Flight Corporal Halle Corner, joined by Second Lieutenant Celina Corner.

Cadets, the people of Ontario salute you.

Applause.

WellFort

Ms. Sara Singh: I recently had the pleasure of visiting WellFort Community Health Services in my riding of Brampton, which is actually an umbrella organization for the Bramalea Community Health Centre. It was such a pleasure for me to learn about the important health services that they provide to our community.

I’d like to take this opportunity to also thank the volunteers and staff, who are so passionate about the work they do to provide community services to folks in our community. Those services range from health promotion, primary health programs, oral health programs, diabetes education programs, HIV and hep C awareness programs, just to name a few. Mr. Speaker. They provide holistic care for individuals, families and the community, often those who face multiple barriers in accessing health services in Brampton and specifically in the Bramalea community.

During my visit, I had the opportunity to meet with the Seniors in Action club; it was such a delight. But they shared a number of concerns with me. As seniors in our community, they were very worried about the fact that the majority of them are still living in poverty; they have quite a difficult time accessing housing options; and they’re very concerned about the recent cuts to public health. They were wondering if their very own Seniors in Action program was in jeopardy as well.

I tried to reassure them that I think the government values the contributions of seniors here in our province. As we celebrate Seniors’ Month, I just want to reinforce how important it is that we take the opportunity to engage with our seniors but also, intergenerationally, learn from what they bring to the table. It’s so much power.

I really enjoyed my visit. Thank you.

York Regional Police

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Community engagement can be a very effective way of policing. The general public has often created an unpopular image of police. When a child whines or misbehaves, parents sometimes threaten them to stop, or the police will come. Even adults do not favour the sight of police, as that often means receiving a ticket for a traffic violation.

When I served on the York Regional Police Services Board in 2006, the board recognized the importance of building a strong and positive relationship between the police and public. Today, I am happy to see the strong relationship that York Regional Police have built with the community. They take the initiative to reach out and to participate in numerous cultural events. Just last week, I participated in the Iftar dinner they organized with the Richmond Hill Muslim community. The week before, they celebrated Asian Heritage Month with a lion dance and Indian songs and dances.

Through these events, York Regional Police have become friends with various communities in Richmond Hill. This partnership goes a long way in crime prevention and the protection of neighbourhoods. We thank the York Regional Police for supporting this.

Government’s record

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s always a pleasure to get to rise in the House. Today I’d like to share a little bit of local feedback that I have heard in our first year in government, a year of restoring fiscal balance while protecting what matters most in this province.

At the New Dundee Victoria Day parade, I had many people stop me and say, “Mike, keep on going. We support your government on reducing the deficit, reforming education and supporting small businesses to finally get ahead” here in the province.

They know we have been working non-stop to honour our campaign commitments to repeal the cap-and-trade carbon tax and the Green Energy Act, to expand natural gas and broadband for rural communities, and to provide record funding for long-term-care beds and mental health and addiction services.

On Friday, I brought together nearly a dozen organizations providing these crucial services, to celebrate the $1.5 million in additional funding. They are excited about the $3.8-billion commitment we have made to mental health and addiction services here in Ontario.

We are working for Waterloo region on multiple fronts, in partnership with municipal leaders and other partners. This includes allowing fair and open tendering, protecting double-hatter firefighters, and green-lighting—wait for it—the new Electrophysiology Lab at St. Mary’s hospital and, of course, helping support the Gies Family Centre, which is a beautiful new hospice that has been created in north Waterloo.

One year down, but we have a lot more work to do on behalf of the great people of this province. I’m looking forward to three more great years.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June 4, 2019, of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Pursuant to standing order 108(f)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Report deemed adopted.

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. William Short): Mr. Rasheed from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills presents the committee’s report as follows and moves its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting The United Church of Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

I heard a no.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.

Report adopted.

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Mr. Parm Gill: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. William Short): Mr. Gill from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy presents the committee’s report as follows and moves its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 108, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to housing, other development and various other matters / Projet de loi 108, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne le logement, les autres aménagements et d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 20-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1521 to 1541.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the members to please take their seats.

Mr. Gill has moved the adoption of a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy regarding Bill 108. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak
Baber, Roman
Babikian, Aris
Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Elliott, Christine
Fedeli, Victor
Fee, Amy
Fullerton, Merrilee
Ghamari, Goldie
Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie
Harris, Mike
Hogarth, Christine
Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Karahalios, Belinda C.
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Kramp, Daryl
Kusendova, Natalia
Lecce, Stephen
MacLeod, Lisa
Martin, Robin
Martow, Gila
McDonell, Jim
McKenna, Jane
McNaughton, Monte
Miller, Norman
Mulroney, Caroline
Nicholls, Rick
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey
Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy
Phillips, Rod
Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Roberts, Jeremy
Sabawy, Sheref
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, Todd
Tangri, Nina
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John
Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.
Arthur, Ian
Bell, Jessica
Bisson, Gilles
Coteau, Michael
Des Rosiers, Nathalie
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John

Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris
Hatfield, Percy
Hunter, Mitzie
Kernaghan, Terence
Lalonde, Marie-France
Miller, Paul
Rakocevic, Tom

Schreiner, Mike
Singh, Gurratan
Singh, Sara
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Stiles, Marit
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 66; the nays are 23.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 28, 2019, the bill is ordered for third reading.

Introduction of Bills

Reserved Parking for Electric Vehicle Charging Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le stationnement réservé à la recharge des véhicules électriques

Mr. Calandra moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting electric vehicle charging stations / Projet de loi 123, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les stations de recharge pour véhicules électriques.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the member for Markham–Stouffville if he would like to briefly explain his bill.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, this is just a bill that would make it an offence to leave a vehicle unattended at an electric vehicle charging station and not be charging.

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Pride Month

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’m happy to stand in this House today to celebrate the beginning of Pride Week in the province of Ontario. I would be remiss not to welcome a number of people in the gallery today, whom I welcomed earlier but are with us now.

I would like to welcome Pflag’s Anne Creighton; Canada’s gay and lesbian chamber of commerce, Darrell Schuurman; Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention, Garfield Durrant; LGBTory, Helen-Claire Tingling, Maddy Stieva, Mr. Arthur Conway, Dr. Isaiah von Lichtenberg, Eric Lorenzen, Rick Hall and Glen Miller; Jake’s House, Kaitlyn Leeb and Danilo Ferron; Covenant House, Laurie Hamilton-Houston and Tracie LeBlanc—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the minister for having to interrupt her. I would ask the members to come to order so as to allow the minister to make her statement.

Once again, the Minister of Children, Community, and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Egale, Lennox Toppin and Mark Fellion; the 519, Lisa Gore Duplessis and Karlene Williams; Pride Toronto, Olivia Nuamah and Amber Moyle, and Griffin Centre, Tài Vo—and I hope I said that right.

Speaker, this is a very important day in the Legislative Assembly; it’s a very important time in the province of Ontario. Many would pinpoint the beginning of Toronto Pride as the response to Operation Soap, in which gay men were targeted because of their sexuality and arrested. That was in 1981. Back then, many LGBTQ2S people were forced to live their lives in secret or in the closet because of societal pressure and intolerance.

Around that same time, I was growing up in the small town of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, a town where everyone knew one another—and most of us were related to each other too. We would often make a joke that there wasn’t a family tree; it was more like a family web. It was a town where everyone knew one another and neighbours were always willing to help their neighbours.

One of the houses in my town belonged to two men who were in our church choir. They lived together as partners. I didn’t think about it much at the time, but I did know that they were two of my dad’s friends, whom he loved. He firmly believed that their love was no different from anyone else’s in New Glasgow. My dad was also one of the first straight men who walked in our local AIDS march. When he passed away just over a decade ago, the AIDS walk in our community where I grew up honoured him for his support.

My dad is the reason why I care for vulnerable people. He always taught me to treat everyone fairly and with equality, which is why I was one of the first Progressive Conservative politicians, not in Ontario but in all of Canada, to march in a Pride parade.

1550

Just as I was happy to stand among LGBTQ2S friends and allies years ago, I was happy to stand in this House last month on International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. I was happy, as well, to stand in April on the International Day of Pink against bullying and to stand outside of Queen’s Park to raise the trans flag in honour of Trans Day of Remembrance, a piece of legislation I was proud to co-sponsor a few years back while in opposition.

Speaker, on behalf of this government, let me be perfectly clear: Ontario stands with the LGBTQ2S community. We always will. Everyone in Ontario should feel welcome and included in our society, regardless of sexual orientation or their gender identity.

As the minister responsible for children and youth, I believe that no child in this province should feel ashamed or scared for who they are. No child should ever have to go to school feeling tormented. I’m committed, alongside my colleague the Minister of Education, to do everything we can to end bullying, ignorance and hate.

An important part of Pride consists of remembering the long struggle for rights and acceptance, and sharing a commitment to defend these rights when they come under assault, as I saw just this past week on social media, still to this day.

Ontario and Canada have come a long way over the past 30 years. We have legalized same-sex marriage, added gender identity and expression as protected grounds to the human rights legislation in our country, and we have banned conversion therapy in the province of Ontario.

At this point, I would like to acknowledge the strong work of an icon within the LGBTQ+ community, the Rev. Cheri DiNovo, a former colleague of mine in this Legislature from the NDP. I’d also like to highlight the work of a former member of this House and a friend of many of us, Phil Gillies, who has been an advocate for the LGBTQ2S community for many years. In 1986, well before his time, Phil Gillies stood in this assembly to ensure a free vote among Progressive Conservative MPPs to stop discrimination against LGBTQ2S people.

And, Speaker, in this Legislature, we have someone else we can be very proud of who is a leader who broke ground. They often say—and I steal this line from the member from Oshawa, Jennifer French, who once said in this House that sometimes we have trailblazers, and then we have other people who widen the trail. A true trailblazer: Her politics and mine couldn’t be any further different than they are, and we’ve had many quarrels in this assembly, but today is an important day to celebrate the member for Don Valley West, Kathleen Wynne. She became the first openly gay Premier in Canada and head of the largest government by population as an LGBTQ2S leader. Her perseverance and bravery in the face of hate and homophobia serve as an inspiration to us all: that you can reach the highest levels of leadership, and make systemic and positive change. Again, as I say, our politics are not the same. But, Speaker, as the mother of a daughter, I will never forget calling my then-eight-year-old up from her playroom into the living room to watch the Liberal leadership race that Kathleen Wynne won.

Unfortunately, this sense of progress isn’t universal around the world. In March, I spoke at the United Nations. In that same body, 54 nations stood in opposition to supporting a resolution for LGBTQ2S rights. In 10 countries, homosexuality is still a crime punishable by death. Think about that. Globally, we still need to fight for LGBTQ2S rights on the world stage. Canada and our province of Ontario must continue to be leaders in this regard by denouncing abhorrent policies around the world, like former Prime Minister Stephen Harper did in 2009, when he lobbied the president of Uganda against an anti-LGBTQ2S bill; or when the person I succeeded in this Legislature, the former MPP for Nepean and community and social services minister and then foreign affairs minister, John Baird, wasn’t afraid to attack Russia’s anti-gay laws. That, in my opinion, is leadership.

It’s also by supporting organizations like Rainbow Railroad, which shepherds LGBTQ2S people from unsafe countries to our country, to Canada. Canada became one of the first western world countries to admit refugees on the basis of sexual orientation. I could be no more proud of the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, 30 years ago—my seatmate’s father—who in 1991 decided to take that stand on behalf of this country. We all have an incredible legacy to build on to support those who are marginalized and those who continue to need our support.

I conclude with this: while Pride is a celebration—and I certainly intend to celebrate Pride—we must also reflect on the successes of the past, but still the challenges that lie ahead both here and abroad. Yesterday’s missing and murdered Indigenous women and 2QS report indicated we still have a lot of work to do, not only in big cities like Toronto and Ottawa, but in our rural and remote Indigenous communities throughout this province. I say to all Ontarians, we all must be part of these efforts to support the LGBTQ2S community. I say to all of those in the LGBTQ2S community: Ontario stands with you and we celebrate you.

I look forward to all members of this assembly who are able to, after this ministerial statement, to join us on the staircase as we get our photo taken with leaders from across the province who continue to make an impact every day, in particular to help those marginalized children who are still figuring out who they are. I’m reminded by my colleague Stephen Lecce that love is love, and I’m reminded by the nasty social media post that I responded to the other day that God is love.

Missing persons

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I am pleased to speak about the Missing Persons Act, 2018, which will come into force on July 1, 2019.

Police and family members will tell you that the first hours after a loved one goes missing are critical. Unfortunately, in Ontario, in cases where there is no evidence that a crime has been committed, police have not been able to obtain judicial orders to access essential information or obtain warrants authorizing entry to premises to locate the missing persons.

This has left too many missing people lost or at risk. No one knows that better than families of loved ones who have gone missing, like Maureen Trask, who is here today with her son Adam. In 2011, Maureen’s son Daniel went missing. Maureen never stopped searching for Daniel until his remains were found in the Temagami wilderness in 2015. From her experience, she has become a vocal advocate for families of missing persons.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tireless effort of Maureen and her family, as well as the work of MPP Catherine Fife, the member from Waterloo. I would also like to acknowledge the many other families in helping advance this important and critical legislation. Thank you.

This week, on June 7, it would have been Daniel’s 36th birthday, so it’s fitting that this legislation will come into effect at the end of June. Police services should not have their hands tied when someone goes missing. Instead, we must ensure they have the tools and supports they need to find our loved ones.

1600

Once enforced, the Missing Persons Act, 2018, will address barriers faced by police in Ontario when investigating missing persons. It will provide police with three tools to use in certain circumstances where there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. The first is the ability for police to obtain a judicial order to obtain copies of records that may assist in locating a missing person. The second is the ability for police to obtain a warrant to allow entry into premises to locate a missing person. The third is the ability for police to make an urgent demand for records without a court order in certain very narrow circumstances.

Missing persons legislation already exists in other Canadian jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and was a key recommendation in the inquest into the deaths of seven First Nations youth in Thunder Bay. At the same time, any such legislation must contain safeguards to protect the privacy of the missing person and the safety of those who do not wish to be located. The Missing Persons Act, 2018, strikes that very delicate balance.

The act sets out tests to obtain judicial authorization for access to records or search warrants, and to execute urgent demands for records. It requires police and judicial officials to consider privacy issues and whether there is evidence that the person does not wish to be located, including because they are fleeing violence. The act provides guidance to police on what information may be disclosed about a missing person before and after they have been located.

There are circumstances where a missing person may be at imminent risk of harm, or records that could be helpful in a search are destroyed in the time it takes to obtain a judicial order. In such cases, police may exercise an urgent demand for records without seeking a judicial order. The officer would have to report the use of an urgent demand to a member of the police service designated by the chief of police and make reasonable efforts to notify the person whose information was accessed. The police service board would have to report publicly on the use of urgent demands by the police services.

In any missing persons case, the police have one goal: to locate the individual, to ensure their safety. I applaud them for the work they do, and I am committed to ensuring that they have the tools they need to locate a missing person sooner.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): It is now time for responses.

Pride Month

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d also like to welcome all of our distinguished guests here in the Legislature today.

It’s an honour to speak about Pride Month as the Ontario NDP critic for LGBTQ issues. New Democrats are proud to stand in solidarity with the LGBTQ community, not just in June but every day of the year. Pride Month is an important opportunity for us to celebrate the gains we’ve made and to reflect on how far our society still needs to go.

Last July, I had the privilege of marching in London’s Pride parade for the first time as an openly gay MPP. The level of support and enthusiasm was incredible, and it was inspiring to see members of London’s LGBTQ community march proudly while being cheered on by supportive families and neighbours. I look forward to attending more Pride events this month, such as Blockorama, organized by Nik Red, as well as many others throughout the summer.

Organizations like Pride Toronto have worked day and night to host a wide range of parades, art shows, speakers and festivities in the Village and across Toronto. Pride events like these are happening all across our province, from Sarnia to Peterborough to Ottawa, and I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to attend these events. I hope they celebrate alongside the LGBTQ community, while also listening to their concerns.

I want to thank the many LGBTQ organizations, activists and volunteers who are working tirelessly to show their communities that love is love. But it’s also important to remember that Pride was founded as a protest. Pride began as a way to recognize the Stonewall riots, when Marsha P. Johnson and so many others stood up for equal rights. We continue to stand on their shoulders, and the shoulders of those who came before us. We must honour their legacy by remembering that Pride remains a time for the LGBTQ community to push for equal rights.

On this account, we still have much distance to go. Wait times for gender reassignment surgeries across the province remain lengthy and costly. Inclusive programs and curricula that represent LGBTQ students in schools are under threat, whether it is Conservative governments repealing modern sex ed programs or attacking gay-straight alliances in high schools.

It’s important to remind our federal and provincial governments that Pride is more than a symbol, and the LGBTQ community needs more than symbolic gestures to achieve true equality in our society. A commemorative coin—a token—means very little when we don’t see legislative change.

Missing persons

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the government’s statement on the Missing Persons Act.

I want to welcome Maureen and Adam Trask to the Legislature for this important day. It has been a long time coming.

There are currently over 300 people missing in the province of Ontario. For years, Daniel Trask was one of these people. Daniel went missing in Temagami in 2011. Sadly, his remains were found in 2015.

Daniel’s mom, Maureen, turned her grief into advocacy. I was proud to work alongside her, pushing for provincial legislation that would locate missing persons. Together, the Trasks and other families of missing people collected hundreds of signatures on petitions. I presented member’s statements, asked questions during question period, put forward a private member’s motion in 2015, and saw through this legislation under the last government.

Today, a few days away from Daniel’s birthday on June 7, I’m here again to talk about the Missing Persons Act finally—finally—becoming law.

In 2014, Maureen walked into my office looking for help. She and her husband had been looking for their son Daniel for three years. When we met, they still hadn’t found him. They were organizing search after search. In 2015, volunteer searchers—volunteer searchers—found Daniel’s remains. They had to organize these searches all on their own because in the province of Ontario, we didn’t have missing persons legislation. So, if a family member or a friend goes missing and there is no suspicion of foul play, there are few tools that police can employ to help people find their missing loved ones.

When this new legislation comes into effect, it will help police in locating missing people whose safety and welfare may be at risk. These are people living with dementia who go missing, these are children and adults with mental health issues, and these are missing Indigenous women and youth, too many of whom go missing.

I want to thank Waterloo police Chief Bryan Larkin, who has followed this issue closely.

We all agree that this new legislation can’t just be words on paper. Police need to be given the proper resources to find missing people. I hope that the Solicitor General is prepared to do the work, and I believe that she is.

In 2015, when I tabled this motion calling on the province to develop missing persons legislation, I said that, as a province, we needed more empathy and we needed more than indifference. We were all in a unique position, as legislators, to motivate action towards missing persons legislation. Today, four years later, I am proud that members from all parties have participated in this, and that we have gotten something done together. I’m hopeful that this legislation will help prevent future pain and suffering when a family member or a friend goes missing.

It has been my privilege to work with Maureen to advance this cause. I thank you for your advocacy.

Applause.

Pride Month / Mois de la Fierté

M^me Nathalie Des Rosiers: It is indeed an emotional day when we are here to acknowledge courage and to continue to celebrate advocacy.

C’est un honneur pour moi de souligner le Mois de la Fierté au nom du Parti libéral de l’Ontario.

Pride Month celebrates the vision, the courage, of the early heroes and heroines who dared to be proud and proclaim their pride in who they are and who they want to be. This has not always been easy. Indeed, Pride Month celebrates the Stonewall riots—and the level of prejudice that continues to exist in Ontario.

Earlier we celebrated the great leadership of the former Premier, the MPP from Don Valley West. I think she had a tremendous importance for all of us to be inspired and continue to be good advocates and to be trailblazers, and to continue to go forward and do what we are meant to do.

But prejudice continues. Hate continues. We all know of acts of violence, we all know of bullying, we all know of rejection, and we all know that the LGBTQ community continues to need to be helped and to be celebrated, and that’s what we want to do this month.

1610

It’s important to stand up, it’s important to stand out and it’s important to speak up, to celebrate the constant demand that equality requires from all of us. It is incumbent on all of us who have a platform to turn words into action and to actively demonstrate our support for LGBTQ2S communities every day, and this month particularly.

This month, I encourage all MPPs and everyone watching to go into the community and celebrate and support LGBTQ art and LGBTQ-owned businesses. The Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity has assembled a wonderful list that they have named Proud City, a list of businesses, community organizations and spaces which have positive spaces for the LGBTQ community.

I invite people to come to Ottawa for Ottawa’s Pride parade in August. I will be part of it. I will be part of the run, as well, that we always organize.

I invite everyone to continue to attend Pride celebrations. It is about celebrating equality, it is about celebrating our diversity, and it is celebrating what is good about Ontario: the continued support for equality for all.

Missing persons

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I rise today on behalf of our Liberal caucus to speak on the Missing Persons Act.

We all know that swift action is critical when a loved one goes missing. Two years ago, I was very proud to stand in this very chamber and introduce Ontario’s very first Missing Persons Act. Today, I want to recognize a person who actually helped us achieve this. Her name is Maureen Trask—and I know the member from Waterloo did make reference to her—who tragically lost her son Daniel in 2012. Maureen spent years pushing for change to allow investigators to be able to find missing persons, working especially closely with the member for Waterloo. I have to say, this is for you, and certainly for you, member for Waterloo—not to say your first name—and for all the parents who are out there searching for their children.

I also want to recognize someone who helped me push this policy through. His name is Branden Tate—one of our former staff who worked with Ms. Trask during that time.

The bill was also part of the recommendation through the inquest into the tragic deaths of seven Indigenous youth in Thunder Bay, and it did fulfill our then-government’s long-term strategy to end violence against Indigenous women.

Although we are maybe a little bit later than we anticipated, I want to commend the government in moving this bill forward, in passing it, and—I know with all of us who supported it—in enacting it and making it into law. So thank you to the Solicitor General.

Again, to your family, from all of us here: Thank you for your advocacy. Merci beaucoup.

Petitions

Sécurité routière

Mr. John Vanthof: I have a petition signed by 1,000 people from my riding.

« À l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« Attendu que l’autoroute 11 de Temiskaming Shores a un débit journalier moyen d’une année (DJMA) de 14 900 selon le ministère des Transports en 2016. Ce DJMA est l’un des plus hauts du nord-est de l’Ontario, et a également la limite de vitesse affichée la plus élevée »—c’est 80 kilomètres à l’heure—« de toutes les communautés traversées par l’autoroute 11 dans le nord de l’Ontario.

« Attendu que l’article IX, intitulé Vitesse, du Code de la route stipule que nul ne doit conduire un véhicule automobile à une vitesse supérieure à 50 kilomètres à l’heure sur une voie publique située dans une municipalité locale ou une agglomération.

« Attendu que la ville de Temiskaming Shores s’est considérablement développée le long de l’autoroute 11 au cours des dernières années, et comprend des établissements résidentiels et commerciaux, et devrait par conséquent être qualifiée une agglomération.

« Attendu que l’École catholique St-Michel a agrandi et inclus de la maternelle à la 8^e année et une garderie. L’étude d’impact sur le trafic réalisée pour le stationnement réaménagé en raison de cette augmentation recommande une limite de vitesse à 60 km/h.

« Attendu que la ville de Temiskaming Shores a appuyé la désignation d’une partie de l’autoroute comme zone de sécurité communautaire…

« Nous, soussignés, adressons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario la pétition suivante :

« À réduire la limite de vitesse affichée à 60 km/h de 0,1 kilomètre au sud de la route 65 au chemin Tobler’s sur la route 11 à Temiskaming Shores, ainsi que l’utilisation de techniques de peinture qui encouragent les usagers de la route à ralentir en plus d’améliorer la signalisation pour informer les conducteurs de la vitesse réduite et qu’une école est proche. »

Je suis vraiment en accord. Je vais affixer ma signature et la donner à la page Gia.

Ontario Food Terminal

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the Ontario government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is undertaking a review of the Ontario Food Terminal;

“Whereas the … minister and the MPP for Etobicoke–Lakeshore have not ruled out the potential sale of the land;

“Whereas any sale of the land would result in potentially 5,000 local jobs lost and Etobicoke families hurt;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That regardless of whether or not the Ontario Food Terminal review endorses a sale, the Ontario government will explicitly rule out any sale of the Ontario Food Terminal lands.”

I will sign this petition, and I’ll give it to page Aaryan.

Government’s record

Mr. Dave Smith: I have a petition entitled “The First Year of Premier Ford-led Government (Supporting and Promoting the Timeline of the Government for the People)

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas almost one year ago, Premier Ford’s PC-led government was elected with an overwhelming majority; and

“Whereas the government was elected on a mandate of restoring Ontario’s finances, as well as delivering responsible, accountable and transparent government; and

“Whereas since being elected, the Premier Ford government has passed a historic amount of legislation to get Ontario on the right track, including:

“Bill 2, Urgent Priorities Act, 2018;

“Bill 4, Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018;

“Bill 5, Better Local Government Act, 2018;

“Bill 32, Access to Natural Gas Act, 2018;

“Bill 34, Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018;

“Bill 36, Cannabis Statute Law Amendment Act, 2018;

“Bill 47, Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018;

“Bill 48, Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, 2019;

“Bill 57, Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018;

“Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019;

“Bill 67, Labour Relations Amendment Act (Protecting Ontario’s Power Supply), 2018;

“Bill 68, Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019;

“Bill 74, The People’s Health Care Act, 2019;

“Bill 81, Supply Act, 2019;

“Bill 87, Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019;

“Bill 100, Protecting What Matters Most Act (Budget Measures), 2019;

1620

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Continue to fulfill your mandate to protect what matters most to the people of Ontario while working to reduce immense debt and deficit shamefully left by the previous Kathleen Wynne Liberal government.”

I fully endorse this petition, will sign my name to it, and give to page Richelle.

Affordable housing

Ms. Jessica Bell: This petition is labelled “Housing Crisis: Safe and Affordable Housing Now….

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“—Reverse the recent elimination of rent control protections for new rental units;

“—End vacancy decontrol: Landlords should not be able to increase rents to whatever amount they want when a tenant moves out;

“—End above-the-guideline increases: Repairs and maintenance are a landlord’s responsibility and they should pay for them;” and finally,

“—strengthen the Residential Tenancies Act to protect tenants from renovictions and illegal evictions.”

I fully support this petition. I affix my signature to it, and I’m giving it to page Julien.

Education funding

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I have a stack of petitions from people around the province.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed changing the high school class average from 22 to 1 (students to teachers) to 28 to 1. This will mean less individual attention and fewer course choices for our students, and fewer teachers to support extracurricular activities. Ontario has a world-class public education system in which the five-year graduation rate has increased from 68% in 2004 to 86% in 2017;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To maintain high school class averages at 22 to 1 to ensure the continued success of students in a supportive and caring public education system; that is enabled through lower class size averages with licensed teachers.”

I support this petition, will sign it, and ask page Hillary to bring it to the table.

Environmental protection

Ms. Donna Skelly: This is “Supporting Schedule 7 in Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there have been concerns of potential illegal dumping of excess soils at Waterdown Gardens in Troy;

“Whereas there are concerns that the soil being dumped at Waterdown Gardens may be contaminated;

“Whereas sometimes hundreds of trucks are dumping excess soil at this site, causing dangerous road conditions;

“Whereas we, as residents, are concerned about the environmental impacts that the dumping of the excess soil is having on local streams and air pollution; and

“Whereas we, as residents, have been waiting for years for governments to take decisive action to regulate these actions and hold polluters accountable;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the government support and pass schedule 7 in Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act, and implement the proposed changes that would strengthen the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ enforcement tools and make polluters more accountable by making amendments to the Environmental Protection Act.”

I will sign it and give it to page Amelia.

Autism treatment

Mr. Jamie West: Speaker, I want to thank Julia Staddon, Sara Kitlar-Pothier and Natasha Delaney for collecting signatures on behalf of the Northern Ontario Autism Alliance.

“Support for Autistic Children in Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas every autistic child in Ontario deserves access to evidence-based therapy so that they can meet their potential;

“Whereas the capped funding system is based on age and not the clinical needs of the child;

“Whereas the program does not ensure access to services for rural and francophone children;

“Whereas the new Ontario Autism Program does not provide additional funding for travel costs;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services to ensure access to an equitable, needs-based autism services for all children who need them.”

I will affix my signature, and I want to thank the members of Sudbury for signing.

Government’s record

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I’m pleased to rise in the House today and read this petition.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas almost one year ago, Premier Ford’s PC-led government was elected with an overwhelming majority; and

“Whereas the government was elected on a mandate of restoring Ontario’s finances, as well as delivering responsible, accountable and transparent government; and

“Whereas since being elected, the Premier Ford government has passed a historic amount of legislation to get Ontario on the right track, including:

“Bill 2, Urgent Priorities Act, 2018;

“Bill 4, Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018;

“Bill 5, Better Local Government Act, 2018;

“Bill 32, Access to Natural Gas Act, 2018;

“Bill 34, Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018;

“Bill 36, Cannabis Statute Law Amendment Act, 2018;

“Bill 47, Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018;

“Bill 48, Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, 2019;

“Bill 57, Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018;”

“Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019;

“Bill 67, Labour Relations Amendment Act (Protecting Ontario’s Power Supply), 2018;

“Bill 68, Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019,” which is one of my favourites, Mr. Speaker;

“Bill 74, The People’s Health Care Act, 2019;

“Bill 81, Supply Act, 2019;

“Bill 87, Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019;” and one that I’m particularly proud of, Mr. Speaker,

“Bill 100, Protecting What Matters Most Act (Budget Measures), 2019;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to affix my signature and give it to the page Gia.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: It gives me great pleasure to submit this petition on behalf of the good people of Bay of Quinte. It is titled as such: Tell the member for Bay of Quinte “to Reverse Education Cuts.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government’s plan to cut 25% of high school teachers and replace in-person teaching with mandatory online e-learning will have devastating impacts on Ontario schools and particularly students in smaller and rural communities in ridings like the Bay of Quinte;

“Whereas these cuts will:

“—severely limit course options in our rural schools and limit opportunities for students to get the credits they need … for post-secondary schools;

“—limit student opportunities to pursue all of their learning passions, from art and music to chemistry and literature, in schools without properly staffed music rooms, libraries and science labs;

“—limit the extracurricular activities that enrich our school communities and keep many students engaged in their learning;

“—hurt the most vulnerable students and lead to poorer outcomes for students with special needs, including those struggling with learning disabilities, and anxiety and depression;

“—leave behind students in rural communities without reliable Internet access and students who do not learn well online;

“Whereas every young person who has a dream in Prince Edward county, Trenton, Belleville or anywhere in the Bay of Quinte should be able to pursue that dream at a high school in their own community;

“Whereas our children and youth deserve the best education our province can provide;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to respect children and youth, and to reverse the decision to cut 25% of classroom teachers in our high schools and replace in-person teaching with mandatory online e-learning credits.”

This was presented to me by Mackenzie Best of Picton. I’m very supportive of this petition. I’m going to affix my signature and hand it to page Jack to table with the Clerks.

Ontario Food Terminal

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: On behalf of SOFT, Save the Food Terminal, it brings me great pleasure to bring this petition.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is undertaking a review of the Ontario Food Terminal;

“Whereas the Premier, minister and the MPP for Etobicoke–Lakeshore have not ruled out the potential sale of the land;

“Whereas any sale of the land would result in potentially 5,000 local jobs lost and Etobicoke families hurt;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That regardless of whether or not the Ontario Food Terminal review endorses a sale, the Ontario government will explicitly rule out any sale of the Ontario Food Terminal lands.”

It gives me great pleasure to affix my signature and provide it to page Patrick.

1630

Orders of the Day

Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à offrir à la population plus de choix et un accès équitable en matière de vente au détail de boissons alcooliques

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 30, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 115, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act with respect to the termination of a specified agreement / Projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les alcools en ce qui concerne la résiliation d’un accord particulier.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Pursuant to the order of the House passed earlier today, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Fedeli has moved second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act with respect to the termination of a specified agreement. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members, this will be a 20-minute bell.

Thank you very much. I’ve just received a notice to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly:

“Pursuant to standing order 28(h), I respectfully request that the second reading vote on Bill 115, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act with respect to the termination of a specified agreement, be deferred until deferred votes on June 5, 2019.”

Signed by Lorne Coe, chief government whip of the government party.

Second reading vote deferred.

More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour plus de logements et plus de choix

Mr. Clark moved third reading of the following bill:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Debate?

Hon. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to rise this afternoon for third reading debate of the More Homes, More Choice Act. Today is the culmination of a great deal of thoughtful discussion here in the House and at committee, as well as broad public consultation and countless meetings across Ontario, all focused on finding solutions. Our government has worked tirelessly to do what needs to be done to find solutions to Ontario’s housing crisis.

Notre gouvernement travaille sans relâche pour faire le nécessaire en vue de trouver des solutions à la crise du logement en Ontario.

There is no time to waste. There are signs of the housing crisis everywhere you go, and especially in the greater Golden Horseshoe. You see it in media articles about how unaffordable the housing market has become. These aren’t just media stories; these housing challenges impact people’s lives. Whether it’s a story about low vacancy rates or bidding wars on single-family homes, families are struggling to find a place to call home. There simply aren’t enough homes, and that’s driving up costs. It affects everyone.

Young people in their twenties and thirties are concerned they won’t find a starter home or a place near transit. Families are looking for more space. Seniors want to downsize but just don’t have alternatives. No matter where they are in life, people need homes that meet their needs and their budgets. But finding the right housing at an affordable price in a desirable neighbourhood with a range of transportation options and near amenities is becoming increasingly hard, no matter who you are.

Speaker, Ontario needs more housing, and we need it now. Our government believes that adding more homes to the market and different types of homes will help turn this situation around. Our action plan, More Homes, More Choice, was informed by a broad public consultation we held in the fall. The consultation focused on five major themes: speed, cost, mix, rent and innovation. What does that mean? It means our government wants to cut red tape to make approval times faster for building new housing. We want to make costs more predictable for homebuyers. We also want to give people more choice. We want a different mix of housing types, including rental housing. And we need to encourage innovative approaches to both housing design and home ownership.

Speaker, speed is important. In Toronto, it takes over two years just to get site plan approvals for new buildings, and projects take between seven and 10 years to reach completion. That doesn’t help families waiting for homes, or those trying to build new housing. Nobody wins.

This government doesn’t build housing, but that doesn’t mean we have to sit on the sidelines. We do have a very important role to play, and our action plan makes that clear.

Cost is also important. We want to put affordable home ownership in reach of more Ontario families, and provide more people with the opportunity to live closer to where they work, at rents they can afford.

For too long, government has stood in the way of increasing housing supply, and it has affected families right across this province, whose budgets have been literally stretched to the breaking point, or who may have been forced to deal with long commutes every day, instead of time when they could be at home with their loved ones.

More Homes, More Choice introduces important new measures across several ministries.

After we released our plan, a senior policy analyst with the Fraser Institute stated that More Homes, More Choice contains “some of the boldest steps towards affordability the province has seen in a long time,” measures that will improve housing supply and affordability while protecting health and safety, a vibrant agricultural sector and the environment, including the greenbelt.

Speaker, Premier Ford has been crystal clear on this: We will preserve the greenbelt in all of its beauty.

Mix is also important. Ours is a detailed plan to help build the right types of housing in the right places, whether that be a first-time apartment for someone, a downtown condo, a townhouse or a detached home.

Nous offrons un plan détaillé visant à favoriser la construction des types d’habitations appropriés aux endroits propices pour rendre les logements plus abordables pour tous en Ontario.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, what I’m talking about isn’t just home ownership. Rent is also important. The state of the rental housing market is just as grim. Rents are up by almost 15%, and it’s not easy to find an apartment. The vacancy rate in most areas is less than 2%. People are waiting months and months to pay more than $2,000 for a one-bedroom apartment, and that’s just too much for the average person. Too many people can’t find the rental accommodation that meets their needs and their budget.

More Homes, More Choice includes a comprehensive suite of legislative, regulatory and policy changes from across our government. The legislation before this House would transform a broken housing system we inherited from the previous government.

Government cannot address the housing crisis on its own, but we can make it easier for municipalities, non-profits and private firms to build new homes.

The Development Charges Act lays out how municipalities can impose fees for infrastructure like roads, sewer, waste water, electricity, police and fire services on new construction. Let me be clear: We believe growth should pay for growth, and the changes we are proposing would make development costs clear from the outset. This will make costs more predictable for home builders, and it will protect new homebuyers, because these charges are often passed along directly to the consumer.

When we released More Homes, More Choice, a prominent urban planner here in Toronto praised our proposal for second units. Sean Galbraith called it a “fantastic” idea, giving it five stars out of five.

Innovation is also important, and this government is encouraging ideas from every sector to address this crisis, whether it’s tiny homes or whether it’s complete communities. We encourage the public, our municipal partners, and the development and non-profit sectors to continue to bring forward ideas and innovation.

This government, and my ministry specifically, is seeking partnerships. In fact, Speaker, I met with a delegation from the city of Toronto just yesterday. We discussed how to work together on inclusionary zoning along major transit corridors in the city of Toronto.

We’re also proposing changes to the Planning Act to give municipalities a variety of tools to help them plan and provide the basis for official plans and planning policies that will guide how communities develop. We believe it should be easier to bring housing to market, so we have proposed changes that would speed up local planning decisions and make the appeals process more efficient. More Homes, More Choice is about helping everyone in Ontario find a home that meets their needs and their budget.

1640

The proposed changes to both the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act reflect feedback from consultations with the public, municipalities and the homebuilding industry over the last several months. They were all posted on the Environmental Registry. At the standing committee stage, we heard from several individuals and organizations, and our government presented several thoughtful suggestions to make More Homes, More Choice even more effective.

We’ve included ambulance services as 100% recoverable for municipalities under the development charge regime. We’ve also extended the development charge deferral for non-profit housing from five to 20 years, to help encourage more affordable housing developments. I want to thank Habitat for Humanity for their suggestions. They are key partners, and they’re doing an incredible job in helping people find housing.

Speaker, we’ve come out of committee with a stronger piece of legislation, and I’d like to thank everyone who participated in that. I want to thank members from all sides of the House, including my parliamentary assistants, who just happen to be behind me, for all their hard work.

In everything our government does—every program, policy or decision—we put people first.

Dans tout ce que nous faisons en tant que gouvernement—chaque programme, chaque politique et chaque décision—nous accordons toujours la priorité à la population.

More Homes, More Choice is our plan to fix Ontario’s broken housing system, one we inherited from the previous government.

We appreciate that many of our opposition colleagues came out to support the Ontario Home Builders’ Association last week, who are a great partner and are committed to building the housing we so desperately need in this province. That said, we need them to do more than just attend and speak at receptions with those very people that they attack on social media and in town halls, sometimes literally within hours of them being here in the Legislature. Home builders in this province are job creators, innovators and partners of this government.

I call on the opposition to support this bill. Let’s get Ontario building again. Let’s get this bill passed and let’s create more homes and create more choice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I am pleased to rise today in this place to express any support for Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act. This act is a much-needed piece of legislation, and its passage would help address the growing housing crisis in Ontario. It would ensure more affordable homes for more Ontarians and communities across our great province. It does so in a responsible, pragmatic manner that balances environmental protections with increased supply; indeed, balancing a healthy environment with a healthy economy.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has spoken about the problems our government is about to fix. The minister has spoken about delays, costs and red tape that have prevented home ownership from being anything but a dream for so many Ontarians. More importantly, the government has a plan to remove the obstacles, to get the right type of homes built in the right places, and to give people and families the flexibility they need when looking for an affordable place to live. The minister has put forward a plan that is truly for the people, and I’m happy to speak on behalf of the legislation that will help make that plan a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to use my time to speak about some of the legislative initiatives being undertaken by my ministry that will contribute to our government’s goal of more affordable housing for more Ontarians. As the honourable members will hear, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks like the other ministries in the Ontario government, is taking a balanced approach, an approach that meets the goals of our ministry—preserving and protecting our environment—while supporting a thriving economy that provides jobs and opportunity for all.

Our ministry is moving forward with important updates that will modernize some of our legislation. These changes will improve on the strong environmental protections that families and our province have come to expect and deserve. One thing I can tell you as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, is that people in Ontario are passionate about their environment. They want the government to take decisive action to protect air, land, water and species, and to address climate change. They want to do their part. They want to make sure that their actions and decisions are not harming the environment, whether they are at home or on the job.

But—and this is a very important point—people believe in balance. They understand that environmental health and economic health are not mutually exclusive. They expect a balanced approach that recognizes the interdependence of environmental and economic well-being. This is exactly what we are doing with the proposed legislative amendments that I’ll now discuss.

When Ontario originally passed the Environmental Assessment Act in 1975, it was the first in Canada. While Ontario’s environmental assessment process has served us well, it has not kept up with the challenges we face today. That is why we are proposing sensible, pragmatic solutions to modernize Ontario’s environmental assessment that will serve Ontarians for the next 50 years.

We started the process by releasing a discussion paper on environmental assessment for public review. At the same time, we’ve released proposals for a series of short-term actions to reduce administrative burden while protecting the environment. Our proposals for environmental assessment would reduce regulatory burdens, streamline processes and make transparency a priority. They would ensure strong environmental protections while promoting transparent planning and providing opportunities for public participation.

We propose to exempt low-risk projects from having to go through environmental assessment processes. This change will bring Ontario into line with every other jurisdiction in Canada. Here we are talking about activities like snowplowing, de-icing, constructing roadside parks and putting in bike lanes. This will speed up worthwhile projects, save money and time, and enable Ontario families and communities to benefit from those projects without harm to the natural environment.

At the same time, we are committing to ensuring that the environmental assessment process is a process focused on serving Ontario’s interests first. That is why we are proposing to remove the ability for foreign intervenors and other interests outside of Ontario to delay or stall projects that are good for the province. It only makes sense that it is people in Ontario who should be the ones who can intervene in Ontario projects.

The discussion paper initiates a broader review of Ontario’s environmental assessment program. We have sought public comment on how we can focus an environmental assessment program on projects that pose the greatest risks and have the biggest potential impact on both communities and ecosystems.

We will consult on the development of service standards for ministry approvals, to reduce the time it takes to get approvals and provide certainty for project proponents.

To reduce duplication, we are consulting on the development of a new agreement with the federal government for projects that must go through both a federal and provincial environmental assessment.

Finally, we are proposing to go digital. As it now stands, Ontario is the only province in Canada that does not accept electronic submissions for environmental assessment documents. That is just not acceptable in 2019.

We are also proposing changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. Our province has an extensive system of 36 conservation authorities that serve roughly 90% of our population. For more than 70 years, conservation authorities have played an important role in the land use planning and environmental protection processes of our province. They protect sources of our drinking water and conserve our natural resources. As early adopters of the watershed approach, they have helped protect people and property from extreme weather, such as flooding and other natural hazards.

As extreme weather events increasingly threaten our homes, businesses and infrastructure, conservation authorities will continue to play a key role in helping Ontario families and businesses prepare for the costs and impact of climate change in our communities. This is why we held consultations with stakeholders and the public. We wanted to speak to everyone about how conservation authorities can improve on the delivery of their core mandates as programs and services they deliver have expanded over time.

We have proposed a series of changes to update the Conservation Authorities Act. The act was first passed in 1946, and we must ensure that authorities meet the 2019 standards around both transparency and consistency. Our government is proposing to:

—update how conservation authorities use municipal levies to pay for programs and services;

—streamline and standardize the role conservation authorities play in municipal planning to reduce overlap and to make approvals faster and less costly; and

—improve the governance and accountability of conservation authorities.

The proposed changes will ensure that conservation authorities focus on helping to strengthen resilience to extreme weather events. These changes will also ensure the sustainable use of Ontario’s natural resources while making approval processes faster, more predictable and less costly.

In addition to posting on the EBR, we’ve worked closely with Conservation Ontario, the group that represents conservation authorities, and we’ve had many meetings with individual conservation authorities and have considered input from the Auditor General, among others.

I’ll now turn to the Endangered Species Act and the improvements we have proposed to protect and recover Ontario’s species at risk and their habitats. Our province is home to over 30,000 species of plants, insects, fish and wildlife. While many of these species have stable populations, today 243 are listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List.

1650

The Endangered Species Act came into effect more than 10 years ago to protect species and their habitats. In the intervening years, the act has come under criticism in its aim to protect and recover species at risk. We have heard repeatedly that the processes to obtain permits can be long, duplicative and unpredictable, and how this can shift focus away from finding the best solutions to meet the goals of the act.

We also know that applicants must often get approvals under other acts that have similar requirements to those in the Endangered Species Act. Duplication and inefficiency cost a lot of time and resources, while taking focus away from the overall important focus of recovering species. It’s a lose-lose situation.

We’ve heard these criticisms loud and clear and now are proposing ways to protect and recover species while taking into consideration the social and economic realities faced by communities and businesses.

In January, we put out a discussion paper to seek input on how to best update and modernize the act to improve the effectiveness of our environmental protections. Based on the valuable feedback we received, we are now proposing changes to better enable positive outcomes for species at risk while streamlining processes and ensuring collective resources are more effectively allocated to species protection and recovery.

These proposed changes include:

—enhancing enforcement oversight and enforcement powers to ensure compliance with the act;

—improving transparent notification of new species listings;

—appropriate consultation with academics, communities, organizations and Indigenous communities across Ontario on species-at-risk recovery planning; and

—creating new tools to reduce duplication and ensure that costs incurred by proponents are directed towards actions that will improve outcomes for species and their habitats.

I’ve also called for the establishment of Canada’s first independent crown agency dedicated to preserving species at risk, called the Species at Risk Conservation Trust. This independent agency would make informed and unbiased decisions on how best to use funds to support strategic large-scale actions that will assist in the protection and recovery of species at risk. I want to emphasize that the agency’s decisions will be guided by the best available science.

In addition to positive outcomes for species at risk, our approach will shorten approval timelines, reduce burdens and ensure greater certainty for activities with economic benefits to the people of Ontario.

Let me give you a few examples to show how the changes we are proposing will improve protection and recovery of species in Ontario.

Some species, like the butternut tree and several species of bats, are decreasing due to factors such as disease and invasive species. The current act does not allow the most effective path to protect these species. The changes we are proposing would help enable positive outcomes for threatened species by accumulating payments and leveraging collective resources for more strategic coordination of actions to support the protection and recovery of those species that are eligible.

Another example is multiple electricity transmission projects requiring endangered species permits. With our proposed changes, these projects could now be permitted under a landscape agreement that would approve a single strategic, coordinated approach for an entire area.

Our proposal would extend the automatic timeline for newly classified species from three months to 12 months. It would also give the minister the ability to temporarily pause protections where there are complex threats to species or significant social or economic implications to automatic protections for parts or all of Ontario. Pausing protections would allow the time needed to develop a collaborative approach that all stakeholders could support and to get the conservation solutions right from the outset.

Finally, our government is committed to ensuring that species assessments continue to be based on current science. This will continue to be determined by the independent expert Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario, or COSSARO. Our proposal would allow the minister to request the independent scientific committee to reconsider a species listing if there is new, relevant scientific information. But again, to be clear, the final decision on species listings will remain, as it is today, with the independent expert scientific committee. The approach that this government is taking on protecting species at risk is part of our commitment made in our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan to use the best science along with transparent enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, the last area that I’d like to touch upon relates to delivering our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan commitment to protect our land by proposing steps to properly manage local soil and brownfields to ensure valuable resources don’t go to waste. This will reduce construction costs associated with managing and transporting excess soil, reduce the risk of contaminants and revitalize vacant land for housing. These changes are an important part of our practical approach to balancing a healthy environment with a healthy economy. Achieving that balance, to date, has been difficult. To date, the current rules, or lack thereof, have prevented initiatives that would both protect our environment and stimulate economic growth in our communities.

Managing excess soils from construction sites and the associated trucking and relocation fees make up an estimated 14% of the overall construction costs, a percentage that would be reduced with greater local reuse of soils. Excess soil reuse is a growing concern among the development community and has challenged many municipalities whose local landfill capacity is being reduced by soil disposal. As it stands, Ontario sends almost two million tonnes of soil every year to landfills as waste, much of which may be reusable.

There are also barriers to redeveloping and revitalizing vacant lands, known as brownfields. These lands are often situated in prime locations, but developers are constrained by current rules that do not improve environmental outcomes. Our proposals will make it safer and easier for industry to reuse more excess soil locally while clarifying the rules that ensure that human health and environment are protected.

We will seek to clarify the rules and remove unnecessary barriers to the redevelopment of brownfields and put prime land back into good use. We are proposing real consequences and penalties, cracking down on those who break environmental laws, such as illegally disposing of soil. Better accountability will ensure compliance with environmental laws and hold those who do not follow them responsible. Finally, we will crack down on illegal dumping of contaminated soil by implementing a modernized process to seize vehicle plates when serious environmental violations occur, including trucks improperly disposing of soil.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks initiatives that I’ve just outlined will achieve the goal of the legislation we are debating today. It will make more affordable housing available to more Ontarians. These initiatives will also enhance our protections and ensure that the balance between a healthy environment and a healthy economy in our province exists and continues to be preserved.

I know that this is something that everyone in the provincial Legislature wants to see. That’s why I would urge all the members of the Legislature to support the More Homes, More Choice Act and give Ontarians a place that they can truly call home.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

M^me Nathalie Des Rosiers: C’est un grand plaisir pour moi d’être ici ce soir pour discuter de l’expérience du processus démocratique qui a animé le projet de loi 108.

Personnellement, cette expérience nous a tous un peu découragés. Le projet de loi 108, qui vise à faciliter la construction de logements, est certainement une bonne idée. Tout le monde veut davantage de logements. Cependant, le projet de loi a des dimensions qui inquiètent un grand nombre de personnes.

Let me spell out the process that was followed for this bill and explain why many people have expressed concerns. I will also talk briefly about the substantive oppositions that we have and that continue to be shared by many intervenors in Ontario. I have some concerns, but also the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has concerns; the city of Toronto has concerns; councillors for the city of Ottawa have concerns; the Canadian Environmental Law Association has concerns; the conservation authorities of Ontario have concerns; Architectural Conservancy Ontario were not consulted and have concerns; and Ontario Nature has concerns. And all of them have reservations that they tried to express through the process.

The process was shortchanged. The bill was tabled in early May, and it affects people throughout Ontario. All municipalities are affected by the bill. Last Friday was the only day of public hearings, and the deadline for submitting amendments was the same day, at 6 p.m., which meant that dissatisfied people or people who had concerns and wanted to submit some amendments and be heard about this were not able to do so. This felt so disrespectful of the people of Ontario who came to this Legislature to be heard about their legitimate concerns.

If we invite public hearings, if we do them, we should treat them with respect. Many people who came felt that their ability to submit changes to the bill was non-existent. I believe that we should not treat people this way. I saw, particularly, the Architectural Conservancy Ontario people, who spoke to the fact that the Heritage Act was being changed. That’s their bread and butter. They know the act. They wanted to be heard about it and were not able to submit amendments in due time.

1700

The government said that they did have a large consultation last fall, suggesting that that was enough, and that the parliamentary process, the process that is taken by this House, is just pro forma; it’s not that important because the government does its own consultation and therefore whatever happens in this House should not matter. Let me disagree; it does matter. The process that we follow here gives legitimacy to the bills that are eventually passed. There’s good reason why there are three readings for a bill. It’s not supposed to be shortchanged, because that makes democracy work. That’s why we’re here. That’s why we pay respect to each other. We should pay attention to the processes that have existed and that should continue to be upheld. A respectful process, not a shortened, manipulated one, is what gives legitimacy to the approval of legislation.

The government can change the rules if it wants to—but it doesn’t mean that it should do it. That’s what I’m trying to say today. There are people out there who have a legitimate concern and they want to express it. So I think this process of adding one day of public hearings with the same day for amendments goes too far in trying to speed up the bill. It’s not because the government has a majority that it should do everything that it wants. It must continue to respect the legitimate expectations of people who come here.

The NDP and myself—I was on the committee— submitted a range of amendments that were discussed on Monday. None of them were accepted. Indeed, at times there was complete silence in terms of responding or trying to explain what the position of the government was. This is not helpful for people to understand what exactly the government is seeking to do.

The concerns that were expressed by municipalities were not illegitimate. They just want to have answers to their questions because they are the ones that will suffer the consequences.

Let’s talk a little bit about some of the legitimate concerns that were raised throughout this process.

Let me be clear: Not everything is wrong with this bill. I really appreciate, and I agree with this—the facilitation of secondary dwelling units is something that we all supported. The previous government was in favour of it. I welcome and appreciate this.

The concerns that have been expressed by municipalities can be summarized in three ways. They are concerned that the limits on the way in which they can impose development charges will not allow growth to pay for growth; that, essentially, what it will mean is that current tenants and owners will actually see their taxes increase or their rent increase. This is bad because it will not make housing cheaper if taxes are increased or rent is increased. This was a concern that was expressed multiple ways by different municipalities.

People were concerned that parks would no longer be able to be financed and built for new developments. People were concerned that we are returning to the OMB model. And I was surprised because last year the Conservatives before Doug Ford did indeed support the change from the OMB to the LPAT, and the reason why they did that is because the LPAT supports better and gives more confidence to municipal planning. It makes it rigorous and makes it that it must be observed.

Finally, I think many people expressed lots of concern about the changes to the Endangered Species Act. I will summarize briefly and say that they were concerned about diminishing the scientific integrity of COSSARO because of the changes to the composition of it. They were concerned about the precautionary principle being undermined by the delay in protections to some species.

They were concerned, and I am concerned, about this. I submitted, I thought, a very reasonable amendment to protect the integrity of the scientific—because I wanted to make sure that we did not compel COSSARO to use the lower level of risk. At times, I want just to change the word “shall” to “may,” to continue to support the ability of COSSARO to exercise its judgment. I think it’s dangerous to compel a scientific body to use the lowest level of risk, because it depends. Maybe because of climate change, it will no longer be appropriate to continue to use this lower level of risk.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in conclusion that more people needed to be heard on this. More people had concerns. It’s not to say that their concerns were illegitimate; they had some serious concerns. I think it’s just incumbent upon all of us to treat the process with respect.

On that note, I would like to move to adjourn the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Madame Des Rosiers has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of adjourning the debate?

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1707 to 1737.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): All members take their seats, please.

Madame Des Rosiers has moved a motion to conclude the debate.

All in favour, please rise and remain standing.

All opposed, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 5; the nays are 53.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I declare the motion lost.

Further debate? I return to the member for Ottawa–Vanier.

M^me Nathalie Des Rosiers: My point is simply this: I think this bill requires to continue to be heard by people. We have received today many consultations from different people who are emailing me and emailing all of us, trying to get some additional time and some additional precision.

Let me return to where I was, which is an analysis of the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act. Ontario should be proud of the Endangered Species Act. It was one of the bills that was voted for unanimously by all parties. The Conservative Party did vote for the Endangered Species Act when it was first implemented, when it was first proposed, and we should be proud of the way in which it rests on several principles.

The first principle is scientific integrity. It is important that the decision to list species to be at risk is not a political one, but is one that actually reflects scientific inquiry. This principle is important to the credibility of an endangered species regime, and it is essential for people to believe it. If it’s just politics, then it’s not going to be appropriate and nobody will believe it. To maintain the scientific integrity of the Endangered Species Act—the entire regime rests on that assumption.

So I urge the government not to dilute at all the scientific integrity of the process. I’m not alone in this; many of the environmentalists who appeared today with us at the press conference this morning or at committee last week raised the issue that the scientific integrity, the scientific credibility, of COSSARO was being undermined.

It is undermined in two ways: It’s undermined because there is a change in the composition of the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Government side, come to order, please. There are too many conversations taking place. I can’t hear the member.

M^me Nathalie Des Rosiers: The scientific integrity of COSSARO is being undermined in two respects.

Number one: There is a change in the composition. The composition of COSSARO presently requires that someone has scientific background or Indigenous traditional knowledge. This is a good component. It reflects the wisdom that we want to have on a committee.

The government is proposing to add the ability of someone with community knowledge, without defining what that is—and community knowledge could be anyone, and many people are concerned that that gives the ability to stack COSSARO with people who do not have the credibility, who do not have the knowledge base to actually make good determinations.

This will be damaging not only because the decisions may be wrong, but it will damage the credibility of the system. It’s not a joke to have a species be declared endangered. It’s something that we should all take very seriously, because it is our common humanity that is required to act. There are international obligations of all nations to protect biodiversity. This is not just about ensuring that development gets done wherever it wants to get done; it’s about us doing what we have to do by international law.

I urge the government again to actually remove this little bit of a phrase, to not allow “community knowledge” to replace “scientific knowledge,” which is essential to the credibility of the process.

The second way in which the scientific integrity of the Endangered Species Act is somewhat undermined is because the government—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Government members, please come to order. There are too many conversations going on. I’m having a hard time, even with an earpiece, hearing the member from Ottawa–Vanier.

M^me Nathalie Des Rosiers: The second way in which the Endangered Species Act amendments, the proposal of the government, undermine the scientific integrity of the act is that it compels COSSARO to use the lower level of risk.

Let me explain why I think it’s dangerous to do that. The first reason why it’s dangerous to do that is that the government now considers that, to determine whether a species is at risk, we can look not only at—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Member from Carleton, don’t be speaking to the gallery, please.

M^me Nathalie Des Rosiers: We can not only look at the species in Ontario, but elsewhere around the province. There may be nothing wrong with that, but you should not decrease the level of protection of a species in Ontario based solely on the fact that there are specimens in Quebec, Michigan or Manitoba, unless you are absolutely sure that indeed the species will continue to survive.

I objected in a way simply to the fact that it was the word “shall,” that it compelled COSSARO to reach a conclusion that said that they have to observe the lowest risk assessment. My only point is that it depends on the way in which the other specimens in the other provinces or territories are protected or are healthy.

It may depend on the impact of climate change and the evolution of their habitat or the evolution of the strength of the species. So their concern was that, in retrospect, the government was going too far in trying to facilitate the process of approvals under the Endangered Species Act. This is a concern that will, I think, continue to undermine the credibility of the system, and we should be worried about that.

The second point was that the Endangered Species Act undermined what we call the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is a fundamental principle of environmental protection. It says, “If you’re not sure, protect before you destroy.” This principle is essential because sometimes we don’t know what the impact will be. The precautionary principle has been a principle of environmental law for several decades now. It has motivated scientists to continue to be conservative in their assessment, and we need that. We need to protect, even in cases of uncertainty. The proposal by the government undermines that principle because it does say, “At times, we can just suspend protection for a period of time when it’s a new species being listed because we want to figure out how to protect it.” Delaying protection when a scientific community has decided that the species is at risk is a violation of the precautionary principle. You should not delay. You should protect, and then continue to do studies and continue to find the right solution. The Endangered Species Act has lots of ways in which the government can balance socio-economic factors and the protection of the environment. Indeed, there are many criticisms that often we have failed to sufficiently protect species at risk. To undermine further the credibility of the system is not a good solution for Ontario.

Finally, let me say how important it is—one of the other amendments that we tried to put forward was about the ability to fund activities that supported conservation of nature and education for the protection of endangered species. I feel very strongly—I think I’m not alone in Ontario—to recognize that the protection of endangered species will only happen if people want it to happen. It is too easy for people to ignore it. We can have the largest government agencies out there trying to protect it, but if all of us are not committed to that goal, if all of us are not committed to biodiversity, it just won’t happen. So I suggested another amendment, which was denied, to encourage the government to continue to fund activities that continue to promote better knowledge of the Endangered Species Act, better knowledge of biodiversity, better knowledge of what the protection of endangered species means and better knowledge of our responsibilities in international law to protect biodiversity.

Let me conclude with this: Biodiversity is not just about protecting animals and plants; it is about protecting humans. It allows us to continue to eat the food we eat. It entitles us to continue to live in a fair environment. So biodiversity is about protecting all of us, and that also means protecting the nature that surrounds us.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Suze Morrison: It’s certainly always a pleasure to rise in the House. Today, I’m happy to speak to Bill 108, although I have to say I’m not happy with Bill 108. I’ve found it to be a troublesome bill for a number of reasons, but more to the point, I’ve found the way this bill has moved through the House to be very problematic. As a new member to this chamber, about a year in at this point, I’ve come to learn—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Would the government members who are leaving please keep it down so I can listen to the debate? Thank you.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’ve come to learn that this government has developed a bit of a nasty habit. That habit is time allocation motions, which, as I’m coming to learn, only serve one purpose, and that’s to erode the quality of the debate that we have in this House and to cut out the voices of people from the legislation that we’re passing.

1750

When Bill 108 was time-allocated—we’re talking about a 200-page omnibus bill here, with 13 schedules that amend 15 pieces of legislation and make significant changes to environmental protections, the Planning Act and municipalities’ ability to pay for growth and development. When they time-allocated it, they only gave us one day at committee to hear from the people and the stakeholders of Ontario on how this bill will impact their communities in different ways. One day of committee hearings for the public is nowhere near enough to understand the impacts that this bill will have.

That one day meant that this was the extent of the agenda. We only got to hear from 19 stakeholders, and there’s no way that that was adequate enough. When we got to committee, we received more written submissions than we could even process or have time to read.

What I encourage the government members across to remember is that committee serves a really specific function in this House. With all good intention, you may have come to the table and said, “We thought Bill 108 was the right fix to the right problem”; maybe you had the best of intentions in doing that. But what happens when we come to committee is that you have to come to committee with an open heart and an open mind, and put your legislation on the table and hear from the people of our communities, hear from the stakeholder groups, hear from the citizens, hear from the people you claim to be for. You’re for the people; why aren’t you for the people when it comes to making space for their voices in committee?

When those people come in and they share their impactful statements with us on how your legislation falls down in their communities, how it maybe doesn’t work in a northern context, or how it doesn’t work in a small, rural context in southwestern Ontario, or how it doesn’t work in downtown Toronto, we can identify what those issues are. And then we need time to take that information in, process it and put good amendments on the table.

Speaker, we were put in a position where we had one day of committee hearings on Friday, and then the deadline for submissions to make amendments to the bill was an hour after we heard the last presentation from the last stakeholder group. We had an hour from the time committee hearings wrapped up to submit amendments. That’s no way to be writing good legislation, and it’s simply no way to right all of the various things that are entirely wrong with this bill.

There’s so much that’s wrong with this bill, Speaker. These are the written submissions that we received. I went through some of them, because of course none of these folks got a chance to get on the record themselves and come into committee and say what they needed to say. I don’t have a lot of time left on the clock today—I’ve got about probably six or seven minutes—so I’m going to try and hand-select a few of these. When we look at municipalities outside of Toronto—as a downtown Toronto member, I’m often accused by the government members as being one of the Toronto elite, if you will, but I’ll tell you that I’m sitting here and I’m doing the work, and we are listening to municipalities outside of Toronto.

When we look at the city of Mississauga, from the office of Bonnie Crombie, who’s the mayor there, she says in her written submission: “This is a sweeping piece of legislation that will have tremendous impacts on how we plan and grow as a city, and yet we have only had three weeks to read the legislation introduced on May 2, 2019, and provide formal, council-approved comments.” She goes on to say that “the legislation as it is currently written could have the effect of lowering development charges ... paid to the municipality.”

The most interesting comment that she makes is that she says that the bill will actually have a counter-objective to what the government has stated their plan is, which is one of their favourite talking points: reducing red tape. She says, “I am concerned that this legislation will increase red tape and administrative burden on municipalities, in particular, the changes to how DCs are collected”—DCs being development charges.

When we return to the report that her bureaucracy submitted, from the bureaucracy folks at the city of Mississauga, they make some really interesting points that go as far as to suggest that the government has come in with Bill 108 trying to fix a problem they don’t even have. They say, “Housing supply in general is not a major issue in Mississauga as the city has over 20,000 zoned residential units awaiting development. However, the city does have a significant affordable housing supply problem. Bill 108 aims to address housing affordability by reducing planning approvals timelines in various development-related fees imposed for new infrastructure. However, there is nothing in the legislation that requires developers to pass along these savings to new homebuyers or tenants.”

She’s saying that you’ve got a good premise. You’re coming in and saying, “We want to fix the affordable housing crisis in Ontario,” but you have a bad plan, and the way you’ve come up solving the problem in Bill 108 is going to do nothing to fix the problem. We hear this over and over and over again in these written submissions. I’m going to skip through a few of these. Again, I’ve only got a few minutes left on the clock.

We heard from Brampton, and again, they said, “Good thought, wanting to fix the housing crisis,” but again, you’ve left a lot to the regulations, so no one even really knows what to expect from you. You’re sitting over there saying, “Oh, don’t worry. We promise it will all be fine,” but you’ve left so much to the regulations that no one really knows what to do with this. Brampton, in their remarks, go on to say that you’re going to shortchange their city and leave them having to compensate for the loss of development charges in their property taxes, making the residents of that city pay for the growth of that city.

We heard similar comments from Durham region as well, but I want to move on to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Their written submission was fantastic. Again, they start off by saying, “Look, you’ve set out some important objectives, increasing housing”—you keep saying that you want to increase affordable housing, but I haven’t actually seen you do anything to achieve that yet in your mandate. But they go on to say that “the de novo approach”—which is the appeals process, so going from the current LPAT model back to the OMB—“is incongruent with the objective of faster decisions,” and that the “LPAT was never given a fair chance to demonstrate that it could speed up valid appeals.” Their advice was to “give LPAT a chance. Do not reintroduce de novo hearings.”

They’re just saying, “Guys, slow down. Give us a chance to let the current structure that we’ve barely had for a year”—and quite frankly, here in Toronto, at least, we’ve had almost no appeals move through the new LPAT process because as soon as the LPAT was put into place, all of the developers lined up and rammed all of their appeals through the old OMB before the cut-off. The backlog that has been created by that is developers trying to get in and around the new system before we even gave it a chance.

Moving on: We heard from the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario. This is a really interesting stakeholder group. They say, :Our members are concerned with changes proposed by Bill 108.” They’re concerned that “restricting cost-recovery tools”—so cutting the development charges—“does not guarantee lower house prices.” And “restricting cost-recovery tools ... will increase inequities within communities. These are unintended consequences that will undermine the health and vibrancy of Ontario’s communities.”

Speaker, going back to what I was saying earlier about the importance of the committee process, it’s to do exactly that: it’s to identify the underlying, unintended consequences of your legislation. None of us, as legislators, are all-knowing beings. We can come in with our hearts and our minds in the right place and think we’ve put a good idea on the table, but if you’re not going to sit down and let the committee process work itself out, if you’re only going to give us one day of committee hearings and cut the people out entirely, you’re never, ever going to put legislation forward in this House that meets the needs of our communities. And we’re never going to figure out what was wrong with these bills because we’re never going to have the time to do it. You are coming in with no humility, and it’s really, really disappointing. As a new legislator in this House—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. The member for Toronto Centre will have another opportunity, I’m sure, in the future when this matter comes before us again.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Pursuant to standing order 38, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

Adjournment Debate

Education funding

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Davenport has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question she put to the Minister of Education. The member from Davenport will have up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister’s parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara West, will have up to five minutes to respond.

1800

I turn now to the member for Davenport.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you mentioned, I did ask for this late show because I was indeed not satisfied with the government’s answers to my question yesterday—as I am on many days, unfortunately—and frankly, I think, neither are many Ontarians.

Yesterday, I raised the story of a teacher from the Grand Erie District School Board, Adrienne Roberts, who received notice that her job would be terminated in August because of the government’s cuts to education. When she posted her notice on Twitter, which a lot of teachers and others have been doing lately—they’re sharing the sad news—the Premier’s communications director replied with a tweet of her own, saying, “This board is playing politics and causing unrest for political purposes. The govt is providing” etc., etc. dollars “to make sure no teachers are laid off because of changes to classroom sizes and online learning. I’m sorry they’re doing this.”

These condolences are likely very cold comfort to someone facing a job loss. We know that Adrienne is one of many teachers and education workers who find themselves in the same circumstances.

Given these circumstances, I think it was fair to ask the Premier if he was finally ready to admit that his education cuts mean that teachers and education workers will lose their jobs. Unfortunately, he refused to answer me directly and simply referred it to the education minister.

Speaker, every day, we are seeing new layoff notices in boards across the province as school boards find themselves with less per-student funding and larger classes to support. We know that cuts to the local priorities funding also mean lost jobs.

The Premier and the Minister of Education want Ontarians to believe that they can cut $1 billion out of education without having an impact on jobs or on the classroom. It’s an insult to the intelligence of Ontarians, who elected all of us here, to try to peddle that story as truth.

Each day, members opposite reference their so-called attrition funding, as if that somehow justifies making these cuts. As I’ve said before, that funding simply lays people off more slowly. When it runs out, the fact remains that nearly a quarter of all secondary teaching jobs are set to vanish in this province within the next three years. The estimate that I’ve heard, and based on the figures we’ve seen, is that over the next four years, one in five secondary teaching jobs will be gone forever. That is 20%.

In their places will be classes of 40 students, sometimes even more, with dramatically fewer course options. We’re already seeing students being forced to make those really difficult choices, with the courses they depend on that give them the opportunities in the future gone, disappearing, being rescheduled into “never.”

Students will be forced to take up to four classes exclusively online, a move that’s going to cost even more jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the attrition funding doesn’t even apply to educational assistants, custodians, library workers, clerical staff and other education workers. The estimate now is that up to 2,500 of those people in those positions will lose their jobs.

In response to the questions that my colleagues and I have raised about these job losses, the minister continues to fall back into what seems to be really a pattern of blame. The Premier has blamed parents for skewing the results of his million-dollar education survey. Then he blames students who oppose his plans, calling them “pawns.” They really liked that, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you. Then he blamed teachers and education workers, calling them “union thugs.” As I said yesterday, this government is now desperate to pin the blame on school boards—who would have seen that coming?—honestly, anything to avoid taking actual responsibility for the deliberate chaos they are causing in our schools.

That is why I asked for this late show. I’m not satisfied with the government’s answer, and as I mentioned, frankly, neither are Ontarians.

With their majority, this government has the power to make these cuts to our education system. Yes, they do. But they also have to take responsibility for the impact their cuts are having on education workers and their families—and the students, might I add.

I’m asking them once and for all to simply acknowledge the damage they are causing, be honest with Ontarians, and reverse course before things get any worse.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Before I turn to the member from Niagara West, I would hope that the government members would be listening to their own member as he speaks, because you certainly weren’t listening to the opposition member.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Yes, Mr. Sarnia–Lambton, I almost called you to order several times. I gave you a bit of leeway this afternoon.

We turn now to the member from Niagara West.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you for the opportunity to rise today in the House to address the question from the member opposite. As we all know, the members of the opposition, sadly, since day one, have been fearmongering and spreading misinformation. Speaker, time and time again, this member and other members of the opposition rise and ask the same question, while the answer back is always very clear: No teacher will lose their job as a result of our proposed changes to class sizes and e-learning.

Our government—

Interjections.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Yes. Our government is protecting what matters most by creating an education system that puts student achievement at the centre of everything we do. We’re taking a responsible approach to balancing the budget that restores confidence in Ontario’s finances while protecting what matters most: our world-class health care and education systems.

For 15 years, the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, spent our province into a $15-billion deficit. It’s up to our government today to support our education system in a responsible and sustainable manner. Unlike the previous government, we commit to parents, students and all taxpayers to treat your money with respect and to ensure that every dollar we invest in education delivers the results you deserve. Moving forward, our decisions will be measured and responsible, with a focus on supporting students on their educational journey until they leave school with the knowledge, skills and experiences that will make them engaged global citizens.

Given that 92% of our spending is transferred to our partners, including school boards, our government needs the help of our partners to address the deficit and protect vital services that all Ontarians depend upon. We have been clear about our commitment towards working with them, which is why it’s so disheartening to hear the media reports coming out about the rampant spending at, for example, the TDSB. Especially at a time when we’ve asked our education partners, including the TDSB, to work with us to find savings and protect front-line services, it’s very disheartening to hear that the TDSB, in this critical situation, made the short-sighted decision to spend millions of dollars on top-of-the line iPhones. Speaker, the average Ontario resident can’t afford to buy this phone, so why should their tax dollars go towards brand new phones for TDSB executives? I am shocked that the members on the other side of this House continue to try to justify this behaviour. This is simply inexcusable.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Opposition members come to order, please.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Unfortunately for our students, it appears as though waste and mismanagement have become part of the routine. Time and time again, we’ve seen the TDSB show that they have blatant disregard and lack of respect for taxpayer dollars. For the TDSB to suggest that they bear no fault because they intended to cancel this contract earlier is, frankly, offensive. The real issue here is that the TDSB would contemplate a contract like this in the first place. It has become increasingly clear that the TDSB is unable to properly manage their procurement and administrative budgets.

But, Speaker, I want to be clear: One bad apple shouldn’t spoil the bunch. Across this province, there are lots of school boards that are stepping up to the plate and working with our government to maximize student achievement. I sincerely commend those boards for their commitment towards student success and financial restraint.

Continued commitment to student success is why we are continuing to provide our school boards with over $24 billion next year alone because, despite what the opposition would have you believe, our government is investigating in education like never before. Our budget commits to investing more in education in 2019-20 than the previous government committed for 2018-19. Let me repeat that. We’re investing more this year in education—$700 million more—than the previous government did last year. We’re investing in special education. We’re investing in French education. We’re investing in Indigenous education.

Speaker, our government is committed to making changes to our education system that are modern and forward-thinking—changes that respect parents, changes that support students and changes which focus our resources on the tools that educators need to do their jobs and to help our children have the skills and schools needed to find good jobs in the modern economy.

I’m proud to say that under the leadership of Premier Ford and Minister Lisa Thompson, the days of failing our students are over.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

This House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1810.