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

April 18, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Apr-18 (PDF)

L015 - Wed 18 Apr 2018 / Mer 18 avr 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 18 April 2018 Mercredi 18 avril 2018

Orders of the Day

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

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Peter Langdon Preston

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Executive compensation

Hospital funding

Long-term care

Government spending

Labour dispute

Electricity supply

Access to information

Health care

Sports funding

Hospital funding

Employment standards

Children’s treatment centres

Disaster relief

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Pierre Roy

Atholl Stewart

Geary Avenue

Organ donation

Northern rail service

Hillcrest High School cancer drive

Nick Webb

Highway of Heroes cleanup

Volunteers

Introduction of Bills

Great Lakes Day Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le Jour des Grands Lacs

Fairness for the Auto Sector Act (Employment Standards), 2018 / Loi de 2018 favorisant l’équité dans le secteur de l’automobile (normes d’emploi)

Delegated Administrative Authorities Accountability and Transparency Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la responsabilisation et la transparence des organismes d’application délégataires

Petitions

Health care funding

Employment standards

Landfill

School closures

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Ontario budget

Landfill

Injured workers

Road safety

Provincial truth and reconciliation day

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

2018 Ontario budget

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 17, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 31,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

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

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to be able to rise and be part of the discussion and the narrative that we’ve been bringing forward when it talks about our budget. What we have here is A Plan for Care and Opportunity.

I’m very pleased to see many things within this budget. The one that I want to talk about briefly is introducing the new Seniors’ Healthy Home Program. Mr. Speaker, this program recognizes the costs associated with older seniors living at home, where they want to be. It provides a benefit of up to $750 annually for eligible households led by seniors 75 and over, to help them live independently and offset the costs of maintaining their homes.

Why this one is important to me, Mr. Speaker, is, a few years, I lost my father; he passed away. He was 101 years old.

Applause.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Yes. It makes me very proud, Mr. Speaker, because of the longevity. He was 56 when I was born, and my mother was in her late forties; I’m not going to say how old she was, but she passed away in 2009. I had senior parents. I know my father and mother used to get bugged by their friends all the time that they were the only people they knew who were getting Old Age Security and the baby bonus at the same time.

But one of the things, in this life, that we lead—all of us in this House—is we lead very active lives and very busy lives when we’re at home. Like many families, I was always in that difficult position of having to look after my family—make sure that I’m shovelling my driveway; I’m cutting my lawn; I’m looking after my family—and then call my dad and say, “Dad, you’re in your nineties. I’ll get there. I’ll shovel your driveway. Don’t worry about it.” By the time I got there, it was already done, because you know what most parents will say to you? “I don’t have the time to wait around for you.” They do those things.

I know many of us here actually have families that come to us in our constituencies and say, “What are we going to do to help our seniors stay at home?” That’s why, Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to see, and I’m so happy to see, this up to $750 annually to help seniors stay in their homes. I know we can debate the merits of our budget and the merits of our bill, but ultimately, this part of our bill, this part of our budget, I know will help many, many families, help seniors stay in their homes. That’s one of the things that I’m very proud to see in this budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll end it at that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the comments from the minister. I don’t know if he had just started debate this morning, but if he just started, he didn’t go very long. It kind of took us by surprise.

It was an interesting story about his father. My grandfather was 52 when he got married—for the first time—so there is some similarity in that regard. Obviously, they had children, or I wouldn’t be here as well. Some people would argue that might have been a good thing, but that’s a debate for another day.

He speaks about one item in the budget, the $750. We’ve got a growing senior population. I don’t know the details exactly, whether all seniors are eligible for that or not, but a senior living in a 10,000-square-foot mansion probably doesn’t need the $750 from the government or anywhere else, and probably we could be spending that money better on the seniors who do need the help. I don’t know if there’s a partition in that way at all, but it is part and parcel of what has been done in this budget, and that is, quite frankly, an attempt to put something in there for everybody for the purpose of influencing them to vote Liberal in the next election.

This budget is not a budget; it’s a campaign document. The Premier herself said, “It’s the campaign document we’re running on.” Interestingly enough, they call it a budget, but when it suits the Premier’s purposes, she says, “No, that’s essentially our platform. We’re running on the budget.”

They need to get their stories straight. They need to actually separate—they say they’ve got their platform for their campaign out; well, do they or do they not? Is the budget what they’re running on? Because if it is, that’s what they should make abundantly clear.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to listen to the comments from the member from Sudbury. Kudos to you for having longevity in your genes. I wish you a long, healthy, and prosperous life shovelling your driveway for the remainder of your time on this earth.

My parents are getting up there as well. Fortunately, they both had the good fortune of working in unionized jobs that afford them benefits. My dad is a type one diabetic and has had coverage for diabetes—although he doesn’t have coverage now for a continuous glucose monitor, which, I believe, is a failure on the part of this government to not cover it. My point is, they are the lucky ones, and nowadays they are few and far between. There are seniors’ populations that were not so fortunate and are getting into their retirement years without the benefit of post-retirement benefits and a good pension.

Interestingly enough, in this budget, buried in

schedule 14 at the back of the budget—and I would appreciate a comment from the member from Sudbury: Tell us why your government decided to arbitrarily use the heavy hand of legislation to strip bargaining rights from one union and deliver them to another? It’s unprecedented, giving bargaining rights that were collectively bargained over 40 years ago through the building trades in the cement formwork sector, in the ICI sector, providing good labour demand and supply—stripping that and creating chaos in that industry. What was the problem you were trying to solve there? How do you justify doing that?

You’re going to have a charter challenge on your hands. It’s unprecedented to see this government actually take those steps. I’d like to hear the justification on the part of any member of the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Etobicoke Centre.

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s great to hear about the longevity in the lives of the families of the members of this Legislature. The member from Renfrew talked about his dad getting married at 52. At the rate I’m going, I’m going to beat that.

I just wanted to share that I think this is—the member from Sudbury had some very thoughtful remarks. I think there’s a lot in this budget that speaks to the needs of people today and the needs of people in the future. The member from Sudbury alluded to that in talking about the context in his family and the needs of seniors. I’m proud of that budget for this reason.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s a pleasure to speak and interesting, again, with the Minister of Energy. It’s interesting, in this House, that they keep coming out with more and more programs. If they gave seniors a break on their hydro rates, they wouldn’t have to hand them out a cheque that’s actually their money coming back to them.

So, yes, I applaud it. Yes, there are certainly many seniors out there. Again, a great story about his dad; we all want to have those types of opportunities with our parents to live that long. But at the end of the day, they are making it harder on a lot of those seniors. What we really want to see are less taxes. We want to see less costs.

They’ve raised hydro, which they never will admit in this House. They always come out and say they’re giving a 25% reduction, but they don’t ever admit that they were responsible for that going up 300%. Those seniors have less money in their pockets. For our hunters and fishermen, their licences have gone up. Again, money does not go back to the special-purpose account, and those go up. Our drivers’ licences go up. Seniors, again, are paying there. The taxes on the actual commodities that they are buying are going up. The taxes are going to go up and the cost of food is going to go up because of some of the initiatives of this government.

He stands in this House continually and says, “We’re going to give more programs. We’re going to add more programs.” When are they going to address the problem and actually limit the rates going up? It’s not about giving more money to more people. It’s their money. It’s coming from taxes. It’s not just coming from a tree. Yes, it’s wonderful that those people are going to have some funds, but at the end of the day, can we address the real issues? Can we actually limit the costs going up?

If he’ll be honest in this House, he will tell us that in two years, those hydro rates are going to continue to start going back up. So that—

Interjection.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is true. You know it’s true. Your government has said it’s true. The Auditor General has said it’s true. I know you don’t believe the Auditor General. I think the people of Ontario will take their word for it. Nothing against you personally, but I think from your government, they’ll take the Auditor General’s version.

We want to see the prices going down, taxes not going up—not more handouts.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Energy has two minutes.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: First off, I want to thank the members from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, from Essex, from Etobicoke Centre and from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. Maybe I’ll start and work my way backwards.

Congratulations to the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound on his Owen Sound Platers going against the—

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Attack.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The Attack, yes. The Platers are the old team. That’s when the Wolves were actually green and yellow, not blue and white. But the Attack going seven games against the Soo Greyhounds: great hockey, and the OHL is always bringing us that.

The second thing, though, as it relates to many of his comments on electricity prices: We as a government do acknowledge that prices went up. Prices went up because we spent $70 billion investing in a system that they left, when they were in power, in tatters. That $70 billion did cost more, and we made sure that we actually shut down coal, eliminated coal, which helped our overall health care system.

That’s why we brought forward the fair hydro plan. I know they didn’t like that plan. I know they don’t like bringing forward 25% off for seniors, for all families. And there’s more in place to help those seniors, which is the Ontario Electricity Support Program. They don’t talk about the programs that we’re doing because of the investments that we’ve made to actually help those families and those seniors.

Again, I want to thank my colleague for speaking out and talking about many of the important pieces of our budget. I know the member from Essex was talking to me about longevity and family, shovelling the driveway and some of the concerns that he has about the union piece that’s in there in

schedule 14. I understand that.

I know I’m running out of time and I can’t even get to my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, but I do have to say, you know—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It’s 52—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Make sure we keep that—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you for the third time.

Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been more than six and one-half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

The Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: No further debate, Mr. Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

Time allocation

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 8,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 25, 2018, from 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the notice of public hearings; and

That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2018; and

That witnesses be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis; and

That the Clerk of the Committee distribute a draft copy of the agenda to the committee members and their designates by Monday, April 23, 2018, at 5 p.m.; and

That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members divided equally among the recognized parties; and

That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25, 2018; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Thursday, April 26, 2018; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Monday, April 30, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

On April 30, 2018, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, May 1, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Minister MacCharles has moved government motion number 6.

Minister MacCharles?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d first like to address a couple of comments made over the course of debate of this bill. Yesterday, I understand the member for Dufferin–Caledon said, “I hope that we are not bringing Bill 8 forward and rushing it because we want to have a check mark or a give-me to a retiring member of the Legislature.” Speaker, I was surprised and I was appalled to hear that statement. Not only is this bordering on unparliamentary, it’s reprehensible to be politicizing public safety.

Let me make this abundantly clear to the member: In my actions and my work as minister, I’ve always been, and will continue to be, dedicated to the protection of Ontarians. Maybe when the Conservatives put forward ideas, they do it with no regard for the public good, but that is not how we do things on this side of the House, in this government.

When my ministry passes changes to protect those using payday lending and help end the vicious cycle of debt, I am not asking for a give-me. When we make changes to help protect those buying new homes, undertaking travel services, buying condominiums, buying tickets for events, I am not asking for a give-me. So, Speaker, when I propose changes that would protect vulnerable populations and develop elevator availability standards, I am certainly not asking for a give-me. I’m dedicated to consumer protection in Ontario, and on that, my record speaks for itself.

I also want to address something that the member from Huron–Bruce said. She referred to the TSSA, the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, as a “perfect example of burdensome red tape....” Speaker, putting aside the fact that the TSSA was created by her party, which members know full well, I am disheartened to hear again the Conservatives politicizing public safety and decrying protecting Ontarians as “red tape.” It’s not burdensome red tape when we make sure that the amusement rides our children ride are safe. It’s not burdensome red tape when we ensure that propane tanks and fuels are stored properly.

I want to make this abundantly clear to members of the opposition: Public safety is not red tape.

I would now like to move to the importance of this legislation and why we need to pass it now. Consumer credit reporting is one of the largest areas of complaints that my ministry receives. These complaints are often very time-sensitive. Giving consumers timely access to credit ensures they have the best possible opportunity to correct the record and have accurate information. It also means that identity fraud can be detected and eliminated before it becomes a problem, not months after. And it helps consumers, Speaker, proceed with important purchases, like buying a new home or securing a loan.

Elevator availability hurts the members of our society who most need our help—when those elevators are not there for them. When the Premier talks about a caring government, this is exactly the kind of thing she’s talking about. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is no data on the widespread nature of elevator availability. We know that from an extensive report that we commissioned from a third party.

Speaker, everyone in this House knows we can’t take action to introduce either legislation or regulations until we have the information we need, and it’s this legislation before us that will accomplish that. It will enable us to take action, starting tomorrow, but for that to happen, this legislation needs to be passed today.

Speaker, I would also like to briefly correct the record on a few things I have been hearing over the last few days during the debate, particularly on the elevator availability piece. This legislation establishes a framework for elevator availability standards. There currently is no data about the availability of elevators. The legislation would first enable the Technical Standards and Safety Authority to collect this important information. It would then enable government to use it to determine what is an appropriate timeline for a repair, and that would be done, of course, through regulations.

Finally, it would give either the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, or an appropriate regulator, the authority to issue AMPs—AMPs are administrative monetary penalties—for non-compliance with the regulations, after they have been developed, of course.

Speaker, I know you and most members of this Legislature understand the importance of protecting Ontario consumers against things like identity fraud and ensuring they have timely access to elevators. This is why we are enacting time allocation to ensure that Ontarians do not have to wait even longer to have action on these very important files.

I look forward to debating this legislation further in the coming days.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to just start off my talk this morning by sharing a thought. Someone I have great admiration for in this House, the member from St. Catharines, the chief government whip—he’s been here for a long time. He always shares with me when we have sidebar conversations that he understands and respects that the job of the opposition is to challenge the government and to hold them accountable. Often when I bring up points in this House, I’ll get heckling saying I’m negative and I’m only talking about the bad things. Well, sadly, there are a lot of those things to talk about, and the reality is I need to put them on the record to hold this government to account.

This is very interesting: The Minister of Energy, who stood up for a couple of minutes and talked about a program for seniors—let’s not forget it’s the taxpayer who is giving that money, not the Liberals as nice people writing cheques; that’s the people of Ontario’s money he’s giving back—didn’t even finish the 20 minutes at the end of the day. On something as important as the budget, the document that they keep saying, when they brought out that fluffy document they did, that really is a campaign platform—they’re not even going to stand here and talk about it for the full amount of time they can. They’re actually going to time-allocate the budget.

How do you tell the people of Ontario, when you have tripled the debt in your 15 years and they are spending billions of dollars in interest—

Mr. Arthur Potts: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, the member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I think the member knows that we just finished the debate on the budget and we’re on the elevator time allocation now. Let’s have a conversation about elevators.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I respect your comment. I’m sure the member will stay within the guidelines that are set out.

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker, I believe he might have been stuck in an elevator, because we’ve moved on from that bill and we’re actually talking about time allocation of the budget that your party introduced.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: The elevator doesn’t go to the top floor.

Mr. Bill Walker: I was going to say that, but I won’t.

Again, it’s something as important and fundamental to government, to the people and to democracy as the budget, and they’re actually time-allocating it. Is that because they don’t want the official opposition and, probably I would hope, the third party standing here and challenging them on their election document that they’re calling the budget?

Mr. Speaker, I find it deplorable that a government—let’s just ask the people at home who are watching. Do you know what the top three expenditures of this provincial government are? Health care, which it appropriately should be; education, as it appropriately should be; and the third is debt interest. They have accumulated so much debt—and by the way, after promising last year that they were going to balance the budget—which they didn’t, because they actually moved $4 billion onto OPG’s books. That’s still a debt of the people of Ontario; all you did was move the shells around.

But there wasn’t a net, true balanced budget. There’s $4 billion there. They said, “For the foreseeable future, we’re going to have balanced budgets.” This year they came out and said, “Oh, sorry. We’re going to have to run a deficit this year”—$6.7 billion—“and we’re going to do it for the next number of years.”

Again, they made a promise to the people of Ontario and they broke that promise. Today, they are time- allocating that budget debate. They don’t want us to talk about things like spending a billion dollars of interest every single month. Let’s not forget this is at historically low interest rates. What happens when those start to incrementally come up? And they will. As we all know, debt is low, but it will at some point come up, and then there are more dollars. They’re not doing things like mental health. You’re not giving it to community and social services. You’re not giving it to those seniors, those long-term-care people.

I’m the critic for long-term care. There are 34,000 seniors on a wait-list, waiting for a long-term-care bed. Just on that little side note, for three budgets, they never had a cent in for new beds. Ironically, they came out and pledged 5,000 new beds this year—interesting. Just before an election, “Oh, now it’s a big issue. We have to build some beds.”

Who trusts the government? They said that they were going to redevelop 30,000 beds and, if I’m kind, they have done—

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be pleased to speak to that. Regardless of what bill they’re time-allocating, they are time-allocating yet another bill here, in this case Bill 8, the elevators and credit reporting act. A big piece of that credit reporting act was consumer protection. I spoke to this bill the other day, and I wanted to give some parallels for the people at home listening, because we get caught up in what we’re talking about here.

The people at home need to understand that when you are talking about consumer protection, they have been very finite in this bill to talk about it, very narrow. How can you talk about consumer protection when this government has actually spent $8 billion on eHealth, with nothing in return? That should be protecting the consumer, Mr. Speaker. You are one of those taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, and I trust you’re not very happy that you didn’t get much consumer protection.

There should have been consumer protection, Mr. Speaker, when they went out and sold Hydro One, which they didn’t campaign on. There was a net revenue source that, again, the people of Ontario—I don’t think anyone gave them the mandate to go and sell that. And now what do you do after that one? They’ve sold that one off. What are they going to sell next? There’s only so much furniture in the house before it collapses.

At the end of the day, I find it very ironic that again they want to time-allocate almost every bill that comes through this House, because they believe that it’s their power, their entitlement, their right to actually take away the democratic right of each of us who have been democratically elected by the people of our great ridings to come here and debate. That’s what democracy is about: debate, and actually having full, wholesome discussion about whatever topic and whatever bill comes in front of us. It’s deplorable, I believe, that they continually time-allocate.

I did weave a little bit into the budget, but I think it’s important for you, Mr. Speaker, and I think you’ll understand and agree with me, that when they are time-allocating something as fundamental to government and democracy through a time allocation as the budget, how can they defend that? How can they stand over there, how can they go out door-knocking when someone stands up and says, “Why would you time-allocate something as important as the budget?”

At the end of the day, time allocation, I would suggest, would be used if there’s a real emergency, if something has to be done in a very expedited—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Just to inform the member—I’m trying to be fair here—they didn’t time-allocate the budget, so don’t keep saying that, please. Thank you.

Mr. Bill Walker: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that’s just—

Interjection: It’s coming up the elevator.

Mr. Bill Walker: Yes, it’s stuck in the elevator right now, but it will be coming, I believe, a time-allocation bill about the budget, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be pleased to speak for another 40 minutes on that one and bring out all of the points that I can from that perspective, because I had prepared very copiously for this.

At the end of the day, the time allocation of Bill 8 is in principle no different than if they were going to time-allocate another piece of legislation, which I’m told they may do at some point in the future. What I want to share is the principle of time allocation. Why would you do that? There are 108 representatives, I believe, that are democratically elected—

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s 107.

Mr. Bill Walker: Sorry; 107, if they’re all here. Every one of those has issues from their riding. They have perspectives from their riding that they want to bring forward to this House to debate. I was told when I first arrived, in one of our very first sessions, that you want legislation that is clear, unambiguous, concise, and about the people, for the benefit of the people of Ontario. So you want to have proper debate, you want to have thorough and wholesome debate, so that all the different perspectives can arrive.

I’m hopeful that our critic for consumer protection is going to be here because he, again, is someone who takes charge of that file as the critic, and I think he wants and needs time to be able to speak. He is en route, I’m told, right now.

Mr. Speaker, the whole intent of this is to be able to properly and thoroughly debate a topic. At the end of the day, it’s very challenging when a government comes in and uses time allocation in this method. I’m not certain of the real history and origins, but I would have expected coming in that that was for something that was really sensitive, very time-specific, that you would have to get something through, like special needs or rare disease medicines that we’ve heard about in this House a lot of times, Speaker. That would be something that you would think you would expedite.

We had many families come through the doors here saying their child or their family member or their friend can’t get something like the rare-disease special drug that they need. That I would expect you would use time allocation with, and you would hope that this House, particularly with the government—that’s where they should use a tool like that, and say, “I want you to join with me and make this happen, so we can actually help that family.” Time-allocate there, not time-allocate something like this bill.

I’m not suggesting that this bill isn’t important. The member who brought it forward, I’m sure, has huge amounts of problems. Certainly, here in urban areas like Toronto, there are a lot of issues with elevators. But at the end of the day, what I suggested yesterday when I was speaking about this topic was: Did they really go out and consult the industry? Once again, they are taking a punitive approach to this bill. They’re actually wanting to come in with fines, and they want to put very specific timelines in. I’m okay with specific timelines, if they’ve been discussed and they’re rational and pragmatic, and if the companies actually have the ability.

Use this wonderful, glorious building, Mr. Speaker. I was told yesterday one of the first elevators in Ontario was installed here at the Legislature. That elevator is still operable, but that means that parts are harder to get. That means that we sometimes have to custom fabricate to be able to get there. You can’t do that on a unilaterally set “two weeks or you’re going to get fined if you don’t comply with this.” There have to be realities when you’re in situations like that.

If it’s a case of companies not being able to deliver on time, part of that, I’m told, is all about the lack of skilled trades and the number of skilled technicians. Again, this government has limited many of those programs. The high-skills major programs across most of Ontario have been either cut or they have been taken back or scaled back, which means they’ve actually slowed or limited—in many cases, completely—the supply of those people coming through the skilled trades. I’m not certain why they have done that. Skilled trades are crucial to our economy. They’re crucial to our province going forward.

In my great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, we have Bruce Power, the nuclear plant. They’re going to refurbish six units there, Mr. Speaker—clean, affordable power. They’re going to need those skilled trades. I had the privilege of working there. I was down on the floor and I saw the demographic. There are a lot of people who are going to be able to retire, and we need that pipeline. We need people who are coming up to be able to replace them.

At the end of the day, I think it’s another failure of this government to not have had enough skilled trades in the system. They have done things with the apprenticeship ratios that have totally stifled the ability for people to come through the training programs. With a lot of our young people, there was such a movement—and again, I’m totally supportive of academics and people being able to go to university, but there was such a focus on only going to university that it’s left a gap for those people who want to work with their hands.

I have two sons, Zach and Ben. Zach will be 24; Ben will be 21. They are both, ironically, going to go into the skilled trades, and I’m not saying this just because—it’s not a self-serving piece of information that I’m doing, but there are two who are coming through. It’s been very daunting to get them into the programs. It’s been very daunting for the employers, who want them, to be able to actually put them through the system because of some of the things that this government has done in regard to the regulation and the limitation of those.

If we don’t have those skilled trades coming through—you talk about all of the infrastructure that they say they’re going to build. Again, I still haven’t seen a lot of money come out. Where are those skilled trades going to come from? You don’t just create those overnight.

It comes back to this time allocation. Why would they time-allocate a bill that’s not an absolute crisis and emergency today? I get that to those people who are in a high-rise, it definitely seems like a crisis, and it could be. I’m not taking away from that whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. But as this government does in many cases, they whitewash. They don’t go after the bad actors that are out there and are perpetual people in non-compliance. They change the whole legislation to say, “Everyone shall.” They then come out and say, “Oh, I’m sorry. We can do better.

There were unintended consequences.” They talk about unintended consequences, and then they’ll come out with terms like “stretch goals.” And they’ll say, “Oh, well, we didn’t really mean that. That was a bit of a stretch goal.” The people of Ontario don’t want stretch goals. Maybe if they didn’t time-allocate pieces of legislation, my colleagues, members of the third party, and even maybe some of their members would actually come to the table and debate legislation, and put it out there, that is actually about governing on behalf, and in the best interests, of the people of Ontario.

It challenges me when I hear that they are going to time-limit and time-allocate. We, as a principle, say it’s about debate. It’s about democracy. It’s about people having a say. Our great forefathers and foremothers, who died in the wars to allow us the freedom of speech—it comes back to being even that fundamental. The ability for us to come to this Legislature as democratically elected representatives on behalf of the people we’re given the privilege to serve—who have, and should, enjoy the privilege of full and wholesome debate in this House.

It’s interesting that I find again—I’m going to go back to it because it did start in the first part of this Legislature this morning. The Minister of Energy had 20 minutes on the clock to talk about the bill that was before us at that time, the budget measures act. He spent maybe a minute and a half or two minutes, so why would he not spend the full 20 minutes? Why would he not put out the detail?

Our job is to challenge and question. They talk about the 25% rebate. Let’s not forget, Mr. Speaker, they borrowed $25 billion, which is going to cost the taxpayer—particularly the youth sitting in front of us, our pages, and our children and our grandchildren—between $43 billion and $93 billion, according to the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature whose job is to come in and give you true facts. They did that, and yet they’re not going to stand there and talk about it. They’re not going to stand there and give you the other side of the coin.

I raised this in the House to him, in my reply: They talk about the 25% rebate, but what about the 300% increase that they never seem to want to actually accept?

He talked about the seniors’ grant that they were going to give out, the $750. I think, again, that’s a great thing for those people that need it, but if he just lowered prices, in many cases—if they didn’t continue to increase taxes. In my almost seven years here, they have had record revenues, and yet they continue to run deficits and add to that debt burden. They’re digging the hole deeper.

At the end of the day, those seniors are paying more and getting less. There’s less out there for them to actually utilize, and now they’re coming out and trying to say: “We’re going to give you a program, and let’s just pretend the world is rosy.” That’s not acceptable. They tried that through the energy cycle in the last three or four years. He proudly stands in this House and says, “There are more programs that we’re creating.” Why is it a good thing to actually create more programs rather than fixing the problem? Why would we not address the problem?

That’s the struggle I have with time allocation in this House. We should be able to bring those valid points up. We should be able to talk about issues in this House and do our job, as I said earlier, which the member from St. Catharines has truly shared with me: “That is your job, to hold the government to account. That’s any opposition’s job. You’re the Queen’s loyal opposition. Your job is to stand in this House and hold the government to account.” I will continue to do that, regardless of whether they try to time-allocate or not. We’ll utilize the time now about time allocation, about the democratic principle.

I’m going to use another example, similar to time allocation. They actually stripped the ability for municipalities—we’ll remember this back to the Green Energy Act—to have a say. In essence, that’s a form of time allocation, because they cut their debate totally off. They said, “You shall not be able to say. We will come into your community and we’ll tell you whether you are going to have wind turbines,” in that specific example, “or you’re not going to have them.”

I find, again, that they have not, over my six and a half, seven years, even been willing to open up that debate. They know it’s wrong. I think they know, the ones that I speak to individually. A few of them are in ridings where it’s been very challenging because of things like the Green Energy Act. Yet I’m trusting, from cabinet and from the Premier’s upper echelon—they’re saying: “We’re not even opening that talk. We’re going to continue to close debate on that issue.”

It’s very interesting, when we think about time allocation: Why would they do this? You start to wonder. We’re getting close to the end of the session; I’m not exactly certain how many days we have left here in the Legislature. Why are they now starting to time-allocate? That’s why, in the back hallways, there was discussion that they will be time-allocating the budget in the next couple of days, or certainly the next week. That, to me, is a fundamental issue.

That’s why I was bringing it to the floor. It’s something that I think the electorate needs to understand, and it can’t just be sprung—if they don’t happen to tune in and watch on a certain morning, and all of a sudden that debate is over. So I’m trying to give them a bit of a preview to what may happen and what may be coming at us. I want it on record from the Progressive Conservatives that we do not agree with time allocation. We do not agree that, certainly, with something as significant as the budget, we should be time-allocating.

Even this morning, the government introduced this and isn’t speaking again. Every election, just before they prorogue, they want to ram a whole bunch of legislation through so they can trot out there on the campaign trail and say, “We did this, this, this and this.” On many of these things, they’ve had 15 years to get it done.

The wage equity act—they brought it out last week, I think it was, or the week before: “This is an absolute priority of our government.” Where was it for the first 14 and a half years that they were in power, when it wasn’t a priority? Because it was identified way, way back. The Premier herself continues to say, “I’m the champion of wage equity.” It’s interesting that just before a budget, there’s yet another little line item where you can say, “We did that.” You can go out and say, “We’ve been the champion of this.” Where is the execution?

Like many of their budget act measures, they’re actually not going to happen until 2019 or 2020, so they’re making promises today that have no impact before we get to the actual polls on June 7.

I find it, again, very interesting that when I walk in—I received a text this morning apprising me that the

schedule today was going to change and they were going to start to time-allocate some pieces of legislation. Why weren’t they forthright? Our House leaders, the three parties, sit; why wasn’t that established yesterday? Why wasn’t that established Monday, saying, ‘We’re going to do this”?

They talk all the time about plans. I’d like an understanding of the plan that they suggested they have, because this plan is pretty quick to change. We moved another shell here. That then makes you a little bit cynical. What’s the real reason for this time allocation? What are they going to try to ram in on another piece of legislation that is self-serving? And we know—I’m going to use an example. They took away the ability, as you know, Mr.

Speaker, for the Auditor General to actually review advertising and determine whether that is partisan—crass partisan political advertising—or whether it is true government advertising. We brought that to light as the opposition, as we should, as our job should be.

As I have said, the member for St. Catharines and the chief government whip, who has been here a long, long time—I totally respect the years of service that he has given to the province of Ontario. But I find it very ironic that we have this type of movement coming forward, that they change the shell game. They actually do something as cynical as stripping the ability of the Auditor General to be able to say, “Yes, that’s a proper ad,” or “No, that is a partisan Liberal ad.”

At the end of the day—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, from the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I thought I was coming in to discuss the bill on elevators. I’m just wondering if—are we not talking about that?

Miss Monique Taylor: No, it’s time allocation, Minister.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I understand your complaint.

Please try to stick to time allocation on Bill 8. I’d appreciate it. You have drifted a little bit. I have been more than reasonable, I think. If you could move back into the area of that, it would be appreciated.

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I do apologize. I am truly trying to provide context. I will just have to take a couple of seconds here now that the minister has stood and just reiterate that I found it interesting—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t think you will be reiterating. I think you will go to where I wanted you to go. Thank you.

Mr. Bill Walker: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking of Bill 8 that they are time-allocating—it’s interesting whether you use the term “time allocation” or you just sit down when you have 18 minutes left on the clock. That’s another way of actually self-imposing time allocation. Not speaking about something as significant as the budget is a time-allocation tactic that I believe someone in this House, perhaps the Minister of Energy, might have employed earlier this morning.

Mr. Speaker, for Bill 8, what we want to make sure is that we actually have—and I said it yesterday when I spoke to it. We want to have robust debate. We want the ability for all three parties in this House to do their job and represent their communities, the interests of their people, and frankly, the larger public of Ontario, and bring good thought process. We have brought hundreds of amendments to this House, which again the Liberal government has said, “No. We know better than you. We are going to just ram this through.” And then they bring in time allocation to truly ram it through the House, Mr. Speaker.

This is an unacceptable practice, as I said earlier, unless it’s for something life-saving, unless it’s something like rare diseases—which they have not supported, this government; they have done nothing on that file.

Then we need to be able to ensure that they respect the principles of democracy, that they actually respect debate and they respect the will of the people of Ontario and they don’t use time allocation for their own self-serving purposes. I hope to goodness, Mr. Speaker, that they won’t bring in time allocation on the budget. At this point, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you, I’m going to stop going off that lane a little bit and I’m going to leave some time for my critic when he gets here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to commend our colleague, the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. He did 23 minutes on the clock with no notes, stream of consciousness. He is well versed in this file and many others. I appreciate him informing this House.

My experience in time-allocation debates is that we’re debating the merit of time allocation in whether or not this bill should be considered to be expedited through this House for whatever reason the government purports it to be. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound hit on some of those measures where we might expect time allocation, whether the province was in a state of emergency or whether there was a crisis that had arisen that required legislative intervention on the spot, immediately, with fast and swift passage through this House. That would be reasonable. That would be expected, and I think that would be condoned by members of our communities.

My problem here is that we are seeing the use of time allocation more and more, and after 15 years of government, it seems like they have hit the gas pedal. They’ve hit the throttle on legislation.

I leaned on our capable and competent Clerks who gave me some interesting information: In the last legislative session, 38.6% of all government bills were time-allocated—more than a third of government bills. Today, in this session, two out of six government bills have been time-allocated—that’s 33%. If this time allocation passes, which we suspect it will because the Liberal government has a majority, that will bring bills that have been time-allocated in this chamber to 50%. We also know that the budget is close to being time-allocated.

They collapsed debate on it today and we can expect the natural process, from what they have been doing, will be time allocation. So, close to 80% of the bills that we have seen in this Legislature this session will have been time-allocated. How is that democratic?

In which way does that serve the public? What is the message sent to the general public in our constituencies? It’s that their voice doesn’t matter. It’s that their ideas don’t matter. We’re going to fast-track debate in this House. We will condense the committee process as well. It’s unbelievable. It’s an affront to the democratic process. It’s an affront to the people who sent us here to do the work on their behalf. It’s unbelievable. These are important bills.

I would suggest that elevator safety is an important bill to give due consideration to. You want your elevators to move fast, but you don’t want the bills that deal with their safety to move fast through this House. You want to ensure that you have done your due diligence and that the requirements for elevator safety in this province are comprehensive and have had all aspects reviewed.

Speaking to the bill, Bill 8, on consumer credit reports and elevator availability, you want to ensure that, in this day and age of hyper-technological advancements and elements that infiltrate personal information, we’re doing our very best to protect consumers from those threats and that their credit ratings are protected. But, no, not in this House; in this House, the government knows best. They’ll drive this thing through and, ultimately, no question, they will miss the mark as they do time and time again. We’ll have to come back to these pieces of legislation to fill some glaring gaps that exist.

They’ve taken no counsel from the opposition; they take no counsel at committee. The next figure I’d like to know is how many opposition amendments have actually been adopted by this government. I’d say very, very few. They’re not in the business of dialogue in this province and certainly not in this chamber. They’re not in the business of collaborating with their colleagues in a collaborative, congenial way. They are dictatorial, and they’re jamming and ramming legislation through.

Why? Let’s look at it as it really is. They are on the cusp of an election that will see their demise. There’s no question. We are absolutely sure that this government has run its course. They are doing everything they can, throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks as a last-ditch effort. That’s to be expected.

It is our job to be critical of the 15 years that they had to get it right; the 15-year track record that they could have listened to the opposition to build comprehensive policy, to build collaboration and dialogue. They could have gotten it right. They will learn their lesson on June 7. I am certain of it. Our communities are telling us—

Interjection.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. The next time allocation, the most important time allocation, is the limited time that this government has remaining in this chamber. It’ll be a good day. That’ll be time allocation that I can support because our communities need so much more and deserve so much more.

What they’ve done in their budget is what we would call, in football and in sports, the Hail Mary pass. It is a last-ditch effort: Close your eyes, throw as long and as hard as you can, and hope it finds a receiver on the end. Speaker, no one is going to be there to catch that ball. The public have already seen this government’s actions: They’ve lived under the tenure of a government that has not prioritized their needs. They’ve seen their health care system degrade. They’ve seen hallway medicine.

They have seen opportunities lost in ensuring that some of the basic fundamentals of health care, meaning pharmacare and dental care—those opportunities have been lost and have not gone far enough in this last budget. They’ve seen our hydro system absolutely collapse when hydro systems in our neighbouring jurisdictions, in Quebec and in Manitoba, under public ownership have flourished, have spawned economic development and have been used as strategic assets for economic development. They have bungled—use every term that you can use to describe the disaster that is our hydro system, and our health care system.

That is the overwhelming theme when I talk to constituents. Whether it be hydro or health care or education or long-term care or infrastructure or our corrections system, the overarching theme is that these systems that are pillars, foundations of our province are in crisis. They have not been supported, they have been diluted; they’ve been absolutely under-resourced, because this is a government that has prioritized themselves, and we see it today in a time allocation motion.

Their priority is to get this legislation out the door, shop it around, try to gain some votes, see if they can bump up their polling numbers without actually putting the effort in to ensuring that legislation is comprehensive.

This is not the way that this place works. Let’s go back in time and see when debate was thorough, when it was robust, and I think it provided for better laws, better bills—

Mr. John Yakabuski: They screamed against time allocation.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Absolutely. They used to. There are some wonderful quotes from former Premier Dalton McGuinty on time allocation. He would certainly raise a ruckus when members of the government—

Miss Monique Taylor: And Jim Bradley, the member from St. Catharines.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: And the member for St. Catharines, as well, is encyclopedic in his knowledge of the standing orders and the use or abuse of them. But perhaps the member from St. Catharines is running the plays. Maybe he’s calling the shots. Maybe he’s the one directing the ship here, because all they’ve got left is this time allocation motion and the ability for them to flex their legislative muscles and quash any debate.

People have serious issues. They have concerns that they need—and this is the only venue. This is the top of the food chain here. This is where they go. They rely on us to put those issues on the table.

Folks around this bill who are in the elevator repair industry—the technicians, the owners—are wondering how they’re going to be able to comply with the timelines built into this bill. You’ve given no consideration to that. You put hard timelines in there, not recognizing that some of these systems are antiquated, some of them are obsolete. And some of the parts need to be made; they don’t even exist anymore. You have given no consideration to the fact that elevator technicians themselves are limited and there aren’t enough of them in the industry to actually service the amount of elevators.

You’re putting the constraints on the bill, but not acknowledging the lack of resources to be able to comply with the constraints. You’re putting the cart before the horse, essentially.

That’s something that they haven’t acknowledged—or maybe they want to, but they haven’t given themselves time to speak to the bill. Some of those backbenchers who actually have the freedom in their caucus to bring forward some of those concerns, maybe they would want the opportunity to ensure that there’s some balance in the debate. We would expect that. There was a time in this House where you could expect at least backbenchers to challenge some of the government initiatives that didn’t support the needs of their communities, because that’s their job. That no longer happens in this House.

It is, again, dictatorial, and government by decree: “We’re going to tell you how it goes. If you don’t like it, too bad. So sorry.” That’s the message you’re sending to our constituents.

I don’t even have to tell them it’s happening. They know it, they see it; they feel it every day in their communities. They’re telling us that that has to change. I’m telling you, through them, through the Speaker, that you’re not doing that. We’ll see on June 7 if, in fact, you’ve learned your lesson. I surmise, Speaker, that that won’t be the case.

To the bill: The other aspect is around the enforcement regime for the TSSA and the ability to impose monetary penalties. Again, elevator repair companies and elevator installation companies are expressing some deep concern. This isn’t a just-in-time industry. This isn’t something that rolls off the assembly line that you’re going to be able to fix. It’s one of those traditional industries. We’ve had elevators in Ontario for 100 years. They’re a system that requires hands-on knowledge. This isn’t something that a robot or a computer can fix; this is a traditional industry. Sometimes, depending on demand and supply, there’s a backlog, especially in high-density urban areas like Toronto.

They’re going to give the ability for the TSSA to impose mandatory penalties when, in fact, the issues around elevator repair are outside of their control. That’s pretty heavy-handed. I would think there would be another way that this government could support, entice, instead of the stick approach—or even need to use the carrot approach. Take a comprehensive look at what that data suggests in terms of the needs of that and—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: There isn’t data. That’s why we need—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Look, I would love to learn more about the bill, Minister. I’d love to know—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Come talk to me.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: No, I’m talking to you right now. This is where I get to talk to you. This is the format. It’s called debate in the House. I hope that in the remainder of the time—I don’t know how much time you have on the clock, but I’d like to hear you get up and talk about it.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I have, extensively.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: When? When was it, yesterday? Tell us when you spoke to it. Tell us when any of the members spoke to it, because we don’t hear—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Check the Hansard.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: We just heard the member from Sudbury—

Miss Monique Taylor: The minister doesn’t remember.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The minister doesn’t remember. The minister from Sudbury stood up and spoke to the budget bill for a minute and a half. We didn’t learn anything; we didn’t learn anything about the nature of that massive document.

I asked him a question, a really important question on

schedule 14 in the budget that strips bargaining rights for LIUNA, a long-standing trade union in Ontario; it strips their bargaining rights arbitrarily and hand-delivers them to another union, a competing union. I asked him that question directly. He had a minute and a half to answer it. We didn’t get anything out of him. Maybe he’ll write me a letter. Maybe he’ll join the crowd of LIUNA workers on the front steps on Monday to actually explain the government’s position on that.

But that won’t happen in this House. That will happen outside, where they can control what they listen to, what they hear and what they respond to. In this House, they understand that as a majority government, they have the power, and they are using it. I would say they are abusing it. They’re not listening to opposition members. They don’t care. They’ve lost any regard for any ideas we might have.

I’ll tell you, that’s not the way Ontarians want their Legislatures and their legislators to work. They want to see collaboration. They understand that there are some good ideas. They understand that there’s a need for balance. That is not happening, and I think it is to the demise of the governing party, and it’s about time. After 15 years, if you haven’t learned your lesson yet, I think we’ll see the results of that rearing their heads in June.

These are important issues that deserve our consideration. They are important issues that we are charged to deal with through the honour of being in this House, being elected members. When we see time allocation come in on every bill—now we’re getting up to 80% of the bills in this House that are time-allocated—it degrades the role of elected officials. You’re demeaning our jobs, and in an age and an era where people are so cynical of the role of politicians and their motives, you’re adding to that. You contribute to that, and for shame, if you could feel it.

Speaker, I will leave some time on the clock for my colleagues. I wish we had more time. Unfortunately, the government has decided to—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Take it away from us.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: To drop the guillotine, as the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is so apt to say. I appreciate the time that I do—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Point of order.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I just want to correct the record. I did debate this bill in the leadoff and on time allocation. I just want to say that. Thank you.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Further debate?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Whatever that point of order was attempting to do—I think it was attempting to justify that at least one of the members of the Liberal Party has spoken to this bill. Who knows if that is actually the case? We’ll go back in Hansard and try to review what the government’s thoughts are on this bill, but unfortunately, they’ve given such limited time to debate that we may never know. We may never know what their motives are on this bill and on other bills, and whether they will have gotten it right the first time. My suspicion is that they have not.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Further debate?

Miss Monique Taylor: It truly is always a pleasure for me to rise in this House and to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of Hamilton Mountain. Last night, before I went to bed, I believed I was waking up and coming into this House to speak about the budget motion, but instead the government adjourned that debate, and we expect time allocation to come next on that budget. I have been asked now to speak to the Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act.

As you can imagine, Speaker, the preparation time that you’re given when you are given last-minute notice of the change of bills and the change of directions of this House is very limited, but I’m grateful for the previous speakers from my caucus, who have laid out a road map, who have allowed me the ability to read their speaking notes. As well, I spent some time actually reading the bill itself, and it brought back many thoughts of concerns that my constituents brought to me. It’s unfortunate that I didn’t have the time to speak to the budget this morning as I expected, but there are a few things within this bill that it will give me a great opportunity to address.

Consumer credit reports were something that I recall myself. As many in this House know, I was a single mom; I am a single mom. Before being elected, I was a hospitality worker. I struggled as a single parent. Credit scores were always a problem for me, and I know I’m not alone. It was something that I struggled with, with credit rating. I found out very quickly that first of all, to even find out what my credit score was, I had to pay somebody to get that information. That was completely unfair.

Here I was struggling and trying to build up a credit rating, so that I could get a credit card or I could get something to help alleviate my household bills—credit really isn’t the way to go, but that’s the way life goes.

Also, I found out at that time that once I access that credit report, it actually gives me a hit on my credit reporting, so my credit score would actually go down if I asked for a credit rating. That was something that I looked for within this bill, to see if it was addressed. I’m looking directly at the minister, because I did not see addressed in this bill the hit against a credit rating when you access your credit rating. I didn’t see this in this bill. If it’s not in this bill, I hope that she’s listening and that she’s considering it, because it’s not just me.

Other women and other people have brought that same issue to my attention, and it brought me back to my own thoughts and my own experience. That was something that I didn’t find in this bill, and I did look for it specifically.

The other thing that I thought about was women, particularly, who came to me. Their husbands had left them or they had split up for whatever reason, whatever the case may be.

Because the bills and many things were in their husband’s name, even though they worked, they didn’t have good credit scores, because they hadn’t accessed paying bills and having credit cards in their names and those kinds of things, so they didn’t have the credit rating that they needed to be able to get a credit card, to be able to start their life on their own, to ensure that they and their children could have the necessities of life and the security that comes with being able to pull out that credit card when you need it.

There are many instances where you need to have a credit card. You can’t rent a car without a credit card. You can’t rent hotel rooms, book a flight or pay for a drink on a flight if you do not have a credit card in your pocket. There are many things that effect people if they don’t have the ability to have that credit card. If you’re affecting the credit score, if you’re not accessing the credit because you haven’t been able to build credit, then you are already put behind. You are a second-class citizen because you don’t have access to a credit card. I didn’t see those types of things addressed in this bill, which I think are big issues and need to be addressed.

We need to ensure that people have access to their credit scores, so I was happy to see that. I’m happy to see that the security freezes were put into this bill, because we know that in this day and age of technology, many people’s identities are being stolen, so we need to make sure that we have protections in place to allow people the ability to freeze their security without any cost to them, and ensure that they have the ability to do that electronically, through mail or through different means. Again, not everybody has access to Internet, so by doing it by telephone or doing it by mail—having those options is certainly important.

I know I don’t have a lot of time. The other thing that I want to touch on is the elevator act because, again, I will take it back to my constituents and the concerns that they have brought to me directly. Elevators being out of service for months is a huge problem for seniors with walkers—for seniors, whether they have a walker or not, walking up 10 flights of stairs or 15 flights of stairs. Look at the high-rises, and this building. Imagine not having an elevator accessible to you; it’s a huge hindrance to anyone. I don’t want to walk up 30 floors of stairs. I’m just telling you, Speaker, it ain’t gonna happen. I don’t know what I would do in that position, but it’s a reality.

I understand where the minister comes from on their timelines, but if we don’t have the tools in place to ensure that people are able to get that job done, then it’s a fighting battle and she’s asking people to do something that isn’t possible.

I’m sorry that I don’t have much more time, but I really do appreciate the fact that I was able to have a few moments to have a few things to say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today, as part of a tribute to a former member, we have in the Speaker’s gallery a couple of guests that I’m sure you will welcome. The parliamentary chair of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians and Speaker in the 35th Parliament, Mr. David Warner, is here. Welcome, David. And we have the former MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments, Mr. Steve Gilchrist. Welcome, Steve.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to welcome to Queen’s Park today page captain Curtis Metcalf’s parents, Jerrica and Chris, and brother, Brad. Curtis is walking in his mom’s footsteps, Speaker, as she was here at Queen’s Park as a page just a couple of years ago.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome to the House today Isabelle Keeley and J.J. Lehmann. They are here to have lunch with their MPP. Welcome.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I think I also noticed in the Speaker’s gallery an old friend, Greg Vezina, whose grandfather gave the name to the Vezina Trophy for the best goalie in the NHL. Welcome, Greg.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: On behalf of the member from Dufferin–Caledon, I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Carol Good and Doug Prince from Caledon East, as well as Cheryl May and Warren May from Palgrave. Welcome.

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: On behalf of the member from Etobicoke Centre, I’d like to welcome Nicole Arsenault and Leah Arsenault, the mother and sister of our page Hannah Arsenault.

Also in the gallery is teacher Mrs. Goslin and, probably later on, grades 5 and 6 from Mother Cabrini Catholic School.

On behalf of the member from Durham, I also want to welcome the grandmother of our page Sophie Hamilton. The grandmother’s name is Dianne Mott, and she will be in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to welcome my former EA, Margo Duncan, to the Legislature today. She’s sitting with Kevin.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I wish to introduce a number of guests visiting us here today at Queen’s Park from my riding of Davenport, the young girls from St. Helen’s and St. Anthony’s schools who participated in this year’s Girls’ Government program at my constituency office: Hayley Furtado, Amber Stiles, Myrian Ashor, Alexis Alexiou, Sienna Loree, Dennetta Leticia, Noelia Retana, Alexis De Sá, Ira Nicole Perez, Cassandra Aman, Faith De Quintal, Melissa Rozell, Mafalda Fresco, Christine Erhirhie and Maria Helena da Cruz and, as well, their teachers Ms. Irene Rodrigues, Ms. Fiona McGrath, Principal Fatima Formariz, Ms. Laura Nigro and Ms. Elisa Rebelo. Welcome to Queen’s Park today, girls.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m pleased to introduce my constituency assistant, Zeelaf Fatima, and her friend Alex Gignac, who are in the members’ east gallery. They’re visiting us and seeing question period for the first time.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to rise today and introduce our page captain, Shivanshi Patel. She’s proudly joined by her parents, Nehal and Ashish Patel, her sister, Janki, her grandmother, Jaya, and grandparents Madhu and Bhanu. Speaker, please welcome them all to Queen’s Park for a very special day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you, and welcome.

For those who are here for the tribute, would the members please join me in welcoming the family and the friends of the late Peter Langdon Preston, MPP for Brant–Haldimand during the 36th Parliament, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: sons Dan and Samuel Preston, brother Paul Preston, sister-in-law Susan Preston, grandson Mackenzie Preston, nephew Mark Preston, niece Alyson Johnson, mayor of Haldimand Ken Hewitt and many other friends. Welcome. We’re glad you’re here for this wonderful tribute.

Peter Langdon Preston

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize the former member of provincial Parliament from Brant–Haldimand, Mr. Peter Preston, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

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

The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Speaker. First of all, I would like to welcome the Preston family, who are with us here today in the Legislature.

When you watch politics, Speaker, from your television at home, it can seem very adversarial. However, when we have the opportunity to look back on the lives of those who have served, I think the real and personal sides of politicians come out. These are the times when we all realize that we share a lot more in common than we think. I hope that this will be one of those moments, after having read and learned about MPP Peter Preston.

Peter was certainly a strong opponent of the NDP. He was a backbencher during the days of Mike Harris. I think it’s fair to say we might not have seen eye to eye on a lot of political issues. However, after reading deeper into the life of Peter, I learned that he was a passionate and dedicated individual who had a fun side to him as well. These traits really resonate with me.

To start, I will say that his resumé was certainly extensive and unique. He worked in the insurance industry, served on the Grimsby town council, played a large role with the Royal Canadian Engineers and was the founder of the Preston House Group Home, which was a group home for boys aged 12 to 18. To top it all off, he founded the Rocking P Peruvian Ranch, where he bred and raised Peruvian horses. I appreciated the fact that he did not stick to one industry, but ventured out into multiple areas, leaving an impact wherever he went.

I also appreciated his love for travel. A couple of years ago, way back in 2012, there was an

article in the Hamilton Spectator. You might be expecting me to reference a political

article here, but it was actually a travel

article written about the beautiful, 14-room Casa Isabel hotel in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Accompanying the

article is a photo of a picturesque view.

Interestingly enough, the article’s writer, Al MacRury, had travelled down to the Mexican town to interview some of the Hamiltonians who were living and visiting there. Among these Hamiltonians was the then 77-year-old former MPP from Haldimand–Norfolk, Peter Preston.

It sounded as if he really loved it down there, as he was quoted as saying, “I’m not leaving here. They can send my ashes home.” No doubt a lover of travel through and through.

As I spent more time reading and learning about him, I found pictures of him on a boat off the coast of Mexico, another of him fishing with what appears to be a relative or close friend, and finally, a picture of him catching one of the largest and weirdest-looking fish I’ve ever seen. It made me want to get my rod and go fishing right there and then. I would say he was certainly someone who inspired and evoked interest.

The other thing about Peter was that he took it upon himself to give back to his community. He cared about all of his constituents and was always willing to lend a helping hand to the poor and less fortunate. While serving as MPP, he transformed the constituency office into a food bank depot, in collaboration with the Caledonia and District Food Bank. For a time his constituency office stood as the only food bank in the small community of Cayuga, Ontario.

In a 1996 Hamilton Spectator

article written by Michelle Ruby, Peter was asked about the food bank that he established, and he responded with the following: “It is simply not enough to preach the word of volunteerism and community spirit. I feel the best examples are by leading and taking the initiative.”

Well, these words really resonated with me. As poverty reduction critic, I know that real help for the homeless and less fortunate comes from those who actually take it upon themselves to act and get involved. There are so many in my hometown of Hamilton and in this province who take it upon themselves to do what they can to help the less fortunate. Without these people who lead with example, I really don’t know where we’d all be.

As I read the quote by Peter, I couldn’t help but smile. While yes, Peter and myself had widely different

interpretations of the way our province should operate—in the Legislature, we would have debated to the ends of the earth on different issues—however, in reading the quote, I also realized that we shared a common thread. His passion and his spirit of volunteerism are something that I admire and respect.

I hope that when we walk out of this Legislature today, the image we will keep in our heads of Peter is of someone who was passionate, dedicated, fun-loving and selfless. Thank you, Peter, for your incredible dedication to our province.

It has been a privilege to welcome the family and friends of Peter here today. Thanks to you, as well, for sharing Peter with us.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I’m here to speak about the life of a former parliamentarian, Peter Preston. I had the pleasure and the fun to serve with Peter in those wild and woolly days of 1995 to 1999. I remember Steve Gilchrist was here. Although we had some very interesting battles, we also made some friends. I can remember I found out that Gary Fox used to raise donkeys. We always used to joke with Gary about him and his donkeys, but then we found out that Peter was into horses. They would compare notes all the time. I remember the crazy discussions they would have.

These are the kind of things you don’t read about in Hansard or in the media, but there’s a human side to all the parliamentarians who have gone through this House, and especially in those days. In fact, some people who we served with, on both sides, we still keep in contact with.

Peter was one of them. I remember that Peter—although, as the member from Stoney Creek said, he had different political views, he was always a gentleman, very respectful, never over the top. He was always respectful of this House. I know he was always very good on his feet with points of order. That’s one thing I remember, him standing up about certain procedural points. But always, again, a very authentic guy.

I know Peter served his country in the Royal Canadian Engineers, assisting in military and reconstruction operations in Canada. That was another part of his life. After he did that, he served on the Grimsby local council as an alderman. With his wife, Joanne, they picked up this incredible love of Peruvian horses—one of the rarest, oldest horses. Next to his wife and his family, that was his true love, these horses.

What he did was, he transformed that love of horses into a love of children and young teenagers who basically had no place to go. That was his real true love. He combined that love of horses in creating his ranch, where these young teenagers could go and get their life together. He really was passionate about that. He believed that was something that he was obliged to do as a citizen and as a caring person.

He was also very much connected with the country of Peru because of his love of horses. In fact, in 1998, he greeted the Peruvian president on behalf of the province during a state visit. He really had that connection to Peru and to the horses.

But, again, the foster care of children was really Peter’s lifelong vocation. He took in kids from all over, especially First Nations children, and created a home for them. These are the things that sometimes don’t make the newspapers, but this is the good that Peter did beyond being here in the Legislature for those years. He called it his Rocking P ranch. This is something that he went all out for. He was a 100% type of guy and he put it all into these good things.

As you know, he had a career here when there was a change in boundaries. He had to run in another riding. He wasn’t re-elected, but on the other hand, he went back and continued his life passion, and that was helping children and making sure they got support in his community.

Again, he was ultimately a person who put family, love of children who lost their way—he really put his heart and soul into that, and his money.

Thirdly, he just loved these horses. Some people get attached to all kinds of incredible animals. That was Peter’s love. As you know, if you have love of animals, you also have love of people, and that was Peter Preston as I remember him.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tribute. The member from Haldimand–Norfolk.

Mr. Toby Barrett: We certainly welcome Peter’s family and his friends, our local mayor and his loyal staff.

I first came to know Peter Preston back in 1995. We were both nominated as candidates for neighbouring ridings and started working together on various tactics to see if we could get ourselves elected. The odds were not good. My riding hadn’t seen a Conservative member, provincially or federally, for 20 years. But what is truly astounding was that Peter was aspiring to overthrow a 76-year Liberal dynasty in a dogleg riding that followed the mighty Grand from the outskirts of Cambridge all the way down to Lake Erie—it was a riding that had been gerrymandered for those 76 years—to try to break that Harry Nixon-Bob Nixon domination. That’s what he was up against.

So here was a fellow named Peter Preston—a name that’s got quite a ring to it politically—who had the gall and the cockeyed optimism to think he could overturn this Liberal dynasty dating back to 1919; as well, to beat the party that was then in opposition. Conventional wisdom held that it would form the next government.

Peter and his campaign manager, his son Dan, who is here, were confident that they could also beat the amicable, popular Liberal MPP Ron Eddy, a good friend of many in this House and in Brant county.

On top of that, we were both under the gun to live up to the mantle of the Honourable Jimmy Allan, who had held the southern part of the riding from 1951 to 1974 and was defeated over regional government, something that there were still some hard feelings on.

I attended Peter’s nomination night back in 1995 at the Caledonia High School. We were told our chances were not good to win. We were told not to expect Mike Harris to visit the ridings—and he didn’t.

But Peter and his son—we got together at the Rocking JP Peruvian Ranch to work out a brochure. The high tech at that time was taking videocassettes around to mailboxes to explain who we were. I filmed myself running a combine, and Peter featured himself forking horse manure. This is how he introduced himself to the people in the riding.

As we know, Peter and his wife, Joanne, had horses, hence the name the Rocking JP ranch. These were not ordinary horses. Peter and especially his beautiful wife, Joanne, were renowned breeders of the Peruvian Paso horse, a breed that had been isolated in northern Peru for 400 years; hence, it retained certain characteristics: an ambling gait, somewhere between a walk and a canter, with an outward swinging of the legs. You would never see any other horse move this way, and it created a very smooth, comfortable ride. I attended a number of those horse shows. There would be busloads of Peruvian Canadians who would come to see their cherished horse. The consul general of Peru would attend.

Peter first served as an alderman in the town of Grimsby. As Dan indicated, his father always had a passion for politics. He said, “We always were a political family.” There wasn’t an election that his father and his family didn’t help with in one way or another. So Peter made the decision to run provincially. As Dan said, “Dad said we can run and we can do this.” And he did win. He came in the 1995 election as a Common Sense Revolutionary, but he was also truly a Progressive Conservative with a social conscience, as we know, realizing that government couldn’t and shouldn’t be all things to all people, and there was a place for more so a hand up rather than a handout.

Now in the House—Peter sat over that way behind me—MPP Preston had the dubious distinction of dishing out outrageous interjections. I won’t dwell on those. Many of them weren’t fit to print. They never made it into Hansard. Enough said on that one.

He grew up in Grimsby with one brother and two sisters. He was a police cadet, a fisherman and a firefighter, and enlisted as a non-commissioned officer with the Royal Canadian Engineers. He served for six years in Petawawa and Chilliwack.

He and Joanne had three daughters, Sandy, Suzie and Stephanie, and two sons, Sam, as I mentioned, and Dan. After a number of years with State Farm, he then set up his own private company, the Preston Group. He and Joanne came down to our area in Cayuga, established the ranch and set up Preston House for the young fellows to work with horses.

Peter Preston was a bit of a man’s man. He was brusque and very action-oriented. He was a connoisseur of wine—I didn’t know that—with a heart of gold—I knew that. After Queen’s Park, he served with distinction on the victim rights tribunal, retired in Puerto Vallarta, as we’ve just heard, and passed away at his home in Hamilton on October 16, 2016. His funeral was held at the beautiful Cayuga church, St. John the Divine. I attended with his friends and his family and his loyal staff.

Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank all the members for their kind and heartfelt thoughts, but I have to confess it’s probably the first time I’ve had to consider whether or not I had to have a member withdraw some unparliamentary language, like “horse manure” and “gerrymandering.” But all was said with a true intent of the heart of what has been said about our dear friend Peter.

I was fortunate enough that, being from Brant, I did get a chance to meet him—not as opponents, but in the aftermath—and he offered me some kind advice that I took to heart, and I still remember it to this day.

On behalf of all of us, thank you for the gift of Peter. Also, to let you know, we will produce a DVD and a copy of Hansard for the family to have as a lifelong tribute to this wonderful man. Thank you for the gift of Peter.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Also in the gallery is a former member from Brampton North in the 36th Parliament and Brampton Centre in the 37th Parliament, Mr. Joe Spina. Joe, thank you for joining us.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I also beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: the report entitled Electricity Trade Agreement—An Assessment of the Ontario-Quebec Electricity Trade Agreement, Spring 2018, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier.

Ontario has suffered another fiscal setback due solely to the actions of this Premier. Moody’s credit rating agency has downgraded the province’s credit outlook from stable to negative as a direct result of their election document budget. Moody’s said that “spending pressure will challenge the province’s ability to sustain balanced fiscal results across multiple years.”

Moody’s also assumes the budget will lead to “an upward trend in the debt burden and a faster rise in interest expense than previously anticipated.”

Speaker, why is this Premier, in her shameless bid to cling to power, putting Ontario in an even more precarious financial position and harming Ontario’s reputation in the process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Finance is going to want to comment in the supplementary. Let me just say—and this is part of the message that the member opposite neglected—Moody’s has confirmed our Aa2 credit rating. They have adjusted their outlook, we know that, but this is not a credit rating downgrade. Ontario’s debt continues to be highly marketable. That reflects the confidence of investors in our economy.

We do value the input of the rating agencies. Our responsibility is, and it always will be, to support the care and opportunity for people in this province. That’s the role of government: to do the things that people cannot do by themselves. I know that the Minister of Finance is working with the rating agencies, and he will comment, but our credit rating has been confirmed, and we will continue to work to make sure that people in this province have everything that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m getting the signals.

Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: This is not any kind of a forecast from Moody’s. This is an outright condemnation of this government’s fiscal policies. The Premier likes to say she is making “conscious choices” that plunge Ontario into deficit, but the fact is that this government used money from reserves and the sale of assets to try to artificially balance the budget. It’s not a conscious choice; it’s a consequence of one-time money running out. They ran out of things to sell. This means we need more money to pay interest on our debt, and less money is now available for needed services.

Moody’s sees right through this cling to power. Does the Premier really expect Ontario families won’t?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member quotes Moody’s, so I’m going to quote Moody’s as well. Here it is, word for word: “The affirmation of the Aa2” rating for the province of Ontario “reflects the province’s ability to rely on a large, diversified economic base with sound wealth generation that supports a strong provincial revenue base, a greater degree of flexibility relative to global peers to accommodate revenue and expenditure pressures and prudent debt management.”

Investors are investing in Ontario for a reason: because we’re making it happen. We are relying on our economic engine of the economy to support all of Canada. We’re the largest net contributor to the federation as well.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: What the minister failed to mention was how many downgrades we had. That’s why we’re only at Aa2. The worst part of all this is the Premier has been warned, time and time again, about the consequences of her spend-at-all-costs approach. The Auditor General repeatedly told us that increasing debt interest payments will crowd out the services families rely on. That’s why the Liberals have closed hospital beds and fired 1,600 nurses, and that’s why 100 front-line health care workers in Sudbury are worried about their jobs this very morning.

The government’s lack of financial discipline is exactly why they received a condemnation from Moody’s. They can’t be trusted. Is this Premier proud that Liberal self-interests and a desperate attempt to cling to power is hurting Ontario’s reputation?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, it’s exactly because of our fiscal discipline—and we beat our targets year over year the ninth year in a row. We balanced the budget last year, and we have a surplus of $600 million. Furthermore, we are the leanest government in all of Canada. Our interest on debt is a function of our revenue. It was 15 cents for every dollar when they were in power. Today it’s under eight cents.

We will continue to take what steps are necessary to invest, unlike what this member is suggesting. In this budget, we have tremendous investments to provide for health care, public education, social programs and infrastructure spending. The very things that they say we should do, they’re voting against. The people of Ontario need a strong economy. We’re diversifying that economy. Moody’s has affirmed that the province of Ontario is being prudent in our debt management.

Executive compensation

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Premier. Does the Premier believe that $6 million is an acceptable salary for the CEO of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I am pleased to rise and talk to the same question. We recognize that the executive salaries at Hydro One are high compared to the vast majority of Ontario salaries. We remain committed to Hydro One’s regulation, accountability and transparency through our government’s involvement as a majority shareholder.

The gimmick that we are seeing from the other side, especially from the leader of that party, is going to drive us down to the same mess that we’re seeing south of the border. This isn’t going to do anything to actually take a single cent off anyone’s hydro bills, not one single cent. But you know what did, Mr. Speaker? It was our fair hydro plan. Our fair hydro plan made sure that we reduced rates by 25% on average.

We will continue to put forward policy and not bumper stickers, like the gimmick that they’re doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Back to the Premier: Is $6 million an acceptable salary for the CEO of Hydro One?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, is voting for 25% reductions for families right across this province something that everyone should do? Yes, they should, and it’s this party that did it.

On that side of the House, we used to talk about them as being the party that had no plan. And then, they had a weekend where they brought forward a plan and they were keeping the fair hydro plan. That was something that we thought was great, but they should have voted for it when they had a chance.

But now that plan has disappeared, and they are once again the party that has no plan. The only thing that they can talk about is Hydro One CEO’s salary, and yes, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that executive salaries are high. But when it comes to actually making a difference and taking costs off bills, we reduced those bills, especially in Hydro One areas, by up to 50% because of our action.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary? The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: It is shocking to see the Liberals defend their six-million-dollar man. How does the Premier defend the salary of the Hydro One CEO?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, it’s our government that understands that affordability is critical for families and businesses. As I’ve said before, that’s why we launched Ontario’s Fair Hydro Plan, reducing rates by 25% on average for all residential consumers, as well as half a million small businesses and farms. Our plan is working.

A recent report by the Environmental Commissioner reconfirmed that Ontario’s families and small businesses pay less on average than many other North American jurisdictions. Families in cities like New York, Boston and San Francisco pay more than double the average of Ontario, and consumers in Charlottetown, Regina, Halifax and Moncton are paying more than the Ontario average.

By bringing down prices for customers, we’re continuing to increase fairness and create more opportunity for Ontario families. We’ll continue to find ways to bring forward policy that helps. They can keep bringing forward bumper-sticker policies.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre, si j’en viens à bout. There is a crisis in Ontario hospitals and the Premier refuses to admit it. Over the last 15 years, it is that government that created this crisis, and after 15 years they are still ignoring it and denying it. The CEO of Lake of the Woods District Hospital said, “We did not receive the average 4.6% increase that was mentioned in the provincial budget. We received significantly less than that.”

The Premier needs to admit there is a problem, and she needs to explain to Ontarians from Kenora to King Street why she isn’t fixing this crisis. Why is it that the Premier refuses to properly fund our hospitals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege this morning of being at one of the campuses of Sunnybrook, the Holland orthopaedic centre, and reaffirmed our announcement of the near billion-dollar investment in health care that’s included in our budget that will specifically go to hospitals to reduce wait times.

I recognize that there’s variability across the province, which is exactly why Health Quality Ontario has a Northern Ontario Health Equity Strategy. It’s very important. On just about every policy file in Ontario, at one point or another, you will run up against geography, because this is a massive province and the population is unevenly distributed. That’s why having an equity policy is important.

I’ll talk more about it in the supplementary, but the member opposite knows that overall, the increase in funding to hospitals in Ontario is 4.6%, and there was variation among hospitals in terms of the increases that they got.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: When the CEO of a hospital comes out publicly and says they are being underfunded, we have a problem. Here’s what he said: “We have many unmet needs here. There is a lot to be dealt with. We are hoping that there will be some additional support.” Why, for yet another year, is the Premier ignoring the needs of our hospital system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, we recognize that there’s a need for more investment in hospitals. Let me just talk about the health equity strategy. I’d love to, as the Premier, have a conversation with the CEO of that hospital or any of the CEOs of hospitals around the province, because they are on the front line and we worked with them as we developed our budget. We listened to them and we made the increases that they and the OHA deemed were necessary.

The health equity policy recognizes that there’s a need for different strategies in different parts of the province. Last year, for example, we announced $222 million over three years to support Ontario’s first-ever First Nations Health Action Plan, including an additional $145 million every year, recognizing that there are needs. We also announced investing $19 million in capital funding to support a facility at Health Sciences North for the Northern Ontario School of Medicine and a new wing in Thunder Bay to consolidate specialized—

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

M me France Gélinas: The Liberals have had 15 long years to see the crisis in our hospitals coming. They’ve had 15 long years to step up and address the aging of the population, a change that we could see coming for decades. Now, with the countdown at 50 days to go, they’re still pretending that the problem does not exist.

The good news for people is that hope is coming. New Democrats are going to end hallway medicine. Why did the Premier let this crisis happen in our hospitals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, as I said yesterday to the member opposite, we invested in increased funding to Health Sciences North, the health system in the jurisdiction that she and our terrific member from Sudbury represent. We increased over two years that funding by $10 million. That is a substantial increase for Health Sciences North.

We have recognized that across the province there’s a need for an increase in funding, but that builds on the investments that we have made every year. There has been a huge investment in home care. The reality is that more people want to stay in their homes. We need to make sure that those supports are in place. We need to make sure that acute care beds continue to be supported. We increased the acute care beds in the province by 1,200 as a result of the flu surge this winter, Mr. Speaker, and we will move to make those beds permanent.

We recognize that there’s more that needs to be done.

Long-term care

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier.

When a person needs long-term care, they deserve to know that they will be safe. They deserve to be treated with dignity and with respect. But yesterday, we learned there’s a home in Thunder Bay that has 44—yes, I repeat: 44—non-compliance orders.

The Liberals have been in power for 15 long years. How did the Premier let this happen?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I just said in my previous answer, more people want to stay in their homes. What that has meant is that there has been substantial investment in home care.

We have also renovated, have upgraded thousands of long-term-care beds across the province. We are building more. We are in the process of building 5,000 new long-term-care beds right now.

We’re also looking at and funding models like what are called naturally occurring retirement communities, where there is a group of seniors who are already living in an apartment—and there’s an example in Kingston, Oasis I believe it’s called, where these seniors are living together. They want to stay there. If they have some medical support, like a personal support worker, they can stay and age in place.

Mr. Speaker, there’s a range of supports that we have put in place. We recognize there’s more to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: What about staffing existing long-term-care beds?

Records show that at Bethammi Nursing Home, many of the residents were given only a single bath during the month of January—one bath in a month per resident.

Seniors are wise. They’ve lived through a lot, and we should be treasuring their contributions. These are our parents. These are the people who built Ontario into what it is today. New Democrats will immediately fix that problem. We’ll find and fix with an inquiry in our long-term-care system so that we can start to fix these problems, which have developed over the last 15 years.

Why did the Premier allow our long-term-care system to get like this?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite referenced a specific situation in Thunder Bay. I know that the member for Atikokan is going to be meeting with folks on the ground there tomorrow.

The reality is that in terms of long-term care in this province, all long-term-care homes are overseen by a rigorous inspection system, a regulatory framework that includes an annual inspection to ensure compliance. We have reinforced and increased that oversight. All the results from every inspection are posted online and in the homes themselves.

I recognize that we have to be vigilant. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, which is why we have increased the vigilance, increased the oversight. We will continue to work with long-term-care providers to make sure that those are enforced.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: Those 44 non-compliance issues didn’t happen overnight.

Staff at Bethammi Nursing Home are dedicated and caring. They’re doing their best and they’re being worked off their feet. They are understaffed. Sometimes it takes more than an hour for a resident to have a call answered in their room and for the staff to respond.

The stories we’ve heard out of Bethammi are heartbreaking. They’re almost too hard to tell. Everyone feels really bad about what is happening here at Bethammi. When did the Premier learn about those problems in our long-term-care system, and why hasn’t she fixed them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have over some time been taking action to support our growing and aging population and to reinforce and increase the vigilance in the long-term-care system. We recognize that these are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and they deserve to have every care possible.

We will continue to make sure that homes are compliant. Our members work with local homes, but there is a system of oversight and a system of inspection. I think it’s very legitimate that there would be questions asked in a situation like this. Those questions need answers, and that’s exactly what the system, the framework of oversight, is in place to do: to answer those questions and determine why such a situation would have arisen.

Government spending

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Premier. The Premier held another campaign-style event this morning, this time at a Toronto hospital, and she’s heading downtown later today for another platform announcement.

This egregious abuse of taxpayers’ money must come to an end. How much are these campaign-style events costing taxpayers today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand why the member opposite would focus on that and not the substance of the announcements that we are making relevant to our budget, because we’re making a nearly billion-dollar investment in hospitals to decrease wait times when we are already leading the country in terms of wait times.

This afternoon, I’ll be talking—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will give everyone credit: We got this far without having to go to warnings. I’d like to see if we could do it all the way. So let’s do that. Right?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This afternoon, I’ll be talking about climate change with Michael Bloomberg, and climate change in the context of corporate responsibility. I am quite sure that’s a subject that the member opposite really doesn’t want to touch. He doesn’t want to talk about climate change and doesn’t want to talk about reigning in corporate pollution.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: Even if the Premier wants to pretend otherwise, she is clearly campaigning on the taxpayers’ dime. It’s shady and it’s unethical, and it needs to stop—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The member will withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, the Liberals had ministers out this morning using taxpayers’ money for campaign-style photo ops. Shame on you, Premier.

Will the Liberal Party do the right thing and pay back the taxpayers for these campaign-style events? You’re out talking about your budget. You told us that was your platform. These are campaign-style events, and they’ve got to stop.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thanks to the member opposite for highlighting that ministers are doing their jobs by being out in communities and talking about things that are important to Ontarians. We’re proud to do our jobs, and we’ll continue to do our jobs.

But it’s kind of evident that the party opposite and Doug Ford are panicked. They are panicked because they are worried that people are going to find out that they are going to cut OHIP+, that they are going to cut expansions to OHIP+, that they are going to cut significant investments to bring wait times down, that they are going to cut supports for students through OSAP, where 225,000 students are going to colleges and universities without paying any tuition fees.

They are worried that these important policies that are making a difference in people’s lives—they are going to cut those things, and they don’t want people to know about those things.

Labour dispute

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. Some 3,000 York University faculty are still on strike, taking a stand against insecure academic jobs and chronic underfunding of the university post-secondary system—even though the Liberal government is not. Tens of thousands of York University students now face a real threat of not graduating as they have planned for in their lives, careers and futures, which are now uncertain.

I received a letter from a nursing student at York. She has been told by the university that they need to make up all their practical hours in order to graduate, which is impossible as the strike drags on, and they run the real risk of losing their placement. What does the Premier have to say to this student about why their graduation is now in jeopardy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: This situation is certainly very challenging. It’s challenging particularly for the students at York University. Since the beginning of the strike, I made it very, very clear that our priority is on the students, on getting both sides to come together to reach a fair resolution to both sides on this issue so that we can put our students at the forefront and bring them back to the learning that they’re there to do.

It’s disappointing that an agreement has not yet been reached. The Ministry of Labour has provided support all the way through this process and, this week, appointed a commissioner to talk to both sides. A number of meetings have already been held. We need to get both sides talking and looking at a resolution.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Back to the Premier: Another York student contacted me yesterday. He’s a political science major, and he’s concerned that, for the second time in their four-year program, a dispute has threatened their ability to actually graduate.

One side has been at the table and has been there for the last six weeks; the publicly funded administration at York University has not been at the table.

The government appointed an industrial relations commission to examine the outstanding issues in the dispute. But having the lowest per-student funding, I think, in Canada is part of the dispute in post-secondary education under this Liberal government.

The Premier can still apply pressure to the publicly funded administration of York University to tell them to get back to the table, because it takes two sides at the table to actually reach an agreement.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Our focus and our priority are on the students. York University has—

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s on yourself.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: York University has remained open and students are attending classes. This is a very challenging situation. I’ve connected with both sides multiple times. It’s a very, very tough situation. We respect the collective bargaining process. We are calling on both sides in this situation to think about a compromise, put the needs of the students first, get back to the table and resolve this issue so that it’s fair and equitable to both sides.

Electricity supply

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Energy. In 2014, Ontario signed a memorandum of understanding with Quebec regarding electricity trade. In 2016, we announced an expanded seven-year deal that will help make electricity in Ontario more affordable, clean and reliable. This deal was beneficial for both provinces because it helped ensure electricity supply for when it was needed most. In Quebec, they need electricity during the coldest winter days due to their use of electric heat; in Ontario, we need it at the height of the summer.

This MOU helped to ensure both our provinces had the supply we needed at those times. Just as importantly, the imports of cheap hydroelectricity from Quebec will offset reliance on natural gas power plants, reducing Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions by one million tonnes each year.

Today the Financial Accountability Officer released a report on this deal. Minister, can you please update us on the findings?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank the member for that question and, of course, for her tireless work for her constituents. I also want to thank the Financial Accountability Officer for his report and the analysis of our electricity trade agreement with Quebec.

As the member noted, electricity demand peaks at different times in our province. That means there is the opportunity to coordinate our electricity systems in ways that are beneficial to both provinces. Through the expanded electricity trade in this deal, our province is set to import up to two terawatts of clean hydroelectric power from Quebec annually; that’s enough power to power the entire city of Kitchener for a year, for example.

The report confirms what we’ve always said about this trade agreement: It strengthens system reliability and cost effectiveness for both provinces. The FAO report outlines that this deal will reduce system costs in our province by $38 million over the life of the deal. This is a savings both to ratepayers across the province—and I look forward to talking more about this in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you to the minister for the response.

An additional part of this deal is an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past 15 years, Ontario has become a leader in the global fight against climate change. Just last year, our electricity system was over 95% free of emissions that cause climate change. This is due to the nearly $70 billion that has been invested to modernize the system since 2003, which included the elimination of dirty, coal-fired electricity generation.

However, we must continue to work hard on reducing our carbon footprint. Just two days ago, Governor Jerry Brown warned us what could happen if polluters are given a free pass, something the official opposition wants to do.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could the Minister of Energy please explain how this electricity trade agreement reduces greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The member is right in pointing out that Ontario has become a leader in the fight against climate change. Just last week, the province’s Environmental Commissioner pointed that out: “Replacing coal-fired electricity with nuclear, renewables, conservation and natural gas has cleaned the air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and increased electrical grid capacity and resilience.” She also said, “Taking coal out of electricity dramatically reduced Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions, and has improved air quality and public health.”

Now the FAO’s report confirms that the trade agreement will result in Quebec imports continuing to replace 2.3 terawatt hours of natural gas generation each year and reduces GHG emissions by almost one million tonnes per year. That’s some real action on climate change.

Our government is continuing to ensure that our electricity is clean, reliable and affordable.

Access to information

Mr. Randy Hillier: To the Premier: This Premier likes to talk the talk about fairness, but when it comes to actions she certainly doesn’t walk the walk. The latest example is this government arguing against transparency in our tribunals. The Premier is using the public—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The chief government whip is warned. We’re now in warnings. Thank you.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you. The latest example is this government arguing against transparency in our tribunals. The Premier is using the public purse to fight a court battle with the Toronto Star, who is challenging the secrecy of our tribunals that keep adjudicative decisions and records—which are public property, paid for by the taxpayer—from the public. This legal battle is the epitome of an old and tired government. They are using our money to fight against releasing our records.

Abusing the public purse in order to keep the tribunal’s failures hidden and secret behind closed doors breaks a fundamental tenet that justice must be seen to be done. Speaker, what is fair about that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member for the question. I think, Speaker, as you heard, the member referenced a court case that is ongoing. It would be highly inappropriate for me to discuss and debate the merits of that case in the House.

What I will say, broadly, is that of course we very much value transparency and to make sure that that information is available as readily as possible, but one also has to be mindful of privacy and confidentiality as well. When one is looking at records that may be before courts or tribunals, there are considerations around privacy and confidentiality.

As I said, this matter is before the courts, and we will leave it up to the courts to make a determination.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Premier: It is this government who is arguing in the court. They’re arguing that tribunals that adjudicate disputes and impose heavy fines, punishments and sanctions, and can revoke people’s licences and accreditations and take away their livelihoods, are not really courts. Tribunals such as the Human Rights Tribunal, the OLRB, the LAT and dozens more have both the form and function of our courts but none of the safeguards of impartiality, openness and due process.

The Premier’s willingness to fight Canada’s largest circulation newspaper in court to hide the records and decisions of these public matters raises red flags. It’s time for this Premier to mandate tribunals to make their records open and accessible.

Why is this Premier working to frustrate and distort the basic principles of an open court, which is essential to our judicial system?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The member opposite very well knows that this is not a matter to be litigated in the House. This is a matter that is before the courts; that is the most appropriate place for it to be heard. Speaker, as you have noted in the past, and members know, the sub judice rules require all MPPs not to engage in making comments about matters that are before the courts.

As the Attorney General, it is my responsibility to ensure that the administration of justice in our province is independent of any partisan concerns. Therefore, I’m not going to comment on the specifics of this case, but I’ll say that transparency and accountability is a very fundamental principle that the government holds very dear to us. One also has to be mindful around confidentiality and the privacy of information as well.

Health care

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. Last night, in my riding of Niagara Falls, I hosted a health care town hall with my colleague from Nickel Belt. You can say there isn’t a crisis in health care; well, we had people talk about issues like long-term care, mental health access, hallway medicine and so many other proble