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

May 9, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-May-09 (PDF)

L079 - Tue 9 May 2017 / Mar 9 mai 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 9 May 2017 Mardi 9 mai 2017

Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Probation and parole services

Government accountability

Privatization of public assets

Hydro rates

Lobbyists

Privatization of public assets

Infrastructure program funding

Hydro rates

Affordable housing

Nurses

Labour unions

Services for the developmentally disabled

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Public transit

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Royal visit

Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System

Ontario Provincial Police

Community Living Ontario

Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Police services

Indigenous education

Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on General Government

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

South Asian Heritage Month

Jewish Heritage Month

South Asian Heritage Month

Jewish Heritage Month

Jewish Heritage Month

South Asian Heritage Month

Committee sittings

Petitions

Lyme disease

Provincial truth and reconciliation day

GO Transit

Protection of people with disabilities

Privatization of public assets

Water fluoridation

Long-term care

Veterans

Medical assistance in dying

Government services

Nanjing Massacre

Health care funding

Opposition Day

Government accountability / Responsabilité gouvernementale

Adjournment Debate

Government spending

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 25, 2017, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 84,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to medical assistance in dying / Projet de loi 84, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I am pleased, actually, to be able to provide a few comments on Bill 84 at third reading today. It’s a bill that I am very concerned about when it comes to this government.

First of all, I’m the deputy House leader, and every week we have House leaders’ meetings to talk about the

schedule for the House for the week. I wasn’t able to be at the meeting on Thursday; I had a constituent who was on the Minister of Education’s student advisory council, so I went over to see him and I missed the House leaders’ meeting.

When I came back, I got the

schedule for debate for this week. It actually showed that this morning we were scheduled to debate a closure motion or a time allocation motion on the budget bill, so I was a little surprised when, last night, the government didn’t table that.

We’re in a majority government, so I’m not particularly sure how the House leader and his staff—they should be able to manage the majority. We used to talk, when we were in a minority Parliament, about when you have issues in committee or with bills, but certainly I’m quite willing, quite able and I’m always ready to speak on bills before the House. I’m a little bit perplexed as to whether it’s just the government House leader and the Premier—maybe there’s an issue in how they’re going to manage things.

In fact, I was told that there were two other bills that the government wants to get passed by June 1, by our scheduled time to rise, and those bills haven’t even been tabled yet. So I’m a little concerned about what we’re going to be dealing with in the last 11 sitting days of the session when we’re in a situation where we’re told one thing on a Thursday, and here I am speaking on a second bill. I guess it just speaks to the fact that this government has some issues when it comes to what they tell us on Thursday versus what’s in practice today.

The order that the Minister for International Trade called today was Bill 84. It’s a bill that I have spoken to a number of times. I’ve provided questions and comments probably about four times and I’ve said the same thing every time: We need to have conscience rights included in Bill 84. We need to make sure that that happens.

During debate, the government talked a good game. They talked many times about making sure that a citizen of our province has a safe path. I can remember the member for Ottawa South mentioning that over and over and over again. This issue had our party presenting a number of amendments at committee when this bill was referred to committee. The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London, Mr. Yurek, who is our critic, was unable to make the meeting due to other commitments so I stepped in. I stepped in to committee and I presented all the amendments for Her Majesty’s loyal opposition at that session.

We had over 20 amendments that were presented, many of which were amendments we had worked on with organizations or groups to ensure that the issue of conscience rights was included in Bill 84.

We also looked at other legislation. There are a number of other jurisdictions that have conscience rights built into their medical assistance in dying bills.

In fact, we made it very clear during second reading debate that if the government chose to ignore Ontarians, we would respect what Ontarians would like and we would table a bill. In fact—I’m going to get to this later—on May 3, Mr. Yurek, the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London, tabled Bill 129 for first reading. It’s

An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, (1991) with respect to medical assistance in dying. With your indulgence, I’ll just read from the

preamble of that bill because it’s very important that people understand why there’s a private member’s bill to fix what’s not in this bill.

Bill 129 amends the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

“Member participation in medical assistance in dying shall be voluntary.” That’s something that we brought up in the House and in committee.

“A member shall not be subject to civil, administrative, disciplinary, employment, credentialing, regulatory or other sanction or penalty, or loss of privileges, loss of membership or any other liability for refusing to participate in medical assistance in dying.

“Participation includes, but is not limited to, performing, assisting in the performance of or making a referral for any activities related to, or for the purpose of, medical assistance in dying.

“Participation does not include the provision, upon request, of information about services that can provide access to medical assistance in dying, of a patient’s relevant medical record to the patient, or communicating, to the appropriate person in authority, a patient’s request for a complete transfer of care so that the person in authority can facilitate the transfer.”

We’ve been talking about this bill and the sections of this bill right from the very first time this bill was debated for second reading. I can remember the member for Ottawa South actually did the lead-off. I was in the chamber, on duty that day, and I was the first member in the House to put forward questions and provide comments to Bill 84. I was very clear—I was crystal clear—that my expectation was this bill would be amended to provide that support for those in our medical community with regard to conscience rights. Every subsequent time I stood up, I reiterated and reinforced that feeling.

So you can imagine, when I was sitting in committee at second reading, dealing with clause-by-clause, and we had a stack of amendments that would strengthen that—you can imagine how disappointed I was in this government that they ultimately decided not to move it forward.

Some of the amendments were actually done in association with the Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience, which came and met with many MPPs. I remember at the start of the session I met with representatives in my office and I pledged to them that day that their suggestions were very reasonable, and that they should be included in this bill.

There are a number of other jurisdictions, and I refer to motion 7, amendment number 7, which we tabled in committee. With your indulgence, Speaker, I’ll read that amendment. I’ve got it right here. The amendment that I tried to put forward in committee that the government defeated was amending subsection 2(2) of the bill,

section 13.10 of the Excellent Care For All Act, 2010, and it was regarding an amendment on “Participation voluntary.” That was the head of the

section that I tabled; 13.10 was my amendment: “13.10(1) Participation in activities authorized pursuant to sections 241.1, 241.2, 241.3 of the Criminal Code (Canada) shall be voluntary.”

They had another clause, Speaker:

“No adverse consequences

“

(2) A person is not subject to civil, administrative, disciplinary, employment, credentialing, regulatory or other sanction or penalty or loss of privileges, loss of membership or any other liability for refusing to participate, directly or indirectly in activities authorized pursuant to sections 241.1 through 241.3 of the Criminal Code (Canada).”

And it went on with a clarification section:

“

(3) For the purposes of this section, participate includes, but is not limited to, performing, assisting in the performance of or making a referral for any activities related to, or for the purpose of, medical assistance in dying.

“

(4) For the purposes of this

section ‘participate’ does not include

“(

i) the provision, upon request, of information about services that can provide access to medical assistance in dying;

“(ii) the provision, upon request, of a patient’s relevant medical record, to the patient, or

“(iii) communicating to the appropriate person in authority a patient’s request for a complete transfer of care so that the person in authority can facilitate the transfer.”

These were all sections. The reason I’m reading them out—these were sections that were drafted by adapting language from California’s End of Life Option Act, where conscience rights are protected. None of the medical assistance in dying states—Washington, Oregon, Vermont or California—require a physician to make effective referrals.

Each time in committee, over and over and over again, we tried to present options that would strengthen this bill—to use the government’s words, “To help with that path”—but not to make a physician or a nurse or medical personnel as part of the process mandatory. We listened, Speaker. We listened, and every time we presented those amendments, this government slammed the door in our face and voted against our amendments. It was very frustrating.

As I said at the start of this, we weren’t supposed to be debating this bill today. We were supposed to be debating a time allocation motion on the budget. Again, this government can’t manage the affairs and the bills before it. We should not be surprised that Her Majesty’s official opposition is putting these issues on the floor.

One of the physicians that I met with in my riding—I talked about it briefly at second reading—was someone that I share, actually, with the member for Haldimand–Norfolk, Dr. Phil Drijber. He was very passionate about his feeling about Bill 84. It was a great opportunity when I met with Dr. Drijber to hear his perspective as a practising physician. He emphasized how important conscience rights and conscience protection were to this bill, and the fact that medical professionals across this province have issues with this bill. He spoke about how conscience rights are protected in other provinces, including Alberta’s self-referral model.

His words that day, his message to me, was that this legislation should have balance. That’s what we were trying to do in committee. We were trying to listen to the numerous voices in our ridings who made it very clear that they wanted this

section added to the bill. I felt it was a very respectful and dignified tone during debate of this bill. I know there are times in this place that we have quite a raucous debate. Yesterday I came in briefly to pick up something from my desk and I heard the exchanges between the government and the opposition parties on the budget, and that’s understandable. I’m not going to go into all the reasons why it’s understandable. I think many of my constituents who are watching will know that. But we tried, with this bill, to be respectful from the start. We tried to provide comments that were in the spirit of the bill, but also to strengthen that particular

section that we felt was important.

At second reading, I mentioned that I’d received many, many, many letters on this issue from constituents. I want to read an excerpt from one of them.

The government talks about Bill C-14, and they actually tried to change the

preamble of the bill. After voting down every single one of our amendments that would strengthen this bill because of conscience rights, the government threw a Hail Mary and tried to change the

preamble and thought that people are going to be fooled that that provides the protection they want. It was laughable at best.

Again, it’s this government’s inability to manage their own majority—they have all the tools available to them to bring legislation forward, debate it, send it to committee, bring it back for third reading and get it passed before the session, and they can’t even manage that. As I said earlier today, they told us last Thursday that they have two bills they want to get passed in 11 days, and they haven’t even introduced them yet. It’s ridiculous.

The

section I want to quote is from a letter about the need for conscience protection. It’s an excerpt from an email I received:

“Despite language in Bill C-14 that suggests no health care professional should be compelled to provide or assist in providing these procedures, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) has adopted a protocol that requires an ‘effective referral’ for what is now being called ‘medical aid in dying.’

“Objecting physicians are not able to participate in euthanasia for reasons of conscience, ethics, religious convictions or the Hippocratic oath. Many are members of religious traditions that consider referral of any kind as forms of participation in euthanasia.”

The other letter that I want to briefly read is one from August 11, 2016, from the Leader of the Opposition, Patrick Brown, to Eric Hoskins. It copies CPSO, the Premier and Jeff Yurek, our Ontario PC health critic. I’ll read the last two paragraphs of Mr. Brown’s letter to the minister:

“The government of Ontario has a unique opportunity to find a way to respect patient wishes while not infringing on freedom of conscience. Surely, we can find a way forward, as other provinces have. I would strongly encourage you to provide adequate protection for Ontario’s health care professionals who find themselves forced to choose between their career and their conscience.

“It is my belief that by working collaboratively, as other provinces have, we can find a path forward that ensures our health care system respects all perspectives on this issue. I would ask you to make every effort to raise this issue with your colleagues and the CPSO as soon as possible.”

We’ve been very clear on our feelings on what needs to be in this bill. I even went so far as asking for unanimous consent so that we could move to Committee of the Whole House, not just to deal with our section, but if the government wanted to deal with their

preamble, they could do it. Once the bill comes back from second reading, there are very few ways for us to deal with it. One way is by unanimous consent; if we all agree that we’re going to add conscience rights protection in this bill, we could do it by unanimous consent. The government could ask for co-operation between the other two House leaders to move into Committee of the Whole House and we could deal with our section; we could deal with the

preamble; we could clean this bill up. The tools are available to us, but, again, it’s this government’s reluctance, this “my way or the highway” attitude that this Liberal government has—not just on this bill, but on many bills.

The time is coming to a close for this session—unless the government makes some big changes in how they deal with these pieces of legislation. We’ve been very clear right from the start, right from the day this bill was brought forward, on what we wanted, and it’s not there. It is not there today.

I would ask, if the government is so adamant that they not listen to us, that prior to the long weekend, we have private members’ business on May 18; I believe that’s the date. We’re going to be debating Bill 129. I’m going to be here, Speaker, and I know that many of my colleagues are going to be here. If the government isn’t willing to bring this bill back, we need to support that bill. We need to show the medical community and our constituents that we’re listening to them. The Liberal government hasn’t been listening to them. We need to show them that we are listening. This is an important

section in this bill. We need to stand up and be counted.

I’m very glad that I’ve had the opportunity to speak today and I hope that the government doesn’t just let their rotation go forward. They’ve stopped debating this bill. They’ve closed their minds now. They don’t want to hear the other voices in Ontario. But there are opportunities for us to put this bill with good amendments before it gets passed. Thank you for giving me this chance, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s a pleasure to rise as the MPP for London West to offer a few comments on third reading of Bill 84, the medical assistance in dying legislation.

If there is one issue that ought to be non-partisan in this place, it is medical assistance in dying. We have had debate in this House during second reading of this bill, during the hundreds of people who came to the committee to make presentations on this bill and now during third reading of this bill. What we have seen from the Liberal government is very little willingness to address some of the serious concerns that have been raised.

I know that during committee our member, the member for Nickel Belt, the health critic for the NDP caucus, brought forward numerous amendments to strengthen the bill, to try to incorporate some of the issues that had been brought to her and had been brought to the committee by people in this province who want to see this legislation be as effective and respectful as possible. They want to see legislation that strikes the right balance between people’s ability to access the care they need at end of life and also the conscience rights of health care providers.

One of the amendments that my colleague brought forward that was voted down by the Liberals was to ensure that the protections that are extended to physicians and nurse practitioners also extend to registered nurses—because the reality is that RNs are present in virtually all instances of medical assistance in dying. The Liberals refused to accept that amendment, just as they refused to accept many other changes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I was surprised to be rising because I thought there would be some response from the government side, but alas, no response. It’s the same action we got from them on our amendments to Bill 84. It pushed us to the point that our health critic, Mr. Yurek, brought in a private member’s bill. He tabled a private member’s bill, which will be debated next week, by the way, before this House, that would protect the conscience rights of medical professionals.

You have to ask yourself: Why is it the Liberals insist on refusing to recognize the conscience rights of medical professionals? They are recognized in other jurisdictions across this country. Their conscience rights are recognized and respected. This would not change or affect the ability of someone who wishes to end their life by medically assisted death. This would not change their right or affect their right to have their life end in that fashion. But it would protect the people who feel that in their hearts they cannot participate in this process.

So what would be lost? Nothing. The only thing that would be gained is the fact that this government would also show that we don’t only show compassion for those who want to end a life of possible suffering, but we also show compassion for those who believe deeply that this is something they cannot participate in. Where is the compassion for those who have deeply held beliefs? Where’s the protection and where’s the concern and where’s the compassion for them?

I am so disappointed in this government, that it would not entrench those rights in their legislation. Our critic will.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise to add some comments on Bill 84, the Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act. I had an opportunity to speak to this at more length earlier on in the debate.

One point that I just want to bring forward, because I think it’s a very important point and it’s something that perhaps is being lost in the debate, something that the government side has not addressed—and I want to commend my colleague, France Gélinas, from Nickel Belt, who has done a tremendous amount of work around this particular piece of legislation, legislation that we have to discuss; we don’t have a choice, and that’s important to note. It’s important that people from all sides of the issue are heard and listened to, because everybody has valid concerns.

I believe my colleague from Nickel Belt has done a very good job of doing that in representing the NDP caucus, whether that’s been here in the House during her comments on it or whether that’s in committee.

But I think a piece that’s been missed—and every time I’ve had an opportunity to get up and say it, I’ve done it, and I’m going to do it again—is the piece around mental health supports. We all know in this House, whether the government side wants to admit it or not, that there is a mental health crisis in this province. There is not enough support for those with mental health concerns and needs.

This legislation doesn’t address the mental health supports people are going to need, whether it’s those people who are looking into possibly choosing medical assistance in dying, whether it’s the family and friends who will be left behind once someone does choose to go this route or whether it’s the medical professionals who choose to actually provide this care and this service to patients. All of those people are going to need support at some point, and this government hasn’t done enough to make sure that those supports are in place. It’s a big, gaping hole in this bill, and it should have been addressed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to add my voice to this debate, and recognize the good work that the member from Leeds–Grenville puts forward, not only on behalf of his riding and our caucus, but truly for the province of Ontario. He is absolutely right in his message today. We have to do better by Ontarians. In saying that, we have to stand by our doctors and our professional folks in the health field.

This week we’re celebrating Nursing Week and, for goodness sake, the bill, in the manner in which it’s written, doesn’t even protect them. I can tell you, Speaker, in quite some time I haven’t had an issue that has raised the ire more in my riding of Huron–Bruce than this particular bill. From one end of the riding, from the south to the north and all points in between, people just don’t like this legislation, and they’re frustrated because clearly this government continues to prove time and again that they’re out of touch and they’re not listening.

For instance, I have a petition that went through a large part of my riding. People from Formosa, Wingham, Teeswater, Lucknow, Goderich and Varna have signed this petition. It reads:

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

“Pass legislation providing robust conscience protection for Ontario’s health care providers, for medical aid in dying.”

This has just picked up steam and we’re hearing from people all the time and they’re saying, “This government has got to be stopped. We have had enough.” Not only do they just run roughshod, if you will, with electricity prices, but they are not protecting the rights of our doctors and our professional health care workers, and that is not right.

We have put forward thoughtful amendments to this bill. They voted them down. This bill needs to be voted down.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now return to the member from Leeds–Grenville for final comments.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the members for London West, Windsor West, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and Huron–Bruce, and I do want to take the opportunity to comment on the two members from the third party that talked about the member for Nickel Belt, Ms. Gélinas. She did an excellent job at committee. Both the opposition parties, both our party and the New Democrats, I thought, worked very collaboratively in committee.

I did tell the member for Nickel Belt what a great job she did in committee after we were finished, but I do also want to put it also on the record today, because again, as Mr. Brown said in his letter to Minister Hoskins in August, this doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. We heard from our constituents that they wanted this bill amended, they wanted this strengthened. We heard, as I did from members in the medical community.

You know, Speaker, again, the government tells us on a Thursday we’re going to be dealing with a time allocation motion. They can’t manage their own affairs in the government House leader’s office or maybe they’re getting their strings pulled by the Premier’s office. They’re in a mess. They’re silent this morning on this bill, so the two opposition parties are the only ones now that are standing up for the people of Ontario on this bill, Bill 84. We’re the only ones who have comments on the record. Nobody from the government seems to care about those constituents who have valid concerns, who want to see this bill strengthened, who want to see amendments put forward.

So, my message, then, is simple. We’re going to continue to stand up for you on this issue. We’ve got a private member’s bill that will be debated in this House on May 18 that will provide the conscience rights that you want in this bill and that the government doesn’t want to give you. The government won’t even comment on it anymore. I ask folks to watch for that debate. It’s very important. I’ll be here and I hope the bill passes.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: It’s a pleasure this morning to join in the debate about Bill 84, the Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016.

This is, of course, a very delicate issue. We’ve heard a lot of passionate comments from people on all sides of the House and from all parties. It’s an issue that’s one of the most profound that we will have to deal with in this Legislature: life and death.

There are many different perspectives on medical assistance in dying, or MAID, as it is abbreviated, although I really don’t like that abbreviation so I’ll try not to use it. There are many who, for personal and conscience reasons, would have a hard time participating in something that ultimately ends a person’s life. That’s, of course, one of the contentious issues, as has been mentioned by my colleagues this morning. The difference between both opposition parties and the government—one of the big differences on this bill—is the conscience rights for health care providers. I’ll talk about that.

However, right or wrong, the issue of medical assistance in dying is not something that we’re actually debating today. That question, in Canada, has been decided, because this legislation, Bill 84, that we are debating today, is in response to a Supreme Court ruling on medical assistance in dying and it’s a response to federal legislation that passed last June as a result of the court ruling.

The aim of the federal legislation was to make medical assistance in dying a legal service that is available and delivered in accordance with the law. The role of Ontario’s regulatory health professional colleges is to provide guidance and regulations regarding medical assistance in dying.

What does Bill 84 actually do? Bill 84 provides clarity and legal projections for health care professionals, including clinicians, doctors and nurse practitioners, along with organizations that provide access to medical assistance in dying services in Ontario.

The bill amends the Coroners Act to require that the coroner is notified and determines whether or not an investigation into the death is necessary. The bill also protects doctors, nurse practitioners and other medical professionals who provide or assist in medical assistance in dying services from lawsuits—unless, of course, there is alleged negligence.

The bill ensures that benefits or sums provided under a contract or statute shall not be invoked or denied if the deceased received medical assistance in dying services. This relates to insurance-type payouts, as an example.

The bill also exempts information that identifies doctors, clinicians or facilities from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In other words, it protects their names and the names of their institutions, if they so wish.

Finally, the bill changes death certificates in the province. The coroner doesn’t have to sign a death certificate unless investigating the death. It also ensures that a person receiving medical assistance in dying is deemed to have died as a result of the injury or disease for which the person was determined to be eligible for medical assistance in dying services and not from another cause of death. In other words, if the reason you are permitted to access medical assistance in dying services, that reason—the disease or injury for which the reason is—will be on the death certificate, not the fact that you received medical assistance in dying services.

The bill is well-meaning legislation and designed to protect patients, but what we have issues with on this side of the House, and why we won’t be able to vote for this legislation as it stands, is because of what the bill doesn’t do.

In its final form, this legislation has missed the mark. The government has missed the mark as the bill remains without conscience protection for medical professionals. Added to this legislation along the way was a referral structure. Let me share with you part of a letter I received from—it’s the same letter I received from a number of constituents who remain concerned with this legislation. They remain concerned as we speak today:

“As your constituent, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding conscience rights. I understand that the Ontario government has introduced Bill 84, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) Statute Law Amendment Act which, at present, does not provide conscience protection for doctors and health care providers who conscientiously object to taking

part in MAID.

“Despite conscience protection in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and languages in federal Bill C-14 that no health care professional should be compelled to provide or assist in providing these procedures, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) requires an ‘effective referral’ for ‘medical assistance in dying.’ For doctors or health care workers who are unable to participate, an effective referral is akin to performing the procedure. Doctors may have an objection for any number of reasons: conscience, ethics, moral convictions or the Hippocratic oath.

“Ontario now has an opportunity to offer the same conscience protection that is in place in every other country worldwide where medical assistance in dying has been legalized. Why won’t Ontario respect these fundamental rights?”

That’s the end of the quote from the letters I’ve been receiving from my constituents.

Every expert who has spoken to this legislation recognized the need for balance, ensuring that medical assistance in dying is available, but at the same time protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals. My colleagues also submitted amendments to the committee in this regard, yet our amendments were all voted down. Now we’re here at the final stages of this legislation and it’s still missing this critical component. Just as important as providing medical assistance in dying to those who want and are eligible for it is ensuring that a person’s individual rights are protected. We question why regulations in Ontario do not ensure a balance between the two.

In Alberta, they have a patient referral service that has been able to find that balance. A patient who wants to end their life has the right, and medical professionals who do not want to be complicit in the act don’t have to be complicit in the act. A patient seeking medical assistance in dying services in Alberta does not have to go through a doctor. They can call a phone number—I believe the actual number is 811—and they will be connected to someone who will help them through the system. This way, a doctor does not have to be penalized if participating in such

an act would violate their moral, conscience or religious beliefs. In Ontario, as the legislation stands, this is simply not the case.

In British Columbia, the system is slightly different than in Alberta, but again, health care professionals are not penalized if they do not want to participate. These are examples of systems that work, and work well, from all perspectives.

What I don’t understand, and what I wish the government side of the House would explain, is why one side of this debate has to be pitted against the other, like the government has done with this legislation, particularly when there is a solution readily available. Why aren’t we doing something similar to other jurisdictions that have systems in place, that are working and in fact have greater access than Ontario does since the court ruling in Ottawa?

The Ontario Medical Association has said that they support a patient’s self-referral option for medical assistance in dying in addition to current clinic referral services. The Canadian Medical Association has said that they support the freedom-of-conscience choice, along with those who choose to provide and/or participate in medical assistance in dying and those who do not.

The College of Nurses of Ontario recognizes a nurse’s freedom of conscience. They believe the legislation should not compel an individual to provide or assist in medical assistance in dying, and also stipulate that the nurse’s conscience objection must not be directly conveyed to the client, and/or their personal judgments regarding their beliefs, lifestyle, identity are not to be expressed to the client.

Expert after expert has told this government that there needs to be balance, and yet they’ve been ignored every step of the way, as have members of the opposition parties. It is the same closed-minded approach that we’ve seen again and again from this Premier and government. It’s pure arrogance. This government forgets that they are here on behalf of all Ontarians. It is the responsibility of government to listen to experts and act in the best interests of all Ontarians. This legislation, as written, certainly does not do that, and for no real reason.

If you look at this government’s record, however, the problem becomes clear. Health care is a disaster in Ontario today, and, once again, it simply comes down to mismanagement from ministers too tired to care about the details. I think this was alluded to by the member from Leeds–Grenville as to what a mess things are around here. Wait times have increased in children’s mental health and in knee and hip surgeries. They delisted physiotherapy services, to name a few examples. They’ve also introduced one of the largest tax increases in provincial history with health premiums, which remain hidden in provincial income taxes.

What I also find interesting, and what I want to thank the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London for highlighting in his remarks on this legislation, is the government’s focus on bureaucracy over front-line patient care. I know what I’m talking about, Mr. Speaker; I was Minister of Health in this province for a few years and rejected things like LHINs. These things were proposed to the government in the mid-1990s when I was Minister of Health. Regional health care was brought forward by the bureaucrats and other so-called experts.

I can remember Ralph Klein telling me, when he moved to regional health care—we were at a federal-provincial health ministers’ meeting in Alberta in about 1996. He was flipping pancakes, as he was known to do, for the Premier’s breakfast and recognized me in line. He said, “Don’t let them do it to you. It’s ruining Alberta’s health care system.” Of course, years later, I said that to George Smitherman when he was Minister of Health here.

I said, “Why are you moving to the LHIN model?” It’s a whole pile of more people called “executive directors,” who are paid at the level of assistant deputy ministers, scattered around the province, when all the big decisions are still made here at Queen’s Park, at the Ministry of Health. You’re not going to build a hospital or get money for your hospice or anything like that without talking to the health minister here at Queen’s Park. LHINs are just one more layer that everybody has to go through, and it was a bad idea.

But our colleague, our critic, the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London, had some pretty interesting comments, that I want to repeat, about the Ministry of Health at this time. He said that at a time when funding is more than half of the budget of the province of Ontario and when the government should be looking for efficiencies, they keep putting more and more funding into bureaucracy and less and less into patients. Things are backwards. The government has made all kinds of experimental changes to the structure of health care over the years that as far as I can tell have only made things worse.

Let me remind the government of what my colleague said—again, I’m referring to Mr. Yurek—and list them again here.

The government created the LHINs—I just talked about that. They changed the structure of the Ministry of Health five times in 13 years. They changed the roles of community care access centres. They changed the structure of community care access centres. They created an eHealth agency, pulling it out of the Ministry of Health. They created an Ontario Health Quality Council. They created health links. They’ve created hospital hubs.

Then they eliminated CCAC boards. They merged CCACs with LHINs. Then they changed the reporting structure of the CCACs and LHINs. They then changed the reporting structure of primary care teams and clinics. They’re in the process of creating 78 sub-LHINs. They changed all local decision oversight back to the Ministry of Health, so it’s centralized again, but we have more offices and more bureaucracy out in the field, doing nothing—certainly not managing front-line care or providing front-line care. They’ve increased the Ministry of Health management structure—get this—by a whopping 500% since 2003.

Can you think of any organization, having gone through the recession, that’s increased its people by 500%?

There’s a report out today from the Fraser Institute that talks about how overall, Ontario has had dismal growth in the private sector since 2003, half that of the other lowest province. So we had the lowest growth in private sector job creation, but we’ve had growth slightly over 29% in our public sector, the largest of any province in Canada since 2003.

This is where you see it: You see it in health care. It’s not nurses; we know they’ve been firing nurses by the hundreds and, in the case of North Bay, I think they’re probably up to about 300 or more. We hear about it every week from the member from Nipissing. They got rid of physiotherapy. They’ve been cutting across the board. We’ve had a record number of stories in the media recently, in the last two years, about the crowding in our hospitals. But there’s always money for more departments. They’ve increased the number of departments in the Ministry of Health by 500%. So it’s easy: The number of people is up by 500% in the bureaucracy and the number of departments has increased fivefold.

We can’t forget eHealth—14 years in power, $8 billion in the eHealth system and it’s still not functioning.

Like my colleague our critic said, each and every one of these experiments and changes has taken money away from patient care and decreased services. Mr. Speaker, this government’s logic is pure nonsense. As a legislator, I always try to put myself in the shoes of the people impacted by the changes—that is, the patients and families.

Is medical assistance in dying something that medical professionals should be forced to do? That’s the issue here today. That’s the issue that separates the government from the opposition. We believe the answer is no, medical professionals should not be forced when there are other ways to make sure we have greater access to medical assistance in dying services, as other provinces and other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, have proven, without infringing on the personal rights of the medical professional.

Last Wednesday my colleague, the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London, introduced a private member’s bill, Bill 129, that protects the conscience rights of medical professionals. It will allow all Ontarians to be protected by this private member’s legislation. I hope the government will do the right thing and support the legislation. The member for Leeds–Grenville outlined exactly what it does, but it protects the conscience rights of health care professionals. It provides for a system similar to Alberta’s.

Again, these other provinces that do protect medical professionals and their personal rights have statistically, at this moment, greater access. We have a larger population, yet we’ve had a smaller percentage of people being able to access, since it became legal, medical assistance in dying. The other provinces have conscience rights and they have greater access. So I don’t know why the government is stuck on it.

I think Patrick Brown, the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the PC Party of Ontario, probably has it right. But because it’s a Conservative idea, you won’t adopt it. Stubbornness doesn’t make for good legislation.

I’ve also read out from the nurses’ association, the Ontario Medical Association, other professional associations and medical professions, that would like conscience rights, along with many of our constituents who, when you go home and try to explain why the government isn’t doing this, you end up having to say to them, “I can’t explain that to you. I don’t know why they’re not doing it.” It’s a no-brainer, as we would say for so many other issues.

I’m going to ask the government to smarten up. It’s not too late. We’re going to keep debating here, give you the opportunity to get up, change your mind, as was mentioned by our deputy House leader and deputy leader of the party—or a deputy leader of the party; we have two of them—

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m deputy leader at my house, too.

Mr. Jim Wilson: He’s deputy leader at home, apparently, too. He’s a good deputy. He’s really good at it, apparently.

We can always open up the floor here, have an all-party agreement not to filibuster—because I know that’s why no one likes to go into Committee of the Whole. It’s hard to get out of Committee of the Whole. In fact, I don’t think it’s been done for a while.

We could have an agreement that we just deal with the conscience rights amendment and have it done with, and probably every member of the House would vote for it and it would be much better legislation. We’ll even help you brag about it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will consider our reasoned request.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate and thank our colleague, the member from Simcoe–Grey.

He started off his 20-minute speech this morning talking about the importance and the sensitivity of this issue, and it being perhaps one of the most sensitive and impactful pieces of legislation that we will have the opportunity to debate and, really, the honour to debate, because for families who are in these types of scenarios, who are having to contemplate the need for medical assistance in dying—I can’t imagine there being an any more difficult decision, not only to come to that decision, but the effects it has on a family, your loved ones, your friends.

It’s something that I don’t really give much thought to on a daily basis and I can’t imagine the pressure and the toll that it takes.

Nevertheless, it is our role to ensure that the resources for those families who are in these scenarios are there, and that means ensuring that the health care professionals who are a part of the process and a part of the team that are helping families have the resources, have the protections and are supported in a whole host of ways, none of the least in mental health supports. We can only imagine that endeavouring in this type of realm would cause some serious concerns and problems, and one that we should reflect on and be ready to support through the actions of this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to join in the debate today on Bill 84. I’m really puzzled about this bill because on first reading, it seemed to be very progressive and an opportunity that many people have felt was overdue that we needed to accept the importance of people having a choice. That sounds all very well and good, and it sounds like, as soon as you mention choice, it means that you can do this or choose not to do this. Well, when I first debated on this bill, it was at second reading.

In the course of time between its introduction and second reading, I had learned more about the bill and more about, frankly, the people in my constituency who were interested in this particular bill.

It became clear to me that there was a very simple solution to a relatively easy but difficult choice—in the sense of a personal choice—that people made, but again, going back to the individual’s ability to make a choice. There seemed to be something left off the table. There wasn’t the opportunity for conscience rights to be recognized. Well, that’s not difficult either in the sense that you look around—as legislators, we often look around at what other jurisdictions are doing and they had this issue solved and people were content with in a program like the one in Alberta.

So when I spoke in second reading and urged everyone to look at this as a method to solve the problem of that group not having choice, we’re still here today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m sitting here in my seat this morning wondering what I’m going to bring to this debate and, actually, it was provided to me this morning at the smudging that we had on the front lawn.

I’m going to read the seven grandfather teachings because I believe it’s totally appropriate to the discussion this morning.

It starts with “Honesty: To achieve honesty within yourself, to recognize who you are; do this and you can be honest with all others.

“Humility: Humble yourself and recognize that no matter how much you think you know, you know very little of all the universe.

“Truth: To learn truth, to live with truth, to walk with truth and to speak truth.

“Wisdom: To have wisdom is to know the difference between good and bad, to know result of your actions.

“Love: Unconditional love is given freely without conditions.

“Respect: Respect others, their beliefs, and respect yourself. Show respect to receive respect.

“Bravery: To be brave is to do something right, even if you know it’s going hurt you.”

It’s absolutely appropriate for the debate and the discussions that we’re having here this morning.

Having that ceremony this morning really humbles a person. The message, it was right in front of me this morning when I was reading this and I’m going to be asking this government to be brave in your decisions and your deliberations that you’re going to be making here because it is going to be affecting a lot of individuals and we have an opportunity to get this right.

Have the wisdom; that’s why that owl is up there. I’m going to continue looking up at the eagle each and every day in order to be vigilant in my task as far as holding this government to account.

I’m asking this government to be brave in their deliberations in putting this bill forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, this is an important piece of legislation that we all should be standing up and speaking to. Bill 84 is actually missing the mark and that’s why I feel it’s very important to stand up and share the voice of constituents from my riding.

I received an email from Maria Vander Klippe. In her email she goes on to say, “I understand that the government is in the process of creating a care coordination service that would be publicly accessible in Ontario.” In bold letters, she goes on to say: “This does not solve the problem of effective referral in Ontario.”

She concludes by asking us to support an amendment to Bill 84 to protect conscience rights and prevent the thousands of objecting physicians and health care providers from being forced out of their practice.

Well, that very thoughtful amendment came from my colleague from Elgin–Middlesex–London. I appreciate the fact that our colleague from Simcoe–Grey, our House leader, has led by example, pointing out the fact that it was a good amendment. It was an amendment that was spot-on in terms of protecting the conscience rights of our doctors and our health care providers. Nowhere else in Canada is there a gaping hole except right here in Ontario, and this Liberal government is consciously keeping that gap open.

The member from Simcoe–Grey brought up the fact that maybe they’re avoiding and voted down that idea from the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London because it’s a good idea. Our leader very well pointed out that there’s no monopoly on a good idea. Just last week, Hazel McCallion was in my riding. She’s the CEO of Revera, the chief elder officer, and while she was visiting Trillium Court in Kincardine she said she agrees with Patrick that there is no monopoly on a good idea.

So I hope that we can get this done in the private member’s bill, Bill 129.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I return to the member from Simcoe–Grey for final comments.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I want to thank the members for Essex, York–Simcoe, Algoma–Manitoulin and, of course, Huron–Bruce for their kind comments and for agreeing that conscience rights for medical professionals should be in this legislation.

As far as our research shows, worldwide, not just in Canada, but in the States and Europe, where medical assistance in dying services are available and legal, they all make some provision for the conscience objections of medical professionals who do not in any way want to participate but at the same time do not want to block access.

In the case of Alberta, they set up a simple telephone system where family or the person, the patient themselves, can phone, and impartial people, bureaucrats, can help them through the system and guide them to medical professionals who will provide the service. In Ontario, for some reason, we can’t just seem to adopt that simple approach. In British Columbia, a similar approach; Quebec actually requires pretty well that people not force medical professionals or harass them in any way into the service and they set up a very—I hate to use the word—consumer-friendly approach to these services.

We do this not just because of the court ruling, but out of compassion for patients who are near end of life, who are suffering greatly. There seems there will be no end to their suffering. The end is inevitable. For their peace of mind and their peace and for their families, we do it out of compassion. We should show some compassion to the medical professionals who are on the front line, who, out of good conscience, do not want to participate. Again, in provinces in Canada, the experience so far—those that allowed for conscience rights also have greater access to medical assistance in dying than we do.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Bill 84 is a very important and necessary piece of legislation. It supports the implementation of medical assistance in dying by providing more protection and greater clarity for patients, their families and, of course, the health care providers.

Speaker, we allowed the debate to continue when it reached six and a half hours of second reading debate on this bill so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill. This bill saw well over nine hours of debate at second reading and now we’ve had nearly six hours of debate at third reading. All but the Progressive Conservative Party have stopped debating this bill. They’re debating themselves now on an issue that’s received a lot of debate in this House.

There are a number of pieces of important legislation that need to be listened to, already introduced, which the government would like to debate and move through the legislative process: Bill 39, the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act; Bill 65, the Safer School Zones Act; Bill 68, the Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act; Bill 87, the Protecting Patients Act; Bill 89, the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act; Bill 96, the Anti-Human Trafficking Act; Bill 114, the Anti-Racism Act; Bill 124, the Rental Fairness Act; and Bill 127, the Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act.

Mr. Speaker, we’d like to spend some time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation that are currently before the House, but we can’t until Bill 84 is voted on. As a result, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Flynn has moved that the question be now put. Knowing that there have been over 10 hours in committee debating this particular bill and there have been a subsequent number of hours at third reading, I’m satisfied that there has, in fact, been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

I believe that the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 4, 2017, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Aggregate Resources Act and the Mining Act / Projet de loi 39, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en agrégats et la

Loi sur les mines.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Bill 39 is an important and necessary piece of legislation that’s going to modernize how we oversee, regulate and manage mining and aggregates in Ontario.

As before, we allowed the debate to continue when we reached six and a half hours of second reading debate on this bill so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill.

Speaker, this bill was introduced last October and saw well over nine hours of debate at second reading. Now we’ve had nearly six hours of debate at third reading, two of which have been only the Progressive Conservative Party debating themselves again.

We’ve heard time and time again complaints from the members opposite about the length of the legislative process:

“Here we are, three years later, Madam Speaker, and we’re still talking about the recommendations of a standing committee of this Legislature.” That was the member from Wellington–Halton Hills on October 27, 2016.

“This has been a long time coming.... It’s been many, many years. As a matter of fact, since I’ve been here, we’ve been talking about this....” That was the member from Prince Edward–Hastings on October 27, 2016.

“Looking at it now, it’s quite interesting, because there were a number of members over the years who participated and were active in this, and yet they aren’t here anymore, which speaks to how long we’ve been waiting for some kind of amendment to the Aggregate Resources Act.” That was the member from Dufferin–Caledon on November 3, 2016.

But members from that same party spent two hours here last Thursday evening debating themselves, holding up a decision by the House on this important piece of legislation.

As I said previously, there’s a number of pieces of very important legislation, already introduced, which the government would like to debate and move through the legislative process: Bill 65, the Safer School Zones Act; Bill 87, the Protecting Patients Act; Bill 89, the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act; Bill 96, the Anti-Human Trafficking Act; the Anti-Racism Act; the Rental Fairness Act; the Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act.

Mr. Speaker, we’d like to spend some time debating some of these other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but obviously we can’t until Bill 39 is voted on. As a result, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Flynn has moved that the question be now put. Understanding and knowing the number of hours that have been debated at second reading, and also knowing there were sufficient hours at committee and now at third reading, I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Therefore, is it the pleasure of House that the motion carry? I believe I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, no further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since there’s no further business at this point in time, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Lorne Coe: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the Legislature Jeff Edwards from the Whitby detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police. Welcome, Jeff.

Hon. Jeff Leal: With great pleasure today, I get to introduce three bright interns who will be working with OMAFRA this summer: Carling Fee, Dillon Baker and Olyvia Little. It’s an opportunity for them to learn about the back concessions and kitchen tables for farming in Ontario.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s always a great day when I can introduce people from the great riding of Huron–Bruce. From Huron county, we have Scott Tousaw. He’s a planner with the county of Huron. Also joining us in the chamber today are representatives of Community Living Walkerton and District: Ashly Lamont, Jessica Forsyth, Heather Munro, Carol Patterson and Craig Harrison. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On behalf of Teresa Armstrong from London–Fanshawe, I would like to acknowledge that today’s page captain is Eesha Rehan. Her mother, Nazish Rehan, is in the public gallery this morning. Welcome.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome everyone from Community Living Ontario here today at Queen’s Park. I would like to encourage all members to join them at their reception today immediately after question period in room 228.

Mr. Norm Miller: I would like to welcome members from Community Living Parry Sound who are visiting today, Jo-anne Demick and Trisha Bain; and also the representatives of the OPP Association, Rob Stinson, Carol Seed, Paul Hywarren; and Jim Burnett, from Pathway, who met with me today.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Je veux souhaiter la bienvenue à Kenneth Gray, Walter Vandergoten, Terri Hubbert, and Derek Young, from the OPPA, whom I just had the pleasure of meeting this morning. Welcome.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to direct the attention of the members to the west members’ gallery where we have Officer Rob Enzlin from the Chatham-Kent OPP; Harold Coffin, OPP from Lambton; Amanda Zielinski, Chatham-Kent OPP; Phil Bezaire, retired, but from Lambton OPP; and Rob Jamieson, who is somewhere here, president of the OPPA, whose in-laws are from Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I would like to welcome members of Community Living Essex County: Lisa Vincent, Brigitte Gagnon, John Cooper, Beth Renaud, Ray Renaud and Eva Penner-Banman, as well as members of the Ontario Provincial Police Association whom we met this morning: Crystal Peralta, Steve MacNally, and a special friend—and a special shout-out to—Officer Trevor Davies, who once saved my daughter’s life when she was a little baby. If you want to hear more about the story, come to the reception this evening for the OPPA, where I will fully explain the wonderful story of Officer Davies.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I would like to welcome the grade 5 students from San Lorenzo Ruiz Catholic school in my great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. I hope they have a wonderful time at Queen’s Park. I look forward to meeting them after question period.

Mr. Bill Walker: I would like to welcome Jillian Serkowney, who is a constituent from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, and also from the OPP, Pam Campbell, Mike Ashley, and all members of the OPPA. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Etobicoke Centre and page Katie Winterton, I’m pleased to welcome her aunt, Jacqueline Krikorian, who is in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Todd Smith: I would like to welcome a couple of OPP officers as well: Randy Hayes, Mike Danielson and also Michelle LaMorre, who works at the Prince Edward county OPP detachment, all with the OPPA. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Niko Pupella, Ashley Stekel, Suzy Hall, Samantha Hillis, Amanda Morey and Tracy McGarry, who are here today from Community Living Durham North.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I would like to welcome today from the OPPA, in the west members’ gallery, Steve MacNally, Officer Kelly Bailey and Kristie Bright, all with the OPPA here today.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: As was mentioned, we’re very happy to welcome the Ontario Provincial Police Association. I would like to welcome in the House today Mr. Rob Jamieson, the president, and Chris Hoffman, Doug Lewis, Thomas Kaudelka, Mike Adair, John Cerasuolo, David Sabatini, Peter Curtis and Leanna Karremans. A big welcome to everyone else here from the OPPA. If I may say, we are hosting a reception tonight, and I welcome every member to come and join us in room 247. Welcome.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Community Living Wallaceburg and Middlesex Community Living, as well as local OPP officers from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue à Don Bissonnette et Pierre Joyal, qui sont tous les deux policiers avec la Police provinciale de l’Ontario à Sudbury, as well as to Thomas Kaudelka, also from the Ontario Provincial Police Association. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: As the Ontario Provincial Police Association is based in my riding of Barrie, I would like to welcome all OPP officers here with us today. Specifically, I would like to welcome Carol Seed, Shannon Lamarche, Louise Sweet, John Carter, President Rob Jamieson and Peter Curtis. Also, I’d like to welcome my granddaughter, Carling Fee.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome the OPPA: Ken Gray and Walter Vandergoten from Hawkesbury, Derek Young from the Ottawa OTU group and Terri Hubbert from SD&G, who has talked about being still upset over the Char-Lan Rebels beating the South Stormont Selects.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome representatives from the Information Technology Association of Canada who are with us today as part of Digital Health Day here at Queen’s Park. ITAC, of course, represents the information technology industry in Canada. They’re going to be meeting with MPPs, ministers and ministers’ offices today to highlight the importance of investing in digital health to improve the quality of health in this province. Welcome to Brendan Seaton, president of ITAC Health, and other representatives of the industry.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Good morning, Speaker. I’m honoured to welcome our members from the OPP from across Ontario. As a member of the police family, and especially the OPP family, it give me great pride to welcome our members in uniform who keep us safe every day. We thank them for what they do, and we thank them for being here. I would like to underscore and welcome in a special way Chris Hoffman, Mike Adair, Judy Alton and the president of the OPPA, Rob Jamieson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I, too, would like to introduce a few members of ITAC in the health care sector: Ken Stevens, Andy Hind, Lisa Shoniker and Brendan Seaton. Very good meeting this morning. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to introduce a group from the Meeting of the Minds, a self-advocacy group at Choices in my riding: Philip Beauchamp, Meranda Keast, Rebecca Anger, Simon Veilleux, Jay Faguy, Sandee Green and Jacqueline De Schutter. Welcome, all.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I would like to welcome all students who are here today and those who are watching. I would especially like to welcome a group from my riding in Scarborough–Guildwood: Cedarbrae Collegiate Institute and their teacher Kelly Dunn. Please welcome them.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Shirley Fenton, who will be at the ITAC Health Queen’s Park day today.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome members of the Ontario Provincial Police Association who are here today. Specifically, I’d like to welcome Donna DeHamilton and John, Karen, Mark and Alison, who I met with this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Han Dong: I would like to introduce students from Contact Alternative School. They are with us in the Legislature this morning. I want to say a special thank you and welcome to all of them.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome members of the OPPA: Jennifer Neamtz, Brady Lazary and of course Karen German from Brighton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear ribbons in recognition of the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community and Social Services is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed.

Today in the Speaker’s gallery, I have a guest. She is the press gallery intern for the summer here at Queen’s Park, Palak Mangat. Welcome. It’s the only time somebody from the press is allowed to look at the Speaker. I just wanted to let you know that.

The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Walker: My point of order: Yesterday during debate on the budget bill, the Deputy Premier made a comment about cutting the Markdale hospital. It’s inappropriate to threaten—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, that’s not a point of order.

Laughter.

Mr. Bill Walker: And she laughs about it. Unbelievable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Second of all, the member is dangerously close to being named with an attitude like that when I’m standing. It will not happen again.

Welcome to all our guests. It is therefore now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Probation and parole services

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General. Last night’s exposé about Ontario’s probation system by Carolyn Jarvis on Global National was shocking and appalling. If you didn’t see it, let me read you some of the exchanges in the report:

“Offenders think probation and parole in Ontario is a joke?”

“Yeah. They think it’s a joke.”

“How do you think the public would react if they knew what you know about how offenders are supervised in the community?”

“I think they’d be appalled.”

“We are at a crisis, at a breaking point, and we’re failing the public badly on the public safety front.”

How long has the government known about the state of Ontario’s probation system and how long have the Liberals ignored this problem?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Minister for Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I thank the member for his question and, actually, his sudden interest into this, because we know the history behind the member.

Mr. Speaker, if I can say here, part of our efforts to transform our corrections in Ontario—my objective is very simple. I think, on this side of the House, our objective is very simple. It’s definitely to rehabilitate the clients and support their reintegration back into our society. One thing that the member maybe does not know, and I will share: Recidivism in Ontario has been trending downward over the past decade.

First, I also want to say thank you for the fantastic work that our probation and parole officers do every single day for us to keep our communities safe. Of course, we can do more. I have been the minister since January and I have not been satisfied with that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to let you wrap up. If the indication from this morning’s beginning before question period is an indicator, I will jump on this real quick. Let’s just keep it down.

One wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have been the minister since January, and I have to acknowledge that I have not been satisfied with the pace, and we’re working on this.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Attorney General: The buck stops with the Attorney General on this file. Now, we have two private members’ bills, we have multiple questions and they’re saying a sudden interest? Multiple private members’ bills and there’s a sudden issue? Give me a break.

Back to this shocking story: One convicted sex offender had completed a conditional sentence in the community with a strict curfew. He says not once did his probation officer go to his house to check on him. He said, “Nobody has ever come. No police, no probation officer. I could have done anything I want”—anything. How does that give us a sense of safety in our communities? Convicted sex offenders are running free in our streets. He added, “I would go back and do things because nobody watched me, nobody hits on my door.”

Dangerous offenders are walking our streets and the Attorney General of our province is responsible. So once again, how long have you known this problem exists in Ontario and when will—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m very happy, actually, to explain maybe how the ministry responsible and our system works in Ontario. Maybe he’s forgotten this since he’s in this House and not at the federal level.

I have to say that one thing I’m going to be telling him is that the parole and probation cases, we know, have become a lot more complex and can require more supervision. Our government, actually, has recognized this by hiring more parole and probation officers. In fact, over the last 10 years, the average caseload has decreased from 79 cases per officer to 58 cases per officer. That gives our officers more time to focus on the rehabilitation and the reintegration of the offenders. This is, I would say, something that’s very dear to me as a new minister because—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Can I continue? Okay. Mr. Speaker, I will continue in my supplemental.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Attorney General: The Attorney General is the top legal officer in Ontario. That is a fact. It’s easy to pass the buck to a new minister, but this is the Attorney General’s mess. This is the Attorney General’s responsibility.

One probation officer who was interviewed said that she wants to go out and check on offenders, but she was told, “We don’t do home visits, flat out.” The Liberals deny that charge. But we are talking about violent, serious offenders who aren’t properly monitored in the community. It’s unacceptable.

There’s nothing the government can say that makes this right. It was the Attorney General who ignored this problem for two years as minister and he continues to ignore this problem. The top legal officer, the top person responsible, is the Attorney General.

So my question is: Understanding this is his mess, his responsibility, will he do the right thing and tender his resignation today?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I definitely don’t think our Attorney General has to resign. I actually appreciate the effort that he’s putting into our justice system in reforming—things, again, the member would know about when it comes to criminalization and being tough on punishment.

What I’m going to say is that our probation and parole officers have a very, very important role in our community. What they do is, the decisions they make to ensure that the community is safe, but also that they, themselves, are safe is equally as important. They follow the guidelines. They follow the procedures. They ensure that if there’s a risk associated with their safety, their own safety, they ensure that is taken into consideration.

I want to say how proud I am of the work of these individuals who keep our communities safe.

Government accountability

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the government House leader. Since he did not resign and will not take responsibility, let me ask him this. I’m sure it comes as no surprise to the Liberals that some people over the last 14 years have questioned the integrity of this government: the gas plant scandal, eHealth, the Ornge scandal, Liberal pizza parties, Sudbury and, now, the Canada Goose spending spree. I’m sure the Liberals aren’t surprised that the Ontario PC caucus is pushing for an ethics and accountability reform.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I ask, will the Liberals help clean up Queen’s Park and the government of Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m very glad to respond to the question that the member opposite has raised. We are very proud of the work we have done in strengthening accountability when it comes to government and the government of Ontario.

Speaker, you may recall when we came into office in 2003, that party, the opposition party, left almost a $6-billion deficit that was hidden, that was hidden from the sight of Ontarians when they actually told everybody, “Oh, no, the books are balanced.” But when we came into office and we—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, when we came into office in 2003 and asked the Auditor General at that time to look at the books, what we found was a hidden $6-billion deficit that the Conservative Party, under Mike Harris, left behind.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Simcoe–Grey, come to order.

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the government House leader: I asked a serious question about ethics and accountability and the government is talking about 2003. This is a government that’s faced five OPP investigations, and they’re proud of their record on ethics and accountability? It’s unbelievable. They’re that out to lunch.

Now, there are loopholes out there. While the new rules ban ministers and stop staff from attending fundraisers, there are no rules that state ministers and their staff can’t solicit personal donations from stakeholders. This still isn’t a fair playing field. There is still cash for access in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, will the Liberals commit today to end this perceived cash for access? Will the government House leader commit that this Liberal government will ensure that there will be no more soliciting donations from their own ministerial stakeholders? Yes or no? It’s a very clear question.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It is important to remember what happened in 2003 when the opposition, when they were in government, hid a $6-billion deficit. As a result of that, we made sure that we brought in very specific, important accountability measures so that that type of behaviour never takes place. As a result, one of the things we did was to require the Auditor General to look at—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Dufferin–Caledon, second time.

Member from Oxford, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As a result of that, Speaker, we changed the law and required the Auditor General to ensure that before any election, the public books are audited by the Auditor General, so that the numbers are provided in clarity, in full light, to all parties. That was a very important step. Not to mention, we brought—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right, we’re going to warnings. And just before that: the member from Simcoe–Grey, second time. We’re now in warnings.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, as a result, we also brought in regulation on government advertising which the opposition, the Conservatives, voted against.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the government House leader: Once again, I asked a serious question about ethics and accountability, ensuring that ministers do not fundraise off their own stakeholders, and I got an answer that was completely irrelevant. The government should be ashamed of their record on ethics and accountability. Five OPP investigations: It’s incredible; when we talk about criminal investigations, we have to ask, which one?

Mr. Speaker, I will ask again. Right now, there are big loopholes in this cash-for-access reform. Ministers can fundraise off stakeholders, but also news broke last year that ministers had fundraising targets to raise off their stakeholders. So if I can’t get a commitment from the government House leader to stop fundraising off stakeholders, will he work with us to make sure that having these fundraising targets for ministers becomes illegal in the province of Ontario? Yes or no? Please answer the question for the first time today.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, Speaker, it just feels like the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, is making things up as he’s going along, because I think he’s totally forgotten Bill 2, the extensive work we did in reforming fundraising in the province of Ontario, making it one of the most accountable and stringent rules around fundraising. I think he’s forgotten that we have banned corporate and union donations, that we have required all MPPs and other candidates not attend fundraising events, Speaker. We have limited donation limits significantly, by 90%, and then we have also put a close to third-party and government advertising, and they face new restrictions.

Somehow he’s forgotten. Speaker, do you know why he’s choosing to forget? Because he is trying to distract. He’s trying to distract from a very positive budget that we have put forward that is going to build a strong and healthy Ontario. He’s trying to distract from the fact that he has no policies. That party is an empty piece of paper, an empty slate.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday, we learned that the Premier is selling off yet another batch of shares of Hydro One. Clearly, the Premier and her Liberal government have not learned their lesson, since they’re still refusing to listen to the majority of Ontarians who say no to privatization of our electricity system.

When will the Premier actually start listening to the people that she’s supposed to be serving, Speaker?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise to say that yesterday’s tranche broadening the ownership of Hydro One brought in an additional $2.8 billion for the province, Mr. Speaker. That $2.8 billion exceeds the $9-billion target that we had for $5 billion to pay down debt and $4 billion to go into infrastructure. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? That number is now $9.6 billion, with more money going into infrastructure.

And where is that infrastructure going? Well, let me talk about this. Right across our province, we’re going to have infrastructure built. I can start off and look at one here: the Hamilton LRT and the Hamilton GO bus facility on Wentworth. That’s in the leader of the third party’s own riding. We’re making sure that we’re going to invest billions of dollars right now across the province, building Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Nobody buys that nonsense for a minute, Speaker. Some 80% of Ontarians oppose the privatization of Hydro One, and it’s really sad that this is the only government in the history of Ontario that can’t figure out how to build infrastructure without selling off a treasured revenue-generating public asset, when the vast majority of Ontarians don’t want it sold off.

Families, business owners, municipalities and NGOs have all told the Premier loud and clear to stop this wrong-headed sell-off. People need relief from their soaring energy bills, not to hear that the Premier is going to do even more damage to our already broken system.

Why does the Premier insist on moving ahead with this ridiculous sell-off when what the people of Ontario need is for her to finally admit that she is wrong, and abandon this scheme once and for all?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: What the people of Ontario need is infrastructure investment, Mr. Speaker, and that’s what this party is doing, that’s what this government is doing, investing in infrastructure right across the province. In Kitchener-Waterloo, the ION regional LRT; in Welland, the Niagara Health System is actually getting significant infrastructure investments; and in Oshawa, the Lakeridge Health corporation is getting significant investment. Of course, the list continues to go on and on with investments. That’s what we can do, Mr. Speaker, when we actually make $2.8 billion, for a total of $9.6 billion.

Yes, this was a difficult decision, but doing the right thing for the province takes difficult decisions. We’re very happy to make sure that we’re investing in infrastructure from Kenora to Ottawa to Sudbury to Toronto to Windsor and everywhere else in between, unlike that party, which has no plan to do anything when it comes to this file.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of Ontario know numbers better than the people who are sitting across the aisle here. That $9 billion doesn’t come close to the $190 billion that they claim they’re going to be spending on infrastructure. The bottom line is that the figures don’t match, Speaker. They didn’t need to sell off Hydro One to build infrastructure in this province, and they darn well know it.

Do you know what, Speaker? Ontarians did not vote for this. The Premier has no mandate to sell off our public hydro utility, and Ontarians have been very, very clear that they don’t want this sell-off to continue. Why does this Premier think that her opinion matters more than the opinion of millions and millions of Ontarians?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The billions and billions of dollars that we’re investing in infrastructure and paying down debt are actually going to have a benefit for this province for decades to come, unlike that party over there, which once again has no understanding of how the system works, or even the energy system.

A firm-commitment offering means that we get that money from the investors right away and we’re able to take that money and invest that in LRT in Hamilton. I know she doesn’t like the LRT investment in Hamilton, which makes you scratch your head, Mr. Speaker. What kind of investment in infrastructure do they like? Obviously, none, because all they do is stand up and complain. They have no plan on any of this.

As I said, I recognize that this was a tough decision. I recognize it was the right decision. And when you make the right decision, you invest that in the people of Ontario. That’s what we’re doing. We’re building Ontario up.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Acting Premier. Electricity isn’t a luxury, and it should not be priced like a luxury. By giving up the province’s majority stake in Hydro One, the Premier is guaranteeing that Ontario families will continue to see their hydro bills rise.

Why does the Premier want to drive up hydro bills for—

Interjection.

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

The Minister of Economic Development and Growth is warned.

Start the clock. Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Why does the Premier want to drive up hydro bills for families, businesses and municipalities?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and talk about Ontario’s Fair Hydro Plan today: on average, a 25% reduction for families, small businesses and farms. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? Those families that live in the Hydro One area are actually going to see a 40% to 50% reduction, thanks to our government’s plan.

Bringing forward our fair hydro plan is going to have significant reductions for families and businesses right across the province—unlike that party, which is telling unnecessarily wrong facts. When they talk about Hydro One and the broadening of ownership, everybody knows—from the media to folks on the street—that the Ontario Energy Board sets rates, not Hydro One. If they go to their website, they can actually learn about how the Ontario Energy Board sets rates for the province.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve brought forward a very comprehensive plan that will reduce—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, you’d better be.

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: How arrogant and out of touch do you have to be to completely ignore 80% of the people of this province, 80% of your constituents?

Can the Acting Premier explain to this House why, with no mandate at all and just a year away from being thrown out of office, the Premier insists on giving up majority control of our most valuable public asset?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, understanding the system would be important for that party over there. When it comes to the electricity system, the OEB sets rates. I know they have a hard time understanding that; I know it’s very difficult for them. Hydro One does not set rates.

We have brought forward a plan that is going to reduce rates by 25%, on average—

Laughter.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: And I know they can laugh about it, Mr. Speaker, but what we’ve made sure of is that families will see this reduction; that we can see families in remote and northern parts of our province seeing their rates reduced by 40% and 50%.

I know that they’re laughing on that side because one party has no plan for electricity, has no plan for the province, and on that side they have a plan that is pie in the sky and has no action of taking one cent off of bills.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All this government is doing is kicking their mess down to the next generation to pay for. That’s all they’re doing.

But you know what? It’s the same old story on repeat with this Premier. She puts the interest of her party and her powerful Liberal friends and insiders ahead of the interests of the people of this province, every single time. Why won’t this Premier stop looking out for the people at the top, stop her wrong-headed sell-off of Hydro One and finally show the people of Ontario the respect that they deserve?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Talking about dealing with messes, it was this government and this party that had to deal with the mess that was left by that party and that party. When they were actually in power decades ago, they left the system in a mess. We had to rebuild it. We spent $50 billion—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, you said nothing, I know. Sorry. I must be mistaken.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: And that’s why, when we’re bringing forward $2.8 billion from yesterday’s broadening of the ownership of Hydro One, we’re making sure that that $9.6 billion, which exceeded our targets—we’re going to make sure that we spend this money on paying down debt and investing in infrastructure in every part of this province. That’s what the people of Ontario asked for, and that’s what they’re getting.

Lobbyists

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the government House leader. There’s a one-year cooling-off period for ministerial staffers who leave government, which doesn’t go far enough. Staffers should not be permitted to lobby for any companies or organizations they had direct dealings with while in government. That’s regardless of whichever ministry the lobbying is directed at.

We saw what happened when the Minister of the Environment’s former chief of staff went motoring over to Tesla. In the same month, the government announced that lucrative subsidies for Tesla buyers were back. That certainly didn’t look right.

Mr. Speaker, will the government House leader help us close that loophole, or does he still want the Liberal revolving door to continue?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We have very strict rules when it comes to the requirements for lobbyists. As the Speaker will know, under the lobby registration, we have, in fact, enhanced those rules to ensure that any staff who works here, when they go into the private sector, the restriction that’s placed upon them to lobby the same ministry—those rules remain. If there is any opportunity for us to ensure that there are stricter rules in place, we always look at them. But the fact of the matter is that we have done a tremendous amount of work in making sure that our government is transparent and our government is accountable.

In fact, what we have seen is that, in most of those times, the opposition has opposed those initiatives. They have not supported those initiatives. We will continue to make sure that our focus remains on serving the people of Ontario. We’re not interested in the partisan games that they continue to play.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the government House leader: The saddest thing about the Liberal lobbyist revolving door is a lack of accountability. Integrity Commissioner investigations involving ministerial staff are publicly unavailable. These investigations, which review cases such as conflicts of interest, should be transparent and made public.

It’s unacceptable that the commissioner’s report currently can be stuffed away on a minister’s desk. Ministers shouldn’t decide if the information is made public. It should be a legislative requirement. Will the government House leader commit to ending this secrecy by making the results of those investigations public? Yes or no?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think our Integrity Commissioner does a very good and thorough job when it comes to investigating matters. I have the opportunity to sit on the Board of Internal Economy. I have had the chance to meet with the Integrity Commissioner, as other members from all parties on that board have as well. He continues to talk about how he is investing more resources in ensuring that lobbyist registration and all of the accountability associated with the legislation is fully met.

But clearly, this line of questioning is nothing but a distraction tactic from the opposition, because they don’t want to talk about a very good budget that is going to build a stronger and healthier Ontario. They don’t want to talk about—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Conservatives do not want to talk about how we are making medicine free for children under 25 years old, how we are lowering electricity bills by 25%, how we have a fair housing plan that is going to make housing more affordable—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last year, the Premier admitted that her hydro policies were a mistake, but she refused to do anything to correct those mistakes. In fact, she’s now doubling down on her biggest mistake: She’s ignoring the people of Ontario and selling off a final piece of Hydro One, Ontario’s oldest and most important public asset.

Why does the Premier care more about serving the interests of her friends on Bay Street and not the interests of the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Let’s go back to November when the Premier did stand up and apologize for decades of mistakes made by all governments that kicked the electricity file to the curb.

We had to act. We had to rebuild the system. It cost us $50 billion to do that. But you know what we have now? A system that is clean, a system that is reliable and a system that doesn’t rely on coal—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We rebuilt that system and we recognize that it came with a cost. So what we did is we brought forward the fair hydro plan which actually reduces everyone’s rates in this province by up to 25%, on average. That is something that is a benefit for everyone.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: After this final sale, the people of Ontario will no longer have majority ownership of Hydro One. The Premier has sold off the ability of the people of this province to control their hydro system. From now on, Hydro One will focus on private profit, not on the public interest.

Speaker, through you to the Deputy Premier, how does it feel to be part of a government that has finally killed off Sir Adam Beck’s legacy of public power in Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Adam Beck’s legacy is alive and well with OPG. We’re continuing to make sure that the Beck generating station produces significant power for this province.

Again, it shows that this party has no idea—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re getting there.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: They have no idea how the system works.

And you know what? We’re making sure that the investments that we’re getting from the broadening of ownership of Hydro One will be going into infrastructure investments right across the province now.

You know what is also happening now? A 17% reduction on electricity bills right across the province thanks to our Ontario fair hydro plan. We’ve got more coming, and that will help those families, businesses and farms right across our great province.

Infrastructure program funding

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. On this side of the House, we know that infrastructure is about improving the lives of everyday Ontarians by investing in their future.

That is why I’m proud that our government is making the largest investment in critical public infrastructure in this province’s history. For the first time in 10 years, our province’s budget is balanced, meaning more money is available to build schools, hospitals, transit and child care spaces.

I know that the long-term infrastructure plan, which will help manage our historic investment, is coming later this year, but while we double down on our commitment to build Ontario up, the Leader of the Opposition continues to make downright irresponsible statements about how he would manage our infrastructure.

My question for the minister: Can he please explain the importance of making smart long-term investments in infrastructure?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. We’ve demonstrated that our government is a sound infrastructure manager, and a balanced budget gives us even more opportunity to invest in Ontario. We are doing just that, by investing $190 billion over 13 years. We have shovels in the ground building $14 billion worth of major projects and are procuring an additional $12 billion worth.

But this is all lost on the Leader of the Opposition, who has stated repeatedly that he does not believe governments should be planning projects beyond their mandate. His ill-informed policy means no proper asset management and no planning for the needs of our kids and our grandkids. This is not what any government should want for its people, and it’s not what Ontarians deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My thanks to the minister for his response. It is baffling to me how anyone putting themselves forward to shape the future of our province could peddle an approach to infrastructure that ignores best practice. It’s incredibly short-sighted and would be a disservice to future generations that need government to make smart long-term decisions, not ones that are politically expedient.

Unlike the parties opposite, our government knows the value of strategic planning. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we have a plan to build those $12 million worth of projects in the pipeline—critical health care and transportation projects he may very well ignore if he is elected.

The facts clearly demonstrate our investments are working, sustaining jobs and creating real growth in the economy. My question to the minister is, could he please share the positive impacts a responsible long-term plan such as ours has on our province?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Thank you, Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition incorrectly criticizes us for not getting shovels in the ground, but the facts speak for themselves. We have undertaken 100 major hospital projects and expanded our colleges and universities. Our investments support over 100,000 jobs per year. Every dollar invested improves quality of life and creates up to $6 in GDP.

When the Leader of the Opposition states that we shouldn’t be investing in projects outside of our mandate, he is saying that we shouldn’t be planning for hospitals in Fergus, Brockville and Toronto. When he makes statements like that, he demonstrates his lack of understanding and inability to manage the province’s infrastructure. Frankly, Speaker, if he doesn’t understand that, then he shouldn’t be in the running to manage a $190-billion investment fund for Ontario’s future.

Hydro rates

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Minister of Energy this morning. Liberal after Liberal has said in this House that rates wouldn’t go up after Hydro One was sold. But the minister knows that Hydro One has a major rate increase planned for its distribution companies. So what did he do? The minister decided to sell the biggest stake in the company yet last night.

Was the job of managing Hydro One too difficult for the minister? Or was he just trying to escape blame for all the new rate increases that are on the way?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: What we are doing on this side of the House is making sure that we invest $2.8 billion in infrastructure and pay off debt. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House and that’s what governments do, unlike on that side of the House where they actually—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: On that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, they talk about plans. I know we’re—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Thornhill is warned, right after I warned somebody.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: They talk about plans, and that’s all they do. They don’t write one. They don’t promote them. But what they did do in 2012 was write a white paper. You know what they said in that white paper, Mr. Speaker? Their white paper on energy policy specifically suggests opening Hydro One to investment.

The goal is to create more efficient companies that are not entirely reliant on public money. The wind is changing today. I wonder where they’re going to be later on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can see the Premier hasn’t taught her parrot any new lines today.

Back to the minister—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw, and I’m not happy with that.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’ll withdraw that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now you may finish.

Mr. Todd Smith: What we have here is massive compensation increases at Hydro One, we have brand new rate hikes that are on the way and we have big Bay Street bonanzas that went ahead last night. The minister is once again more interested in making money for the people sending the hydro bills than he is in protecting the people who are receiving the hydro bills. What he’s done with his plan is to add an extra $25 billion in interest onto the ratepayer base for electricity customers in Ontario.

Will the minister do the right thing for once and cancel the final sale of Hydro One shares?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Let’s finish what that white paper said. The white paper even goes as far to recognize that consumer prices would continue to be regulated by—guess who? The Ontario Energy Board. So obviously they know it, or they try to forget it, like their plan.

But we’re going to continue to find ways to reduce rates. That 25% is coming; we have 17% now. They have no plan. They have no idea what to do with electricity, no idea what to do with the province. And when asked by the media where his plan was, he laughed. He thought it was funny. The only thing that’s a joke in this province is that party.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I think, really, what’s important here is that all of you listen to yourselves—all of you. This is very difficult to do as a solo act. Look inside.

You’re finished.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

Affordable housing

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday I toured a Toronto Community Housing building on Bleecker Street. What I saw was nothing short of heartbreaking: shattered windows, floors completely torn up, bathrooms and kitchens in disrepair, mould and damage from one end of the apartment to the other. Toronto Community Housing said that it will take until January for this particular apartment to be made livable again, yet in this year’s budget the Liberals offered a grand total of zero dollars for urgent repairs to units like this one. Does the Premier not care about families struggling to find a place to live?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Housing.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Ontarians expect their government to work hard for them to build vibrant, safe and affordable neighbourhoods where they can raise their families and put down their roots. That’s why this government has increased funding year over year, demonstrating our commitment to building and preserving a fair society where everyone benefits.

Over the next three years Ontario will invest $600 million in affordable and sustainable housing in the city of Toronto. This includes $340 million alone for homelessness prevention, $130 million to expand affordable housing and today we announced $100 million in land. We get it. We’re investing in housing in Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the minister has just acknowledged is that this government has no intention whatsoever of helping municipalities to deal with the repair backlogs that are crippling them and preventing them from allowing people to live in those desperately needed units. In Toronto there are 181,000 families on the affordable housing wait-list. In my hometown of Hamilton, there are 6,000 families waiting. In Durham region, it’s 5,400 families waiting.

Even with these staggering wait-lists, cities and municipalities are forced to shutter affordable housing units because they have no money to make the repairs needed for them to be livable again. Can the Acting Premier explain how the Liberal government has allowed the repair backlog to get so bad, and why they have abandoned families who are desperate for a safe and affordable roof over their heads?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Let me just continue on to demonstrate how seriously this province takes its investment in city housing. The investments that I outlined in my initial statement build on the $1.4 billion that Ontario has already invested toward housing and homelessness programs in the city of Toronto. This year, Ontario has also contributed $43 million to the city of Toronto for those repairs and retrofits that I’m hearing so much about. It’s as if the leader of the third party doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get the fact that this province is investing billions of dollars in housing across Ontario and billions in the city of Toronto.

Nurses

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We know that nurses play a very valuable role in Ontario’s health care system. In my riding of Kitchener Centre we see this every day, where the dedicated nursing staff working at Grand River Hospital, St. Mary’s General Hospital, long-term-care facilities and community health centres dedicate their lives to helping others. Every day nurses support patients right across the province by providing high-quality care in hospitals, long-term-care homes, hospices, home and community care.

Their knowledge, work ethic and dedication to this profession are exemplified every day through the high-quality, compassionate care that they provide.

This week is Nursing Week in Ontario and this week we celebrate all of the hard-working nurses across the province of Ontario. Could the minister please join me in acknowledging all of the nurses right across Ontario during Nursing Week?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Kitchener Centre for this important question.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to thank the more than 140,000 nurses who work day in and day out, to the best of their abilities, providing the highest quality of care. I thanked them yesterday, but since it is Nursing Week, I want to thank them again today. In fact, we can never thank our nurses enough for the work that they do. Thank you to the member opposite.

The member is absolutely right that nurses across this province work so hard every single day to provide high-quality care to patients across this province. Today I am so proud to stand and thank all nurses in Ontario for the critically important work that they do. Together with nurses and the associations that represent them, we have made great progress.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to thank the minister for his response and for his dedication to working with nurses across the province. In fact, on this side of the House, I believe we have two nurses among our ranks and I’d like to thank them for the work they do.

Applause.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Yes.

As part of Nursing Week, I will be taking

part in Take Your MPP to Work day. Since 2001, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario has reached out to MPPs across the province to give us an up-close and personal view of the skills required to take care of patients in a variety of work environments. For the past 17 years, MPPs have visited registered nurses in diverse settings such as hospitals, family health teams, community health centres and post-secondary institutions. I look forward to working with the hard-working staff at a Schlegel Villages long-term-care facility at the end of the month.

Could the minister please speak to the investments our government is making to support Ontario nurses?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Since this government took office in 2003, there are almost 30,000 more nurses employed in this province. In fact, the number of nurses employed has increased every single year for 12 years in a row. In the 2017 budget, we’re proposing an additional $145 million over the next three years to help with the recruitment and retention of nurses. That’s in addition to another $15 million to expand interprofessional care teams across Ontario.

I’m so pleased with this investment, as are our nursing organizations. The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario speaks to the $15 million for interprofessional teams, saying that it’s welcome news, as is the pledge to increase by $145 million compensation for primary care professionals, including nurse practitioners and RNs.

Labour unions

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Ontario workers have the right to decide which union they belong to. Recently, members of ATU Local 113 tried to exercise that right. What happened when they did? They had a US-based foreign union put their Canadian union into trusteeship and seize their Canadian assets in order to quell dissent. Why isn’t this government acting to prevent foreign takeovers of Ontario unions?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Needless to say, I’m surprised by the question. I will clearly admit that, Speaker. I think there must be pigs flying out there right now as well.

But certainly standing up for the people of Ontario—the question, I know, is a good question, and I understand the circumstances. The labour relations regime in the province of Ontario is second to none. We have organized labour that works with government, we have business that works with government, and these rules have come about because of the efforts of organized labour and people working out their issues in the workplace together.

We’re taking a look at the labour relations regime in the province of Ontario under the Changing Workplaces Review. I’m expecting to get some excellent advice and to be able to share that advice—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve let it go enough. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

A wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker. The labour relations regime in the province of Ontario is healthy, and I expect that, as a result of the Changing Workplaces Review, it’s going to get even—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Minister of Labour: My question was about foreign-backed takeovers. I did not get an answer, and hopefully this time we will.

Local 113 was locked out of their office by the foreign-backed ATU. Their leadership put it this way: “This is an outright attack. It’s an invasion on our autonomy as Canadians and Canadian workers.” Where has this government stood while 11,000 Local 113 members are in turmoil? They’ve been absent, they’ve been silent and they have removed themselves from this debate.

Mr. Speaker, when will this government stick up for our Ontario and Canadian union members against foreign-backed attack? Will they help? Will they stand up? Yes or no?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: This government has an excellent relationship with organized labour in the province of Ontario. It’s a two-way street. When they bring information forward, when they bring ideas forward, they are listened to.

This is coming from a party that on the order docket in this House has a private member’s bill that wants to ban card-based certification in the province of Ontario. They stand up here and try to lecture us on labour relations? The member should be ashamed of himself.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today, Community Living Ontario is here, lobbying on behalf of thousands of Ontario families and their support workers who have needed help desperately from this government for years. They are still waiting.

Abdullah Yar Khan, for instance: Abdullah is 16, from my community of Windsor. Abdullah has severe autism and is unable to communicate his needs. He has been excluded from school because of a lack of supports in the education system. His parents, with their own health issues, struggle with his care. They don’t receive support or respite during school hours, even though Abdullah isn’t allowed to attend school.

What funding, direct programming or direct support does the Wynne government have in place for Abdullah and his parents?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you for the question. I want to talk a little bit about the new Ontario autism program that we’ll be bringing forward quite shortly, a year before it was initially planned. We’re going to go into full implementation in 2018.

This plan will create 16,000 new spots. It will create the amount of spaces for ABA during that transition, reduce wait times to six months or less and increase access to early diagnosis. Also, it will provide children and young people, regardless of age, with more flexible services based on their unique needs.

We’re investing over half a billion dollars over the next five years for services to deliver programs that I think parents and young people here in the province can be proud of.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the Acting Premier: According to Community Living Ontario, the money announced in this budget will only work towards stabilizing workforce funding—badly neglected and in need of fixing, but actually promised back in 2014.

Millions of dollars in base funding increases are needed. What’s needed is help for Abdullah and his parents.

It’s not just Abdullah, Speaker. Thousands of desperate parents of aging children, fast becoming adults with developmental disabilities, need supportive housing and programs. What does the Wynne government have to stay to Abdullah’s mom, Shabana, and Mary Beth Rocheleau and Michelle Helou and Shirley Knight and the thousands of other parents in this province who are not receiving the services that they need for their children? What are you doing for other Ontario families in this province?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Michael Coteau: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’m so glad to have this opportunity to thank all the members of the Community Living agencies who are here with us today, because we know that they are a very important partner with our government in terms of delivering services—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Keep it up. The member from Hamilton Mountain is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: They are our very valuable partners as we transform the system that we have currently in Ontario to serve those with developmental disabilities.

We had an unprecedented $810-million increase to the budget over the last three years. This is why I’m so pleased, and I’m sure the member opposite will be supporting our proposed budget this year, wherein we will be providing $677 million for—

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

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is for the Honourable Kevin Flynn, Minister of Labour. Minister, as you well know, post-traumatic stress disorder—known, of course, to physicians as PTSD—is a significant risk to the health and well-being of people working in certain occupations who regularly face or are affected by traumatic situations. I understand we have a number of our first responders and our security forces here. I would like to welcome them in advance.

Mental health in the workplace is an issue that demands the attention of everyone: government, the stewards of our Legislature, employers, employees, unions, and so on. This is an especially important issue for our first responders, who, as I said, have to deal with these daily stresses. Can the minister please describe what we have done to offer PTSD support for our first responders?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that very, very important question. It was about a year ago—a little over a year ago—that this House, to its credit, unanimously passed Bill 163. It’s a testament, I think, to the ability of this House to work together in order to honour the work that’s done by some of the people who have joined us in the House today.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is an issue that hasn’t been talked about in the past in the way it should have been, and hasn’t been treated in the way that it should have been in the past. Some of the first responders today from the OPPA, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, were so instrumental in ensuring that the government, the opposition party and the third party listened to the concerns that they had about their membership, what their membership was going through and the remedies that were needed. I want to thank them fo