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

September 18, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Sep-18 (PDF)

L059 - Wed 18 Sep 2013 / Mer 18 sep 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 18 September 2013 Mercredi 18 septembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

TRANSIT ACCIDENT IN OTTAWA

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

PUBLIC TRANSIT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RECYCLING

PUBLIC TRANSIT

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DRIVE CLEAN

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PENSION PLANS

PENSION PLANS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DISASTERS IN ALGOMA–MANITOULIN

SCARBOROUGH

MICHAEL MCGLYNN

STUDENT SAFETY

LAW SCHOOL IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

RENEWABLE ENERGY

EVENTS IN CLAREMONT

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE GROWERS

BALL CONSTRUCTION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(MINOR ACCIDENTS

AND NEW DRIVERS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ASSURANCES

(ACCIDENTS MINEURS

ET NOUVEAUX CONDUCTEURS)

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS

ELECTION ADVERTISING

TRANSPARENCY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DE LA PUBLICITÉ ÉLECTORALE

DES GROUPES D’INTÉRÊT PARTICULIER

SENCHURA HOLDINGS LTD. ACT, 2013

ARCHIVES AND RECORDKEEPING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ARCHIVES PUBLIQUES

ET LA CONSERVATION DES DOCUMENTS

PROTECTING STUDENTS

ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 PROTÉGEANT

LES ÉLÈVES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS

HOME INSPECTORS

TEACHERS

HOME INSPECTORS

TEACHERS

HOME INSPECTORS

PETITIONS

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

FAMILY SAFETY

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

AIR-RAIL LINK

LONG-TERM CARE

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

FISHING AND HUNTING REGULATIONS

HYDRO RATES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TIRE DISPOSAL

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

OPPOSITION DAY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 12, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver, critically ill child care and crime-related child death or disappearance leaves of absence / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne le congé familial pour les aidants naturels, le congé pour soins à un enfant gravement malade et le congé en cas de décès ou de disparition d’un enfant dans des circonstances criminelles.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Good morning, Speaker, and thank you very much for allowing me to speak to Bill 21, the family caregiver leave act.

I believe there was a previous incarnation of this bill, Bill 30, back before the infamous prorogation of 2012. However, the government seems to have fit this one into its list of priorities to bring back—interesting. I was really hopeful that there would be an economic development bill or something before the House this morning.

The Premier was in Mitchell yesterday, as were a lot of other political leaders. Not that I’m a political leader, but I was there too.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, they certainly will, I say to the Attorney General.

It is pretty clear that people are looking for some action, here in the province of Ontario, when it comes to our economy.

This bill, while it’s a bill we support, really is a vacuous piece of legislation; there’s not much in it. It does allow for up to eight weeks of unpaid—I want to stress that—up to eight weeks of unpaid leave. It also states that they must take that time in increments of not less than one week.

Now, there are all kinds of problems with this bill. At the same time, we are supporting it because we want to see this get to committee—although, I must say, what committee is it going to get to, because all the committees are jammed up right now? But we do want to see this bill get to committee, so that whatever improvements can be made will be made. Hopefully, the government will co-operate on some of those changes.

The

part I was talking about, the requirement that all leave must be taken in increments of not less than one week: If anybody has ever been dealing with someone who is suffering from cancer, battling cancer, and has to go on a regular basis for treatments—I recall my brother-in-law many years ago; he did pass away from cancer, but over periods of time he had to go daily from Barry’s Bay to Ottawa for treatments, and back, of course, on the same day.

Having had the ability to take weeks at a time would not have been very helpful to anybody who was helping Eric with his treatments. However, being able to take a day here and a day there would have been far more workable in that situation. So that’s an issue that I think the government might want to take a look at in this bill.

But the fundamental problem in the bill is one that I’ve heard my friends from the third party talk about over and over again, and I have spoken about it here as well in the context of a two-minute hit question-and-comment response, is that this is all lovely stuff, I say to the member from Peterborough; not Mitchell, the member from Peterborough—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Minister of Rural Affairs is having a conversation there—he’s not bothering me—with the Minister of Correctional Services. They’re not bothering me, but from time to time they do try to take me off my topic. Not today, though.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. I can’t hear the member.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Am I still on, Speaker? Thank you.

The fundamental problem, as I said, is that they came out with this bill, they want to appear to be doing something very, very kind and nice for people, but they don’t let their money do the talking. They throw the bill out there, but they want employers and everyone else to absorb any of the challenges.

Now, to be fair—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: No, it’s unpaid.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, you still have to replace workers, I say to the Minister of—Consumer Services, is it?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You still have to replace workers. If you’re in a very small business—I was in a small business for many years, and I recognize that if one of your key people was off for a period of time, you had to replace them. At the same time—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m glad you two are having a conversation amongst yourselves.

Remember me? We’ll go through the Chair, won’t we? Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not only do I remember you, Speaker, I will never forget you.

I say to the minister, through you, Speaker, that in the case of a key employee, I would have made every effort to ensure—in fact, I would have made sure—that that job was there for them, because in a small business, your key employees are like family. So when they’re suffering, you’re suffering too. So I might ask the question, then what’s the need of the legislation if you’re also relying on the goodwill of employers?

But what you’re doing is trying to throw something out there and portray it as something it’s not. You should be working with the federal government to come up with a piece of legislation that is supported by them, is coordinated with them through the Employment Insurance Act, so that it functions seamlessly.

It’s okay for you to throw this out there and say, “Let’s be nice to people who have family challenges,” or—there are many, many different circumstances; I understand this and I won’t articulate them all, because we don’t really have enough time. But there are a number of circumstances in which this bill applies, not just for people who are ill, but there are other circumstances, where a child has been a victim of a crime etc. It’s a laudable goal from that perspective.

However, again, here’s this Liberal government who has no problem spending money, because—good lord, Speaker, they’ve got us so far in the hole, I can’t even see the light at the top. We’re so far down there, we can’t even see the light. I hope that some day soon—and that’s a little cowboy song, “Someday Soon”—you people over there actually see the light and recognize what a disaster you have perpetrated on the province and the people who live here in Ontario.

I hope that you change your tune so that your complete commitment to deficit financing at the expense of—you know, this family caregiver leave act is about taking care of others. What the heck have you done to our children and our grandchildren? What kind of Ontario are you leaving them? That’s what I ask you. Why aren’t you doing something to ensure that the next generation has an Ontario they can be proud of, one where they get up in the morning and know that they have a good job to go to? That’s what you should be thinking about here in the province of Ontario, you folks over there on the other side.

You shouldn’t be bringing out this smug piece of legislation to try to make yourselves look good; you should do something that’s going to make it good for the people who come after us, for our children, our grandchildren, who are going to be struggling down the road because of the decisions that you have made as part of this McGuinty-Wynne alliance. It is destroying Ontario.

Back to the bill. For somebody who has no problem spending $126 billion, you’d think you could come up with something to back your fancy schmancy little bill here with a few bucks. But no, not a nickel, not even a penny. They’ve got money. Hey, maybe Monique Smith would do that job in Washington gratis. Yeah, maybe she’d do that as public service, that job in Washington, not take the $250,000, where she’s gonna be livin’ high off the hog, a sweet little appointment.

Take care of Kathleen Wynne; she’ll take care of you. That’s called quid pro quo, making a job in Washington that we don’t need. It’s sort of like those windmills that you guys want to keep building. You’re paying people now to not produce power for power that we don’t need and never will need and can’t afford, but you’re leaving that as the legacy for the people of Ontario. Shame on you.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: Wow. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I’m always pleased to follow the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and his dynamic performances in this House. He really did make some good points; I have to give him that. It’s not very often that I can agree with a Conservative in this House, but we would not be debating this bill—because we’ve already debated it—if the members opposite had not prorogued this government last year.

We are wasting time in this House bringing forward bills that we have already debated for hours and hours. We have several issues in front of this House that could be coming back here with importance, like jobs. How are we getting our people in this province to work? This is a great small initiative, but what are families going to do when they have to take an unpaid leave to take care of their loved ones? Most families in this province are living from paycheque to paycheque, and here we are, saying, “Here you go.

We’ll keep your job safe,” which is a good thing, and I’m sure they’d appreciate it, but how are they going to make sure that they have travel costs to get to and from where they need to be, especially with our folks in northern parts of the province that don’t have the hospital facilities and the clinics that they need close to them?

There’s a lot more that could go into this bill. It would be great to see the cousins of the members here bring forward EI that could be established with this to make it sustainable for families so that they really can wholeheartedly care for their loved ones without having to worry about where they’re going to get that money to pay the mortgage that month, to pay all of their outstanding debts that will still continue during that time.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: I always enjoy listening to my fellow colleague from eastern Ontario. He obviously had a bad day yesterday at the International Plowing Match for the attitude that he’s showing here today.

What we have here is a filibuster in every respect. Let me give you some facts, Speaker. Five bills have gone over six and a half hours, as suggested by standing order 47 that the average bill should have: air ambulance, 19 hours; non-profit housing co-ops, almost 16 hours; Local Food Act, 20.5 hours; Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, almost 19 hours; the budget, 25.5 hours. What does it mean? The Tories are filibustering and do not want to let the business of Ontario take place in this Legislature.

Now, if they stop filibustering and pass this bill that they’re going to support—let me just give you the number of bills that are currently on the order paper that could be discussed, very important bills: one dealing with the Great Lakes act; highway traffic statute law; the Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act; the Wireless Services Agreement Act, the cellphones—everybody’s concerned about that; the Protection of Public Participation Act, the anti-SLAPP legislation that everybody is in favour of, that I’ve heard about; the Companies Statute Law Amendment Act; the Waste Reduction Act, so that we can increase the amount of recycling that we do in this province.

All of this could be accomplished if the Conservative Party stops filibustering.

Stop filibustering those bills that you agree with. Let’s get on with the business that the people of Ontario want us to get on with, and do not filibuster and have this Legislature come to a complete standstill.

Interjections.

Hon. John Gerretsen: You know what you’re doing, and it’s wrong.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus in this chamber, and also to follow my seatmate and very good friend, the MPP for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I appreciate the comments by my colleagues from the third party. I do take exception, however, with the characterizations by the Attorney General. We both come from eastern Ontario and I expect that he would actually come to this assembly and he would communicate—

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’m deeply hurt.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Well, I’m deeply hurt as well, Minister, because here is the situation: The government may want to talk about filibustering and delays but it wasn’t the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party that prorogued this assembly for five months, that basically put a padlock on those doors so we couldn’t do our work, and when challenged, we find private emails from the Ontario Liberal Party that say the priority for the government of the time was to shut us down so we could stop looking at the power plants, in which they’ve lost $1 billion, and in which they suggested that it was more important for them to have a leadership than it was to actually govern this province.

If we want to talk about passing legislation and if we want to talk about making this province better for the people who live there, then I would humbly suggest to the members opposite that they would have challenged their Premier at the time, and their current Premier, and have said that we must sit in this assembly, but they chose not to.

Many pieces of legislation died on the order paper. Many pieces of legislation were delayed, they had to be reintroduced, and at the time we were unable, as members of the opposition, to probe this government. So simply put, my seatmate, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, has simply brought up all of those challenges that we have faced and he has put them into context as a result of what this bill does not do.

We will support this bill but I assure you, Speaker, this is something that could have been done much more quickly had this government stopped obstructing the ability for members of the opposition to do their job.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m very pleased to speak after my dear friend from Pembroke. I really enjoyed his performance yesterday; I know he had a bad day yesterday. He fell down the wagon at the plowing match, so that’s why he’s very agitated today.

But still, I think that it’s about time that we vote on this bill because there are very good bills that are waiting to be debated. As the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services—and the Ombudsman is very public about it. He wants us to pass Bill 51, the Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act. I know that my friend was a great contributor to the amendments to this bill, and I thank him for that. He’s very supportive of it.

I’d like us to go on with this bill because we have also Bill 6, the Great Lakes act, that we need to debate in this House and that we need to pass. We have the good bill, Bill 60, the Wireless Services Agreements Act. It’s important that we vote on that one, because right now our constituents are paying because of this action that is going on in the House. They would like us to debate that bill and pass that bill. We also have the Protection of Public Participation Act, Bill 83, a bill from the AG.

Hon. John Gerretsen: It’s a great bill.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It’s a great bill, and we would like this to be debated in the House—a short debate and pass this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has two minutes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain, the Attorney General, the member for Nepean–Carleton and the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

I thank the member from Hamilton Mountain for her kind words. We don’t agree on everything, but we agree on some portions of what we’ve talked about in this bill.

I actually had a really good day yesterday at the plowing match, but I do want to say to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Attorney General that the air ambulance bill—19 hours. I know you think that’s a lot of time. Is that enough time to talk about the billion dollars you people have wasted on the Ornge scandal? Is that too much time to talk about what you have cost the people of this province and the lives that have been lost by mistakes of the Ornge ambulance operation and the lives that have been put in jeopardy? I know one in my riding that was directly related to the failures of Ornge, and you want to talk less about it? I can see why.

As for the Minister of Correctional Services talking about Bill 60, the wireless bill, and how people are unhappy with cell phone costs, I’ll tell you what our people are unhappy with as well: hydro costs. What are you doing about it? Have you got a bill to do something about hydro costs? No. Do you know what you’re doing? You’re going to build 5,000 more megawatts of wind. We don’t have a market for the wind they’re producing now. We’re going to pay them to not produce it—pay them for producing nothing—but you want to keep building more.

Speaker, if doing something is a losing proposition, most people figure out that they should stop doing that, but this government? No. They’re locked into their philosophy; they’re locked into their ideology, and it’s the people of the province of Ontario who are paying and paying and will continue to pay until they figure it out.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to rise in this House to talk about Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver, critically ill child care and crime-related child death or disappearance leaves of absence. It’s an interesting bill title, Mr. Speaker.

But before I begin, I want to suggest that I was also at the International Plowing Match yesterday. It seemed that the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke had a great time. Certainly I had a great time with the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. When Liberal caucus members talk about their time, being protested by the folks who don’t like the wind turbines that they’re putting in and erecting—dividing communities—following their float all along, I would suggest that it’s probably my colleagues across the aisle who didn’t have quite a good time at the International Plowing Match, Mr. Speaker.

I’m always amazed when Liberal members come up and talk about this concept of a filibuster, and then they use not only their allotted time to respond to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, but go over that time. They had four minutes, and then extended that. If you think that we should move on with bills, maybe you should avoid talking to them. But that is obviously your prerogative, and I feel very proud that members of our caucus do want to debate bills, and we represent our constituents when we do that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my comments today based on a personal experience that I had earlier in April. As some members of this Legislature know, my wife and I, in April, gave birth to our third child. It was obviously a joyous occasion, but shortly after the birth of our child, my wife actually got really, really sick in the post-labour days. In fact, we got home on Saturday, and she was readmitted to hospital the Monday following, and spent five days in intensive care with a very serious and life-threatening medical condition. She had a blood infection that was very, very serious.

I preface my remarks today with that little story because obviously I think a lot of people might have noticed my absence, particularly on my side of the aisle, and might have thought that I was taking a babymoon of sorts and taking some time to spend with my child. I actually was, because my child didn’t have any other parent to look after him other than myself. So we did spend some time at the hospital. Obviously, I took care of the newborn while my wife was recovering, and she spent some time thereafter trying to take care of herself. After she was released from the hospital, she spent many weeks recovering from her condition, and it was a very serious time.

I remember talking at length with my whip, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Sometimes he likes to show that he has an iron fist and rules with an iron fist, but we actually call him, on this side of the aisle, the miracle whip, because he can pull off some fantastic things and ensure that work gets done in this Legislature.

I actually remember coming to the Legislature one day. We both didn’t have a chance to communicate, and on his trip home to Barry’s Bay and my trip back to Cambridge, we both spent some time talking about the situation that my wife was in. Obviously, he didn’t know the extent of what was going on at home. I remember talking about it, because he actually related to the scenario that my wife was going through because his daughter had meningitis, I believe, and we were talking about the links there.

I say that because when I remember that episode in my family’s life, I remember the care and compassion that the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke showed to myself and to my wife. Also, the Leader of the Opposition himself and Deb were very helpful and they actually provided us with a couple of meals to take home. I thank the Leader of the Opposition and Deb Hutton for that because it’s that care and compassion that I experienced.

So when I wanted to rise in this Legislature today to talk about this bill, I wanted to reference that, because I think people in those situations and those scenarios have to, obviously, understand what people go through in those moments—a very emotional time, a time where you don’t know what’s going to happen the next day. Those are very serious moments.

I think that any person, in the scenario or condition that I was in, going to their employer and saying, “Hey, I need to take a little bit of time off because I’m dealing with something very serious at home”—I think most compassionate employers in the province of Ontario would obviously grant that wish. I’d be very hopeful that the kindness and generosity of our province and the people of our province would show that kindness and that generosity to their workers.

So when I think about that episode and about how this team, my PC colleagues, rallied around myself at that time of critical need, I’m very proud to be part of this team, for sure, and blessed. They rallied, and I think that most Ontarians, when faced with one of their colleagues in a very serious moment in their life, would do the same thing.

I wonder, after considering that, what the net effect of this legislation would actually be. Given that I do believe that most employers and most people in the province of Ontario are very compassionate and that they would obviously do anything they can to help out one of their friends, one of their colleagues out, the question is, do we actually need legislation like this, to essentially provide up to eight weeks of unpaid leave for people? Wouldn’t that almost be automatic? I want to preface my remarks by saying that. What would be the net effect of this bill once this legislation passes?

Are we going to see a groundswell of people taking advantage of something that common sense would dictate already exists? I think we have to understand that. We spend a lot of time debating the bills, because what is the repercussion that we’re going to see? What are the consequences, what are the externalities that we have to think about when we’re debating these pieces of legislation?

I obviously have a lot of faith in the people of Ontario, a lot of faith in our employers, and I have a lot of faith in people whose colleagues might be facing a very serious and potentially traumatic period in their lives. So I wonder what the net effect of this bill is going to be on people’s lives. I have a suspicion that the net effect probably won’t be as great as the bill intends. This is a feel-good bill. Does it have any teeth to it? The answer is probably no.

When we first debated this bill many, many months ago, the question was this: They can take the time off, but are they going to get paid? And if you’re not going to get paid, are you going to take the time off? It’s certainly one of those questions and considerations that would come forth, and I can just see the lineup of constituents once this bill passes, saying, “Well, we’re entitled to this eight weeks but I have a hydro bill at home that I have to pay. I have—obviously, perhaps—to get myself to the hospital or to the place where my loved one has fallen ill. How am I going to pay for that? How am I going to sustain myself?”

These are obviously very critical questions that this bill does not address. I think, in people’s time of need, they’re not really thinking about, “Well, I need to pay a bill.” They want to obviously support and be supportive of their loved ones, but these are questions that I’m sure will come after the experience, after the moment passes and they realize that after eight weeks of taking care of a loved one, they can’t pay their bills. I think that’s just going to cause a lot of angst amongst people.

They’re going to say that they have this leave that they can take, but without the strings that will enable them to take that leave, I think a lot of people will be left disappointed, thinking that we’ve passed this feel-good legislation without the necessary tools, without the mechanism by which we can actually achieve the results this bill attempts to do.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe that certainly the bill has merit. It’s a feel-good piece of legislation but I don’t know if the net effect is going to be positive or negative.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: All my best to your family, to the member from Cambridge. I hope that your wife is doing well and that your children are happy and healthy and that your life has somewhat been able to get back to some normal ground. All the best to you.

You raised some things that caught my ear about employers and their compassion. Yes, if it was a perfect world, employers would say, “It’s okay, go and deal with your family.” But unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. I worked in a sector in hospitality where it was more than often that I had the boss who, first of all, wouldn’t have told me my rights under the Employment Standards Act, which this would amend, and they wouldn’t have saved my job for me. So this little piece is important when it comes to that.

I also have to say, what would I do without a paycheque at the same time? That’s where we need to make sure we’re lobbying the federal government on this piece of legislation to try to get EI attached to it so that families can take care of their family clear-headedly, knowing that at least they don’t have to worry for their bills, that at least they will be able to pay the hydro bill, hopefully. Something has to be attached to it, because I’m quite sure that when you were taking care of your family, the last thing you wanted to worry about was, “Am I going to be able to pay my bills?”

We all know that you’re probably—most likely—in a position that you wouldn’t have to worry about that, but there are so many families out there that do have to worry about that. They’re living paycheque to paycheque, and they don’t know how they’re going to pay that bill.

I hope we can get this off to committee, put some more teeth in it and make sure that it really does help the people of this province.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to commend the member from Cambridge for some very thoughtful comments this morning, articulated really well.

I just want to share a real-life example, and I talked about it last week. A teaching colleague of my wife’s in Peterborough, at St. Patrick school, had a sister in Grafton, Ontario, suffering from bone cancer. She wanted to come to Peterborough to access PRHC, because of the radiation bunker, which provides some alleviation of the severe pain that one has with bone cancer.

The family, including the colleague of my wife, took some time off. The sister was moved to her home in Peterborough, because the extended family was in Lakefield, Ontario, close by to Peterborough. They had made the decision to have all the family together at this individual’s home in Peterborough. This person passed away a day ago. She was also a teacher at the Catholic school in Grafton.

It was the opportunity to take some time off, to have the family all there together in the home in Peterborough, and all the members were able to come together. They had set up a

schedule where the sister would not be left alone, on a 24/7 basis; they were there every day to be with her.

Obviously, when this bill reaches committee, we can have a discussion about time off, the eight weeks. I know that for this particular family, having that opportunity to be with a wife, an aunt, a cousin—it was very precious time, as the end was near.

If this bill gives that opportunity for families right across the province of Ontario, I think that can be looked at as a very good piece of legislation.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to rise, out of respect for the comments made by the member from Cambridge. Dr. Leone and his family have just recently had a little child. He explained in his remarks how these things affect each of our lives and, in fact, the lives of our constituents.

I think the health care system is a good place to start on this, because often these needs of individual families—last week, I had people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis here to speak to the Minister of Health. These are people who are slowly being suffocated because of the lack of proper medication for a chronic ailment they have. There is a medication that would help to improve that situation. I think of my constituents and the people who were here last week. They can’t get access to these drugs under EAP, the Exceptional Access Program for medications. The minister is basically just not listening. In fact, if nothing else, it would give them hope.

When you look at individual cases and why they may need time off, or family caregivers need to have a break or something—I think this bill needs to go to committee. As we have said before, we support it. Mr. Leone said as well that it is generally a feel-good bill.

The government itself, under the Employment Standards Act, is saying you can have this number of days off. So really, it’s downloading onto the employer, the small mom-and-pop business that needs that person to pack the groceries or to mix the paint or whatever it is in the little store they’re operating. They can’t mix the paint or pack or prepare the meat; the butcher is off sick or something. Do you understand? They have to replace that person. I suspect that’s really the problem here: There’s no mechanism for the small business—the larger businesses usually have enough flexibility. I managed an area in a plant and I understand the deal.

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

The member from Cambridge has two minutes.

Mr. Rob Leone: I’d like to thank, first of all, the member from Hamilton Mountain, the Minister of Rural Affairs and the member for Durham for their comments. Yes, to the member from Hamilton Mountain, everything is fine and dandy at home now and everyone is healthy, thankfully, after that period of time. I should have mentioned that, I think, in my remarks. Things are going well.

The Minister of Rural Affairs: First of all, my condolences on the loss of your constituent yesterday. Those are the kinds of stories that we hear from time to time that at least show that this bill has some merit, that we can help some people by this. Again, I’m concerned by the fact that once we broadcast that this actually exists, people are going to wonder what the mechanisms are going to be, but I guess that’s what we have committees for. We have committees for discussing these issues and moving forward.

Certainly, I would hope that members of this Legislature do take the time to consider all the ins and outs of this bill. I think the member from Durham, in raising the point about smaller businesses being perhaps affected differently by this legislation—that is a consideration that certainly merits some further attention. But at the end of the day I still have faith in the good-heartedness of Ontarians who want to be helpful in times of need.

I do suspect that there are going to be, obviously, a few bad apples, but let’s hope that we can aspire to better and to celebrate what I believe is the greatest province in this country because of the good things that we do and the good-naturedness and kindness of our hearts.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time to speak to Bill 21. I will listen intently to other speakers to this bill.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It gives me great pleasure and it is a privilege to speak to Bill 21, Employment Standards Amendment Act (Leaves to Help Families), 2013. This act is

an act of compassion for families that are suffering with the great misfortune of having a sick child or a sick family member. Often these diseases go on at great length and are extremely draining on families just from the point of view of the sick family member, and if they have to work they don’t have the time to stay at home and be with their family member. So although this bill seems to do just a little bit—it doesn’t offer money, but it offers time to families to spend with their sick family member or to grieve over their child who has died, whether it’s from illness or disappearance or a crime.

So we support this bill, as the PC Party. Compassion is something that is non-partisan, as we heard the Premier speak about last week. We embrace her offer to support non-partisan bills because this is non-partisan. It’s about helping people, about showing compassion as government, as neighbours, as family, to those who are having trouble at home. Losing a family member, having a family member who is ill, is always a terrible experience.

I’d like to tell you a few stories. I suspect every member here has people come into their office looking for help because they’re desperate. They are very sad stories, they’re heart-breaking stories, and they’re the thing that drive a lot of us to carry on day to day, doing what we do. Being a politician can be a frustrating life, because we’re unfortunately not able to change the world overnight, like I thought we could do when I first came here. I’ve discovered it’s different, it’s very different.

Interjection.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Yes, I need more than one night. However, not to make light of this bill—this is a very important bill. Compassion for our neighbours, for families who are having trouble, is something that we must do. I would say that as a caring society we have a moral obligation to help people who are in trouble. Certainly we will vote for this and we will support this, because this is non-partisan and we support the Premier entirely. She’s not very good at plowing, but this is a good idea on her part.

I’d like to tell you a few stories of people who came into my office that demonstrated very clearly to me troubles that families are having.

Paul Joinette is a constituent of mine from Stittsville. He’s a small business man, and I was in to see him because he called about a problem he was having with the city of Ottawa asking for permits for his small business or for this or for that; they seemed to be quite unreasonable, so I went over to see him to try to offer help on that issue. As I was sitting in his office, I looked up at the wall, and there was a poster of this beautiful young woman—about a three-foot-square poster, a picture of her dressed in casual clothes, very recreational clothes, and with a beautiful smile.

I said to Paul, “Who’s that, Paul, in the picture on your wall?” He said, “That’s Emily. Emily is my daughter and she died.” Emily had cystic fibrosis. She had died two years previously of this terrible disease. I must admit I wasn’t familiar with it because I’d never known a family first-hand that had a child who had cystic fibrosis. I am aware now because the story that Paul told me was the saddest story that I ever heard.

He went on to say that Emily was the apple of his eye, the joy of his life. When she was young, it became apparent that she had cystic fibrosis. It’s one of those terrible diseases that, when you hear that news, it’s like a 20-year death sentence, because it affects the lungs; their lungs will fail. They will die because they cannot breathe because of scarring on the lungs and impairment of the lungs. It gets worse with age. Usually by the age of their early 20s, these people die a slow, long, miserable death, and families have to watch this and deal with this. It’s hard to imagine, as a father or a mother, experiencing that.

So Paul told us about the many trips to hospitals, in and out of emergencies, and how the mucus in her lungs would impede her breathing, plug her breathing tubes, and they would have to massage her back and help her to try and get this mucus out of her lungs. It would be very thick and pasty—to use his words, like peanut butter. So you can imagine trying to breathe with that kind of material in your lungs and in your throat. He had to live with that, and every day he and his wife had to help his daughter and massage her and get through that battle on a daily basis.

The objective was to try and get a lung transplant. After a lengthy period of time, they found matching lungs, and she had a lung transplant. Unfortunately, the lungs and her body weren’t compatible and it didn’t work, so that was a failure. As I recall, I think they even had a second chance at a lung transplant, and that didn’t work either. In the end, poor Emily died in the hospital, holding her father’s hand. I must admit it was the saddest story I ever heard a father tell. Any of us who have children could relate to that.

So we need to provide time for people like Paul and his wife to try to cope with that. It actually was a stress over the years that the family couldn’t stand. He and his wife are no longer together, which is another tragedy. Something like this bill would be a little bit that would help somewhat. So that’s one of the reasons we support the bill.

Another fellow who came into my office was Jim Bryce, who has idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which my colleague from Durham was speaking about a few minutes ago. He’s not a child; he’s an older man. He’s 73. He’s very brave and very proud. He said, “I’m not complaining. I’ve had a good life.” He was very articulate, very well spoken. He said, “I have idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and I have about three years to live. I’m going to die, but I’ve had a good life.”

There is a drug available from a company called InterMune that would give him more time and give all these people more time. It’s approved in Canada, but it’s not approved by the government. So it’s really unfortunate that Jim Bryce’s family is not going to have that extra time available to him that this drug would provide. I think that’s a travesty.

Another family in my riding went through a terrible time. They had two sons—Bill and Laurie Ayliffe, from the community of MacLaren’s Landing, which is where I live, Mr. Speaker. You’ll have to come and see us sometime. It’s a beautiful place. The Ayliffes enjoy it tremendously.

They had a son who was about 20 and he couldn’t cope with depression and took his own life about 10 years ago. That had been going on for years and years and years, a terrible thing to live through, always afraid that the poor boy isn’t going to be able to cope and someday will end his life, which he did.

They had a second son, and a year ago, unfortunately, in an industrial accident on a construction site, he made a mistake. He got electrocuted and he died.

So here is a family that had two sons and now they are both gone. If anybody needs compassion, it’s that family. They are destroyed. They’re just the saddest people you would ever want to see; their family is gone and it’s hard for them to come up with the spirit to live on and carry on.

Another group of people that comes into my office that is heartbreaking and probably the one that we should and could do the most for is families that have children with autism. The stories they tell are heart-wrenching, heartbreaking, and we as a society and as a government don’t do enough. Again, as a caring society, I believe we have a moral obligation to help those who can’t help themselves, and certainly families with autism fall into that category. We look after people who have heart troubles, cancer troubles, broken legs, all these more common ailments; they get full treatment, full financing. But if you have autism, mental illness—and seniors often are without the help they need.

Marta Chénier and her husband, Tim McGinn, have a son, Logan. They get no financing from the government. He has to, by law, go to school. They’re called every day to come and pick the boy up because he disrupts the class, so he basically shouldn’t be there. Twice, when they went to pick him up, the police had the boy handcuffed in class. Now, that would do him a heck of a lot of good to rehabilitate him and fit back into society. There are private clinics that would help him with IBI treatment. They know that; they don’t have the money. This family has gone bankrupt twice. Their boy is 12 years old.

He’s sort of in that grey area of too old or not too old. We’re trying to help from our office but it is very difficult, and we need to do better in this province to help families that have autism.

All of these stories are about compassion for families that are suffering with death or illness and we don’t do a good enough job. My point here is that this is a good bill. We support this bill, but compassion is something that we all need to be extending more and more. We need to set our priorities as a government and be looking after people, especially people who have health troubles like this, and stop looking after things like green energy acts, endangered species acts, and things that don’t look after people.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: This debate that’s been going on here today is a reflection of the debate that we had last year. The stories that we are hearing are no different; they’re different people, but they’re not different stories from what we heard last year. This bill does a very little bit to help folks.

There is another program out there called the family medical leave that does have EI attached to it. That is something where, when they have a family member who is about to die within 26 weeks, they can tap into those EI services and make sure that their finances are taken care of while they are taking care of their family members.

But we really need to be looking at how we are taking care of families with autism. How is a family supposed to say, “Well, I have up to eight weeks to take care of my family issue that’s happening here that is completely beyond my control. I have absolutely no power. I have no money now to be able to do this, and I’m just expected to keep going”? Families are struggling. We need to make sure that we’re putting real things in place that are really going to affect families, that are really going to help families get through struggling situations.

There’s so much that can actually go into this bill. I really hope that we can move it out of here. It would be great to see it done debate and move on. Get it to committee. Let’s get these important pieces that we know need to happen—the changes to this legislation in committee—so we can move it forward and make it real for the people of this province.

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

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure today to get up to speak about Bill 21. I’ve only been here—this is my second week. I think it’s my sixth day.

It’s evident to me that it’s something that we all agree on. It’s something we’re doing for families. I think that’s what I heard from all the members this morning. I think that when people send us here, they send us to get things done. It seems to be one of those things that we can get done. I would encourage all the members to support getting this thing moving forward.

When you’re in a family situation where someone is ill, dying or in a very serious health crisis, we have to provide—I agree—tools for those families to support them. This is one of those tools. There are many other tools that we need to provide, but we need to do that as a community, and communities have to do that. So I think sending a signal that this is important—it’s an important thing for people to consider, not only as business people or employers, but as family members and friends and members of community associations. I think it’s an important signal and I think we should get this thing done.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I rise with sadness and grief. My constituents today in Nepean–Carleton have witnessed a very tragic accident where a Via Rail car hit an OC Transpo double-decker bus. At the moment, we are aware that there have been five fatalities. I know I speak on behalf of everybody here to give love, support and grief to my constituents, those who have lost loved ones.

My community is the largest riding in the city of Ottawa. It’s one of the fastest-growing in Canada, as well. Many people on that bus are commuters to downtown Ottawa. Many of them are probably federal civil servants and students who commute from our bedroom community into the downtown.

I want to let my constituents know that I’ve already spoken with our neighbouring MPP, Madeleine Meilleur, who’s the community safety minister, who has assured me that the government of Ontario will do what it takes to support them. I’ve spoken to our municipal councillor, Jan Harder, who has assured me that the city of Ottawa will do what it takes, and hotlines are being set up at the moment. I have spoken with our federal member of Parliament, Pierre Poilievre, who is a cabinet minister. He has assured me that we will continue to keep the community updated.

Speaker, I’m sure you will understand that I will take leave from this place today to be with my community. I want to thank all of my colleagues who are going to be with us in prayer, and I want to thank all of those leaders in our community who work for OC Transpo and for other city services and our police and our fire for being there for response.

Thank you for indulging me, and I want to thank my colleagues for this opportunity to rise on this solemn occasion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry to hear that.

Questions and comments?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Being an MPP from Ottawa, my heart goes to the families and friends of those who already have received, or will receive, the bad news that someone—one of their loved ones, their friends—will have been a fatality, they will have died, in this unfortunate accident, or some others will be injured. I wanted to let them know that we will be working with the city of Ottawa and OC Transpo to give them the assistance that they need.

My love and prayers are with them. It is unfortunate, and we are all heartbroken hearing about this unfortunate incident.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills has two minutes.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that compassion has been called on this morning for the families in Ottawa who have suffered losses with this terrible accident. I just heard of it now from our member from Nepean–Carleton.

I, too, am from the Ottawa area. Perhaps people I know or constituents would be involved in the accident. Those of us from Ottawa, and indeed across the province, will need to spend some time thinking of this and responding to the situation and calling to see if there’s anything we can do.

With respect to the bill at hand, we support this bill, as I mentioned earlier. Mr. Speaker, I think we’ve heard many voices—the member from Hamilton Mountain, the member from Ottawa South, from Nepean–Carleton and Ottawa–Vanier—expressing in very vivid fashion and in some detail the need for compassion for families, which has just become much more vivid and immediate with the Ottawa disaster.

At this point, I think I will end my comments on that note, Mr. Speaker, because there’s no need to say any more. We all know that we have a terrible day in Ontario on our hands because of this disaster in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: While I obviously am rising to speak to Bill 21, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, I certainly have to offer my comments as well to the member from Nepean–Carleton and the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and all members in this House, whether their riding is close to Ottawa or farther away, such as mine in Nipissing. This is obviously a terrible tragedy, and our hearts go out to the families and to the emergency services providers who are called yet again to duty. We thank them for their service, Speaker, and our prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones today. Their suffering is only going to begin with the news this morning.

It seems so trivial, Speaker, to speak to one of our bills here in the House after such a tragedy, but, as the families will heal and they’ll learn time will heal these—I think I’m going to mention something that the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills said. This bill, Bill 21, Employment Standards Amendment Act, is not about money; it is about time. It’s about giving time to families who have a particular need. Like the members have also said, we believe this is a good bill and we will support this bill. The member from Hamilton Mountain also said, “Look, another year has gone by.

The names and the examples have changed but the stories are the same”—another year, nothing done; new names, new stories, new examples, but the thrust of it is still the same. Nothing has been changed.

Speaker, we are glad that the Liberals actually listened to our concerns last session and have made significant changes and improvements to the bill. The legislation actually eliminates inconsistencies between the federal labour code and our provincial laws, instead of creating them. This legislation was originally introduced as Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act, in the last session. It originally only contained provisions to introduce the family caregiver leave, but it had no proper consultation with stakeholders.

I think I’m going to take a couple of moments to talk about that theme that we’ve seen from the government: the lack of proper consultation with stakeholders, not only in Bill 21. As I mentioned earlier, I’m the member from Nipissing; I live in North Bay. I can tell you that we’ve had about three stunning events in North Bay in the last year or two that have resulted in a lack of stakeholder consultation. Back on March 23 of a year ago, we heard of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission being put up in a fire sale—absolutely no consultation with the north. It came as a complete surprise.

In fact, only a short while earlier, the former Premier signed a pledge never to do that, and we saw that happen—again, no consultation with the stakeholders.

We found this past year that 10 parks in Ontario were closed; nine of them happened to be in northern Ontario. If I were in a political mood today, I would say none of them are in Liberal ridings. I’m not in a political mood this morning; I’m just sticking to the stories—

Interjections.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It slipped out.

Those parks, again, were closed without consultation. We saw Lake Nipissing fishing being derailed this year by the limits, from four down to two pickerel—no consultation, once again. It seems to be a theme. I can tell you that—

Interjection.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’m sticking to my local area, just for a moment. I’ll get to horse racing and the Green Energy Act in a bit. I will tie it into this bill, Speaker, I promise.

It’s the theme that we’ve seen from the government: no consultation. But with a little bit of consultation, you can do some good.

This bill proposes several amendments to the Employment Standards Act to mimic the similar changes the federal government has made to the Canada Labour Code. I look forward to supporting this bill so that it can go to committee and we can begin to talk to stakeholders and find the things that are of need to Ontarians that this bill will satisfy.

Unfortunately, what we didn’t see with my three examples, and I’ll go back to those for a moment, Speaker—with Ontario Northland there was no consultation. The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka and I travelled 1,600 kilometres through the north. We met with stakeholders, and we found out, for instance, that because of this news about Ontario Northland, one major lumber company in northern Ontario cancelled a $10-million expansion up around Kapuskasing, because they didn’t know whether there would be a freight train the next year to get their goods out. This is the punishment that the north has seen because there was no consultation.

The continued theme of no consultation from this government put the 1,000 employees of Ontario Northland in flux. Today, a year and a half later, they are still in flux. They don’t know whether to send their kids to college or university; they don’t know whether to buy a car; they don’t know whether to sell their house. It’s a very big concern, this lack of consultation we’ve seen from this government.

We saw, for instance, the parks that they closed. We saw, when they did overreact afterwards to consult, that the municipalities took over some of these parks and began to develop solutions. That’s what happens when you talk to your stakeholders, and I am looking forward to supporting this bill so that it can get to committee. I am looking forward to those stakeholders being consulted. I know that good things will come when you talk to the people of Ontario.

We saw that with the parks, as I said, where the municipalities have taken over a couple of the parks and guaranteed the financial outcome, and some of these parks have reopened under municipal tutelage. That’s what happens when you talk to your stakeholders and your friends in Ontario—a little too late in Lake Nipissing. They formed a stakeholders’ committee—they closed the barn door after the horse had already escaped. Sadly, it was a very bad season for the fishers in North Bay.

That’s what happens when you don’t consult, and that’s what happened with this bill. Here we are a year later. There are good opportunities with the Employment Standards Amendment Act, the leave to help families. I am looking forward to supporting that. I am really looking forward to supporting that bill. I know that as of January 1, 2013, the federal government began providing grants lasting 35 weeks for the equivalent of the proposed crime-related child death or disappearance leave. This provincial legislation will incur no costs provincially, just protect the job from termination.

I know that in June 2013, the federal government started paying benefits for the federal equivalent of the proposed critically ill child care leave. Speaker, this bill will catch us up. This bill is a good bill. Again, it’s not about money; this bill is about giving the families time.

Speaker, I will close, again, by speaking to the message that we heard from our member from Nepean–Carleton and from the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. We saw a terrible tragedy here in Ontario this morning. I can only begin to imagine the horror that is felt in some families whose phone will be ringing this morning with some awfully tragic news, the kind of news that nobody here would ever want but that sadly in Ontario some are going to receive this morning. Again, from all of our members in Nipissing and members of the House, we offer our most sincere condolences.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

It’s almost 10:15, and I’d like to, first of all, just thank the members for their concern about the tragic circumstances in Ottawa. It’s at times like this that I’m really proud of the House—when they come together and put all political things aside and do the right thing. Thank you very much for your comments.

It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted that we are joined today by Tara McDonnell from London, Ontario. She’s a student at Humber and has been a wonderful contributor to my constituency office.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome some people here today from Union Gas: Joe Martucci, Mike Packer, Rick Birmingham, Chuck Conlon, Heather Donaghey, Matthew Gibson, Mark Isherwood, Tim Kennedy, Paul Rietdyk and Mike Shannon, all from Union Gas in Toronto and Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to welcome the grandmother of our page from Prince Edward–Hastings, Ian Chapelle. All the way from Sudbury, Gloria Lanthier is here from Sudbury. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: It’s my pleasure to welcome representatives from both Enbridge Gas Distribution and Union Gas to Queen’s Park today. I know they’ll be visiting a number of members.

I also wanted to remind everyone that there’s a reception this evening in the dining room from 5 to 7. I hope that everyone comes, considering that between the two of them, 3.2 million customers are served by these two good companies.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from—let me get this right—Windsor–Tecumseh.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Try again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s my great pleasure today to welcome the proud parents of page Taylor Roch, Erinkate Roch and Ben Roch, who are here today from my riding of London West. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I apologize to the member. At least I’ve got you sitting beside each other.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It gives me great pleasure this morning to introduce to the Legislature some friends of mine, but also will be attending their reception afterwards. From Union Gas, it’s Steve Baker, Lindsay Boyd, Chuck Dubeau, Dave Simpson, Paul Ungerman and Mark Emmanuel.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Mississauga–Brampton South, regarding page Aly Muhammad Mithani’s mother, Nadia Mithani, and grandmother, Badra Mulk, we welcome you here in the House today.

TRANSIT ACCIDENT IN OTTAWA

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just before we begin question period, I wanted to start by addressing—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On a point of order?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s a point of order. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier, on a point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just before we begin question period, I wanted to start by addressing the tragedy in Ottawa with the Via train and the OC Transpo collision.

My heart, and I know the hearts of all of us, go out to the individuals and the families who are affected. I want to thank our first responders for being on the scene. The province will be in constant contact, to assist the city of Ottawa or the federal government.

I know there have already been fatalities confirmed, so I would ask that we have a moment of silence for those people.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier is asking for unanimous consent to have a moment of silence for the victims of the tragedy this morning in Ottawa. Agreed? Agreed.

Could I have all people please stand in the House.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their courtesy and respect.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Tim Hudak: First, I want to commend and thank the Premier for her opening comments about the tragedy and the loss of life in Ottawa with the collision today. I want to echo her comments that the hearts and prayers of Ontario PC members are with the families and with the emergency support workers who responded quickly to the scene. I know my colleague Lisa MacLeod has already raced back to her riding in moral support of the families impacted. I commend the Premier for her quick response and putting provincial assets to use. Thank you, Premier.

My question is to the Premier; it’s very straightforward. Later this afternoon, we’re debating a resolution in the name of my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Doug Holyday, that is calling upon the province to keep its promise to the people of Scarborough to actually build a subway according to the city of Toronto council’s wishes, which would go all the way to Sheppard.

Premier, are you going to keep your promise to the people of Scarborough and support the resolution today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we are moving ahead with building a subway for the people of Scarborough. We need to get going. There’s $1.4 billion, Mr. Speaker, that we have put on the table and an additional $320 million for improvements to the Kennedy station. Well over $1.4 billion is available. That is the money that is on the table.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, if there is other money that we don’t know about, if the federal government is willing to step up, then that is a different discussion. But we are going to build the subway in Scarborough: $1.4 billion plus $320 million. That’s real money. That money is available, and we need to get moving.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Quite frankly, Premier, you’re breaking a campaign promise. You were clear in the Scarborough campaign that you supported what the city had called for, which is a subway through Scarborough Town Centre to Sheppard. You were very clear about that. That was what the TTC had asked for; that’s what was supported by Karen Stintz and by Andy Byford. Then you unleashed your transportation minister, to put it kindly, who has been very erratic on this file. He’s attacked the mayor; he’s attacked Councillor Stintz; he’s attacked Andy Byford. He’s attacked pretty well everybody under the sun because nobody supports his plan.

So I ask you, Premier: Clearly, the behaviour of your Minister of Transportation has been very erratic on this file. Don’t you think that his decision to pull this plan out of his hat is erratic as well? Isn’t there a better plan? And why don’t you stick to what you originally said and build that subway through Scarborough Town Centre to Sheppard like you promised during the campaign? It’s plain and simple.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate: We are committed to building the subway in Scarborough, which is what we said during the by-election, but quite frankly, we said long before that that we were committed to building transit across the GTHA, including in Scarborough, and that’s what we will do.

The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the plan that’s being put forward by the city is a $3-billion plan. There is no business plan to find the additional funds to build that plan. We are moving ahead with an affordable, funded plan that will get a subway in Scarborough, quite frankly in a corridor that, from my understanding from the Scarborough members, was always intended to be a subway. It was always intended to be a subway for decades, and so we are building a subway in that corridor.

I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is interested in transit. But in terms of erratic support for transit, I would say that has been what’s been coming from the opposition.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, what you’re doing is you’re building a white elephant, and you know it. Nobody has supported this boondoggle of a plan. You’re basically taking $1.4 billion, and let’s be clear about what the stand-alone Murray-Wynne plan is all about: You’re going to have fewer stops. You’re going to condemn people to bus rides for years and years to come. You’re going to end the subway at Warden station. Nobody supports this plan.

It’s about as hard to pin you down as it is Glen Murray, who changes his ideas every single day. First you were for LRTs; then you were going to build a subway like the city of Toronto wanted. Now you’ve flip-flopped yet again. I just want to make it very plain and simple. You promised something during the by-election. It was the right thing to do. Why don’t you actually keep your promise to go to Scarborough? You think they’re from Scarberia. They should be full citizens in the city of Toronto. Do what you said. Do the right thing. Keep your promises and—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. I’ve said it enough.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I really think that kind of language does a disservice to people in this city. You know, I’m one of the people who fought tooth and nail to preserve the integrity of this city when that member was sitting in a government that was determined to undermine this city, that amalgamated the city against the will of the city, that filled in a hole on Eglinton Avenue, that did not build transit. So I’m sorry, but I do not accept the perspective of that member when it comes to building transit or support for the GTHA.

We are building a funded line. There is money on the table, and the plans that are coming forward from the member opposite and from the city, quite frankly, at this point, are not funded. There is $1.4 billion that we are going to use to build a subway. If there is more money that the Leader of the Opposition knows about, then we should hear about that.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Well, Leslie Frost, John Robarts, Bill Davis and Mike Harris all built subways. They built subways underground, added stations. That’s the reality. And I guess the Premier wasn’t listening last week, but I’ll do the score again.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General, please come to order. Thunder Bay–Atikokan, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m saying it with a straight face.

Please finish—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker.

I’ll remind my colleagues opposite of the score in the game. The number of subway stations opened under PC governments: 64; the number under the Liberals: absolutely zero. It’s true.

Look, I know that the Liberals think that Scarborough is off on another planet somewhere. I know when the going gets tough, your Scarborough MPPs scurry away like mice. They’re afraid to take you on. Well, I’m—

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

Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If the yelling is stopping you from hearing me say “Question,” that is their problem.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, it wasn’t. Trust me.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There was a time in this province when Progressive Conservatives did build transit, Mr. Speaker. There was a time. That is not this time, and it has not been the time for the last 20 years. The fact is, here’s what we are doing: We’re investing $416 million in the renewal of Toronto’s streetcar fleet; we’re investing $600 million to build Ottawa’s light rail transit; we’re investing $300 million in Waterloo region’s rapid transit; we’re investing $870 million to extend the Yonge-University-Spadina line; 34 kilometres of dedicated lanes in York region for rapid-transit buses; and the list goes on. Some $16.4 billion is at work right now building transit in the GTHA. That’s—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Look, I know the members from Scarborough that you have in your caucus—when the going gets tough, they scurry away like mice. They’re not going to stand up to you. I will stand in my place and I will fight for the people of Scarborough, I’ll fight for the people of Toronto, and I will fight tooth and nail to make you actually keep your promise to build the Scarborough subway line like you said during the by-election campaign.

Look, you’ve made your promises. Andy Byford, from his experience with the London Underground, from his experience with Sydney transit—

Hon. Brad Duguid: How dare you insult Scarborough?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will hold for a moment. In some cases I normally try to keep the clock organized, and other times I won’t.

Thank you. Finish.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, thanks. I hear some heckling from the member for Scarborough. I wish he would actually raise his voice in cabinet and have them keep their promises, instead of raising it here. Where were you? Maybe he’ll stand up at cabinet and he’ll show some backbone and actually try to keep his promise, because you’re not going to. Andy Byford, an expert, well-respected across the field, he says your plan isn’t viable. Why do you think the mayor of Winnipeg knows more about transit in Toronto than Andy Byford, the TTC or the city council? What makes you the expert?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Peterborough will come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The people who speak for Scarborough sit in this caucus. The people who speak for Scarborough and who have represented Scarborough and have advanced the cause for building a subway in Scarborough sit on this side of the House, and they have been consistent. They have been consistent for years. They have said we need a subway in Scarborough, and quite frankly, those have been the persuasive arguments that we have heard and that have moved us to this point. We are building that subway in Scarborough.

But here’s the issue: We are going to invest in an economic strategy that includes investing in people, investing in infrastructure that communities need. That includes transit in the GTHA and transit across the region and across the province. It means investing in and supporting businesses that will help local economies to grow. That’s what we’re going to do, Mr. Speaker. Building transit is a fundamental part of that strategy.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m proud to address the weak-kneed Liberal Scarborough caucus here. If there’s one thing they’ve been consistent in, it’s their inconsistency. Last year they stood here and they voted against subways for Scarborough. Then they were the LRT champions, then during the by-election suddenly they were subway champions, and now they’re showing the courage of field mice by scuttling away when they should be standing in their place and fighting for you to keep your promise. We’ll see where they vote later today, Premier.

Well, let me tell you this. I know that you don’t like me comparing you to Premier McGuinty, but I think it’s very apt. He was known as somebody who would say one thing, and then he would flip-flop and break his promise later. At least Premier McGuinty would take about a year or so to do so; you broke your promise to the people of Scarborough within a matter of weeks. So please tell us you’re not going to pull a McGuinty. Please tell us that you’re different from Dalton. Please tell us you’re going to keep your promise and vote for Doug Holyday’s resolution in the House later today. Say it ain’t so; stand up; keep your promises.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m very proud of our government’s record on investment in transit. From the day we came into office we made a commitment to building transit, and we’ve been doing that across the province.

I just want to say I really don’t believe that personal attack is necessary. I don’t believe that calling names and undermining people’s credibility or attempting to do that is necessary. I think we can talk about the substance of this issue, and that is building transit and moving people around the region, without resorting to that. So I just want to say I’m not going to engage in that.

But what I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I had the privilege of travelling in the 680News plane today. I saw the congestion around the region. This is not about one subway line; this is about building transit, which we are doing, and continuing to do the work that we’ve been doing for the last few years, investing in transit across the region and across the province. It will help people in their day-to-day lives, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question, the leader of the third party.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If this tone continues, there will be people not out of a job but out of the House.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, not really. It’s my desire for it to rise, not lower.

Leader of the third party, please.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to begin by sharing the condolences and the thoughts and prayers, on behalf of New Democrats, for the families, the victims, the staff and all of the people involved in the tragedy that occurred in Ottawa this morning. We are hopeful that the community will overcome this tragedy in a way that gets them through it. It’s quite a serious matter.

Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Will the Premier agree to unanimous consent so that we can open up the scope of the gas plants committee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe that there is a discussion going on among the House leaders right now. I’ll let the government House leader respond in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier refused to answer this question last week and she said, “Opening up the scope of the committee is a discussion that needs to happen amongst the House leaders,” which she just repeated again. Well, that discussion amongst the House leaders has happened, but answers haven’t happened.

Will the Premier agree to open up the scope of the gas plant committee so we can ask about attempts by Liberal insiders to influence the Speaker, or will she keep protecting people like the Liberal campaign director and senior Liberal staffers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m a bit disappointed. I think the tradition of this House is that negotiations between House leaders happen at House leaders’ meetings, but if the member of the third party wishes to get into it, she is absolutely wrong in standing here today and saying that no answers have been given. In fact, answers were given, Mr. Speaker, through your ruling.

Let’s review the facts. I think all members of the Legislature were concerned about the email exchange that came out this summer. We were concerned about the committee’s ruling and we looked at potential ways forward around the scope of the committee or, as the honourable House leader of the PC Party decided, to go ahead with a point of privilege. That point of privilege was very clear on a number of points: first of all, that you were not intimidated and, second of all, that no attempt was made, Mr. Speaker, to intimidate you.

So when we’re taking a look now at the question around the scope of the committee, I think we have to look—

Interjections.

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

I’ve tried to be as delicate and understanding as possible when it comes to questions in the House. In this particular instance, it has come up again, albeit from an original, general idea. What you see happening now is that you’re getting responses and questions geared to a decision that has already been made in this House, and I’m asking that it be avoided. It is not good for us, not here in this House today, but in the overall tenor of the place and the overall history of what could go on in the future. So I’m asking members to be very sensitive to asking questions about a ruling that’s already been made to prevent the discussion that’s happening.

I’m going to continue, and I would ask the leader of the third party to ask her final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last week, the Premier passed the buck for opening the scope of the gas plants committee to her House leader, so we did our job and we took the issue to her House leader. We asked for unanimous consent to expand the scope of the committee—exactly what she told us to do—but we haven’t gotten an answer. The Premier likes to talk about openness, but when it comes time to do the right thing and open up the scope of the gas plant committee she’s as secretive as her predecessor was.

Will the Premier keep her promise, keep her word and back up our motion at the committee to do its job?

Hon. John Milloy: We have weekly House leader meetings. We had one last week. Those discussions are usually kept confidential, but the leader of the third party wants to get into it. We had a discussion and we said we would continue that discussion. But the simple matter is, Mr. Speaker—and I’m aware of what you’ve said—that your wording was very clear of what happened in that meeting. What the New Democratic Party seems to be asking is that we hold hearings into an incident that never happened. I wonder why the—

Interjections.

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

I thought I was pretty clear. Here’s the problem: You can re-ask a question or give a different answer to accomplish the same thing, as long as you stay away from the ruling. I’m asking you to avoid the discussion of the ruling.

Finish, please.

Hon. John Milloy: I think we have grave concerns that the motion that has been put forward by the New Democratic Party would do nothing to advance the work of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reference the specifics of your ruling, especially in light of your ruling, and I trust that that is in order.

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. People actually want to trust their government, and they want it to keep its promises. They hear the Premier talk about fairness. Instead, this is what they see: They see her considering new taxes and tolls of up to $1,000 per family, while at the same time she’s moving ahead with a tax loophole that will let corporations write off the HST on meals and expenses. Does the Premier think that’s fair?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept the premise of the question. Here’s the reality: We are committed to, and I’ve just had a series of exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition about our commitment to, building transit. The leader of the third party, I would have thought, would have been supportive of building transit in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area and building transit beyond.

The fact is that the reference she’s making to what she’s calling a loophole is not, in fact, a loophole. The Minister of Finance has been in touch with the federal Minister of Finance, and that is a separate issue, because the reality is we need transit in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

Successive governments have not built transit. We have been building transit, and we need to continue to do that if we’re going to be competitive into the future. Our commitment stands. We are going to continue building the infrastructure that we need to keep our economy cooking and to get it going.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People have watched as this government has played game after game after game with their public transit. The Minister of Transportation promised the people of Scarborough a subway, but, instead of a real plan, what they’ve got now is a hot mess, and people are more and more concerned that they’re going to be stuck with the bill.

Does the Premier think it’s fair to ask people to pay more—this is the premise of the question. Does the Premier think it’s fair to ask people to pay more while the province is opening up new corporate tax loopholes? It’s a matter of fairness. That’s the premise of the question, Speaker.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is a question of fairness. We’re not opening up new loopholes. That’s just not the case.

What is not fair would be for us not to continue to build transit. It would not be fair to ignore the reality that people need options. They need to be able to get on a train, or get on a bus, or get on a light-rail vehicle. They need those options in order to be able to move around the region, in order to be able to get to work in a timely way, to take their kids to school, to visit their family members.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in the 680News plane today, what I saw was as much traffic coming into Toronto as going out of Toronto, because people in Brampton and people in Newmarket and people in Durham may work there, but they also may work in the city and vice versa. People in downtown Toronto work in the region. We need to continue building transit. Not to do so would not be fair.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People are tired of a government that cares about holding on to power but doesn’t seem to care about the people who elected them. The people of Scarborough were promised a subway. Instead, they’ve gotten a messy, messy fight that’s going nowhere fast. The people of Ontario were told that the government was going to be fair. Instead, the Liberals are moving ahead with corporate tax loopholes or Liberal policy that gives a break to corporations, letting them write off the HST. Whatever way you want to describe it, it’s the same outcome.

So they’re going ahead with that policy while at the same time they’re asking everyday people to get ready to have to dig into their pockets and pay even more. Does the Premier think that is fair?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m just going to step back from this for one second. Just so you know, we’re talking about our transit policy, because we have a transit policy and we have a strategy, and we have money on the table to build transit.

What is really interesting to me is that the parties opposite have no strategy for building transit. They have absolutely no way of telling us or the people of Ontario how they would build transit going forward.

The reality is that it costs billions of dollars. Right now there’s $16.4 billion at work building transit in this province. That’s because this government has made that commitment. The reality is that without that kind of commitment, without a plan for an investment strategy going forward, without a revenue stream, we won’t be able to continue building transit. The leader of the third party, to this point, has put forward no strategy for building transit going forward.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: My question is for the Premier. As my leader has stated, under the strong leadership of Premiers Leslie Frost, John Robarts, Bill Davis and Mike Harris, Conservative governments have opened 64 subway stations.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do. It’s hard to get one side when the other side chirps up when I’m trying to get quiet.

Member, put your question, please.

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess it’s unfortunate that the members opposite don’t wish to really know the true history. But these gentlemen I just mentioned are the true subway champions. They opened 64 subway stations—64.

In the last 10 years, under Premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, the Liberals have opened exactly none. They haven’t opened one station. My question is, when are you going to open a station, and what has taken you so long?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the party opposite is proposing an insanity. They are proposing to abandon years of planning a route that has not changed since Brad Duguid was a city councillor—the member for Scarborough Centre.

We have a fully funded, completely provincially paid-for subway to the Scarborough Town Centre that you voted against—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Even the heckling is one thing, but props is another. That will stop.

Please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Like every other time, every other time in most of my adult life, when there was a fully funded subway plan ready to go to the right place, you voted against it, you opposed it, you stopped it, and you’re trying to do the same nonsense again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Mr. Speaker, they have yet to answer the question. I asked a simple question: When are you going to open your first subway station? You haven’t given us an answer to that yet. The only thing about you that’s consistent is the fact that you always change your mind and you do nothing, and then you come along and you make nonsense announcements where you’ve got partners, and you don’t include the partners. You don’t even consider the fact that the federal government said, up until September 30, they wouldn’t be prepared to make an announcement, but you’ve just ignored that.

The city of Toronto voted, when I was on that council and I supported it, to build that subway up to Sheppard, but you’ve ignored that as well. When are you going to start listening to your partners and when are you going to get a darned subway station open?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I know they don’t have many Toronto members, but the one that they do have should get out more. There are dozens of subway stations being built right now. There are boring machines all up and down the Scarborough line. There are boring machines up and down Eglinton. We are now working on extending the waterfront. There is $16 billion being invested.

We did this once before, Mr. Speaker. We had a couple of governments that actually started building transit, and then, just at the moment the holes were all dug and the stations were open, you filled them in. As a matter of fact, the honourable member sat on his hands while they cancelled the Sherway extension in his own constituency. They filled in Eglinton.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I like Bill Davis. John Tory wouldn’t be doing this. Tim Hudak would, Mike Harris would, and that’s the kind of Tories you are.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. For the short moment that I have, I intend to ask you to listen to what I have to say. It’s unfortunate that we do start coming to personalizing issues in the House. I have been trying my best to try to elevate the debate, and I will make a simple comment: It’s not within my power to force you to do something you should intrinsically be able to do yourself.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. On June 8, 2011, my community lost two good men—two miners, Jordan Fram and Jason Chenier—in a deadly accident in Stobie mine in my riding. Evidence was uncovered and shared with our community that clearly showed that their deaths were preventable. A year later, in 2012, the government finally laid nine serious charges, but yesterday we were all stunned to find out that the government had agreed to a plea bargain and dropped six serious charges.

Premier, you owe it to my community to explain. Why did your government agree to drop six charges?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the two people who were lost.

The Ministry of Labour has completed its investigation, and charges were laid under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as the member knows. A total fine of $1.05 million plus a 25% victim fine surcharge were imposed. This is the highest total fine ever levied in Ontario for contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Protecting workers and keeping them safe on the job is the Ministry of Labour’s top priority. It is what they exist to do and, obviously, one worker killed on the job is too many. Our government will continue to work hard to protect the health and safety of workers across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Eleven miners have died on the job since 2007, and yesterday’s plea bargain is cold comfort to the families who have lost loved ones. People in Sudbury want to know: Who in your government agreed to this plea bargain, and why did you do it? People in Sudbury want to know: Who in your government agreed to drop those six charges, and why did you do it? Because right now, for the people in Sudbury, we really don’t understand how this could have been done. Speaker, I don’t understand it either.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows that I don’t have the details of some of the specifics that she has asked me. What I do know is that coroner’s inquests are automatic for all mining and construction fatalities, so there will also be a coroner’s inquest into these fatalities to follow so that more answers will be available. I think those are the kinds of reviews that need to happen. I know the Minister of Labour is working with all parties and, as I say, that coroner’s inquest will follow.

RECYCLING

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. When it comes to the issue of waste, I believe we all want to protect the environment and pass on a cleaner, healthier world for not only our children, but our grandchildren. I understand that embracing individual producer responsibility for managing products at the end of their lifespan here in Ontario continues to be an ongoing discussion.

Speaker, through you, can the Minister of the Environment provide the House with an update on waste management in Ontario and speak to individual producer responsibility?

Hon. James J. Bradley: We’ve heard from the Environmental Commissioner, we’ve heard from both opposition parties, from stakeholders in the recycling system and from the public, and we’ve heard that the old waste diversion framework that we inherited is fatally flawed. There’s a consensus that we need a new approach to increase recycling to better protect our environment.

That’s why we introduced the Waste Reduction Act. The proposed act would require individual producers to be financially and environmentally accountable for recycling the goods they sell in Ontario. The act would be used to boost recycling in the lagging industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The government has been carefully reviewing public and stakeholder feedback on the act and strategy since both documents were posted on the Environmental Registry on June 6 of this year. We will continue to work with producers, with municipalities, with service organizations and with other partners to make the proposed legislation even stronger. I look forward to that input from everybody.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Again my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Residents want to know that products at the end of their lifespan are being recycled. They want to be sure that their household hazardous wastes are being safely and properly treated.

The current 2002 legislation has been widely criticized for being inefficient, for stifling competition by mandating recycling clusters and for not rewarding design or recycling innovations. Could the Minister of the Environment please share with the House if the proposed new Waste Reduction Act would implement a new regulatory approach that transforms the municipal hazardous special waste and electrical waste programs from what they are today to producer responsibility incentives that deliver solid environmental performance?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That’s an excellent question, I must say. The answer to the member is a resounding yes. Yes, it will bring a new approach that ends the old recycling monopoly mandated in the 2002 legislation. Yes, it will implement real individual producer responsibility. Yes, it delivers solid environmental performance and economic efficiency.

In fact, the member’s question reflects precisely the sentiments reflected in a news release from my very good friend from Kitchener–Conestoga. I have listened to all members of this House. I’ve listened to all of those who have had any direct involvement in recycling and waste diversion in the province of Ontario, and I am looking forward with enthusiasm and optimism to strong support from my good friends in the opposition.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. Just a few weeks ago at AMO, I listened very carefully as the Premier spoke to municipalities and committed that she would work with them in partnership on infrastructure and transit. Just a few days later, her transportation minister made an announcement about a subway plan that neither the TTC nor the city of Toronto—and even her agency, Metrolinx—seemed to know anything about.

I would like to know from the Premier: What happened to that spirit of co-operation that she committed to at AMO, and will she agree to set that imposed plan aside and work with the city of Toronto and the TTC to build a subway to Scarborough, the way that it was promised?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am so pleased to be able to work with municipalities across the province because, as the member opposite knows, infrastructure investment in one part of the province looks different than in other parts of the province. The $100 million that we have put into the roads and bridges and infrastructure fund for rural and northern Ontario will build a different kind of infrastructure than the light rail and the bus rapid transit and the subways that we’re building in the GTHA.

I’m surprised that the member opposite would focus on this one line because the reality is, he knows perfectly well that York region is in drastic need of improved transit and that it’s very important that we move ahead. It will be impossible to build the Yonge Street relief line that’s needed in order to be able to expand into York region, because that’s what has to happen in order to be able to do that, without a revenue stream. We’re committed to building transit across the GTHA.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The reason I’m focusing on this one line is because that is the basis of our discussion today and it is the subject of our motion this afternoon. We are wanting very much to take the Premier up on her commitment to work co-operatively with municipal partners. Well, the municipal partners in this particular case are the TTC and the city of Toronto.

I’m asking once again: Will the Premier simply, in the spirit that she committed to work with municipalities, agree to keep the promises that the Liberal Party made, build that subway into Scarborough the way it was committed, and support our motion this afternoon? Will she do that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re building the subway into Scarborough. We’re building it on the same route that was detailed in the Big Move. We are building that subway. That commitment is strong, and it’s funded; remember, it’s funded. That $1.4 billion is accounted for. We’re ready to go, and we have to get moving.

The member opposite, my guess is—I don’t know, but my guess is, when he was Minister of Transportation, he knew that there was a need to build transit in the region. My guess is that he might have advocated for transit building within his caucus. Unfortunately, no one took him up on that, if he did in fact do that advocacy, but we are.

We are building in the region. We know how important it is for the people of Newmarket, Aurora, Richmond Hill, Oshawa, Brampton and Mississauga. We know how important it is that we stay on track and build the transit that’s necessary for this economy to thrive.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, students need access to good quality university programs. Students are struggling to afford the skyrocketing costs of PSE and many simply can’t afford to move away from home to attend specialized research universities. Today, a leaked government report has been circulated that suggests the government could be forcing universities to specialize and reduce the range of degrees they offer.

Ontario universities already receive the least funding per student of any province in Canada. This government refuses to place students at the centre of their policies. Why is this government forging ahead with plans for drastic changes without even consulting students?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Students are at the centre of all the decisions and all the policies we’re making when it comes to our post-secondary education strategies. In fact, I have been sitting down all summer with the sector in a series of round tables as we worked together to move forward and move our system into a state of global competitiveness. I’ve also been sitting down at the same time with students to talk about the very same issues. We’ve had some great input from students all summer long, and we continue to respond to that input.

I’ve said to the member that very soon we’ll be announcing changes to flat fees, to deferral fees, something that students have been telling us they don’t believe, in the current system, is fair to students. We also brought in a 30% off tuition program, which is benefitting 230,000 low- and middle-income students today across this province.

Mr. Speaker, it’s all about listening to students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Minister, forcing universities to specialize and reduce their graduate and undergraduate course offerings wasn’t part of the government consultations last year, yet now, the government is forging ahead with secret discussions with unnamed educational leaders to impose such a change. Forcing universities to specialize could reduce regional access to degree programs, undermine university autonomy and lead to a system of have and have-not universities.

Will the minister stop looking for cost-saving measures behind closed doors and start consulting with students about the changes the government is secretly considering?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m not sure how to respond to the “secret meeting” comments because those discussions have been known by everybody, including the media. We’ve been talking about the fact that we’ve been sitting down with the sector in round tables to talk in detail. We’re sitting down with students, and I’ve been talking to media all summer long about these so-called secret discussions.

Anybody following education in this province knows that we’re working on a differentiation policy, knows that we’re working on improving credit transfers so students have an easier ability to transfer through the system from college to university, from university to university and college to college. They also know we’re looking at important issues like online learning. These are transformational issues. They’re challenging issues, but they are places we need to go to maintain our globally competitive post-secondary system. We’re going to keep working in the interest of students to ensure we continue to provide that globally competitive system.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment. Minister, a number of very important manufacturing and food processing companies have operations or headquarters in my community, in my riding of Vaughan. With the global recession now behind us here in Ontario, many of my constituents have come to me with questions regarding job creation and economic development opportunities.

Now, I know that our government recognizes the strengths coming out of different parts of the province of Ontario. We also recognize that regional economic development initiatives help to create a strong climate for our domestic businesses to succeed and grow.

Speaker, through you to the minister, could the minister please provide the House with an update, one that I can take back to my constituents to let them know about what our government is doing to bolster economic development in Vaughan and around Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thanks to the member from Vaughan for this important question.

Yesterday, with so many of my colleagues here in the Legislature—after visiting the International Plowing Match, I had the privilege of visiting Kitchener and Waterloo and making two important announcements, totalling over $1.6 million, which helped to create more than 110 new jobs and protect and sustain nearly 500 more. These, of course, are out of the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Southwestern and the Eastern Ontario Development Funds are among the best funds that my ministry has to support local projects and local businesses. In fact, under Premier Wynne’s leadership, since February alone, these two funds have created, with the private sector partners, and retained nearly 7,000 jobs across the province. Our $26-million investment so far has leveraged more than $250 million from the private sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I thank the minister for that very informative answer and for all of his hard work on these files. It is great to know what kind of work our government has been doing over the last number of months to support sectors across the province so that, as the minister mentioned, they can leverage investment and create good, meaningful jobs.

The people of Ontario have worked together to create a strong economy, which has relied on major sectors like manufacturing and the auto sector. Recently, of course, the Premier announced renewed funding to help promote locally grown food in the agricultural sector.

Speaker, through you to the minister, could the minister please inform the House regarding what his ministry is doing to make strategic investments into these key sectors here in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I had two important and, I have to say, highly interesting and informative visits yesterday. One was to a company called Conestoga Meat Packers in Breslau, employing 475 people. In fact, 50 of that workforce are employed because of the investment that this company has made together with the Ontario government. I arrived there; there’s a big sign outside, saying, “We are hiring.” They’re looking at 100 new employees. They’re going to be increasing the plant’s capacity by nearly one third. They’re exporting to 30 countries around the world. It’s a fantastic company.

Then I went down to Cambridge, to Kinetics Noise Control, a fascinating company as well. We’re creating jobs together in partnership with them, making this investment. It’s very interesting that this company actually, in the new jobs created, is producing acoustic materials used in a tunnel ventilation system for the new Sheppard subway line. So yes, we are building transit in Toronto and it’s creating jobs in Cambridge.

DRIVE CLEAN

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question was going to be for the Minister of the Environment but I’ll go to transportation because it is transportation related.

Residents in the north part of Dufferin county have been receiving letters that they are, for the first time, going to be required to complete a Drive Clean test before renewing their driver’s licence. My constituents have not moved and yet they are now being asked by MTO to pay for a Drive Clean test because Canada Post has changed the postal codes.

When I wrote on behalf of residents asking for an explanation, your ministry told me it was an oversight, that they have been exempted since the program began and now they must pay. Minister, it appears that this decision to include them now, more than 10 years later, is simply another cash grab by your government. Are your recent postal code changes just another excuse for you to squeeze more money from hard-working Ontario drivers?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The first thing, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to say to the member—I want to thank her for her question and I promise I will follow up and look into the particulars of the case. I appreciate that there’s some frustration there with a constituent of yours. That’s the job of MPPs here and I commend her for raising the issue.

What we are trying to do is, as are other jurisdictions in Canada—and as one of the members opposite pointed out, I have some experience in one of those—is that most provinces are running to a cost recovery for automobiles. For example, my mother, who’s 86, just retired. She gave up her car. It’s hard to ask to put taxes on seniors to pay for things for those of us who drive cars. So when you get your driver’s licence or you’re paying to get the air quality standards so our kids with asthma and our seniors don’t have to breathe polluted air—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —we ask people to pay modestly rather than taxing everybody. It’s a cost recovery measure. It’s consistent with what other provinces and what the States are doing, and it’s good policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. In case the member from Renfrew didn’t hear it, I did ask him to come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I did not; I’m sorry.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, this is not about cost recovery; this is about a cash grab. These people did not pay. They have not been paying. They have been exempt from the Drive Clean program. I’ve been working on this for three months and suddenly all I’m getting from your civil service is that they must pay now and they should never have been exempt. What, are you going to go back 10 years and charge them for it?

Minister, I want this solved. I want to see this decision changed. Ultimately, I would actually like the Drive Clean program to be eliminated because it has not done anything to solve our problems.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the member opposite. She’s doing her job as an MPP. I thank her for raising this issue. It’s obviously a big province, and with 13 million people one of our jobs in the House is to speak up for people who sometimes get overlooked. I appreciate her doing that.

Again, it’s cost recovery, one of the things this government is also doing, because by law it has to be cost recovery. We cannot overcharge for more than the cost of the service, and that’s good and transparent. One of the things that my friend the Minister of Government Services, the Honourable John Milloy, is doing is that he’s working on an open data process so that people will actually be able to go on and see the costs of services and they’ll be able to see the price. That will be completely transparent, as we’re doing.

When people are planning transit lines or rapid transit lines, they can see that, for example, the Scarborough Town Centre justifies a subway and some of the other options make no sense. We’re all about open data and evidence, so people can see for themselves and make their own judgment.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is for the Premier. It’s not just the people in Scarborough who are trying to figure out what this government’s transit plan is. People outside of Toronto want better transit service to get to work and travel out of town. Instead, people in Kitchener–Waterloo and nearby communities have seen our Via service cut and have been left with a GO train service that isn’t meeting the transit needs of our residents.

Last night, people in St. Catharines came together because their Via service is being cut. They want to know what’s going to happen with their transit in Niagara. What is the Premier going to do to improve transit in communities outside of the GTHA?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for Kitchener–Waterloo because I know this is, again, a very sincere question and well asked.

The issue is this: The Conservatives in Ottawa—that would be our friends who filled in the Eglinton subway line and froze GO Transit service—also have bestowed another gift, being completely consistent in their behaviour being the contrary of their rhetoric. They cancelled half the Via service from Kitchener–Waterloo to Toronto. As a matter of fact, interestingly, there have been massive reductions on Via service. The Ontario Liberal government, as it always does, added two trains to Kitchener. We thought we were increasing the service to Kitchener by almost 50% because we realize it’s important.

What we didn’t realize is that we were just offsetting cuts by the federal Conservatives. The same people over there that tell you they’re subway champions and Via champions, when they get into power and have the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I regret that the people in Kitchener–Waterloo have the same service they had before. The difference is they have two more GO trains and two fewer Via trains and the feds cut the services as soon as we started it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s not just Via service. This government promised two-way all-day GO service on the line that runs to Kitchener–Waterloo and towns and cities along the line. But while the government is picking fights over a Scarborough subway, it has delayed two-way all-day GO service for almost 15 years.

The government cancelled the Ontario Bus Replacement Program, which helps municipalities like mine, without subways, to maintain their bus fleets. Commuters, students and families outside of the GTHA are wondering why their transit priorities are at the bottom of the pile. When will the Premier stop playing political games with transit and begin building transit for Ontarians who have waited long enough?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, Chair Seiling and Mayor Zehr are wonderful friends. They’re non-partisan during elections. They’re positive folks. They pay one third of the cost, or more sometimes, of transit in Kitchener, we pay one third and, because it doesn’t have a 416 area code, the federal government pays one third. It’s a great relationship.

On Scarborough, we’re paying 100% of the cost, and we’re building it to the only place that makes sense and the same place that’s been in the plan. This is the only government that’s not changing the plan. The city has changed the plan to go under single-family homes and to miss the Scarborough Town Centre. How do you build a subway to Scarborough that doesn’t go to the Scarborough Town Centre? We haven’t changed anything; the lines on the map are the same. The opposition suggests the lines have changed. Clearly, they don’t read budgets, and they don’t read maps. I should refer them to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities for some upgrading.

But we have added—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is also for the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Minister, in western Mississauga, transit is a big issue. We need that planned capacity expansion of the third and the fourth track on the Milton GO line. People want to leave their cars at home, and they need viable transit options when they need to commute and when they need to go where they have to go, to go to school or to go to work.

Good transit planning and implementation is not just what you do; it’s when you do it and how you do it and how you involve people in the communities along the transit corridor and in the service areas in the implementation.

Ontario uses some database tools to help plan transit routes, all derived from data from our urban environment. Would the minister please describe what data our government uses to help plan transit routes?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Transportation, which does the work—not Metrolinx—has the richest databases, as does the growth secretariat. I have offered all of this data to my opposition critics so that they can see the same numbers I see. You will see why the Ministry of Transportation and Metrolinx said, “Stick to the original plan and build the subway to the Scarborough Town Centre,” because those data at Metrolinx and iCorridor are built on two things: the Big Move and Places to Grow. The Scarborough Town Centre is an urban growth centre. It will generate lots of ridership. We know that from millions of dollars and years of planning.

The same thing in Mississauga: The Hurontario LRT is absolutely critical to reducing congestion. When put through the iCorridor process, it showed that it will have a lot of investment in jobs as well as have high ridership—as will the Eglinton crosstown.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we also modelled some of the past projects—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Minister, making decisions based on how people use transit and on what their urban environment looks like now and in the future is important. So is using technology to let people have their say and to test their opinions, to test their preconceptions and theories against what reality is now and what reality will be in the unfolding future.

The iCorridor application is open to the public, and our residents in Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville would like to use it. That type of involvement would keep people from supporting idiotic policies like filling in evidence-based subway lines that are already under construction.

Minister, how can Ontarians use the iCorridor application to see how government decisions on transit are actually made?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I appreciate the member’s interest in both transit and information technology. Right now, today, you just go click, click on the MTO site, and what cascades down is the richest source of data—and open source data—there, clearly available to the TTC, to developers and to citizens to understand that—

Interjection: And to the opposition.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: And to the opposition. I met with some of my critics opposite, and I offered it to them. I’ve actually offered that our staff will give them a completely independent briefing. Metrolinx is doing this. When we actually started planning the Metrolinx projects, we did not have the advantage of this data. I gave a presentation this morning. So we are now improving our performance.

I have said to the members opposite, “If you actually believe in evidence-based decisions, based on land use, access and ridership, take the ideas.” What you’ll find is the plan that was whipped out of nowhere to draw a new line has no ridership. It actually doesn’t go to the Scarborough Town Centre. It goes under single-family homes, and unless you want to tear up upper-middle-class Scarborough—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, on May 18 three years ago, the Pension Benefits Amendment Act received royal assent after getting all-party support in this House. As you know very well, this legislation is needed to help thousands of public sector employees merge their pension benefits so that they can retire with benefits they’ve already paid for.

On March 30 two years ago, I asked your predecessor, the Minister of Finance, why he had since ignored this bil