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

October 30, 2014

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Oct-30 (PDF)

L022 - Thu 30 Oct 2014 / Jeu 30 oct 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 30 October 2014 Jeudi 30 octobre 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 de lutte contre la fraude et de réduction des taux d’assurance-automobile

Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la responsabilisation et la transparence du secteur public et des députés

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Government accountability

Government accountability

Disaster relief

Temporary employment agencies

Senior citizens

GO Transit

Child protection

Pork industry

Child care

Child care

Environmental education

Transportation infrastructure

Pension plans

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 de lutte contre la fraude et de réduction des taux d’assurance-automobile

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Veterans

Super Santa Run

Emil Kolb

Emil Kolb

Child protection

Riding of Cambridge

Art Fleming

Aurora Lions Club

Halton Forest Festival

Withdrawal of Bill 34

Veterans

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Introduction of Bills

Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la sécurité des tribunaux, des centrales électriques et des installations nucléaires

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Long-term care

Petitions

Alzheimer’s disease

Agri-food industry

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Landfill

Bedbugs

School trustees

Ontario Municipal Board

Health care

Alzheimer’s disease

Air-rail link

Air quality

Environmental protection

Private Members’ Public Business

Hispanic Heritage Month Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur le Mois du patrimoine hispanique

Manufacturing Month

Protecting Child Performers Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la protection des enfants artistes

Hispanic Heritage Month Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur le Mois du patrimoine hispanique

Manufacturing Month

Protecting Child Performers Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la protection des enfants artistes

Orders of the Day

Child Care Modernization Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la modernisation des services de garde d’enfants

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 de lutte contre la fraude et de réduction des taux d’assurance-automobile

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 27, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 15,

An Act to amend various statutes in the interest of reducing insurance fraud, enhancing tow and storage service and providing for other matters regarding vehicles and highways / Projet de loi 15, Loi visant à modifier diverses lois dans le but de réduire la fraude à l’assurance, d’améliorer les services de remorquage et d’entreposage et de traiter d’autres questions touchant aux véhicules et aux voies publiques.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 29, I am now required to put the question: Mr. Bradley has moved second reading of Bill 15,

An Act to amend various statutes in the interest of reducing insurance fraud, enhancing tow and storage service and providing for other matters regarding vehicles and highways.

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

I heard a no. All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote is required, pursuant to standing order 9(c). This vote is deferred until question period this morning.

Second reading vote deferred.

Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la responsabilisation et la transparence du secteur public et des députés

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 29, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 8,

An Act to promote public sector and MPP accountability and transparency by enacting the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014 and amending various Acts / Projet de loi 8, Loi visant à promouvoir la responsabilisation et la transparence du secteur public et des députés par l’édiction de la Loi de 2014 sur la rémunération des cadres du secteur parapublic et la modification de diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When this item of business was last debated, the member from Nepean–Carleton had the floor. I recognize the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s my pleasure to re-engage in this debate on Bill 8, on behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party as well as the official opposition, of which we are both. Again, I would like to say to my colleagues, particularly those who were not part of this debate yesterday, that the official opposition agrees with most of this bill—the premise of this bill. Obviously, we support increased accountability and transparency within the assembly as well as within the broader public service. We do have some concerns, however.

I just want to simply reiterate those before I share my time with the member from Perth–Wellington, who is our government services critic and who I know will add a great deal to this debate.

I think we had an experience in the morning yesterday, when we talked about accountability and transparency, and then, later in the afternoon, transparency and accountability were defeated by the Liberal government when we decided, as an assembly, not to allow Peter Faist and Laura Miller to appear before the justice committee in order to allow that committee to complete its work.

I know that was a major disappointment, not only for the official opposition but also for the third party, as we did stand up in union trying to increase accountability and transparency with respect to the two cancelled gas plants that cost taxpayers $1.1 billion, all in the name of winning an election in the 2011 campaign.

I just wanted to point out that there have been a number of different pieces of legislation that have gone forward before in this assembly to bring increased and enhanced accountability and transparency, but they’ve been ignored. Again, the antidote to a crisis at OLG was a piece of legislation that did not prevent a crisis at eHealth. Then legislation came forward to prevent future eHealth-like scandals, and we got Ornge. Then there was another piece of legislation that was put in place to prevent scandals like Ornge, and we got the $1.1-billion or $1.2-billion gas plant scandal.

Again, we look at the fact that there has been legislation put before the House but it has been ignored by the government and various government agencies and departments. That, to me, says we can’t legislate ethics; we actually have to set the bar higher. I think we could have set the bar higher yesterday, had we voted in unison to allow Faist and Miller to appear before the committee, but that did not happen. Only the official opposition and the third party supported that. So that’s a concern.

I also wanted to point out, as a result of the cancelled gas plants and the alleged destruction of documents, that there had already been legislation in place to protect public archives and public record-keeping and that was ignored. So, simply adding another clause in this legislation isn’t going to protect future records, because it was blatantly and flagrantly ignored.

I just have five points I want to raise before I pass on to remarks by my colleague Randy Pettapiece.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Please use the member’s riding.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I am concerned about overlap and duplication. You know, nothing here has been costed. I think the government does owe it to the assembly as well as to members of the public to explain if there will be overlap, particularly between and among the officers of this assembly, and they must explain to us what that added cost is; not that anybody would begrudge a cost for increased accountability, but I think it would be the responsible thing to do.

I am concerned that some of the broader public sector services and agencies aren’t designated in this legislation. I want to make sure that the LHINs, the CCACs and all of our hydro entities are included. The government has the onus now to do that. As I mentioned, we’ve had legislation in the past that should have addressed many of these scandals—this mismanagement—and it didn’t, and that’s a concern for me.

Also—and I raised this on a number of occasions—I actually think that if you’re going to extend this piece of legislation, it must be amended to include all offices of the assembly that have staff, and must include the Speaker’s office as well as the Clerk’s office.

Finally, I think there is no reporting mechanism in place for those assembly members at this point in time. To leave it to regulation or to the Board of Internal Economy is one thing; actually to set it out in legislation and prescribe it, and give our constituents back home the comfort of knowing that this information will be available to them, where it will be available to them and when it will be available to them, is critical.

With that, it was a real pleasure to engage in this debate on behalf of the official opposition. The member from Perth–Wellington will ably and capably complete my hour’s leadoff.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you, Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand in this House and share time with my colleague from Nepean–Carleton.

I’ve been fortunate, in the short time I’ve been in the Legislature, to pass a couple of motions with all-party support. The first motion that I passed basically said that before a government introduces legislation or tries to pass legislation, think about it. Think about what the ramifications of that legislation are before you pass it. I can see that there are some flaws in this bill that we would certainly like to address, because I don’t think the government completely took that to heart.

I’d like to read you a letter from the municipality I live in, the municipality of North Perth. It was sent to me by the mayor, Julie Behrns. She contacted me on behalf of the municipality of North Perth in regard to the creation of the new accountability measures as proposed by this government earlier this month. She’s talking about the previous bill:

“We have read and understand what this new implementation would mean for us as a municipality and agree with what is trying to be achieved, but feel that it is not being approached in the appropriate manner.

“We as a municipality believe that we are already meeting the proposed expectations. North Perth currently has procedures in place that are effective in maintaining an accountable and transparent government. Implementing the proposed changes would be creating duplication of what we already have in place and would create an inefficient process with provincial oversight.

“As with many new initiatives, the financial implications of these new responsibilities are undetermined. Costs associated with the new accountability measures will almost certainly put a continuing strain back upon the municipalities and their citizens for these increasing financial and administrative responsibilities.

“We strongly encourage your government to consider the financial implications and administrative implications that these new accountability measures will have upon municipalities. A thorough review of existing practices within local government will ensure that you are aware of the existing methods municipalities use to ensure accountability and transparency in local government.”

Speaker, this is a well-written letter, and it certainly brings to light a couple of the concerns that the mayor of North Perth has with this bill.

After that, I wrote the Premier and asked her to give us a response to the mayor’s letter. I haven’t received one yet, and I sent this letter back in April. I’m disappointed that I haven’t seen that yet.

I think it’s rather rich of the government to introduce accountability measures to municipalities and different agencies within the government, especially after what happened yesterday, as my colleague from Nepean–Carleton said. We could have had the last witnesses to the gas plant testimony. However, you were here and you saw how that was voted down. What kind of message does this send to everybody else? “We want you to be accountable but we don’t have to be.” I think that’s a clear message that has been sent to municipalities and people in Ontario after what happened yesterday.

These two witnesses could have, may have, shed some light on what transpired with the alleged cancelling of emails in what we call the gas plant scandal. However, they have been denied that, and the committee has been denied that right to question them, because of the events of yesterday. I think it’s short-sighted on the government’s part not to do this. I think I can understand why they’re doing it: They just don’t want to hear the testimony, because it could be more damaging to their reputation. However, for the sake of democracy, we should have had that opportunity.

There’s another letter here that I have, Speaker, that I’d like to read into the record. It comes from the Royal Canadian Legion Ontario Provincial Command, veterans services chairman, in response to this bill. Part of it includes a patient ombudsman for hospitals and long-term-care homes.

“This patient ombudsman has been a long time coming, and one which we as a provincial committee have been pushing for. The ombudsman needs to have teeth for any vulnerable Ontarians.” This is from Derek Moore, who is district C commander of the Royal Canadian Legion. He says, “We feel that the patient ombudsman is unsatisfactory because the PO reports to the minister, not the Legislature.” And they hope the government will make some comments on this the next time we sit in the Legislature. He feels that needs to be corrected.

I think that’s a really good point. Certainly, if the ombudsman reported to the Legislature, we’d get access to his comments a lot faster than if it sits on a minister’s desk and isn’t brought forward.

The duplication of measures in this legislation does nothing but cost money. And this is something that the minister has failed to do: There are no costs involved here, no estimate of costs that are going to be passed on to taxpayers or to municipalities with the implementation of this bill. This is a real concern. Being a municipal councillor in North Perth, I saw many instances of government regulations that came down without any consultations with municipalities, and all of a sudden there’s a cost that’s involved.

The municipality is caught flat-footed, but the province says that you must do these things, and costs are attributed to it with no help from the government that is ordering any of these changes. Again, I get back to my resolution that you should think of the ramifications of anything you do in this place and what effect it’s going to have in Ontario. Some of these issues haven’t been fully explained: certainly, the one about cost implications and one of the concerns that the mayor of North Perth had, the duplication of services.

In North Perth, if we had any issues with what we could and couldn’t do, we would ask the clerk. We had a process in place. The clerk would advise us as to whether we should be talking about something or whether we should go in camera, things like this. It worked very well. I know for a fact that if I had any doubts about whether I should be sitting there debating something in council, if I had any doubts at all, I would either ask her or I would leave the proceedings, because what I used to go by was, “When in doubt, get out.” That’s what I used to do.

So now this government has decided, with no consultation with many of these agencies and many of these places, that they know best, even though municipalities have taken it upon themselves to put some of these rules in place in order that they may more effectively govern their municipalities.

Costs are a thing that municipalities are having real issues with these days, because they only have one source of money, which is the taxes that they charge their ratepayers, property taxes. So it’s difficult. They have very limited ways of raising money. Most of their services that they supply are cost-recovery, such as their sewer systems or lights. It’s nice to make a little bit of money on these things, but most of it is more of a cost-recovery thing.

So when a government comes with a piece of legislation that can have monetary ramifications to the municipality, where are they supposed to get the extra money? It’s always an issue, which I saw many times when I was a councillor with the municipality of North Perth.

You know, I watched the World Series ball game last night. It kind of reminded me of what a government should work like. When you’re out playing ball on the field, you’re out there in front of everybody; everybody sees what you’re doing. You see the strategy. If you don’t catch the ball, you’re not going to have the chance to make an out. If you don’t hit the ball, you’re not going to get a chance to get a run. It’s just as simple as that. I think legislators should look at this type of thing. We must be open and upfront with those who we represent, certainly from our ridings and those in Ontario.

This is what we saw last night. We saw a pitchers’ duel. If the pitcher doesn’t put that ball where it’s going to go, somebody’s going to hit it out of the park. It’s just an honest way of watching a sport, an honest way of playing a sport.

I think that’s something that we need to get back to in this Legislature, in that we need to consult, we need to manage, but with the partnership of those lower-tier governments that we have an effect on. We must get their expertise, their comments, before implementing legislation that does have an effect on them. That not only gives them a chance to further input; it certainly builds up a sense of trust that the upper-tier and lower-tier governments can grow as we move forward.

I also wrote the Premier another letter concerning this very issue back in April, which I haven’t received a response to, but it basically says the same thing: that there are some real concerns in Ontario on this bill. They would have loved to have had consultation on it before things were done. We understand that this bill will get to committee. We hope that the committees will listen to our points and take them to heart, because with what has happened here in the last number of years—I’ve only been here three years, but I’ve seen a lot of history in this place in those three years.

Certainly, a lot of it is not good, having to do with the gas plants and Ornge; and with what happened the other day with not letting these two witnesses come to testify. That helps breed distrust within the municipalities, and our ratepayers and taxpayers of Ontario, with the provincial government.

So whenever we bring legislation to this House, it’s just fair that there should be some consultation to see if the legislation is even needed. I’m certain that you can look through this and see that there are parts of it that aren’t needed. There are parts that maybe just go a little too far, as was outlined by the mayor of North Perth.

I was interested in some of the comments that my colleague from Nepean–Carleton had, having to do with the ongoing OPP investigations. As I understand, it’s the first time that has happened in this Legislature, that I’m aware of. I stand to be corrected if that’s not true. Now there are two investigations and not just one. Unfortunately, the OPP are not able to call the witnesses that we’re interested in, and that’s really too bad.

This legislation covers an enormous amount of ABCs—agencies, boards and commissions—plus municipal interests. Cancer Care Ontario is one of them; eHealth or whatever has been cited in some of these investigations, that we need to have a harder look. The government is proposing that this legislation would make things more transparent and make these agencies more accountable in their dealings with government and with the public.

I would suggest that this is a piece of legislation that tries to deflect some of the criticism of this government over the past years—starting as far back as 10 years ago, when the eHealth scandal first came out—trying to get people to forget some of these things. The government is trying to put themselves in a better light, in that they want to tell the public or try to convince the public that what they’re doing is

an act of trying to instill that trust back into their government and into what they do. But when you start deflecting things, there are sometimes things that reflect back on you. For every action, you know, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. I think the taxpayers of Ontario can see through this, and will see through some of these things in this legislation and have serious thoughts as to exactly what this government is trying to do in deflecting criticism from them, in that they claim to be more transparent and accountable.

I believe one of the ways to instill that trust and to help create a better partnership between government and lower-tier governments and certainly the people of Ontario is that when you ask questions to find out just exactly what happened, whether it be the dealings of the government or anything else, be fair and stand up and give answers if you can.

I know that the committee, especially on this gas plant thing, has been going on forever—a long, long time. But it’s because of a lot of government stalling, delays and getting documents that were asked for. Estimates of the cancellations, the dollar values were certainly way out of line of what actually happened, what it actually cost us. It was a long time before that was brought out. The government was kicking and screaming over releasing those figures, and finally, it was done.

Thousands and thousands of documents were finally released. At times they said they had released all the documents, and then we would find out that they hadn’t. Certainly, matters of contempt to Parliament were dealt with. So it has been quite the three years with some of these things.

Now, as I’ve said before, this process is going to be cut short because the government doesn’t feel it needs to hear from any more witnesses although the two that we’re interested in should have an opportunity to testify. If they had no dealings with what has been alleged to have happened with the deleted emails, then at least they should have an opportunity to clear their names. That’s not going happen now.

It’s interesting that whenever this side of the House, our party, says something that rubs a raw bone with the government, they always refer to history that’s 20 or 30 years ago and start talking about that. Well, we’re not talking about 20 or 30 years ago; we’re talking about current history and things that need to be looked at.

It’s frustrating for me. I get asked in my riding, when I go to events, about what is going on down there, because people want answers. I just have to say to them that it has been a frustrating process getting answers from this government, especially now, since they want to go to report writing with this committee and not let us complete our work.

I think members of our party have done a fantastic job on these committees, especially this one, to bring out a lot of the truth as to what happened and how much it cost Ontario’s taxpayers. Certainly, without the efforts of our party and others, this wouldn’t have happened. It would have just gone by the wayside without any sense of accountability from this present government.

I think I’ll get back to the bill. The reason I’m talking about these things is because the bill is framed to deflect criticism from this government on some of the things that have happened in recent history. But the issue is, it’s putting more impetus on municipalities and other agencies that have been trying to do a good job and have things that they want to accomplish—such as the Legion, when I talked about the ombudsman. The government wants to give a sign that they are trying to do things right, which we know that they’ve had problems with in the past, to deflect criticism of their government.

I think we’ve all been brought up to believe, and it’s been instilled in us, that maybe telling the truth is the better way of doing things. You probably won’t get in as much trouble than if you’re caught not telling the truth. I was probably punished worse if I was caught in a lie by my parents, and deservedly so. I think that’s something that governments have to understand: Fess up to what you’ve done and get on with life instead of dragging things out and then coming up with bills like this that try to—“Let’s go over here a little bit, and maybe people will forget some of the things that we’ve done in the past.”

Being open and transparent—I keep hearing this all the time from the other side of the House. You see it in the newspapers. I don’t know how many times that has been repeated and repeated and repeated. But I guess the definition of that varies depending on who you are, because we don’t see that today in some of the dealings with this government. We’ve asked for the whole story on the MaRS project that they decided to get involved with. We don’t have that story yet. We’d certainly like to see it, because I would suspect that there are some things that have happened there that give us cause for concern.

This bill will go to committee. I would hope that the government listens to all of our concerns on it, and also the concerns that I’ve read into the record from the mayor of North Perth and the Legion. Listen to it. Let’s debate those things, let’s talk them over, because with any legislation—certainly with this one, as you can see, there are some things in it that I believe weren’t well thought out, that need to be addressed. Address the concerns of those who have taken the time to not only write to me but I’m sure have written to some of our other colleagues about their concerns, too.

So I would hope that the government will allow us to bring these to committee, and that we can make the changes that we feel are necessary. I believe when the committee looks at them, all parties would probably agree with a lot of the things that I’ve spoken about this morning and that my colleagues have spoken about, too.

Speaker, I think I’m going to finish up right now. I thank you for the time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I want to thank the members for Nepean–Carleton and Perth–Wellington for their comments on this bill. I know that our member from Kitchener–Waterloo will be doing the lead for us on this bill and will have some of the same concerns but many more as well. New Democrats certainly have some immediate concerns that jump out in this bill, particularly in the case that it is an omnibus bill. That’s a hard word to say.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s ominous.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes, it’s an ominous bill. That’s what I wanted to say.

For me, being a nurse and working in the health care field for almost 40 years, my concern is, why is an important change to health care embedded in this bill, with I don’t know how many other schedules?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Eleven.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Eleven other schedules. The government, over the past week and a half, two weeks, has been time-allocating many of the bills that have been before us, some after just very few hours of debate. Here we have a bill with 11 schedules, with some very important issues in it, and I’m hoping that we’re not going to hear by the end of today or Monday that they’re going to be time-allocating this as well.

I think one of the most important pieces in this bill is around health care. Here we have a government that’s talking about being open and transparent. We have an Ombudsman who has oversight for many public agencies in this province. And now they’re putting in a patient ombudsman—when we have somebody with expertise to investigate complaints across this province—with very limited powers and oversight ability.

We’re going to want to debate that

schedule in particular, as well as the entire bill, for as many hours as we possibly can.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased today to stand in support of Bill 8. It’s a comprehensive bill. I’m particularly proud of it because a piece of legislation that I put forward in the last session—transparency in members’ expenses—is included in that. I put forward that piece of legislation because I believe that if we’re going to ask other people to do things, we should be able to do them ourselves and lead by example.

In researching my bill, I spent some time on the Internet and I found some other bills. One bill that I found was coined the Truth in Government Act, and the member from Nepean–Carleton would be familiar with it because it’s her bill. It’s a great bill in terms of—it took some work to get into it, to get it done. It’s not as comprehensive as this bill, but some of the principles are in there. I was quite excited when I looked at the bill, and I thought, “Here’s something I can use, and I’ll be able to get some support.”

Then, upon reading the bill—you’ve got to read the bill—what I found was that in the

section about expenses, everybody in government was included except for us. So the Truth in Government Act applied to everybody except for the members of this assembly and, in fact, this building. I know that the member—because I heard her this morning and I spoke to her yesterday—is in full support of us doing that now, and I congratulate her for that. I look forward, as we continue to debate this bill—that we support that principle, that anything that we ask other people to do, we do ourselves.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to add some comments on Bill 8 and respond to the leadoff speech from our member from Nepean–Carleton and also the member from Perth–Wellington.

The member from Perth–Wellington was raising some grassroots concerns from his riding, which I think is an important thing to do. He read some letters with very specific concerns from some of the municipalities in his riding that probably had a close look at this bill. I certainly hope that the government listens to those grassroots concerns that have been raised and that they get an opportunity to perhaps make some amendments to the bill at committee.

I also note that in this Bill 8, there’s one entire section,

schedule 2, which has to do with air ambulance. I suspect that is coming from some of the problems that Ontario has had with its air ambulance system in recent years; as we know, that’s known as Ornge.

So I’m pleased to see some changes there and also pleased to learn that the almost-final report of the public accounts committee is going to be tabled in the Legislature today. I had the pleasure of sitting on public accounts for two years, and I’m really pleased that that report is going to be tabled, apparently later on today, because there was a lot of work from all members on all sides of the Legislature that went into that committee report. I think there’s a lot to learn from that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I’m pleased to stand up this morning and speak to Bill 8 and weigh in on some of the comments that were made by the member from Nepean–Carleton.

I very much agreed with the member when she said that this bill was a response to some of the scandals that we’ve seen with this government with regard to Ornge, eHealth, gas plants, OPP investigations and the deletion of emails. I very much believe that this bill is an attempt by this government to tilt the public perception away from that which the public presently has of the Wynne government, from the 10-plus years of unaccountable Liberal government that we’ve seen, whether it was under Wynne or McGuinty.

The NDP does support greater accountability and transparency in government, but after reviewing these many schedules, these 11 schedules that are contained in this bill, it’s very clear that these schedules are not effective. They’re insufficient, they’re entirely misguided and, in some cases, they are just self-serving.

One comment that the member from Nepean–Carleton made that I think bears repeating is that you can’t legislate ethics. I know that’s a comment that has been made by other members in this House. It’s very much the truth; it’s very much the case. The fact is that this government stood watch over the numerous scandals, those scandals that I’ve just mentioned. They were aware, in many cases, that these scandals were happening, and yet they didn’t have the will to act.

So despite the possibly good intentions of this particular bill, the tools and measures that are contained in this bill will not compensate for the lack of will. That’s the real problem here: We can put all the pieces of legislation that we want in place to try to regulate good behaviour and good ethics, but it really takes a will on the part of the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I recognize the member for Nepean–Carleton: two minutes for a response.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks to all those who engaged in debate today. I think this has actually been a positive experience for us in this assembly, which is not always the case.

I’d like to say thanks to my colleague from Perth–Wellington for bringing his perspective in our shared leadoff time. I really did appreciate this.

Again, Bill 8 is something that we, in principle, support. We agree with most of the legislation. But again, I just want to reiterate that we are concerned that transparency and accountability have been ignored by this government. It was ignored yesterday with an opposition motion to get Faist and Miller into committee. I also believe they’re failing in another bill, Bill 10, with respect to child care workers across the province. Again, if they want to be open and transparent, they should allow that bill to travel across the province.

I thought my colleague from Welland had a great point on health care. I didn’t talk a lot about it, but the patient ombudsman is going to be a significant piece of concern. If we’re talking about transparency and accountability, sending—a piece of this legislation that has to do solely with our health care system is a very important point. I appreciate her bringing that up, because, yes, this is an omnibus bill. There is an opportunity and a potential that many of the legislative officers of the assembly will overlap, and that may create duplication as well.

Finally, I’m very concerned about the designation. Not all of the broader public service is designated, and I’m concerned that not all of the assembly is going to be included in this bill and there aren’t sufficient reporting mechanisms.

I wanted to say thanks to the member from Ottawa South for bringing up the Truth in Government Act that I brought forward, I think it was two Parliaments ago—and understanding that his bill, although I also congratulate him for bringing something forward, also did not go far enough, nor does this bill with respect to that.

Thank you to the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka, talking about the need for amendments.

To the member from Kenora–Rainy River, I really want to say thank you for reiterating the response to my speech. But I also want to say congratulations to you. I haven’t had the opportunity to do that. I know you’re going into a different phase of your life, and I want to congratulate you on behalf of all members of the assembly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member for Kitchener–Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to be the lead on Bill 8, the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014.

This is a really interesting piece of legislation. In many respects it’s looking to address some of the long-standing issues that this Liberal government has had. But it also is very crafty, if you will, and the title is somewhat deceptive.

It certainly is challenging because there are some things that are contained within this piece of legislation which New Democrats have been strong supporters of around accountability, and yet it’s weighted down by legislation which does not address the key issues that are facing the people of this province. The entire nature of it is very interesting. There are 11 schedules contained within this piece of legislation, many of them disjointed, and many of them when you scratch the surface, you get a little more surface. We have some serious concerns.

I’m going to focus a lot of my comments primarily on what I’m regarding as the imaginary patient ombudsman and the fictional broader public sector executive salary caps. These are key issues because we have a history as a party, our leader in particular, of bringing these issues to this place. They’re embedded in Bill 8 and don’t address the key issues that we have found.

Also, this entire piece of legislation is looking to address what is essentially a public relations problem for the Liberal government. As you will know, prior to the election, there were serious trust issues. Those trust issues have continued. So this legislation is an attempt to reshape that party and to reintroduce this party and this government to the people of this province. I will maintain that the people of this province will not be believing that public relations campaign.

It’s our job, actually, as the third party, to be very clear with the people of this province why the title of this act is a great title, obviously. Who doesn’t care about accountability and transparency? Language is so important when you’re crafting legislation. But actions speak louder than words.

A few examples just to bring that point home: The mandate letters have been distributed, and it was a very public process. But mandate letters are only valuable to the public if they’re actionable. When you have a Minister of Labour, for instance, who has a mandate letter which does not address working at heights and mandatory training, or does not address the long-standing issue of lack of regulation around swing stages—if you have a mandate letter which actually doesn’t address key safety issues in the construction industry, then it’s not worth that much.

Certainly, with the Treasury Board, for instance, their mandate letter calls for reviewing IT in the province of Ontario with the Ontario public service. Yet yesterday the minister stood up and said, “You know what? We don’t have a problem.” Well, how can you do a review of IT when privatization, the private sector, is claiming 63% of the work in this province—and not admit that that’s a problem? You’re not going to solve a problem if you don’t admit that there’s a problem. So I found that incredibly interesting.

I think that the theme, if you will, that the government is trying to push forward—push that agenda forward—around openness and transparency is incredibly important; it is. People don’t trust politicians. People have seen the track record of this Liberal government. They have outstanding questions, for sure.

Language is really important within this context as well. In the Ed Clark report that came out, he uses language like “unshackling” and “unlocking.” I think of “unravelling” when I read that report. Certainly someone has a thesaurus because there’s new language that is being introduced by this government to, in our opinion, push this forward and accelerate the privatization agenda, which actually doesn’t serve the people of this province.

Again, on openness and transparency, we continue to ask for clarity. That’s our job. We are here to represent the people of this province. When there’s a lack of clarity on certain issues, we stand in this House, and we ask good questions.

For instance, last week, on the Pan Am Games, we found that the government, in their request for proposals process for security for Pan Am, has embedded an element of sponsorship. They’re asking those companies that are bidding for security on the Pan Am Games, which we all want to be successful—those RFPs are calling for and giving weight to sponsorship. So if those companies give cash or gifts in kind or marketing services, they get bumped up the line to win the contract.

It can’t just be me who has a concern about this. If you want quality services, especially around security—what could be more important? The minister has said that you can’t put a price tag on security for the Pan Am Games. But you can tie it to an RFP if you want that contract. There’s a word for that. The federal Liberals ran into a sponsorship scandal not that long ago; it’s in our recent history. If you were enticing a company to give you cash to get a contract, some people might actually call that a kickback. They actually might. We have some outstanding concerns as to how these contracts are being—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask you to withdraw.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Withdraw.

Again, on openness and transparency: Every day we come to this House. We ask good questions on how contracts are awarded. We ask good questions on who is lobbying this government. We have outstanding concerns on, certainly, the key issues that this act is supposed to address, and I’ll get to those right now.

The issue of broader public sector executives: This is under

schedule 1. It looks to, in many forms, try to establish some ceilings on public sector CEO salaries. However, it doesn’t actually put a cap. You can’t say that this piece of legislation is truly going to be effective. You can’t say that it’s actually going to get those public sector salaries under control. The bill does not include actual public sector CEO salary caps. There’s only info gathering and authority to negotiate a future framework for developing future regulations that might one day include an actual CEO cap—or not.

Now, we as a party and our leader, Andrea Horwath, had brought forward Bill 57 back in 2010. The government at the time opposed this legislation. Bill 57 called for a hard cap of $418,000. The government at the time said no. They wouldn’t support it. They thought that it was unreasonable to put a cap on public sector salaries. Bill 57 should be the starting point for amending this schedule. It should be clear that, obviously, there are some exceptions around this cap, but if you don’t set a hard cap, you won’t reach that goal.

Certainly, we have seen some examples of outrageous salaries and payouts for certain people in the public sector; the CEO for the Pan/Parapan Am Games, for instance. The salary, as a starting point, was exorbitant. It was shocking for the people of this province to see that salary in print. It was even more shocking to see how much he was awarded after, quite honestly, leaving the job—I think he was asked to leave—because there were some quality issues. There was a quality service piece. Then, of course, there was a huge payout. I mean, who needs a job when you can get a payout like that, you know?

Ms. Cindy Forster: “The day I won the lottery.”

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes. You don’t go crying home when you get a payout of almost $480,000. It was a huge payout. Quite honestly, it was a huge insult to the people of this province, because there are people on the front line in the health care sector, the personal support workers who’ve been promised an increase—it is not flowing to all PSWs—a primarily female-dominated field. The early childhood educators who do amazing work across this province—what is more important than caring for a child and being part of their early learning and care experience? They are some of the lowest-paid people in this province, and the money that was promised in the election is not flowing, either.

The concept that this piece of legislation is going to get those salaries under control, is going to provide any true oversight in the executive form of public sector workers, is just not happening. In fact, even last week—actually, it was just earlier this week; it’s been a long week—we had a day where we had a session, actually, around privatization in the province of Ontario. The government is going through the motions around accountability, yet when we follow the money on the IT file—that’s where we are right now; there’ll be a new file next week and there’ll be another file the next week after that.

But when you follow the money, the 63% increase in the private sector being awarded work that public service IT-qualified professionals should be doing, at a huge cost, $703 million—there’s no excuse for that. There absolutely is no excuse.

We found you $200 million. You need $200 million if you want to follow through on some of those promises. The promises that we would prioritize, of course, are the PSWs and ECEs, because those are key jobs in the province of Ontario around caring for people.

The other issue is on

schedule 5, and that’s the patient ombudsman, and this is not negotiable. This is a non-negotiable issue, because in health care, there are some serious ethical issues happening in our long-term-care facilities and in an emerging, growing field of private medical clinics. We have long advocated for full oversight of the health sector by an independent provincial Ombudsman, which is already allowed in every other province.

If you pay attention to the health care file, and it’s hard not to—I mean, we just had some folks here yesterday sharing their stories around the emerging and growing field of medical tourism. This is a huge ethical issue for this province. The RNAO was here, the Ontario Midwives, the Canadian doctors, and they raised the flag on 12 hospitals in the city of Toronto that are marketing and soliciting patients from other countries to come here, to bump people down the wait-list for surgery and certain procedures—birth tourism is a growing field; that’s something that we should not be proud of in the province of Ontario—and there’s a cost.

People think that you can generate revenue through medical tourism, but actually what happens, and this was really interesting, is that when you bump less affluent and more sick people down the wait-list, they get sicker, and because they get sicker, those costs rise. While it looks like you get a short-term burst of funding—because we all know that there are some funding issues on the medical front—you actually end up losing money, and the duality of the health care system is, again, privatization by stealth, which seems to be the agenda. That’s not accountable, and that’s not transparent, so we called the government on this.

The medical tourism issue: This patient ombudsman wouldn’t be able to look into this issue. There are so many limitations to this role in the province of Ontario. I think it’s very clear, I just want to say from the outset, that the government oversold this bill, and now they’re trying to push it forward. They oversold it because they have this internal conflict, if you will. Half the time, they are trying to take credit for the things that the government has done since 2003, and then, the rest of the time, they’re trying to distance themselves from the scandals, the mismanagement of the previous government.

There is going to be a day of reckoning. You can’t have it both ways; you were either part of the government that mismanaged Ornge and eHealth and gas plants and now MaRS and soon-to-be Pan Am, coming soon to a scandal-ridden paper near you—you can’t have it both ways, and this piece of legislation is not going to fix it. I know that you want it to fix it, but maybe it can’t be fixed. You could pull some of the schedules out of this huge piece of legislation. You could do that; I doubt that you will, though.

Back to the patient ombudsman: This does amend the Excellent Care for All Act to establish a new patient ombudsman with very limited powers to resolve and investigate complaints from patients and former patients of hospitals, CCACs and long-term-care homes. That should keep a patient ombudsman very busy. It does not, of course, address private clinics and retirement homes.

The private clinic piece, though, is really concerning for us, because we have seen an emerging and growing trend around privatization on the health care front, and we’re tracking it very carefully. Our health critic is on this file very closely. For instance, just to give you an example, if you were a patient and you were at one of those new private clinics—I call them Scopes “R” Us—and there was a medical mishap, which actually the research and the evidence have shown happens more so in private clinics. As a patient, you could contact the ombudsman.

As a former patient, you might be able to go back and contact the ombudsman. However, if something went really wrong and you weren’t able to raise a concern, a family member couldn’t do it, I couldn’t raise the concern with the ombudsman as an MPP—I would be limited based on the scope of this role—and the ombudsman could only investigate actions or inactions, not decisions.

For instance, if I had a parent in a retirement home and something happened, like respite care was denied, they couldn’t do anything because it’s a retirement home, and we all know that there are serious, serious issues in retirement homes. We go full circle in this world. Just as children are vulnerable, so are senior citizens—incredibly vulnerable.

Say, for instance, the CCAC decided to end respite care for a parent. The ombudsman could not do anything about this until the action was followed through, so until the care was denied, and then the medical issue either worsened or became more serious. There’s no prevention here. It’s just not smart legislation.

The Premier has said that we need to have a culture of wellness in this province, but the patient ombudsman can only investigate after things go really wrong, and the patient only can institute that. Obviously, if someone is getting respite care and they’re elderly, they may not be in a position to reach out to the ombudsman because they’ve been denied respite care. Their health situation may be so serious that they can’t do it.

So it leaves out MPPs and family members as advocates for patients. The patient ombudsman has incredibly constrained oversight. They are not independent. They report to the minister who—in their mandate letter, there’s no mention of shifting the focus of health care to prevention, which would save the province a lot of money.

The term of reference for the ombudsman is also in play. What I mean by this is that, for instance, if the ombudsman was incredibly critical of the minister, of health care policy or of the government of the day, regardless of who it is, their term is not set.

Ms. Cindy Forster: It will be like Ian Troop.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes, I know. “Out you go. We don’t like you. You’re too critical.” They could very easily lessen the term that the ombudsman was serving.

We need somebody in the province of Ontario who has comprehensive oversight over health care. This is not this person. Even if the ombudsman got a complaint about a hospital or a CCAC’s distribution of health care, they would have to call the hospital first and say, “Hey, I’ve heard some really bad things about the services you’re delivering. I’m giving you notice that I’m going to come over there and check it out.”

Ms. Cindy Forster: “Is that okay?”

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes, “Is that okay with you?” Does this sound like something that is effective? It’s actually not. It’s not effective at all.

A patient ombudsman, the way that it’s crafted in Bill 8, is non-negotiable for us. A patient ombudsman—the powers that be that are outlined in this piece of legislation are inadequate. It does not extend the proper oversight to the health care sector.

Obviously, as I’ve said, we have a long and proud history of supporting the concept of having a provincial Ombudsman who is independent and who has the powers to actually make a difference. Why bring this in if this ombudsman does not have the power to truly protect people in the health care system? If you haven’t been paying attention, the issues that are ongoing in our retirement homes are incredibly concerning. We have parents and their children. The children are trying to be strong advocates for that parent in that retirement home.

Particularly in for-profit retirement homes, the retirement homes nickel and dime the services: one bath a week, not adequate hygiene or feeding. So when these children actually advocate for their parents—imagine how hard it is to see your parent be denied quality care, when you have no other options, in a for-profit setting, because profit drives the agenda in a for-profit retirement home.

At the end of the day, the company that is running that retirement home has excluded the child, has prevented and barred the child from entering the retirement home, because they don’t like what they are hearing. They don’t like that this client has someone who’s saying, “You know what? My parent needs proper nutrition. Nutrition is a key

part in elder care,” or “My parent is not being cared for in the way that you promised.” The patient ombudsman would have no rights or powers to intervene in this situation.

So I think it’s safe to say it is ineffective. It does not address the key issues that we have brought forward. Quite honestly, you really have to question why you’ve brought it forward in the first place. And you’ve embedded it in an omnibus piece of legislation. When I think of omnibus legislation, I have to say that it’s not positive. Quite honestly, I associate it with the Prime Minister and the federal Conservatives, because they have become quite adept at ramming pieces of legislation through under the cloak of some progressive ideas. In turn, there’s a lot of unintended consequences that happen because of that.

The record that the Liberal government has thus far—I mean, it’s a new term. It’s early days, but we’ve already seen excessive use of time allocation, which limits debate, which limits our democracy, which compromises our ability to represent the constituents, which limits our powers as MPPs to bring concerns forward and speak on the part of the people who did elect us. Limiting our voices in a democracy was something on which the Premier said very clearly, “That’s not going to happen. We’re going to listen.

We’re going to be respectful.” I believe, actually, she said, “It’s important for us to appear to care about the other parties.” People don’t like arrogant politicians. They don’t like arrogant governments. They’re stuck with us for four years, or stuck with you for four years. If this is the new culture of a majority government, it does not help the lack of confidence and belief that politicians, in particular, are here for the right reasons.

As I pointed out, you have some serious issues that you’re facing on transit and gridlock. We have been able to find you some savings through the Treasury Board, and those were clearly communicated in a very public way, and yet those savings were denied. This is really concerning for us, because we see a lack of respect or a lack of willingness to even work with us when we can all be part of the solution, quite honestly.

So this piece of legislation, as it stands—I think I’m going to be running out of time very soon, but I’ll be coming back to a couple of other themes when I return.

To be clear,

schedule 1 doesn’t set caps for executive pay, so it doesn’t address a key issue that the people of this province have communicated to us.

The amendments to the Ambulance Act would not have prevented the problems at Ornge. That will be a topic for another day, because it’s such a huge issue and outstanding.

The Ombudsman is gaining access to municipalities, universities and school boards, but is not granted comprehensive oversight over the health care sector, which is the largest budgetary item in the finances of this province and so deserves greater attention and greater power. As I’ve mentioned, the patient ombudsman will have limited powers and is far less effective than extending independent Ombudsman oversight to the entire health care sector.

I didn’t get a chance to address the children’s advocate, which is being granted new investigative functions—but these are seriously curtailed by parameters that effectively prevent the practical application of these functions. So when I get a chance to return, I’ll be talking at length about the children’s advocate. There are long-standing issues in this province. I remember when Judy Rebick, actually, was the child advocate. She was trying to ensure that parents didn’t have to give up their children.

If their children had developmental issues and the parents were unable to care for them—the government of the day happened to be the PCs—they would have to give their children up to the authorities, to children’s aid, because they were in a position to not fulfill their responsibilities for financial reasons, because of a lack of resources. The government of the day limited her powers to access the Queen’s Printer here, because they didn’t want her to message out how bad the situation was. They didn’t want the children’s advocate to be critical of the government of the day.

The theme does continue to this government, as well, because we have seen cuts to CAS funding. We have seen a reduction in special education funding across the province—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Not true.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Actually, that is very true. We have seen children in private child care centres—we’ve seen this government turn a blind eye to the complaints that have come from that sector. Unfortunately, the piece of legislation in play does not really address the serious and outstanding concerns on the child care front as well.

Ms. Cindy Forster: We’ve seen people drop off their autistic kids because there’s no funding.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes, I know. The issue that the former child advocate dealt with almost 15 years ago still continues today. We still have parents who are in a position with their adult children, whether it’s autism or physical disabilities—they’ve aged. I can’t imagine how hard it is, but they have to give up their rights as parents, in many respects, to ensure that their adult children are properly cared for.

Obviously, we are going to put forward a lot of amendments. It’s a huge amount of work to do. It doesn’t need to be this way. It could be more simple and direct. But for some reason, this government has packaged it all up under the guise of openness and transparency. Your actions are speaking louder than this piece of legislation and the title of this legislation.

When I do get a chance to come back and delve a little bit further into the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, I will be addressing the fact that the advocate of the day has long sought the same ability to investigate matters that pertain to their mandate—children and youth receiving services from government—as all of the other provincial child advocate offices currently have. Ontario needs to catch up. It needs to catch up on the patient ombudsman, on the child advocate and, certainly, on accountability.

We have no problems whatsoever exposing our expenses. Our lives are very public as it stands right now. But it makes no sense to embed all of these schedules together when those key issues around accountability and transparency need to be addressed.

Ms. Cindy Forster: How about lobbyists?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I haven’t even gotten to the lobbyists because it’s a little close to home for me. But I will say, though, that I don’t understand why this government thinks it’s appropriate to have just one year. In particular, the former Premier: One year out, and he’s lobbying for a company in Waterloo. That’s just incredible, just one year. The federal government thinks that five years is an acceptable amount of time. I think the optics and the perception are actually very important.

Clearly, as I pointed out, the government is looking at this piece of legislation to change the channel on who they are and what their record is. We do not find several of these schedules contained within Bill 8 to be effective or to be efficient. So we call into question the entire intent of this piece of legislation, and we’re calling you out on it because the openness and transparency which you’ve promised the people, you are not delivering on.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Michael Coteau: It gives me great pleasure to welcome three members of my constituency staff who are joining us in the Legislature today: John Critsotakis, George Bancroft and Arianne Persaud. Let’s welcome them to the Legislature.

Miss Monique Taylor: I am very pleased to welcome two guests from my riding today, Terry and Barbara Parker. Santa—I mean Terry—is here to go over my Christmas wish list today.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming my colleague from my constituency office, Sharmine Hassaniani, sitting in the members’ gallery, and also Golbon Moltaji, a PhD student at the University of Ottawa institute for Canadian studies. Please join me in welcoming both of them to the House today.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: We have in the public gallery Jennifer Van Boekel and Mike Van Boekel, the parents of one of the best two pages in the Legislature, Greg Van Boekel.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me in welcoming my constituent sitting in the members’ east gallery: Cleve Mortelliti, recently acclaimed as councillor in ward 1, township of King.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: On behalf of Minister Michael Chan, I’d like to welcome page captain Raveen’s family here today from Markham–Unionville: his mother, Jasvir Singh; his father, Gurmeet Singh; his sister Rhea Singh; his grandmother Manjit Singh; and his grandfather Surrinder Singh. Thank you for visiting.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I wanted to welcome my brother Chris McDonell, mayor of North Glengarry, who’s here for question period today.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Sitting beside Cleve Mortelliti from King township is my brother Ed Ballard, his good friend.

I also have another introduction to make today. The parents of our page captain Meher Kapoor from Aurora are here: her mom, Mamta Bali-Kapoor; her father, Rajan Kapoor; and her brother Rohan Kapoor. Welcome.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I would like to introduce Mr. Eduardo Harari, who is here as a guest today. He will be participating in the reception I’ll be holding this evening and is here for the second reading of my bill this afternoon. Welcome, Eduardo.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My friends, we have with us today, in the Speaker’s gallery, Nazifa Langaryan, the first-ever female consul general of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in Toronto. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Acting Premier. Ontario was once a thriving location for investment, attracting companies from across the globe and driving our economy. Specifically, Ontario was proud to be a world leader in the mining industry. Just over a decade ago, under the previous government, we were the top mining jurisdiction in the world: number one. Now we’re number 28.

Every year, my colleagues and I meet with the Ontario Mining Association, and every year they have the same issues with your government. Ontario mining companies are faced with some of the highest energy costs in North America, the highest worker safety premiums in Canada, a massive infrastructure deficit and tax instability.

Minister, what are you doing to address the high energy rates that are making it difficult—very difficult—for mining companies to continue to invest in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s unfortunate that the opposition party continues to run down Ontario’s economy. In fact, Speaker, we’ve made some important progress in our recovery from the recession, the global recession.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The comments today prod me to say that I will interject on those who interject while the answer is being given on that side, and I will ensure that we get this done quickly and effectively with your co-operation.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker.

I know that the minister is going to want to respond specifically to mining. I know the opposition will want to celebrate the progress that we’ve made. We’ve gone from an all-time high unemployment rate of 9.4% down to 7.1%—still too high, but moving in the right direction. We’ve added 723,000 more jobs, and last year employment in Ontario increased by 100,000. We’re moving in the right direction. The opposition party should stop running down Ontario and celebrate our progress.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I say to the honourable member, it’s hard to believe anybody could run the province further into the ground than your government has already done. It’s the 93rd consecutive month in a row that this province, which used to be the economic engine of Canada, has had an unemployment rate above the national average. Shame on you—dead last in Canada for jobs.

Talking about the mining industry again, Dalton McGuinty told us that he was going to fix the mining industry with the work around the Ring of Fire. He was going to “garner billions of dollars of new investment and thousands of new jobs.” We know that nothing is happening around the Ring of Fire. The mining industry itself tells us that you’ve set us a shell economic corporation that doesn’t do anything. There’s not even anyone there to really talk about the needs of the industry.

In fact, in a Globe and Mail

article recently, talking about the Ring of Fire, Cliffs chief executive Lourenco Goncalves said: “I don’t believe under my watch, and I plan to stay [alive] for the next 50 years … that the Ring of Fire will be developed.”

Once again, Minister, I didn’t get an answer. What are you doing to bring down these industrial hydro rates that are driving jobs out of this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Speaking specifically about energy rates, we certainly recognize what a cost that is to the industry. That’s why we put in place a northern industrial energy rate program, which is bringing costs down for major mining companies by 25%, as well as other incentive programs under the Minister of Energy, which have made a real difference. That’s what the Ontario Mining Association told us when we met with them the other day: that they were very pleased with that and they want to see that continue.

In terms of the comments made by the CEO of Cliffs, I think what’s really important—and the leader should know this—is the way that his comments were responded to by everybody in the industry, which was that, indeed, there is significant interest in the Ring of Fire. There are a number of companies that are interested in moving forward with that, and those comments were put out very publicly yesterday by those who responded to the CEO’s comments.

We are going to continue to move forward in a very positive way, making sure that we make progress related to the building of the development—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: That’s a point that the minister raises, and that is, are you going to continue the northern industrial rate program? It’s a shame that you’ve got hydro rates so high in the province that now you have to bring in a subsidy program. I suspect that this winter you’re going to have to continue to expand the one for seniors and low-income Ontario families. We’re already hearing stories phoned into our riding offices about families being cut off because they can’t afford their hydro rates; and the winter is just beginning, I say to the member across the way.

So there’s a rumour about you discontinuing the industrial hydro subsidy, and the other rumour that the mining industry is definitely worried about is that you’ll do the same thing you did to De Beers, when you suddenly brought in the unexpected diamond tax: that you’re going to increase the mining profits tax.

I want to know specifically, are you going to keep the subsidy on hydro for them so they can at least continue here in the province for a bit? And what are you doing about the mining tax?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I think it’s really quite irresponsible, the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly as they did not support the introduction of the northern industrial energy rate program. They voted against it. We’ve supported this in a strong fashion. It’s been extended to the year 2016 and there is a very clear commitment on our part to maintain that rate. We recognize how important that is.

There is no question: When we met with the Mining Association a couple of days ago, they were talking positive. They were talking about the value and economic impact that a new gold mine can bring to the economy. That was fantastic.

We had another report that made it very, very clear about the huge benefit of the mining supply and services sector being about $10 billion in—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The fact is, we’ve got new mines opening. We’ve got 10 new mines that opened in the last 10 years.

The fact is, the industry is certainly under great challenges, but we are working with them closely, and we’ll continue to support them as we will in the Ring of Fire.

Hydro rates

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Acting Premier: On Friday afternoon of the August long weekend, your government decided it was a convenient time to release a report detailing the waste and mismanagement of government pensions in the energy sector.

The report, conducted by pension expert Jim Leech, revealed that Ontario taxpayers are contributing $5 for every $1 that employees contribute. In fact, it’s worse: Hydro One employees only contribute 12 cents of every dollar in their pension.

Minister, we all know these pensions are far from sustainable, and despite your constant promises, you’ve actually done nothing to fix them. Now hydro rates are going up once again on November 1, in just a couple of days. Minister, how much more are hydro rates going to increase because of your inability to manage pensions properly at OPG and Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Interesting question, given the fact that we commissioned Jim Leech to take a review and look at what is occurring, which has been occurring over many years. We have taken an initiative, recognizing how important it is to protect taxpayers’ money, because after all, we are part of this initiative.

I commend Jim Leech on the work that he has done, that he has brought forward. The question comes as a result of the efforts that we’re taking, not because of any design that they’ve made. In fact, we’re trying to correct some of the things that they put in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Acting Premier: Let me read a few quotes from that report that describe the situation your government has got us into.

The report said that pensions are “generous, expensive and inflexible.” It also stated: “Should plans go further into deficit, the sponsors, and ultimately ratepayers, will be required to pay even larger contributions.”

Minister, your government did recognize this problem as far back as two years ago, in 2012, when you committed in that budget to reform these ludicrous pensions. But you’ve done nothing since except reiterate that promise two more times.

It’s clear that you won’t act, or you don’t want to act, or you don’t have the stomach to act to get these skyrocketing hydro rates under control. Do you really think it’s fair that these people, public service employees in the energy sector, have these hugely fat pensions, yet people at the other end of the spectrum in Ontario are having the lights shut off because they can’t pay their bills?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The question occurs only because we are taking action. The question is only being asked today because they’ve never had the stomach or the gumption to make corrections to the mistakes that they made in the past.

We are moving forward. We’ve done the review. Jim Leech has consulted with Hydro One, OPG, IESO and ESA. We recognize that the pensions that have been negotiated over a long period of time need to be corrected. We have taken steps already with other pension holders to the tune of saving Ontario $2 billion every year, and we’ll continue to do that in this case as well.

We have an opportunity to save the ratepayers a total of $1 billion by 2016, not because of what they’re saying, Mr. Speaker, but because of what we are doing.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, you had Jim Leech’s report before the election. You sat on it; you didn’t let anybody know that you had it; and you didn’t let Mr. Leech speak about his recommendations. And then, when it finally was put out on the long weekend in August, on a Friday, you said you would review the report.

You have said since 2012 that you would do something about this. Meanwhile, you’ve continued to sign collective agreements in the energy sector that perpetuate these bloated pensions; these bloated, unjustified payouts to people who probably go home at 5 o’clock every night, if not 4:30.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, he mentioned the Electrical Safety Authority. Well, in May of this year, you signed a collective agreement with them that not only perpetuated their bloated pensions, but you gave them a 2.7% pay increase.

Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Ontarians are out of work in the manufacturing sector. Guess what, they’ve had a 100% pay cut.

Why do you keep going with these pensions and increasing hydro rates in this province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we have had over 700,000 net new jobs since 2003. We have over 100,000 new jobs that were created last year. They suggested that we cut 100,000 jobs in their platform.

As we review Jim Leech’s report, we continue to pursue efficiencies at OPG and Hydro One, through ongoing business transformation initiatives. In fact, Ed Clark is looking at it as well, something that they deny as being appropriate.

Over the last three years, efficiency savings of approximately $500 million have been achieved in both agencies. OPG launched a company-wide business transformation initiative to enhance efficiencies further and reduce spending. To date, OPG’s business transformation plan has resulted in savings of $275 million in 2011. As noted, the work that we’re doing is going to save over $1 billion in 2016 with pensions, and Hydro One has identified over $500 million in cost savings and productivity improvements in 2013-15 alone.

We’re doing the job, Mr. Speaker, and we’ll continue to do so.

Government accountability

Ms. Catherine Fife: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Acting Premier.

Like Elvis, Liberal credibility on openness and transparency has left the building. They insist that this time it will be different, this time they’re going to be progressive and this time they going to be transparent. So can the minister explain why this time they are protecting Liberal insiders, introducing a half-baked CEO salary cap, privatizing by stealth and selling off public assets?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I’m not exactly sure what the question was, but let me give the answer to what I think she was asking, and that’s on our executive compensation bill. I think it’s very important. I think the people of this province have the right to know why people are paid what they are paid, if they’re paid by taxpayers. That’s why we’ve introduced legislation. Yesterday we announced we’re actually going to introduce an amendment at committee that will expand the reach of this bill.

People deserve to know why publicly paid people are getting paid what they are., so we’re bringing in a process that will gather the information and then set out thoughtful, reasonable caps, bands upon which compensation will be paid. It’s a much more thoughtful response than that offered by the NDP.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Catherine Fife: The Deputy Premier should read her own legislation. There is no cap in that bill.

Speaker, we know that the Liberals are planning to sell down their interest in Hydro One and to bring private companies into our local hydro utilities. We know that this Liberal government is wasting Ontarians’ money on the outsourcing of IT services. We found $200 million. Help me help you. Why wouldn’t you do that? I would call that privatization, and it’s a stealth agenda that you have. What does the minister call it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this question is coming from the person who actually lobbied for the job of being the cut czar if, in fact, the NDP were to form government. This is the person who said, “Choose me. Choose me. I can find $600 million of savings,” primarily in health care and education.

This is one of the first opportunities to offer constructive advice on how we actually drive savings. To suggest that we could save $200 million in IT by taking her advice is baloney. I don’t know if that’s parliamentary; if it’s not, I apologize. But it just simply doesn’t add up. She’s got her facts wrong. She refuses to correct her facts.

We are committed to getting best value, and we would welcome helpful advice from the party opposite.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the Liberals have been saying they’ll deal with out-of-control public sector CEO compensation, and for 10 years public sector CEO compensation has shot through the roof. Now the minister is saying that they will have a salary cap, but they just won’t say what that cap will be. They apparently scribbled that legislation on the back of a napkin, because somehow they forgot to include agencies like eHealth and MaRS. How can the minister expect anyone in this province to take anything that she says seriously?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, once again I have to correct the facts. Yes, it is true that we have rejected the NDP position that there be a cap across all executives, no matter what the job is that they do. That is not a particularly thoughtful approach to what we all agree is an issue that we have to address.

So we will be creating hard caps. They will be different in different sectors, as well they should be. We will be looking at public sector comparators. We will be looking across Canada and beyond to actually justify the bands, including a hard cap by sector. It’s a thoughtful approach to a complex problem, but we are determined to take it on.

I am very pleased that the member opposite is suggesting that they will support the amendment to expand the reach of the bill.

Government accountability

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Acting Premier: The minister was given strict instructions, in her mandate letter, to increase transparency and accountability. But instead of ensuring that Ontarians hear testimony from the people accused of wiping computers in the Premier’s office, like Peter Faist and Laura Miller, the government is protecting Liberal insiders.

Can the minister tell this House if her mandate letter is worth the paper that it’s printed on?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for the question. I think that the member opposite will agree, by looking at the actions of our government, by the mandate letter—as she suggested herself—and by the legislation that she was referring to earlier on in the first part of the question dealing with government accountability and transparency, that under the leadership of our Premier, we are taking very concrete steps to ensure that government is open, that government is transparent and that information is readily available to Ontarians.

That is the commitment that we made to the people of Ontario in the last election. That is the commitment that is very clearly outlined in the speech from the throne, and we will carry through with that commitment, as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Acting Premier: The minister received a mandate letter that said to make government transparent, but instead she is protecting Liberal insiders from testifying at the committee. Her mandate letter talks about protecting public services, but the Liberals are privatizing public services like IT and hydro utilities. It talks about getting CEO pay under control, but the Liberals are introducing the first pay cap with no cap, and they’re making last-minute changes after they got caught leaving organizations like eHealth and MaRS out of the legislation.

The minister doesn’t seem to take her mandate letter seriously. Why should anyone else?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Premier has made it very clear: She wants Ontario to be the most open and transparent province in the country, and that is what we’re doing.

The member opposite is even referencing the mandate letters. For the first time in our history, our mandate letters have been released publicly. The member opposite is referring fully to the mandate letters, as are other people across the province who are actually paying attention to what happens in the Ontario government. I think that by releasing the mandate letters, we have signalled very clearly that we are committed to openness and transparency.

When it comes to executive compensation, just to remind anyone watching, our initial legislation covers hospitals, hydro entities, school boards, universities, colleges and CCACs; and we’re expanding to 64 more organizations. We will be introducing that amendment in committee.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, I guess I would just say that actions speak louder than words printed on a mandate letter. The Liberals can tell themselves that they’re being progressive, but this is what people actually see: They see Liberals scrambling to protect their Liberal friends from giving answers about the gas plants. They see a promise for a public sector CEO pay cap, but there’s no actual cap in that legislation, and they’re not even sure who it should apply to. They see a government that’s outsourcing, privatizing and wasting money, but insisting that it’s being responsible, this time. “Things will be different.”

Does the minister think that protecting insiders, skyrocketing CEO salaries and an accelerated privatization agenda which is hurting this province is actually being progressive?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think we are doing exactly what the people of this province elected us to do. We are committed to come to balance by 2017-18 and at the same time continue to strengthen public services and build the infrastructure that this province so sorely needs.

If the member opposite has a better idea on how we can build the necessary roads and bridges and transit systems that this province needs, I’d love to have her suggestion. All I’m hearing is, “You can’t do it this way; you can’t do it that way; you can’t do it this way,” and there are, so far, zero constructive ideas on how we raise the significant capital required to build the infrastructure and assets that the people of this province need.

Disaster relief

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, during the ice storm last January, many municipalities stepped up to assist stranded motorists who were unable to get home as a result of closed roads. In my own riding, Shelburne and Melancthon applied for $51,000 and $50,000 each to the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program, only to be denied because, to quote the rejection letter, “These costs can be managed within municipal budgets.”

Minister, do you believe it is fair for Shelburne and Melancthon to foot the total bill when they were sheltering stranded motorists from across Ontario?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: What I think is fair is that municipalities that for whatever reason or combination of reasons suffered the most damage and have the least ability to respond fiscally to the challenge that that presents get helped as quickly as possible. Those that have the financial wherewithal to handle the concerns will understand that those that are in greater need should get the assistance that they require. We can’t respond to every request out there. The ice storm was a one-off issue as well; it wasn’t like the normal ODRAP kind of position. But those municipalities that have been most challenged and are least able to respond are the ones that are getting assistance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question to the minister is, how bad does it have to be? I understand you’ve approved $190 million in disaster relief funding, yet decided that Shelburne and Melancthon don’t qualify.

To put this in perspective, the mayor-elect of Melancthon stated that the costs of the damages would have a serious impact on creating the next budget for the township and stressed that $50,000 is the equivalent of a 4% tax hike.

Minister, will you reassess these requests from Shelburne and Melancthon in light of the significant burden these costs will mean to their municipal budgets?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We have a process in place. Before the ice storm, there was no funding allocated specifically to respond to ice storm issues. This government found a way to provide $190 million to those most stressed. I think that should be celebrated.

Temporary employment agencies

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier.

The hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who work through temporary job agencies often work alongside co-workers while earning 40% less pay, with fewer or no benefits at all, job insecurity, and little protection against workplace abuses.

Bill 18 gave this government an opportunity to fix these problems, but the government has failed once again. Instead, they have left many of the barriers that have trapped people in insecure work for years. The government could have taken the time to listen to temporary job agency workers and develop real solutions to address the problems, but instead they are rushing through a deeply flawed bill through a time allocation motion.

Why is this government using strong-arm tactics and pushing through this bill instead of protecting those vulnerable workers in our province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I thank the member for the question on Bill 18, which passed through the House yesterday, and I’m very pleased to say, with all-party support.

The intent of this bill builds on a 2009 bill which prohibited agencies from imposing barriers that prevent clients from hiring those assigned employees directly. They prohibit clients of agencies from any reprisal against assignment employees for asserting the rights they have under the Employment Standards Act.

If this bill is passed, and I hope it is, it’s going to ensure that temporary help agency recruits are not charged fees by those agencies for things like resumés, for simply taking a job, having the information they need. The seizure of passports and of documents is included in this bill.

I would urge the House and the member to support this bill. There’s a process where people will be able to come forward and make recommendations along the way. I urge that we get to that point, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, a specific example of how flawed this bill is, and how it doesn’t go far enough, is the fact that Bill 18 now only extends the joint and several liability to protect unpaid wages and unpaid overtime, but not public holidays and other basic employment standards. If the liability is not extended so that direct employers and temporary job agencies are responsible for all employment standards, then temporary workers are still left without protection.

New Democrats will be moving a motion that will extend all responsibility to both the employer and the temporary job agency. Will the government support this motion to truly protect the workers in this province?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you again for the supplementary question from the member. Obviously, we will all watch with interest as the process unfolds as it should.

But let me tell you what Bill 18 does do: It establishes joint and several liability between the agencies and the clients for their failure to pay wages. That means that those companies would now potentially be liable. If the agencies refuse or won’t pay their workers, the companies themselves have to pay the workers. That’s protection that these people don’t have right now, Speaker, and it’s good protection.

It also helps if the temporary help worker is injured. The injury could also affect the company’s costs as well, which is an extra incentive to all companies in this province, those that employ temporary help agencies, to ensure that they’ve got a safe workplace. It’s an added incentive. I know that that’s an aim of all members of this House: that people come home from work at the end of the day safe. This bill moves the yardsticks on this, and it’s worth the support of every member in this House.

Senior citizens

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors affairs.

Minister, I think I speak for everyone when I say that Ontario seniors have significantly contributed to the success of our great province and that they continue to make meaningful and significant contributions.

Mr. Speaker, October 1 is recognized in Canada as National Seniors Day and by the United Nations as the International Day of Older Persons. On this occasion, the minister made an important announcement and gave us an update on the new Seniors Community Grant Program that our government has launched. The program is a tremendous success, helping seniors across our province to stay connected and involved in their communities, especially the seniors in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora. Would the minister please inform the House of how this grant continues to help improve the lives of seniors in Ontario?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Newmarket–Aurora and congratulate him on his election to this Parliament. I know that he will serve the people of Newmarket–Aurora with zeal and dedication.

Let me say that our government introduced the Seniors Community Grant Program with the idea to keep our seniors engaged in activity in their own environment, in their own community to live a better and more meaningful life. The grants fund not-for-profit organizations for groups that indeed encourage and promote greater social inclusion, volunteerism and community engagement and to bring our seniors out of isolation.

I’m very proud and very pleased to inform the House that, so far, 118 projects have been already funded. Groups that have received funds are reaching out to some 25,000 citizens in our province, and we will continue to build on the success of this program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I would like to thank the minister for his response. It’s great to hear how committed our government is to our seniors, and I’m delighted to say that this grant has been very well received in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of attending the celebration of the re-opening of the Newmarket Seniors’ Meeting Place, an organization that boasts a membership of a thousand seniors. It was a wonderful event, with a number of activities, food, entertainment and many, many seniors in attendance.

I’m pleased to say this celebration was made possible because of funding received from the seniors community grant that helped the centre reopen its doors.

Can the minister provide us with any additional details regarding this great initiative that’s serving my senior constituents so well?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Again, I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora. I know that the seniors in the ridings of the member are happy to have received the funds and done this wonderful event. Events like the one there and celebrations throughout Ontario are taking place as community groups are receiving the funding.

I have to say that I am so proud. This is the first time that our seniors in Ontario are enjoying the benefit of the first-ever grant for seniors in the province. This is going directly to helping our seniors stay connected and engaged in their own communities, living more meaningful lives.

I have to say that because of this access to the program, our funding reached from $500,000 to $1 million, thanks to Minister Sousa, in the 2014 budget. This is part of Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors. We will continue to work on it and continue to make Ontario the best province where seniors can age and live gracefully.

GO Transit

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

Minister, when I asked you in estimates this week about your government’s commitment to deliver two-way, all-day GO service to Kitchener-Waterloo within five years, you told me, “There are a lot of commitments that governments make, that parties make ... that are aspirational in nature”—yes: aspirational in nature.”

I believe that commitments made before, during or after an election are your word; they’re your promise. Where we come from, we have a four-letter word for those who dress up their aspirations as commitments.

Kitchener-Waterloo residents are still waiting for the four trains going in and out that were promised seven years ago. Now they have even more reason to be skeptical.

Minister, I’ll ask a very simple question: When will Kitchener-Waterloo residents see two-way, all-day GO service?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member opposite for his question. I certainly had a terrific time at estimates committee having the opportunity to respond to questions from this member, not just about issues relating to chrome yellow on school buses, for example, but also with respect to our very ambitious plan to deliver two-way, all-day—what we call regional express rail.

What I find troubling more than anything else is that this member repeatedly, in his own community—a community that is so ably represented by our member from Kitchener Centre—here today in the House and over the last few days at committee, seems to be far more interested in parsing my words and getting into a game of semantics instead of actually working hard for his community, to work with us to deliver two-way, all-day GO.

As I have said many times in this House, our government has a commitment and will deliver two-way, all-day GO service to Kitchener-Waterloo, to Milton, to Barrie and along all of our corridors over the next decade. That’s our plan; we’ll get it done.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

I would be remiss if I—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I didn’t like the answer either.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Your timing is so impeccable. Just when I’m ready to admonish someone on this side, you give me reason to do so.

I would be remiss if I did not tell the deputy House leader that he is warned. I will now turn to the member from Renfrew and say, you’re next.

Carry on.

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Minister: It does appear we’ve struck a chord here. In fact, Minister, in committee, those were your exact words—your government’s aspirations. At least the former Minister of Transportation was actually prepared to give a timeline. So why the change of heart?

Minister, I am trying to work with you here. I’m giving you another opportunity to clear the air with the people of Kitchener-Waterloo. So can you tell us today what timeline your ministry is now aspiring to for completion of all-day, two-way GO service to Kitchener-Waterloo?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member again for this question. It’s interesting to me, at committee and in press releases that he has put out to his community and here again in the House today, Speaker, that this particular member seems very taken with the word “aspirational.”

Let me talk about that for a quick second. In the last election campaign, in that last consultation that we had with the people of Ontario, that member, his leader, his party, aspired to fire 100,000 Ontarians. This party, our leader, our government, aspired to move Ontario forward by building it up with an ambitious $29-billion plan for transit and transportation over the next 10 years. That’s the work we’re doing. We’re going to deliver for Kitchener, for Milton, for Barrie, for Brampton, for Mississauga and for the entire province because that’s our job, and we’ll get the job done.

Child protection

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Speaker, once again this afternoon, I will be bringing forward legislation protecting child performers, Bill 17, to the Legislature for second reading. This is essential legislation to ensure that working children have the safest working environment possible in our province.

My first bill, Bill 71, was tabled on May 15, 2013. Unfortunately, after going through committee with the government’s support and assurances that the bill would go, it ended up as a political football on the order paper.

Can this minister confirm to me that there will be no—I repeat, no—political games for this current bill which protects children?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I thank the honourable member for the question. If I was able to guarantee there would be no political games in this House, I’d be one unique politician.

But let me tell you that I do support the bill personally. I know, through the ministry processes, as we’ve investigated the bill over the years, that it’s a bill that’s received support from the Ministry of Labour as well.

I look forward to the debate this afternoon. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the process. At the end of the day, Speaker, you know, I know, and the member knows—and we’ve had conversations on this. He knows how personally supportive I am of this bill. At the end of the day, it’s the will of this House that will pass this bill. It will be the three parties working together and the House leaders agreeing that this bill will move forward.

I can honestly say that I wish the member well. He will have my personal support and the support of the ministry as this process continues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Minister, for your support. I hope the House leaders feel the same way.

Speaker, Bill 17 encompasses the amendments that were made in committee just 11 and a half months ago. It has been through intensive writing, review and committee processes. Ministry staff worked with ACTRA, Equity and me on the bill. All the parties worked on it through the committee process and passed it. The protection of child performers, the only legal child labour in Ontario, must be enshrined in law. Their safety should never be subject to negotiations by House leaders.

Will this minister commit right now to his and his government’s full support to protecting child performers by passing Bill 17 to third reading and royal assent, not stalling it at House leaders’ meetings?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member once again for the supplementary. I’m sure all members in this House understand that the need to keep our kids safe, whether it’s at school or in the workplace, is something that we all—to use a word used recently—aspire to. It’s something we want to see happen.

There’s a process that’s employed in this House. The House leaders meet on a regular basis. They decide on the agenda of the House. Bills proceed in that way.

Speaker, I’ve met with the member opposite to express our support for the bill. Nothing would make me happier than to see this bill proceed. If it’s the will of the third party, which I believe it is—certainly my colleagues on this side of the House that I’ve spoken to are in support of this bill. We want to see it move forward. We wish you well in this regard.

There’s a process that needs to be followed. The Conservatives I can’t speak for; they can speak for themselves. I know where the rest of us stand.

Pork industry

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. There are approximately 1,549 pork producers in the province of Ontario. They market roughly 4.8 million hogs, an industry contributing upwards of $5.6 billion to the Ontario economy.

On January 22, 2014, the first case of PED was discovered in Ontario—a virus causing high death loss in pigs, especially nursing piglets. The disease, which struck in the United States in the spring of 2013, has killed millions of piglets south of the border and helped drive up pork prices. It has spread through 30 US states and infected more than 8,500 farms.

Can the minister please update the House on what the government is doing to support Ontario’s swine producers during their challenging times?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the hard-working member for Northumberland–Quinte West for that question this morning.

The agri-food industry in the province of Ontario represents $34 billion of GDP, 760,000 individuals are employed in this industry, and the pork sector makes up $5.6 billion of the total GDP.

Since PED was first discovered in the United States, the province and the industry have made concerted efforts to educate producers, transporters and suppliers about the virus and helped them implement strong biosecurity measures. In fact, through a RED grant in the county of Lambton, Ontario, we’re providing funds now for a trucking firm which is the first biosecurity firm, I believe, in North America. That’s a great tribute to the ingenuity of people in Lambton county.

Our government has provided over $2 million in immediate assistance to Ontario Pork, following the outbreak, to support industry-wide enhancements—

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: —to biosecurity through a special—

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

Supplementary?

Hon. Jeff Leal: —Growing Forward 2 intake. More than 1,000 applications—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will sit, and he knows better.

Supplementary.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you to the minister for his answer. It is clear that the collaborative efforts by veterinarians, farm groups, government, farmers and many people in the swine sector to fight the disease in Ontario, coupled with the province’s preparedness and the resources put forward in fighting this virus, have been instrumental in responding to and limiting the spread of PED in Ontario.

But, Minister, on July 21, 2014, PED was found on an Ontario farm as part of the industry PED surveillance elimination project. Producers, industry and the public want to know why Ontario is continuing to see cases of PED. Can the minister please inform the House on why we continue to see cases of PED in Ontario and how we’re addressing the challenges as we head into the winter months?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for his supplementary. The early identification of the source in Canada, along with the summer weather, has helped reduce the impact of the virus in Ontario and has limited its spread. In fact, it has been over three months since the last case of the virus was confirmed, while Manitoba and some US states continued to have new cases throughout the spring and summer months.

It’s important to note that PED is a virus that tends to flourish in cold weather.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with officials from Mexico and the United States to discuss PED, and shared information and heard from experts on how leaders can help prepare their region to manage an outbreak and defeat it.

It remains critical for all the parts of the pork value chain—producers, transporters, suppliers—to be vigilant with biosecurity practices to prevent PED and other viruses from getting inside the swine production units in Ontario. My ministry has been working and will continue to work with the pork industry in strategies to mitigate the risk of PED’s impact this fall and winter, and to ensure Ontario’s vital pork industry in this province.

Child care

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Education.

Minister, we all know that your Bill 10 is seriously flawed. In spite of that, you still want to push it through this House quickly. The bill does absolutely nothing to provide a safer daycare system. We calculate that a minimum of 140,000 independent daycare spaces will be lost and eliminated.

You disagree with that number. So, Minister, it’s very simple: How many independent daycare spaces have you calculated will be lost? A simple number is all I want to hear.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Actually, I’d love to hear how he calculated 140,000. I can actually—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very happy to tell the member opposite that, in fact, we have, since we came into government, licensed 130,000 new spaces, and that’s actual licensing data, that we have those new licensed child care spaces.

I really do have to challenge what the member opposite has said about Bill 10—because, as we all know, the Ombudsman recently tabled a report. He made a number of recommendations.

I simply want to quote what the Ombudsman told a Queen’s Park briefing. He said, “I am satisfied that the bill takes care of what needs to be legislated. I am satisfied with the current course of what’s happening, and with the undertaking of the minister to continue”—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: The same people who wrote your briefing notes are the same people who let down the daycare system for the last 10 years.

Minister, I want to tell you that there are rallies being planned to protest the flawed Bill 10 and the loss of 140,000 independent daycare spaces. We expect a rally will be held in your riding of Guelph in early November, and we’d like to do it according to your schedule.

These protests are being held because independent daycare operators have been completely left out of the consultation process that created this flawed bill, in spite of the fact that independent daycare providers provide about 78% of the spaces in Ontario. But you know what? They don’t belong to the Working Families coalition. They don’t have a big union to support them.

Since you are denying child care providers a voice by not allowing the bill to travel, as the MPP for Guelph, will you attend the Guelph rally and hear the concerns of your constituents?

Hon. Liz Sandals: We really do need to talk about the reality of how people have responded to the bill. For example, if you talk about the response of Andrea Calver, who is the coordinator for the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, she says, “This is broad legislation that is going to ... really crack down on those unlicensed operators who have more than five children. But it also has impact on child care centres and a very significant proposal for children from six to12.”

I’d like to tell you another quote from Andrea Calver: “It’s really a big step to moving from a patchwork of programs to a system of early learning and child care.... We really feel this legislation is part of the move to create an early learning and child care system.”

Child care

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Education. Parents expect this government to do its job and keep kids safe in daycare, but the Ombudsman has uncovered a shocking lack of inspectors to do the job. There are just 49 permanent child care advisers in Ontario, and the minister’s new enforcement unit will only add six inspectors.

It’s no wonder illegal daycares operate with impunity, taking advantage of families without getting caught. There simply aren’t enough inspectors to do the job.

How can the minister possibly defend having just one inspector for every 22,000 kids in daycare?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to talk a little bit about the findings of both the Ombudsman and our ministry. When we looked at the old way in which inspectors were organized, they were responsible primarily for visiting, reviewing, issuing and renewing licences, and then, coincidentally, had additional responsibility to respond to complaints about unlicensed care.

What we’ve done is created a new unit whose only responsibility is to respond to complaints about unlicensed child care. That move to create a totally dedicated enforcement unit that will only worry about complaints on unlicensed child care has been endorsed by the Ombudsman. In fact, his recommendations include moving ahead with setting that up, and I’m very pleased to report that that unit has been set up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, I must have read a different report, because the quote that I read from the Ombudsman said “too little, too late.” Inspectors say they’re drowning under their workload and are unable to keep up. That means that kids will continue to fall through the cracks.

According to the Ombudsman himself, the minister’s new enforcement unit will just have six investigators able to lay charges against illegal operators. It’s nothing but a drop in the bucket, because there is no way that one inspector can keep 22,000 kids safe day in and day out.

In contrast, the private day home agencies are required to employ one inspector for every 25 homes, which equals to 125 kids. Why does the minister have such low standards for her own department?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m afraid that the member didn’t actually understand the previous response, but let’s just move on to what the Ombudsman said. The Ombudsman said, in his report, that “the government and the ministry have taken positive steps and made concrete plans to improve the process for dealing with complaints about unlicensed daycares....

“In the past year, the ministry has made genuine and focused efforts to rise to the challenge of ensuring that Ontario has a proactive, timely, risk-based, and effective system for monitoring unlicensed child care operations.”

I would like to repeat that all the people in this unit will do nothing but respond to complaints and make sure that any directives they issue have been completed. When we get Bill 10, they will actually have the ability to impose fines; they will actually have the ability to close down daycares which are unsafe.

Environmental education

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique. Tomorrow is Halloween, a day when ghosts and ghouls come out across the province looking for treats and hoping to avoid being tricked. It’s a wonderful time when communities like mine come together with decorations and costumes, and get to meet their neighbours in the spookiest of settings. I know children in Ottawa–Orléans are particularly excited to show off their costumes and go trick-or-treating door to door.

While we all enjoy our time with family and friends during Halloween, and dress up as many of our favourite monsters and villains, it’s important to remember the different ways we can be green while celebrating Halloween.

Speaker, through you, could the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change please update the House on what our government is doing to help Ontarians enjoy a more environmentally friendly Halloween?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank my dear friend from Ottawa–Orléans for that great question. I also would like to wish everyone in the House a very safe and spooky Halloween, if you’re out with your little ones. If you haven’t gone door to door enough this year, at least you get candies and a smile this time.

Dr. Frankenfill’s Monster reminds us of the importance of reducing, reusing and recycling to make sure we keep as much waste out of our landfills as possible.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Oh, I’m sorry. All right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Got to go. Supplementary.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Again, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Minister, I’m terrifically thrilled to hear that once again the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is finding fun ways to encourage Ontarians to enjoy their Halloween in an environmentally friendly way. I’m sure constituents of my riding of Ottawa–Orléans will be happy to know they can have a frightfully good time at Halloween while doing their part to fight environmental evils like Dr. Frankenfill’s Monster and something else, Bottlezilla.

I especially appreciate the minister’s mention of Ontario drinking water. It’s important that we protect one of our most precious resources now and for the future generations of ghouls and goblins.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you inform this House of any witches and warlocks the people of Ontario should be on the lookout for to help protect our water?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Maybe I can go through some of the other characters. There’s Xhaust, who encourages people to walk, cycle, carpool or take public transit to reduce emissions from vehicles. My personal favourite, Bottlezilla, is a monster I have some personal experience with, encouraging people to fill up at the tap and bring a reusable bottle with them, to reduce waste and take advantage of Ontario’s world-class, great drinking water.

My other favourite is the Pillutor, which teaches us not to flush our pharmaceuticals down the toilet.

There are some very good lessons here. I hope you’ll take advantage of these very non-partisan tools.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Acting Premier. In question period on July 8, the Premier acknowledged the need to construct the Highway 6 Morriston bypass. She said, and I quote from Hansard, “There are investments needed. I would just call attention to a statement that the member for Wellington–Halton Hills made yesterday.” That statement of mine, the one she was talking about, had highlighted the need for the Morriston bypass.

If the Premier, who is herself a former Minister of Transportation, thinks that the Highway 6 Morriston bypass is needed, why is it not yet on the ministry’s five-year plan for new highway construction?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member opposite for the question today and also for raising it on a number of occasions since June 24, when I was first sworn in as Minister of Transportation—and also for raising this issue at the estimates committee yesterday.

Just to be clear, our government does understand the need to move forward with the realignment of Highway 6 between Freelton and Guelph, which will of course bypass the community of Morriston and provide improved connection to Highway 401 and the Hanlon Expressway. We continue to move the project along with respect to the design and environmental phases, to eventually prepare for construction.

But what I also said at estimates yesterday I think bears repeating in this House: This is one of the reasons that I’m encouraged to hear these kinds of questions from members on the other side of the House, because it’s a clear recognition from them that it’s very important for our government to make the kinds of crucial investments in public infrastructure like highways, bypasses and transit. I look forward to seeing ongoing support from these members for our very ambitious $29-billion plan for public infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Arnott: That’s all well and good, but I think I need to point out that, on October 6, representatives of the Morriston Bypass Coalition were here at Queen’s Park. The coalition includes the city of Guelph, the city of Hamilton, their chambers of commerce, businesses like Tim Hortons, Maple Leaf Foods, Nestlé Waters, Canada Bread and Cargill, as well as the county of Wellington and the township of Puslinch.

The minister knows that I’ve been calling for the construction of the Morriston bypass for many, many years, predating his appointment as minister. When will he finally put it on the five-year plan?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for the follow-up. As I said at committee yesterday, the Ministry of Transportation is in the process right now of finalizing the next rollout of the five-year plan that he referenced in the question. I do look forward to continuing to work with him, members from his community and members from communities right across the province of Ontario as we do move forward with our plan to build Ontario up.

Again, this is why it is so crucial for us to have comprehensive and full support in this Legislature for the $29 billion that we’ll be investing, $14 billion of which will be for crucial infrastructure outside the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, and up to $15 billion for public transit projects in the GTHA.

It’s why it’s so important for us to see—in communities like that member’s, and in all other communities that we all represent as 107 members of this Legislature—that we need to invest. You can’t slash and burn your way to growth. This is the way to build up Ontario and move the province forward.

Pension plans

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The member from Ottawa.

Interjections: Oshawa.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oshawa. The member from Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Yes, the far, distant land of Oshawa. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Associate Minister of Finance. The government stated in this year’s budget that individuals participating in a comparable workplace pension plan would not be required to enrol in the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. In that same document