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

September 15, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Sep-15 (PDF)

L095 - Tue 15 Sep 2015 / Mar 15 sep 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 15 September 2015 Mardi 15 septembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Appointment of temporary Ombudsman

Oral Questions

Teachers

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Ontario economy

Teachers

Bear control

Health care funding

Government accountability

Poverty

Justice system

Pension plans

Student assistance

Physiotherapy services

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

Invasive Species Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les espèces envahissantes

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Road safety

Climate change

Events in Halton

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

Bapu Surat Singh Khalsa

Mexican Independence Day

Mexican Independence Day

Eye examinations

Hispanic community

Private members’ public business

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le droit de passage sur le littoral des Grands Lacs

The Gage Research Institute Act, 2015

Motions

Private members’ public business

House sittings

Petitions

Ontario farmers

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Concussion

Diagnostic services

Personal-injury lawyers

Health care

Highway improvement

Concussion

Health care

Hospital funding

GO Transit

Orders of the Day

Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 14, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to strengthen and improve government by amending or repealing various Acts / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à renforcer et à améliorer la gestion publique en modifiant ou en abrogeant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I believe we will go to the member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s my pleasure to continue the debate on Bill 85, before I was so rudely interrupted about four months ago. Of course, the bill is entitled the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, which is kind of interesting, because the one benefit that you have when the House is in recess is that there are seven days a week to actually get feedback and hear from people in your riding as opposed to, of course, when we are sitting here in the chamber four days a week and we only have the three days back in our riding.

So in some ways it gave me an opportunity to hear a little more about how people in Dufferin–Caledon and across Ontario would like to see the government strengthened and improved.

As I said in my previous debate, Bill 85 is an omnibus bill that affects 15 different pieces of legislation involving eight different ministries. The majority of the measures in Bill 85 are simply housekeeping measures, but there is a particular measure that I am concerned about and would like to raise with you today.

If passed, Bill 85 would amend the Provincial Offences Act to allow municipalities to establish an end-to-end electronic court record system for the provincial offences court. This is somewhat concerning, as it sounds like a lead-up to the proposed administrative monetary penalty system, or AMPS as I will refer to it, and that is starting to be in the news since the government released a consultation paper in March of this year.

Speaker, the concern I have with the AMP system is that it could have serious repercussions for access to justice in Ontario. The proposal would replace the court procedures for resolving disputes related to charges under the Provincial Offences Act with an online dispute system, whereby an individual can pay their fine or dispute the charge. The concerning part of all this is that there is no formal hearing for an individual who would like to dispute the charges made against them.

Instead, your dispute would be reviewed by an independent hearing officer, who will decide if the fine will be paid in full or reduced. Right now, of course, that individual has the right to dispute their charges in front of a justice of the peace. That will all disappear if the government goes forward with introducing the administrative monetary penalty system, or AMPS.

I’m not the only one concerned about the proposed system. Organizations, including the Ontario Trucking Association and the Ontario Paralegal Association, argue that the proposed system would lead to a deterioration of our rights to access to justice and would limit the person’s legal rights. Other organizations and municipalities have argued that there is a lack of information and detail about the proposed system, such as which charges would fall under the administrative monetary penalty system. Our justice system is to protect Ontarians and ensure there is access to justice. However, an administrative monetary penalty system will deteriorate the very nature of our justice system.

Speaker, I’d like to spend the rest of my debate discussing another issue I have with Bill 85, and that is that Bill 85 doesn’t actually do anything to strengthen and improve government in our province. Instead, it is in fact a housekeeping bill. For example, one of the schedules in Bill 85 would provide for a liability exemption for the Ontario Medical Association. The Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act would be amended to align with the 2012 Physician Services Agreement between the province and the Ontario Medical Association.

It would provide immunity for representatives of the Ontario Medical Association, including directors and staff, but not the association itself. Individuals will be restricted from pursuing civil action regarding agreements between the OMA and the Ministry of Health in the following situations: including insured services under OHIP, amounts payable under OHIP in respect to the rendering of insured services to insured persons, and amounts payable to physicians by the minister or the crown.

This would prevent legal action against representatives for acts done in good faith during negotiations with the government related to physician agreements or payment, such as agreements that contain fee changes for certain physician groups.

This

schedule of Bill 85 does not amount to strengthening or improving our health care system; rather, this

schedule simply amounts to a housekeeping measure. It aims to protect the Ontario Medical Association in its capacity as the bargaining unit for Ontario’s physicians and adviser to the government on health matters. To strengthen and improve our health care system, the government needs to take action to root out waste and build a more patient-centric model of health care delivery. Instead, the government seems content with this bill to simply tinker around the edges. I’m not saying that this amendment isn’t needed, but it hardly falls under strengthening and improving government.

Our once-proud health care system is now floundering because of this government’s poorly-thought-out decisions. Recently, the government decided to decrease the number of medical residency places by 50 over the next two years. The reason or justification for this short-sighted decision was because this government believes there will be an oversupply of doctors. I want to remind people: The last time a government actually decreased the number of residencies, it was Bob Rae’s government.

Mr. Jim Wilson: A disaster.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It was. To my colleague’s point, the previous Minister of Health, it was a disaster. So this is the furthest thing from strengthening and improving government.

There are over 800,000 Ontarians, many living in rural Ontario, who still do not have access to a family physician, yet the government is saying this is not important. It’s as if they don’t want to face the reality of our deteriorating health system and its result of their mismanagement. This government is letting our most vulnerable fall to the wayside without access to essential services that all Ontarians deserve and expect to be there when needed.

To add more fuel to the fire, the government has cut health care spending by $54 million in this year’s budget. That means there will be less money for long-term-care beds; in addition to services and positions previously offered in our hospitals, they are being eliminated or decreased.

In my riding of Dufferin–Caledon, the Central West CCAC continues to claim they have no more money to take on new clients, and as a result they have cut back or eliminated personal support worker support. Yet, the salary of the CEO, oddly enough, continues to increase.

As a result of the lack of services from the CCAC, residents in Dufferin–Caledon have made some difficult decisions to ensure their health care needs are looked after, including going without the required service, paying for private care by taking on personal debt, or moving to other communities where the services have not been reduced or restricted. I think it’s a terrible indictment of our Ontario health care system that a family is making a decision to leave their mother or their father four hours away because the programs and the services available for that CCAC are better than Central West CCAC.

So you’re trading off access to health care for access to your family members, and it’s shameful.

This is proof that our once-proud health care system is going in the opposite direction of being strengthened or improved. The government is putting Ontarians in an unfair and difficult position by cutting essential services that Ontarians expect their hard-earned dollars to go towards. If the government wants to strengthen our province and make Ontario great again, then we need to ensure essential services are readily accessible when people need them.

Another important issue the government should take seriously to improve our province is the exorbitant energy rates that Ontario individuals, homeowners and businesses are facing. Time and time again, my PC caucus colleagues and the leader of the official opposition have argued that the skyrocketing energy rates in Ontario are hurting families and businesses in Ontario. It’s by far the number one issue that I was hearing about during this summer recess, which in itself is rather odd because often energy rates are raised by homeowners in the winter months, but now I’m getting it year-round. This problem only gets worse if the government goes forward with their proposed sell-off of Hydro One.

Speaker, our province’s energy sector has been broken for many years as a result of the mistakes made by this government, whether it is the $2-billion smart meter scandal, the $1-billion gas plant scandal or the overreaching practices at Hydro One. In the Ombudsman’s annual report this year, the Ombudsman noted that his office received 3,499 complaints about Hydro One in one year. That’s an absurd amount. More problems will continue to come about if the government sells off Hydro One, and, of course, we’ve removed the ability of the Ombudsman to have any oversight.

The sell-off will result in higher hydro rates for every Ontario family, when hydro rates are already unaffordable to many families and are leaving them in a state of energy poverty.

Just look at what the Ontario Chamber of Commerce said recently. In their report, they note that hydro rates in Ontario are adversely affecting families and businesses in Ontario. As a result, businesses will soon begin to leave our province—they quite frankly already have—along with jobs, unless immediate changes are made to curb the ever-increasing hydro rates in the province. Too often, I’ve heard from constituents and businesses in the community that exorbitant hydro rates are taking their toll on their respective budgets. Every time I meet with local manufacturers, hydro rates come up as the number one concern.

On top of that, we’ve already begun seeing companies closing up shop and moving to other jurisdictions because of hydro rates. They’re not stopping production; they’re stopping production in Ontario. The government should be looking for ways to help families and businesses and to protect Ontarians from the problems within Hydro One. Instead, they are ignoring Ontarians’ concerns and choosing to sell Hydro One behind closed doors without any independent oversight. It’s why I’m so pleased that my colleague Todd Smith from—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Prince Edward–Hastings.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: —Prince Edward–Hastings has been tasked with being the critic responsible for the sell-off. It’s probably the number one concern that we have to face in this fall session.

Speaker, these are some of the most critical issues that our province is facing, and it’s sad to say the government is doing nothing about it. We cannot continue to expect Ontarians to pay for the mistakes of the Liberal government. Let’s turn our province into what it once was: the economic engine of Canada. That starts with having competitive energy rates, so that we can attract businesses and ensure that Ontarians can afford to live in our province.

I ask that this government take a deep, hard look into coming up with a credible plan to improve our province, but that will not happen if the government continues to bring forward pieces of legislation like this, which, while it has a fabulous name, doesn’t actually do much to strengthen and improve.

While we are on the topic of strengthening and improving government in the province, we should fix the issue of paint peeling off of the Ontario licence plates. Over the course of the summer I’ve seen licence plates that have begun to bubble and/or peel off. What you may not know is, this is an actual manufacturing defect that the government has known about for three years but done nothing to fix. The worst

part is, you can be given a $110 fine for having an unreadable licence plate. Thank you, province of Ontario. It’s puzzling that we ask Ontarians to pay for a manufacturing defect that this government has known about and hasn’t done anything to resolve. We expect people to take responsibility for their actions, yet this government believes this standard doesn’t apply to them.

I just want to reiterate again that Ontario has bigger problems than making minor updates to pieces of legislation. Whether it is a deteriorating health care system or unaffordable energy rates, these are the issues the government should be focused on and coming up with a credible plan to fix. Instead of introducing pieces of legislation like Bill 85, which has a grab bag of things that they need to fix and tweak, maybe we could actually deal with some of the underlying, deep issues that people are raising with us and have been raising in the last number of years. We talk about hydro rates. We talk about the manufacturing base disappearing. Let’s actually do something about it.

Bill 85 is an omnibus, fix-it bill that does very little to strengthen and improve government. I would like to see substantive pieces of legislation that we can debate and bring forward positive amendments to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Dufferin–Caledon, one of the newly appointed deputy leaders of the official opposition.

Questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to stand up and join the debate on Bill 85 today. I’m going to expand on some of the comments made by the member from Dufferin–Caledon.

She touched on health care. Although I could talk for much longer than two minutes on health care, I’d like to share a story about my riding of Windsor West. We have Windsor Regional Hospital, and just four or five days ago there was an

article in the paper where the CEO was talking about health care cuts—a change to the funding model that has affected one of the hospitals in my riding. These changes have resulted in our hospital having to absorb the cost of about $20 million a year. That’s a result of about 115 people who are sitting in acute care beds and who are waiting to be moved into long-term care, into rehab beds or into complex continuing care beds. The hospital is not receiving funding for those patients while they’re in acute care beds.

What that’s costing the health care system and the hospital directly is about $600 a day per patient. I think that what the government really needs to be looking at is how to properly fund the health care system, which means investing in long-term care and preventive measures as well.

The member also touched on hydro rates. As you know, as New Democrats, we are strongly opposed to the sell-off of the public hydro. People are already struggling to pay their bills. People have to choose between keeping the lights on or feeding their children, and certainly when the government sells off our public hydro, the rates are just going to go up, and that’s going to make matters even worse.

Another issue that the member from Dufferin–Caledon touched on was smart meters. I would just bring back the fact that well over a year ago, we had raised the issue of smart meters and their safety. That was pushed aside by the government, only to find out that we do have smart meters in Ontario that are fire hazards and safety hazards. I think that if the government wants to name something “strengthening government,” they really need to look at the issues that are going on in the communities and fix them.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to comment on the member from Dufferin–Caledon. I just wish once in a while they’d come up with some positive things to say about this great province—just nothing but negative comments about the wonderful people who work so hard in this province. Sure, we’ve got challenges, and this bill tries to take care of the small things so the big things can work.

I know in Toronto here, we just got our new regional hospital built. The new Humber River regional hospital is operating. It’s state of the art. The 407 is expanding into Peterborough. We have the largest transit construction projects in North America taking place. The Eglinton Crosstown subway is being built. Tens of thousands of jobs—this is a hard-working, successful province, and I just wish we’d come up with some new ideas from the opposition, not the same old whining, griping and belly-aching.

We need to build up this province because this province has incredible potential, incredible people, incredible skills. Our construction skills—we have more cranes up in the sky building Ontario than all the other jurisdictions in North America combined—building up this province. The opposition, all they want to do—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order.

Mr. Mike Colle: Mr. Speaker, look, I have the floor. I have the floor.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, start by telling the truth.

Mr. Mike Colle: Look, here we go again. Mr. Speaker, you have to have some control here.

I’m saying, this is a great province—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I appreciate the comments that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence is making; however, I do not appreciate anything that may be directed towards the Speaker with regard to controlling this Legislature. I will make those decisions. Thank you for the reminder.

I would ask that you continue—actually, your time is up now. Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, when I heard this bill introduced, I was very, very optimistic—an act to strengthen and improve government. Then I started to read the bill and I was less optimistic. But I thought that maybe at the end I would read something that gave me some hope as well. Often, in a bill, you’ll read—one of the last clauses will say, “This act comes into effect the day it receives royal assent.” I thought, in order to strengthen and improve government, maybe that last line would say, “On the day this act receives royal assent, the Liberal government will resign,” because that is probably the surest way of improving and strengthening Ontario.

If we look at what this government has done, particularly since Kathleen Wynne has been elected Premier—or appointed Premier, and then she went further downhill after she got elected Premier, because now she thinks she’s got this massive majority and has got the support of the people of Ontario. She’s dreaming in Technicolor, and we all know that. All you’ve got to do is look at the polls. Justin Trudeau is telling her what to say; now he’s pulling the strings.

If you want to improve Ontario and improve government, you could start by sticking to what you promised you were going to do. In her first throne speech, she promised transparency and accountability to the people of Ontario, and we have got anything but transparency and accountability. Everything is under the shroud of the curtain. The Iron Curtain has descended around the cabinet table of the Liberal government. Winston Churchill said how it descended on Europe; here, it’s descended around the cabinet table of the Liberal government, because there is no accountability and there is no transparency.

Let’s take only the example of Hydro One, of which they never campaigned upon in any iota. They touched on the possibility of maximizing assets. You want to talk about riddles? This whole government is a riddle. They never talked about selling Hydro One, and now all of a sudden this is their big main measure.

My gosh, I’m out of time, Speaker. I will have another chance, I’m sure. Thank you very much.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It is a pleasure to be back. It is a pleasure to be back from the London–Fanshawe riding to hold this government accountable. There are a lot of things that we have to say on this side of the House and we hope this government’s going to open their ears and listen to our suggestions. This Bill 85, which talks about strengthening and improving government—that’s what we’re here to do. We’re here to give you suggestions on bills and on how to strengthen and improve this government. So having the member from Eglinton west—

Mr. Mike Colle: Eglinton–Lawrence.

Interjections.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Lawrence. All right, let’s just keep our cool. We don’t have to get all uppity about it.

The thing is, Speaker, we have to define our roles in this House, so let’s be clear from this session forward: We are here to be critical of you. We are here to tell you what our constituents are telling us. And one of the things they’re telling us is that if you want to improve and strengthen government, you need to be transparent, accountable and responsible to the people of Ontario and responsible to the people of London–Fanshawe with respect to the Hydro One sell-off.

I’ll tell you, Speaker, a few months ago many people didn’t even know what that topic entailed. Now, at other events, they’re coming up to me and bringing up the subject, and they’re saying that this government is wrong-headed on the sale of Hydro One. They’re taking a public asset and selling it off without consultation. They’re taking that revenue-generating public asset that we pay for under education and health care. That’s not strengthening and improving government; that’s putting us backward.

So with all due respect to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, you need to hear our voices. That’s what our job is here: to make sure we drive it home to you, so that you don’t think all your bills are all that and a bag of chips. They’re not, Speaker. There are lots of things riddled, and we need to be critical of every bill this government puts forward. That’s our job. You need to pay attention.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member for Dufferin–Caledon for final comments.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It always fascinates me when members in the Liberal caucus get so angry when what we are bringing forward is a different point of view.

I don’t presume to understand what the member from Eglinton–Lawrence did for the last four months, but I know that I spent my four months in front of people, talking to people who are impacted by the policies of this government.

One of our roles as legislators is absolutely to come here and raise issues. Bill 85 has this wonderful name: Strengthening and Improving Government Act. It doesn’t do that. This is an omnibus bill that tweaks things that you missed the first time. It’s okay. We all make mistakes; we try to fix them. But don’t put a—what’s the line? A silk—

Mr. Steve Clark: Make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: A silk purse out of a pig’s ear.

You cannot name a bill and suddenly make it more important than it truly is. This is a fix-it bill. I’m okay with that. I can deal with that. There are some things here that need to be tweaked. But it is not going to strengthen and improve government in the province of Ontario. So when we point that out, don’t get all upset. It’s just the reality.

When we are here, we are speaking on behalf of our constituents—in my case, from Dufferin–Caledon. I find it really hard to believe that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence has not heard a single negative thing from his constituents, but that may well be. I’m not going to second-guess him. What I am going to do is take my responsibilities seriously as a legislator and bring those issues to the chamber, and I’ve done that with Bill 85.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This is my hour lead, so sit back and relax. We’ll have an hour to enjoy some comments about this bill.

Good morning to everyone. Welcome back from the summer break. It’s not much of a break, though, really—we work hard in the ridings—but I’m glad to be back.

This bill in general is not an overly controversial or contentious bill. The bill does some—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Housekeeping.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Housekeeping.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That should be in its title, for sure.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: That’s what I’m going to get to. Thank you very much to my colleague.

The bill addresses certain housekeeping matters which are important and need to be addressed. I’ll go over some of the points which, again, are non-contentious and are not much of a concern, and then go into some of my suggestions.

The bill modifies or looks at amending a number of—we can group it into ministries. It looks to amend issues with the Ministry of the Attorney General, specifically the Courts of Justice Act. There are issues around the Ministry of Labour and allowing for and improving the ability to collect monies owed to employees. There are also components that address the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. So there’s a variety of ministries that are touched by this bill.

Let’s talk about some of the issues that are non-contentious.

My previous life provided me a lens into the criminal defence world, and particularly into the—my previous life before politics was in law. In that capacity, as a lawyer, I did acknowledge and I did realize, or I did notice, that there were considerable areas in the justice system that could be improved, that could be streamlined. This is an incremental step, but it’s still a step that can be acknowledged.

The Family Court system: I’ve received numerous complaints, while I was a lawyer and then as an MPP, that there are certain inefficiencies. It’s difficult to navigate the system, particularly in Family Court, so there are some changes here that would perhaps smooth out some of the process, maybe make it a little bit more accessible and perhaps make it somewhat smoother. But really, the Family Court and the family law system in Canada need to be seriously overhauled. There are a number of areas where people who are unrepresented can’t get very simple orders, get them passed, get them made in court.

There are a number of areas which would seem to be very common sense but it’s very difficult, unless you’re represented, to actually get anything done. So I think a lot more could be done.

With respect to the Ministry of Labour, I think this is a step in the right direction. There are countless times when people are owed money but there are no significant powers to collect the money so they can pay employees. Allowing for this ability would make sense, and it aligns with the tribunal rulings on this matter.

With respect to the Ministry of Transportation, again, there are minor changes but important, I guess, in terms of allowing or improving the regulations and safety around ambulances, prescribing the inspection and maintenance standards, and ensuring that the prescribed equipment is on board.

The other change in the Ministry of Transportation is the change around notification of vehicle suspensions. I have a concern around this. It’s already something that people miss in the mail, to have an over-the-counter notice provided. It should be in writing and it should be something that the individual signs off on to ensure that there is some transparency in that. So if I just say over the counter “Your vehicle is suspended”—there needs to be something more than just oral; it has to be something that’s provided in writing. That’s an area of concern.

But overall, my concern is this: The bill does some housekeeping matters which are, of course, important. Another overlying theme to the changes is aligning the provincial language with federal language to keep it in line, to keep things consistent, which is again something important. But my issue is that the title of the bill, Bill 85, is

An Act to strengthen and improve government by amending or repealing various Acts. This is the issue. If this bill was entitled “the bill to address some minor housekeeping measures,” it would be accurate and there would really be no issue. But what the title of this bill does is it opens up the discussion, which I’m now going to get into. If we really want

an act to strengthen and improve government, there are some suggestions that I have.

Let’s begin with the Ministry of Labour. The amendment that the government is suggesting does achieve an incremental improvement. But does it truly strengthen and improve the government? No, not really. This is what we need to see in the Ministry of Labour. If you don’t have compliance and you don’t have enforcement—so no compliance and no enforcement—there’s really no point to any legislation. The major issue with the Ministry of Labour is that there lacks sufficient enforcement.

There are a number of protections that are actually included in the Ministry of Labour, that are included in our employment act, but many of those protections become meaningless when there’s no enforcement. To ensure that there’s proper enforcement, the Ministry of Labour needs to have the staff to do so. There needs to be an increase in staff. There needs to be an increased and regular process for enforcement. There also needs to be a more aggressive, more transparent and more effective complaints mechanism.

There are a number of issues that come up, particularly in my riding. One of the major issues people face is precarious employment. People are finding they’re no longer able to get a full-time job. So instead of a full-time job or a permanent job, what they’re finding is part-time and temporary employment. Often these jobs are through temporary job agencies or temporary help agencies.

Now the problem is that when you’re working in a temporary help agency, you already feel insecure because your position inherently is an insecure position. You don’t know if you’re going to be working tomorrow. You may be called in; you may not be called in. So someone working in that context is very unlikely to raise any concerns. They’re already nervous about their job security. They don’t have job security. How can we expect someone in that circumstance to then call up and complain to the ministry if there is any violation in terms of their labour rights?

There needs to be a mechanism that allows for folks in those positions to very easily complain and notify the ministry of issues, and I’ve heard a number of issues. For example, in many cases people who are temporary workers are not given the break time that the permanent workers are given; people who are temporary workers often aren’t paid appropriately or paid on time. There are a number of issues that come up, but those workers don’t see a way or an avenue to complain about that.

That’s an area where, if we really want to improve the Ministry of Labour, as this bill proposes in its title, “to strengthen and improve government,” one way would be to really strengthen and improve the complaints mechanism and then, most importantly, to have a robust system so that we make sure people are able to enforce the rights and protections that they do have. That would be an area in terms of the Ministry of Labour.

The Ministry of Transportation: There are some significant areas that, if the government really wanted to strengthen and improve the government, they could do a lot of work. In general, there’s a theme that we’re seeing in the Ministry of Transportation, and it’s the idea of outsourcing. I’m an evidence-based kind of person. I had a science degree before I got into law school, so I like to look at the evidence. The issue is that if our government can make the argument that outsourcing created greater efficiencies, created better service, then I would have to look at it.

I still believe, on principle, that certain things should remain public because it’s a public good and it’s in the best interests of the public for a certain service to remain public. But I would at least look at the case if there’s evidence that suggested that in some way outsourcing was beneficial.

In this case, the case that I’m going to bring up, the evidence is incontrovertible. It’s very clear that the outsourcing that the Ministry of Transportation has conducted has in fact put the lives of Ontarians at risk. It has been inefficient. It has not provided a better service; in fact, it has provided a much worse service. Specifically, there are two areas in the Ministry of Transportation that I want to touch on in terms of outsourcing, because the bill purports to amend certain acts that impact the Ministry of Transportation with the purported purpose to improve government.

I’m suggesting that it’s not doing enough. There are some glaring holes or gaping holes where the government could actually step in and improve. One is Serco, as the outsourced licensing and testing provider for commercial vehicles and testing in general for drivers, and the other one is snow removal.

The Auditor General of Ontario released a very scathing report that went into detail and looked at the snow removal process and the fact that it has been outsourced. They compared when it was not outsourced to when it was outsourced. What is very troubling is the Auditor General came out with the report that conclusively stated that lives were lost because of this outsourcing; that the Ministry of Transportation is essentially responsible for roads that were not cleaned properly because of this outsourcing: roads where snow removal was not conducted in a proper manner, in an efficient manner.

It left people driving on roads that were in terrible condition and resulted in accidents, and some of those resulted in fatalities. These fatalities were avoidable, if the government had not outsourced its snow removal duties.

It’s very troubling that the government decided to go down this route, and the evidence all points to the fact that this route was not the right way to go. In fact, it put lives at risk, and it’s something that must be changed. I’m hoping the government listened to that report and plans to—for this upcoming winter—change the process, come up with an alternative, perhaps go back to the public snow removal system they had before, because the system is broken and is clearly not working.

With respect to Serco, a number of issues come up. We’ve seen complaints about the commercial licensing process in general. I met with a number of concerned constituents who raised issues around the licensing process. One of the things they raised is that there are limited facilities and the facilities aren’t able to cope with the demand. We’ve seen, in certain areas, particularly in the Peel region, that there used to be two facilities that were accessible in the Peel region. One of them was shut down.

The only remaining system is so clogged and so backlogged with folks who are going there to get their testing done, to get their licensing done, that it takes hours and hours for anything to be processed. The service is slow. That’s one of the major issues.

The second thing is that we’ve seen inconsistencies with examination. There have been problems raised. The Toronto Star did a very outstanding job in looking at some of the problems around that licensing process. Again, these are problems because it has been outsourced to Serco.

Another area of concern that has been raised is that there is an unfair system based on the fees that are applied to schools. If you’re part of a school that provides education in driving, particularly in the commercial field, there are unfair fees that are applied to those schools. Again, this is a system that, since Serco has been initiated, that’s when this problem arose.

There are a number of areas where Serco is simply not providing a good service, an efficient service and an adequate service to the people that it’s trying to serve. Again, this is another example where the Ministry of Transportation, if they really wanted to do as the bill says, if they really wanted to strengthen and improve the government, could start by addressing those two areas of concern in the Ministry of Transportation file, one being the snow removal and the second being the outsourcing of the licensing under Serco.

So we’ve addressed now the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Transportation. The bill also looks at, to a smaller degree, addressing some issues around the Ministry of Health. Again, while the changes in this bill are non-controversial—there’s really no issue at this point in time—there is an issue with the Ministry of Health, broadly speaking. If, again, this bill purports to strengthen and improve the government, well, this bill is falling short of that lofty goal.

In the Ministry of Health—a local issue I can point to is Brampton. Brampton is a city of 500,000—a city of over 500,000, in fact. In a city of that size, it needs at least two hospitals to service it. Brampton is somewhat of a sprawling suburb. Getting from one end to the other end of the city does take a lot of time, particularly with traffic and gridlock, which is another issue that we’ll get into later on in this speech. Because of the size of the city, there’s one hospital, Brampton Civic Hospital, that is overburdened.

There had been numerous promises made by this government to not close the other facility, the Peel Memorial Hospital site, and then they closed it. Then they indicated that they would renovate it and not actually demolish it. They broke that promise; instead of renovating, they actually demolished it. Then they promised to again rebuild, and they have not rebuilt it. It has been years and years of broken promises with respect to that hospital.

So if the Ministry of Health really wanted to strengthen and improve government, they would improve the accountability on these types of promises. When they promise to build something or promise not to demolish something, they would follow through on their promises and be more transparent with those decisions. Right now, Brampton is suffering because there aren’t two hospitals, and it’s an underserved region because of that.

If the Ministry of Health really wanted to see a bill that strengthens the government, it would actually improve accountability, broadly speaking, but specifically in my region and in my area, it would make sure that we actually see the second hospital, Peel Memorial Hospital, built and established.

In addition to these areas, there’s a particular area where I think there’s going to be some lengthy discussion, and I think I’ll move into that area now: It’s the Ministry of the Attorney General. In the Ministry of the Attorney General, we spoke about one of the changes, which is on the Family Court side, and that’s fine. Again, that’s an incremental change but addressing an outstanding concern around Family Courts. I think a lot more can be done to speed up the efficiency of Family Courts, but beyond that, there is a system that the government is proposing that is very, very troublesome.

In fact, instead of strengthening the government, it weakens the government and it weakens other services we receive as citizens. What I’m talking about is the system that was brought up earlier by a previous colleague in her speech, the administrative monetary penalty system. Its short form is AMPS.

To break down AMPS and what AMPS is: In certain cases, it makes sense to have an administrative system where, if you park your car in the wrong space at the wrong time, you get a ticket, and there’s no court date for that. You have a payment system where you can go and pay the ticket. There is a mechanism to allow for perhaps a reduction in payment, and that’s about it. You have a payment system. You get a parking ticket. You can either pay the ticket or there’s a mechanism by which you can perhaps apply for a reduction in the ticket. When it comes to things like parking tickets, perhaps we can understand it.

There isn’t an impact on our driving record; there isn’t an impact on our insurance rating. So there isn’t a significant impact with parking tickets. But the problem arises when you apply an AMP system to something where there are bigger or larger implications. So, again, with parking tickets, there was a consultation process, there was a recommendation, and it indicated—in the Provincial Offences Act, we refer to certain offences under

part I or

part II or

part III.

Part II offences are parking tickets. That makes sense; I can see that. There is still a reduction in our access to justice any time you remove the right to go to trial, so there is a concern with that, but if you balance the pros and cons, in a parking ticket scenario, I can see why there is greater efficiency in perhaps bringing in an AMP system.

But let’s look at the other scenarios: With serious driving offences, with things like speeding tickets, running through a red light, careless driving, in those circumstances, they are potential findings of guilt—if you’re found guilty of them—which can have severe impacts on your driving. Now, the AMP system might claim that they’re not going to impact your demerit points and they’re not going to impact your personal record. The other question that arises, then, is: How would you deter someone?

If I’ve driven and I’ve speeded and there’s no demerit point system, or if I’ve driven carelessly and there’s no demerit point system, how can we discourage that type of driving? That question arises. So folks have posited or speculated that it’s unlikely that the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Ministry of Transportation will do away with the demerit system.

Now, potentially, we have an AMP system where you don’t have a right to go to a trial and you are going to potentially suffer from significant demerit points and this might significantly impact your insurance. Broadly speaking, what it does is, it takes away your right to a trial. Why is the right to a trial so important? This is why I think the government is actually—if they do implement this system that they’re proposing to do, that the Ministry of the Attorney General is looking at doing—it’s actually going to weaken the government, and, perhaps more so, weaken the rights of the citizens.

This is the reason why: Our right to a trial is, broadly speaking, our chance to establish or protect this principle that we deem all people innocent until proven guilty. In fact, this presumption is enshrined in our charter.

Section 11(

d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines this principle, that we, as a society, are held to or bound by this principle that people are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That principle is an overarching principle of law. It’s something that is very tied into the principles of rule of law, and it creates a more just and fair society when people are presumed to be innocent unless there’s sufficient evidence to prove their guilt. That’s the way lawful societies work. That’s the way free and just societies work.

Doing away with the right to go to trial will seriously infringe on that principle. If you are immediately deemed to have been guilty just because you’re clocked at a speed or just because an officer sees a vehicle drive through an intersection, it immediately gets rid of that presumption. There are numerous cases where there is misidentification of a car—a police officer saw one car but it very closely matched the description of another. There are various scenarios that can happen. Ridding the citizens of that right to be able to challenge the evidence in court is a serious infringement on our charter-protected right of being presumed innocent.

Beyond that, going to trial provides a check and balance, and in society—particularly in the context of a growing tension between the police and the public—having the ability to go to trial and test evidence gives the public a check and balance to ensure that they’re being treated fairly, that they are not having their rights infringed. Once that right is removed, once the right to go to trial has been removed, it removes entirely a check and balance.

I’ll give you a specific example. One of the issues coming up time and time again, particularly in Toronto but something that’s an issue broadly speaking across all of Ontario, is the issue of carding. To make it very clear, carding is the process by where—and the issue that’s been of concern is when people are stopped for no specific reason, they are asked a series of questions and then their information is recorded in a database. When carding is arbitrary, it’s something that violates the charter.

If there’s any reason provided—if there’s any reasonable grounds, if there’s any suspicion, if there’s been a tip—then it no longer is arbitrary. What our position is as New Democrats and my position personally is that arbitrary detention is something very clearly outlined in our charter as something that is not acceptable. We are protected from arbitrary detention under

section 9 of the charter. So where we have arbitrary carding or arbitrary street checks—that’s where there’s no reason provided, there’s no reasonable grounds, there’s no connection between any sort of evidence and the actual act of stopping someone and requesting or demanding information and then recording that information. When there’s no connection between any evidence or any reasons or any suspicion and the act of stopping someone, then that’s an arbitrary detention, that’s an arbitrary carding or an arbitrary street check, and that has no place in Ontario.

Discriminatory detention or discriminatory street checks also have no place in Ontario. Where someone is discriminated against not because they’re the subject of an investigation, not because there’s any clear evidence that links that person to some sort of suspicious behaviour and when it’s simply the case where someone is stopped because of the colour of their skin, because of their age, because of certain discriminatory features, that is something that has no place in Ontario. It has no place in our province; in fact, no place in Canada.

Arbitrary detention through arbitrary carding and arbitrary street checks: They have no place in Ontario. In addition, discriminatory carding and discriminatory street checks have no place in Ontario. If we do away with the right to trial and implement an AMP system, one of the mechanisms, one of the tools that people have to challenge these types of discriminatory stops or discriminatory street checks or arbitrary stops, is removed entirely.

I can give you an example. I’ll withhold the name. There was an individual that I provided some legal advice to who was stopped when walking into a juice store. His ID was requested by the police officer, who said, “I would like to see ID. I need to see your driver’s licence.” At that time the individual said, “I don’t want to provide my driver’s licence.” They’re walking into a juice store, and it’s their right not to have to provide ID at that point—identification in terms of an actual physical driver’s licence.

The officer indicated that, “I saw you driving earlier and you had committed an offence while driving.” The individual said, “That’s fine,” and then the officer again requested, “I need to see your driver’s licence right now.”

To put this into context, what if the individual did not have his driver’s licence? What if the individual had left a wallet back in the car, or whatever the reason was? The individual said, “No; I don’t want to provide my driver’s licence.” The officer then cautioned the individual and said, “If you don’t provide your driver’s licence now, I’m going to arrest you.”

The individual was then arrested. This individual was a lawyer in good standing with the law society. He was arrested and put into the back of a police car. This entire scenario could have been avoided. The individual was put in the back of a police car. The police officer asked, “What’s your name?” A name was provided right away and a date of birth was provided right away and the officer was able to ascertain the identity.

This case was taken to court. The case was a simple Provincial Offences Act, it was a violation of the Highway Traffic Act, but the greater problem was the fact that the police officer infringed on this individual’s Charter of Rights by demanding a driver’s licence and then arresting the individual for not providing a driver’s licence and not simply asking for the ID and saying, “I need to identify you because I want to lay a charge under the Highway Traffic Act. What’s your name? Can you please identify yourself?” That question was never asked.

If there had been an administrative monetary penalty system, there would be no remedy in this situation. There would be no way to say, “I was treated unfairly. I was put in the back of a police car. I was wrongfully arrested, and there was really no reason to do so.” There would be no way to challenge it.

Because there is a right to go to trial, the individual, who is a lawyer as well, took this case to trial and put before the justice of the peace the evidence and said, “The officer at no point in time asked me to identify myself; at no point in time asked me to provide my name; at no point in time said, ‘I would like to lay an offence or a charge or a ticket against you and I need to know your name so I can lay that ticket.’” At no point in time was that ever provided. The issue that the police officer stuck by was, “I want to see your driver’s licence.”

Under law, you don’t have to provide your driver’s licence when you’re not in a car. You do have to identify yourself when you’re being provided a ticket. To take away someone’s liberty, to handcuff them, put them in the back of a police car because the police officer didn’t have the training to know that they should have asked for the identity—as in, asked for the name—as opposed to asking for the driver’s licence, was a serious infringement of that individual’s rights.

In this case, the individual was a lawyer, who was able to defend himself, who was able to go to court and make the arguments. What if the individual didn’t know his or her rights? What if they weren’t someone who was proficient in the law? There would be a serious infringement of their Charter of Rights. They would have been placed in the back of a police car for no reason, for not doing anything wrong, and there would be no remedy.

Because of this ability to go to court, the justice of the peace issued a very stern decision and said that the police—maybe this particular police officer was not at fault, but there’s clearly a lack of training that existed here, where the individual didn’t know that the law is very clear that it should have been a demand for the person’s name or identity instead of a demand for the driver’s licence. In this circumstance, there was no need to arrest this individual, to put them in the back of a police car. To subject him to that sort of humiliation and that sort of public shaming was completely inappropriate.

Because of the inappropriateness and the lack of training and the infringement of charter rights, the justice of the peace withdrew all charges against the individual. That was a great remedy, not just for the individual but because it sent a message that police officers should receive appropriate training. We respect the front-line officers that do a great job, great work in our community, but there are incidents where there is a lack of training and there are violations that occur. We want those to be addressed in a systemic way.

That could never have been addressed but for the fact that there was an avenue, a tool, a remedy to go to court and to challenge it. That’s one of the reasons why it’s so important to maintain this right to go to trial.

Again, going back to the idea of carding and street checks, when this is such a glaring concern that many people in our communities, particularly racialized communities, particularly young people, are being discriminated and being stopped unfairly without any reason, without having done anything wrong, without being the subject of any investigation—when they’re being stopped in this manner, some of the stops might be simply walking on the street; some of them might result in a provincial offence. It might be a Highway Traffic Act or some other sort of event.

If you’ve been unfairly stopped and if there has been some discriminatory practice involved, that’s not going to show up in an administrative monetary penalty system. The AMP system is simply going to say that you crossed the street or your light was out or whatever the situation is, and here’s a fine; pay the fine. If you want to challenge that and say, “I was discriminated against,” or, “This is arbitrary,” or, “There’s no fairness here,” there’s no way to do that.

It would actually exacerbate an already major concern, the concern around unfair treatment by, again, people based on various discriminatory factors. That is already something that happens. On top of that, now there’s one less remedy to address that. That’s completely unfair and the wrong direction for our society, but particularly for this government to go into.

Other areas: While this bill looks to amend a number of ministries, again, it doesn’t really strengthen the government. I’ll give one example. If the government really truly believed in its bill’s name, which is to strengthen and improve the government, then let’s look at the Ministry of Energy. This bill does amend a series of acts that impact various ministries. One area where they have not brought in an amendment, where they should have brought in an amendment and we would have applauded them for doing so, is in the Ministry of Energy.

In that file, the government has again, instead of moving to improve or strengthen government, weakened government and in fact weakened accountability and transparency. By legally, in legislation, doing away with, in the previous budget that was passed before we rose for the summer break—the government passed legislation that removed the Ombudsman from providing accountability and oversight to the energy file.

The Ministry of Energy, particularly Hydro One, the energy file, was one of the most complained-about areas of our government—one of the most complained about. It received one of the highest number of complaints around energy, and particularly around billing. This is still a public system. Under the public system and under auditor oversight, the public was able to complain about issues around billing. That issue made it to the Ombudsman’s office. The Ombudsman was then able to conduct a very extensive investigation, one of the largest investigations they’ve ever conducted, into that.

They were to find that there were significant systemic problems around billing. People were being overbilled, and it wasn’t just a one-off situation; it was systemic.

The Ombudsman was able to isolate that problem, identify that problem and then provide a report to the government. That is something that strengthens our government. That’s something that strengthens the oversight of a very integral system, the electricity system. It’s something that’s essential, very important to us. The government is now removing that accountability mechanism. It’s removing that ability for the Ombudsman to provide that oversight. That doesn’t strengthen our government. That doesn’t strengthen oversight; in fact, it weakens it.

This was an opportunity where the government could have introduced legislation to rectify that mistake, that very serious mistake, and make sure that the Ombudsman does have oversight, does have a mandate to look into and investigate issues around energy, but they’ve removed that. So they’ve removed that independence and, broadly speaking, if the government truly wanted to make improvements or make itself stronger, then they wouldn’t be selling off Hydro One. Hydro One is something that provides the province with a significant source of revenue. It’s something that’s very sustainable.

It’s something that’s not going to go away at any point in time—we’re always going to need electricity—and it’s something that’s not a luxury. It’s an essential need.

Electricity in our society is increasingly becoming something that we need in order to do our jobs, to engage in higher learning or education. It’s dependent on access to computers and having the ability to access the Internet, all of which require electricity. More and more we’re seeing, in terms of sustainable transportation, a shift towards more electric-powered vehicles, whether it’s infrastructure like subways and streetcars that are run by electricity or even personal vehicles. We’re now seeing a trend towards greater use of and more opportunities for and more options for electric-propulsion vehicles.

Given the trend where electricity is becoming more and more important, it’s a sustainable option. It’s something that is the future. The future will have a greater reliance on electricity, hopefully with a principle around reducing our consumption and making sure we have higher efficiency, but our society is geared towards more and more use of electricity.

In light of that, it makes no sense at all to me that our government would sell off something that’s such a vital, essential piece of infrastructure, something that’s so important to our future of growth, something that’s so important not only to things like transportation and education but also manufacturing. Many of the manufacturing bases that we look to in terms of good-paying jobs and to build up our economy, to make sure our economy is diversified—manufacturers need a steady supply of affordable electricity.

And selling off this electricity, making it private, removing accountability mechanisms, removing the government’s ability to have more control over it—these are all steps in the wrong direction. These are all going to weaken our government, weaken our protection as citizens, and are clearly the wrong decisions. Again, if the government truly wanted to follow through on what the bill’s title is, which is to strengthen and improve the government, then on this file specifically, they could be going in the opposite direction. What they’re doing is actually something contrary to the title of this bill.

They’re actually weakening our position.

Overall we have a bill which seeks to address some housekeeping measures to fix certain things that need to be fixed and to move things along with the times, which is appropriate. But again, this is a greater theme of missed opportunities. The government, if they wanted to strengthen and improve the government, could do a lot more. And there are serious issues that are impacting people.

Another area that’s impacting people very significantly, and it intersects with consumer services and government services, as well as, to a lesser degree, the Ministry of Finance, is an issue of the cost of living. The government has a role to play in the cost of living. There are certain issues that the government has a direct impact on. One of the areas that constituents have spoken to me about and that the government can do a lot more to strengthen and improve our lives if they were to take steps on is auto insurance, for example.

Auto insurance is something that we mandate. The province has said very clearly that people must have auto insurance. Now, as soon as the government mandates something and says you have to have something—you have to have auto insurance. If the government on one hand says you must have something, the government also has a responsibility and an obligation to make sure that that product is affordable.

So if the government on one hand says that you must purchase something but on the other hand doesn’t provide the appropriate regulations, the appropriate oversight, the appropriate mechanism to ensure that that product is affordable, then the government is failing to do their job. With respect to auto insurance, it’s very clear that the government has made decision after decision which certainly improves the conditions for insurers, the insurance companies, but does very little to improve the circumstances for the consumer.

That’s another area where the government could strengthen and could improve, but they’re not.

I’ll give you a concrete example: While the government has reduced the costs for insurance companies by implementing severe limitations in terms of caps for what people can claim when they are injured—so they implemented a series of caps. These caps significantly reduced the amount of coverage that we receive. By reducing the coverage we receive, the government has benefited the insurance companies. They’ve reduced their costs as well. They don’t have to pay out as much. But as a result, we haven’t seen any significant reduction in auto insurance premiums.

We put a lot of pressure on this government back in 2013 and said very clearly that the people in this province are paying the highest auto insurance premiums. People are very upset about the fact that they’re paying such high auto insurance premiums, and something needs to be done. We started off and provided one solution. We said, “Listen, one solution is, why don’t you get rid of the postal code criteria? Instead of having insurance rates set by where you live in one broad region, have it set by the way you drive.”

So we proposed Bill 45. Bill 45 would have seen, in census metropolitan areas like the GTA, that people all be treated the same in one broad area. People in northern Ontario could be treated differently. People in southern Ontario could be treated differently. People in rural Ontario could be treated differently. But in one similar area, like Ottawa or the GTA or the greater Hamilton area, there shouldn’t be a 100% or a 200% difference in premiums from one region to another region—which is perhaps one area in the same city, or the same GTA—that are only 10 or 20 kilometres apart from each other.

That seems to be absolutely unfair. The government voted against that. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against that.

We said, “Fine. There is another option for you to strengthen and improve the government with respect to this issue. If you’re not willing to get rid of the unfairness of discriminatory practices when it comes to where you live and how much you’re being charged in insurance, then why don’t you just reduce insurance, broadly speaking?” We’ve seen such a reduction in our benefits, but we haven’t seen any reduction in our premiums. We put forward a motion. It was a motion that I was proud to introduce. It was an opposition day motion, and it said that we call on this government to reduce auto insurance by 15%.

We were very encouraged by the fact that the government, after our hard work and after all the work we did around raising this issue, all the work we did in terms of submitting petitions—we were able to submit 10,000 petitions on the issue that auto insurance rates were too high. We were happy to see that after we introduced this motion, the government then agreed to this motion. It’s quite rare for a government to support an opposition motion, and I applaud the government for doing that. That was a good step.

They said, “Yes, we agree that auto insurance should be reduced by 15%.” The NDP and myself were able to raise this issue. I presented this issue in this House, and the government supported the motion.

Then we said, “The government has now indicated that they’re willing to move on this idea of reducing auto insurance by 15%,” so we put that forward as a budget demand. In the budget demand—there were a number of demands that we put forward, and of those five demands, one of the major demands was the fact that auto insurance premiums were too high and we wanted to see a 15% reduction.

We were again encouraged because the government, through our pressure, through putting some attention on this issue, through applying pressure on the government in a minority situation—we put pressure and said, “We need this reduction.” The government agreed, and they promised an 8% reduction in one year and a 7% reduction in the following year.

We waited one year, from 2013 to 2014. We spoke to people in our ridings, spoke to people in the Peel region, spoke to people in the GTA, and said, “Have your premiums increased or decreased? The government has promised to reduce it by 8%.” People resoundingly said that their premiums, instead of going down, went up.

We said, “Well, the government has now broken their promise. They supported a motion to reduce 15%. They supported a budget where we asked for this. They passed laws. Now they’ve broken, essentially, their own law. They’ve broken their promise, and we’re left with a situation where people are seeing their insurance premiums going up instead of going down.”

We asked people about this. They said, “The rates are going up.” We said, “If rates are going up, the government has broken its promise. We can no longer support the government.” We took this issue and said, “We will fight an election on the fact that this government broke their promise to reduce auto insurance rates.”

The community supported certain areas, and we were thankful for that, but broadly speaking, the community then decided to vote the Liberals back into power, even though they had broken their promise. We respect the decision of the community.

But now we’re left with a situation where the government has broken their promise. They haven’t met the deadline of reducing insurance rates in the first year by 8%. Now we’re into the second year, and they’re certainly not on any track to meet the second deadline of an additional 7%. So we don’t see the 15% reduction happening.

This bill could have implemented some changes, if they wanted to strengthen and improve the government. This is a major concern. This was a promise made. They could have implemented legislation that would have strengthened the public’s trust in the government by saying, “Listen, we acknowledge that we broke our promise, and we are going to implement certain steps to make sure that insurance rates do come down.” Again, they missed that opportunity here.

They amended various acts—various ministries are impacted by this—but a serious area where they’ve broken a promise is that the government has not implemented any changes or any legislation that would actually rectify that situation. This is a lost opportunity.

We’ve hit a number of areas where I’ve provided suggestions. If this bill is to be approved, it can be improved by strengthening, really, in a substantial way, various ministries. We can look at the Ministry of the Attorney General. There are ways to strengthen what’s an incremental change in this bill, but we can make it a significant change.

We could protect the right to a trial and enshrine that protection. Where there’s a serious impact, perhaps, on your driving record or on your insurance liability, these are serious matters, and you deserve a right to a trial. Broader than just protection of the individual when it comes to your personal demerit points and perhaps implications to your insurance, but broadly speaking, the right to a trial provides an accountability mechanism. It’s a check and balance. Removing the right to a trial would weaken a check and balance, would weaken our society.

This is an opportunity for the government to strengthen and improve the government by saying, “Listen, we will enshrine the right to a trial. You do have a right to a trial in these circumstances. We will not implement an AMP system, particularly in areas where there are serious implications in terms of your rights.”

A parking ticket scenario is very different. I wouldn’t be overly opposed to the parking ticket scenario where an AMP system is implemented, where if there is clear evidence that you violated a parking bylaw and you’re provided a ticket, you don’t have a right to go to a trial. In that circumstance, I think that’s something that many folks can support.

In fact, the Ontario Paralegal Association released a position paper on this issue and said that, with

part II offences—parking ticket offences—maybe that’s something where the AMPs might be an efficient system, and there’s no major concern in that area. But they did raise concerns around the impact to access to justice on implementing an AMP system for

part I or

part III offences, offences that have a broader impact on your driving record and, broadly speaking, what I had said earlier, have an impact on that check and balance when it comes to your interaction with the police.

I spoke about the Ministry of Labour and the fact that in the Ministry of Labour, if we really want to implement some serious changes while allowing for the collection of monies owed to employees, this is a good step. I support that step.

There’s a lot more that can be done in terms of really looking at how we can implement a complaints mechanism so people can complain and raise issues about the workplace without any fear of repercussion, without any fear of losing a job. In my region, when they’re already so precarious in terms of their employment, they’re not faced with the fear of losing something that’s already so insecure, something that’s already so unstable.

Beyond that—and I really want to reiterate this point—if you don’t have compliance, if you have no enforcement, there’s really no point. So if employers are not complying with the labour act and the Ministry of Labour does not have the appropriate enforcement in place, then the laws that we have literally become meaningless. They’re just words on paper. The only way that those words on paper become meaningful in people’s lives is when there is enforcement, when the enforcement protects the rights of workers. That’s something that the Ministry of Labour could do. It could take this opportunity to strengthen the Ministry of Labour more so than in just this one area.

I notice that I’m getting close to my time to end. Maybe I’ll just leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. If you’re happy with the time at this point, I can wrap up here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the member from Brampton–Gore–Malton. Additional time will be granted at a later point in time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since it is close to 10:15 right now, this Legislature stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: Today is the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation’s fourth annual awareness day at Queen’s Park. I see my constituents are up there: Jacqui Bowick-Sandor and her husband, Bruce. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: On behalf of the member from York Centre, who unfortunately is not here today, I would like to welcome Robert Davidson, the president of the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation and a constituent from Markham–Unionville, who is here for the fourth annual IPF Awareness Day.

The CPFF will also be hosting a reception this evening in the dining room, from 5 till 7 p.m., and all are invited.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s my pleasure to recognize Wendy Johnston, who is the grandmother of Calvin Kudar, who is beginning as a page here at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It’s my pleasure to introduce the Honourable Drew Caldwell, Manitoba’s Minister of Municipal Government and responsible for the energy portfolio, who is visiting with us today in the east lobby.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Member for Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce in your gallery today an individual who used to work here for the former leader of the official opposition, our friend Jacqui Delaney. It’s good to see you, Jacqui.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want all the members of the House to greet my long-time executive assistant in my Thunder Bay–Superior North constituency office, the hard-working and devoted Larry Joy.

Hon. Mario Sergio: From the riding of York West, I have 105 wonderful ladies belonging to the Elspeth Heyworth Centre for Women visiting Queen’s Park. I wish them a wonderful stay and hope that they enjoy question period here in the House.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: It’s my pleasure to introduce the mother of page Krishaj Rajbhandari. The mother is Jasmine Rajbhandari, and she’s here with us today.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My comment today is not to introduce anybody but to acknowledge the loss of a great friend of this place. Last night at about 10:30, former member and cabinet minister Hugh O’Neil, from the riding of Quinte, passed away in his 79th year. My condolences go to Donna, his wife, and his family. It’s a sad loss for here and a sad loss for the community.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce the parent and grandparent of page Alexander Ce Wang. They’re in the gallery today. The father is Pike Ge Wang; the grandmother is Yuelian Li. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I want to welcome some visitors from the great riding of Scarborough–Rouge River, in the east gallery. Some of them are here and some are coming in. They are from the Taibu Community Health Centre in my riding. These are participants in the Ubuntu project out of the community health centre, and I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe that you will find that we have unanimous consent for all members to be permitted to wear gold ribbon pins in recognition of the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation’s IPF Awareness Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbon pins in recognition of the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation’s IPF Awareness Day. Do we agree? Agreed.

We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery the Honourable Leo Housakos, the Speaker of the Senate of Canada. Please join me in welcoming the Speaker of the Senate.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would now ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving the first session of the 41st Parliament. Would you please assemble?

They are Nuh Abdul Nur Ali from Durham; Jaleelah Ammar from St.

Paul’s; Sameer Bapat from Willowdale; Wendy Cao from Trinity–Spadina; David Fan from Markham–Unionville; Anna Farley from Eglinton–Lawrence; Sydney Groskleg from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke; Matthew Keon Hartford from Timiskaming–Cochrane; Kelly Hu from Oak Ridges–Markham; Eastyn Klages from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound; Calvin Kudar from Simcoe North; Gabriel LiVolsi from Davenport; Duha Muhammad from Mississauga South; Siena Pacheco from Chatham–Kent–Essex; Laura Page from Scarborough Centre; Krishaj Daibagya Rajbhandari from Scarborough Southwest; Jacob Raponi De Roia from Ottawa South; Grace Maili Sengfah from Bramalea–Gore–Malton; Angelica Voutsinas from Toronto–Danforth; and Alexander Ce Wang from Welland.

These are our pages for this session.

Appointment of temporary Ombudsman

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I rise to give you notice that I will be filing a point of privilege with regard to the government’s decision to violate the Ombudsman Act and use the order in council to appoint an interim Ombudsman.

Two points very quickly:

Section 7 of the Ombudsman Act is clear that cabinet can only seek an order in council in the event that the House is not in session, not because the government couldn’t get their way. This sets a dangerous precedent for the government to circumvent the House, especially when there are other legal avenues available to the House in order to deal with this matter.

Secondly,

section 26 of the Ombudsman Act also allows for the office of the Ombudsman to continue to function, with the exception of issuing reports.

Section 26 makes it clear that the Ombudsman office would still be able to act on behalf of Ontarians when it comes to investigating complaints.

It is our hope that you will rule on this expeditiously. We will ensure that our submission is filed with you at the quickest—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member. I was giving him some leeway. This is an announcement of your intent, and that’s all it should be, but I gave you some room to say something.

Oral Questions

Teachers

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Public elementary and French teachers are still without a contract, and this government has walked away from the table. Yesterday it became clear that the government has made no progress in the ending the education chaos they’ve created.

Parents of young children are left in the dark. Five days isn’t enough time to make different child care arrangements, to find a daycare space. Parents deserve certainty; children do not deserve this uncertainty, and that is exactly what the Liberal government is giving them.

Mr. Speaker, after a year without a contract, how can the Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And that will end it. Thank you.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, after a year without a contract, how can the Premier continue to leave parents wondering if their children will be in the classroom?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that everyone in this House knows that we were all pleased that all of our students, our teachers and support staff were in school the day after Labour Day, Mr. Speaker. We worked very, very hard to find agreements with all of the federations. We are in a situation where there are tentative agreements with OECTA and with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, and that is a very, very good thing.

We have worked hard to negotiate with the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. There are dates that have been set for the French teachers’ negotiations to continue. We will continue to work hard to find those agreements within the parameters of what has been put in place for the other teachers. I think that that’s reasonable. That is exactly what we said. We said there was a difficult fiscal situation. We have been able to find agreements with the secondary teachers and OECTA—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The government walked away from the table. We don’t know how long before a full-blown strike. We don’t know how long before extracurriculars are cancelled. The Liberals continue to use students and parents as their pawns. It won’t be long before elementary schools will cancel services the kids cherish, like sports clubs, plays and field trips. All will be gone—all gone—because the government is not in it for the students.

Mr. Speaker, we don’t need a part-time Premier. Instead of spending her time being distracted by partisan federal campaign activities, when will the Premier do her job and get a deal done?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. It goes both ways.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will say to the Leader of the Opposition that I think he will know that I had a meeting in the middle of the summer with all of the components, with all of the—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: With Justin Trudeau?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, Mr. Speaker, the heckling from across the way about the federal election—I just want to be perfectly clear: This has absolutely nothing to do with the federal election.

Our children being in school is about our kids having the opportunity to learn. The education system in this province is one of the most important things that this government has responsibility for. I will remind the member opposite that the reason that I and many of my colleagues in this caucus are involved in provincial politics is because of the turmoil that was in place when my children were in school. That’s what compelled me to get involved in provincial politics.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Opposition House leader, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You could get one too. That would be two.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: The Liberal government is responsible for the longest strike in over 25 years. Before that, just two years ago, thousands of students lost their extracurricular activities. Now parents and children are left wondering what other hardships the Liberal government—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The Liberal government has slashed thousands of daycare spots, leaving parents with nowhere to turn if classes are indeed cancelled. Ontario families deserve certainty. The part-time Premier should stop being distracted and focus on doing her job. Why does the Premier care so little about parents who are scrambling to find daycare spots?

Interjections.

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

My attempts have been to try to ask for quiet, in a very quiet way. So from now on, I am going to move immediately into warnings of individuals. That’s it. You asked for it, and you’re getting it.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think my helpful team told me that I misspoke—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I said that this issue had nothing to do with the provincial election, I meant with the federal election, Mr. Speaker.

This has to do with children being in school. I have a granddaughter who started grade 1 this year, and I have a granddaughter who started junior kindergarten, full-day kindergarten. This is her first week of full-day kindergarten. There’s nothing dearer to my heart than making sure that our publicly funded education system is working—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That means having all of our kids in school. It means having all of our teachers and all of our support staff in school, which is why I was so pleased that we were able to come to tentative agreements with OECTA and OSSTF. We’ll get there with the—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Across the province, and at doors in Simcoe North, I heard a common theme: trust. The Premier has lost the trust of families in Ontario because of her fire sale of Hydro One. By turning her back on independent oversight, the Premier has lost the province’s trust. The Premier barred eight independent officers from doing their jobs, before the Hydro One fire sale even began.

The Premier isn’t in this deal for taxpayers. The Premier has turned the lights off on accountability. Will the Premier restore independent oversight to her fire sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just go through the ways that this has been a transparent process and that oversight is in place.

I would say to the member opposite, as I said yesterday, that the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One is about finding a way to invest in the infrastructure that we know we need across this province. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t support the investment in infrastructure, but we know it’s necessary, whether it’s roads, bridges or transit across the province.

Throughout this entire process, we have been open and transparent—

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just start. The plan was included in our 2014 budget and in the 2014 Liberal platform. The advisory council that we asked to give us advice on this issued an interim report and a final report—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Both were publicly available. We held a technical briefing for both opposition parties and for the media to give them the technical information about this process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The people of Ontario should be able to trust their government. Sadly, that trust has been eroded by years of shady deals: gas plants, Ornge, eHealth. In fact, I don’t think the Premier even has the trust of her own cabinet, especially when hearing the words of the chair of cabinet, the deputy House leader, the member from St. Catharines, who said, “anyone who looks ... at Hydro One ... would recognize ... that is best kept in public ownership and public hands.” Anyone who sells one of their largest revenue tools is headed toward bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier can’t gain the confidence of her own cabinet, how can the people of Ontario expect her to manage this fire sale?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I think I said to the leader of the third party at one point, I think we should all just deal with our own teams; we have a very cohesive team.

I want to talk a little bit more about the transparency and oversight that we’ve put in place. We brought in Denis Desautels, who is the former Auditor General of Canada, to oversee the IPO. The member opposite knows that publicly traded companies are subject to different oversight mechanisms than crown corporations. I think he knows that full well because he in the past has been very supportive of the private sector, Mr. Speaker. In fact, he has said that he believes that the private sector often works better than government and knows how to run business.

Hydro One will be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act and the Ontario Energy Board. They will have to file information with the Ontario Securities Commission and disclose the compensation of top executives.

Mr. Speaker, there are oversight provisions in place. They are solid. They will provide the information that the people of Ontario need.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: It’s not just the independent officers who are concerned; over 70% of the people of the province have made it clear they don’t welcome the Hydro One fire sale. The people of Ontario do not approve of a deal being done in secret while you delay the prospectus.

The people of Ontario deserve to have their government watchdogs at work. The protection the watchdogs offered in the past found millions in overbillings and discovered the billions squandered with the smart meters. Those same watchdogs deserve to be able to do their job to protect taxpayers under this fire sale.

Mr. Speaker, when will the Premier return oversight—real oversight—by the independent officers of Parliament to her fire sale?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition uses an interesting term when he talks about a “fire sale.” I will just say that one of the guiding principles that we held onto as we went into this process was that we would not do what had been done by that party with the 407.

We made it very clear that it was extremely important for the government and the people of Ontario to retain 40% ownership, making sure we retained control of the board in terms of being able to remove the board, being able to remove the CEO and making sure that no entity could own more than 10%. None of those provisions were in place when the 407 deal was put in place—none of those protections.

The regulation of the sector in terms of the OEB setting rates: That remains in place. I’m not going to take lessons from the opposition, Mr. Speaker, about fire sales.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The time does not arrest my original words.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier has promised again and again to be open and transparent with the people of Ontario, but the sale of Hydro One is shrouded in secrecy. Only the Premier and her powerful friends know the details behind this sale, and only the Premier and her powerful friends know how fast hydro rates will skyrocket.

Why is this Premier breaking her promise to be open, transparent and accountable to the people of Ontario, the very people who own Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me just address the two parts of that question. First of all, the leader of the third party knows full well that the way electricity rates are set now is the way electricity rates will be set in the future, and that is that the Ontario Energy Board sets those rates. She knows full well that the Ontario Energy Board has received applications for rate reductions, has received applications for rate increases, and the Ontario Energy Board makes those decisions.

But on the transparency of this process, let me just again go through what we have done to ensure that there is transparency, that there is openness. We have put in place Denis Desautels, who was the former AG of Canada, to oversee the IPO.

Hydro One will be regulated—and I know the leader of the third party knows this—by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act and the Ontario Energy Board. They will have to file information with the Ontario Securities Commission.

There are protections in place, there is oversight in place, and that is as it should be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier “has pulled an iron curtain over Hydro One.” Those aren’t my words, Speaker. Those are not my words. That is how the Globe and Mail described it on June 2.

In fact, the Premier has gone so far to undermine accountability that all of the independent officers of this Legislature, save for the electoral officer, stood up to her move and said that this was the wrong thing to do. They said this was an unprecedented plan and that it was the wrong thing to do.

Now she’s refusing to listen to the chamber of commerce and provide concrete evidence that hydro rates will not rise as a result of this sell-off scheme.

Why is the Premier doing everything that she can to avoid transparency and accountability when it comes to the privatization of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are broadening the ownership of Hydro One. The people of Ontario and the government will retain 40% ownership. No entity will be able to own more than 10%. We are doing that because we know that it is critical at this point in our history in this province to invest in infrastructure around the province. It is critical that we invest in the roads and the bridges and the other large infrastructure across the province that is needed by communities in order for them to be able to thrive.

The leader of the third party doesn’t like that investment. She has not been supportive of the transit investments; she has not been supportive of the infrastructure investments across the province. But the fact is that we know those are needed. We know that the Hamilton LRT, and roads and bridges in Kenora, Thunder Bay and in Sudbury are all needed if those communities are going to thrive. We’re going to make those investments. That’s what this is about.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the last election, the Premier’s platform said, “Strong leadership means making Ontario more open and democratic,” but the Premier’s leadership has meant breaking promises and ignoring Ontarians, who overwhelmingly reject this scheme to sell off Hydro One.

This is the Premier who stripped Hydro One of public oversight. This is the Premier who removed the Ombudsman’s power to help consumers at Hydro One. This is the Premier who refuses to fully co-operate with the Financial Accountability Officer.

Will this Premier admit that accountability and transparency are only the first things that Ontarians are going to lose with the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party understands—I know, because she supported the legislation when we talked about the Financial Accountability Officer. She supported the legislation that gave the Financial Accountability Officer authority, within parameters, and we’re operating within those parameters. We are following all of the rules around that accountability to the Financial Accountability Officer. When he has asked for information, we have given him the information within those parameters. She knows that full well.

I know she doesn’t like the idea of broadening the ownership of Hydro One. I get that; I absolutely get that. But the fact is that we, as government, had to make a choice. We had to make a choice about whether we were going to go ahead and make investments in infrastructure or not. We know that for the economic well-being of this province, we need to make those investments. They need to be made across the country, but we are going ahead—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Public opposition—not just my opposition, but public opposition—to Hydro One is growing by the day in this province. People are disappointed by this Premier’s broken promises and frustrated by her refusal to hear what Ontarians have to say.

The prospectus was supposed to be released within this month, but so far it’s nowhere to be seen. The owners of Hydro One, the actual people of Ontario who own Hydro One, still have no idea what they’re going to find when that prospectus is finally released.

Why does this Premier think that the owners of Hydro One should be in that position? Why does she think that the owners of Hydro One should be left in the dark?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: They won’t be. Again, we’ve always said that the Hydro One prospectus would be filed with the OSC this fiscal year and it will be. That was our commitment and it will be filed.

I guess the question I would want to ask the leader of the third party is why she doesn’t support the investment of infrastructure, why she doesn’t understand that if we don’t take this opportunity right now to have a vision for the economic viability, competitiveness and prosperity of this province—why she doesn’t understand that that will short-change our children and our grandchildren. That will not set us up to be competitive globally.

When I travelled to China last year, I heard, over and over again, concerns about our investments in infrastructure: Were we going to be able to compete and were we going to be able to continue to draw foreign direct investment if we didn’t make those investments? We’re going to make those investments. Part of that was reviewing our assets, and that’s what we did.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It must sadly embarrassing to be the only Premier in the history of this province who can’t keep Hydro One public while at the same time investing in infrastructure for the people of Ontario.

This Premier has promised that the government will retain de facto control over a privatized Hydro One, but Ed Clark promised private investors that they will be in control. The Premier says one thing; her special adviser says exactly the opposite.

When will the Premier finally show us, in writing, who it is we should believe?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, the leader of the third party ran pretty much on our fiscal plan in the last election. She actually said, on May 7 of this year, and I quote Andrea Horwath, “There’s no doubt we did talk in our platform about looking at some of the physical assets that the province owns. I mean, you can never be closed-minded about that.”

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will let history judge our government on our investments. When the historians look back and see that we electrified the Barrie line, the Kitchener line, the Lakeshore East line, that we built the Hamilton LRT, that we built the new alignment of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph, that we put improvements in place for Highway 417 in Ottawa and in London, that we built the Maley Drive extension in Sudbury, that we four-laned the highways between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, and we put the second phase of the—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians overwhelmingly reject the Premier’s sell-off of Hydro One. That is the fact. That is a fact. They want to be listened to, they want information, and they want the Premier to stop this $9-billion privatization scheme.

This morning, I agreed that I would meet with the Premier to talk about these concerns and explore how, together, we can actually ensure that this is a fully informed public debate on the sale of Hydro One, including public hearings and independent analysis of the government’s decision. That’s what I would like to see. I’m hoping that we can have that meeting to discuss those very things. That’s what Ontarians expect. They expect to be heard. They expect public processes. They deserve that.

Will the Premier agree to meet with me to talk about this issue before this sale goes any further?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Since I sent the leader of the third party the letter asking for the meeting, yes, I will meet with her. I got your response. I’m happy to meet with you. And at that meeting, I’m happy to talk about Hydro One, and I’m also happy to talk about the investments that we are making in infrastructure.

I hope that the leader of the third party will be willing to talk to me about her vision for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for investing in transit and transportation infrastructure that will help us along that way and will allow for the economic prosperity of communities around the province. Those are very important parts of our plan, and I’d be interested to hear her perspective on those.

Ontario economy

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. All summer long, fiscal alarm bells were ringing. Here is a sample of media headlines from over just a one-week period in July:

—Maclean’s magazine: “S&P Downgrades Ontario” credit rating;

—Financial Post: “Ontario’s Job Killer: Business Sounds Alarm Over Soaring Electricity Prices”;

—Globe and Mail: “Fiat Chrysler CEO Fires Warning Shot at Ontario”;

—Toronto Sun: “Hydro One Goes Dark”;

—Toronto Star: Ontario falls “Short on Auto Insurance.”

That was a heck of a week, Premier. You put business, family and seniors in jeopardy. Why can everyone see this but you?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question, because the member opposite is talking about where Ontario is going, recognizing the challenges that Ontario and Canada, and the world, have faced over the last number of years through the global recession.

And yet, economists now predict that Ontario will lead Canada. Economists recognize that Ontario has done a tremendous job of increasing employment—over 555,000 net new jobs since the recession—and Canada recognizes that we must stimulate growth. The federal government and the Leader of the Opposition weren’t there for us when we needed that stimulus. Ontario did stand up, Ontario did invest and now we have the lowest unemployment in relation to the rest of Canada. We will continue to lead. We recognize more needs to be done and we will do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: On your fifth downgrade, S&P warned, “Ontario is a sustained and projected underperformer.” The Ontario chamber cautioned that “soaring electricity prices have reached a crisis point.” One in—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Trinity–Spadina is warned.

Finish.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The chamber said that one in 20 businesses is expected to shut their doors. The CEO of Fiat Chrysler told you that Ontario risks further reducing its competitive position with your pension tax and your cap-and-trade tax, and instead of achieving a 15% insurance rate reduction, you failed to even hit 7%.

Ontario was once the economic engine of Confederation, but Liberal bungling of every single financial issue has reduced us to a have-not province. When are you going to stop driving business out of Ontario and start listening to the experts?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Well, here’s what some experts have to say—and the most important experts of all are the investors. Ontario has become the top destination anywhere in North America for foreign direct investment, beating out California, Texas, New York and every other province.

Here is what some of the rating agencies do have to say: Fitch stated that Ontario has demonstrated “the ability to exert considerable, ongoing expenditure restraint while instituting revenue changes as necessary to achieve its deficit reduction objectives.”

Moody’s noted our prudent debt management, large diversified economy and significant flexibility in financial management.

DBRS said our rating affirmation is supported by Ontario’s “continued adherence to its fiscal recovery plan targets and DBRS’s belief that it is increasingly likely fiscal balance will be restored as planned.”

Ontario will continue to address the deficit, we’ll continue to stimulate the economy and we will balance by 2017-18, because the people of Ontario expect their government to be there with them as we proceed going forward.

Teachers

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. For over a year, this Liberal government has failed to reach new collective agreements with thousands of teachers and education workers across Ontario. Now the Liberals have failed again by allowing talks with elementary teachers to collapse.

Real negotiating means being at the table; it means working in a genuine and meaningful way to reach a deal. It doesn’t mean that a government tries to impose deals, and it doesn’t mean that a government walks away from bargaining. Will the Premier instruct her Minister of Education to get back to the table and get back to meaningful negotiations before the end of today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

We also will be resuming our negotiations tomorrow with our francophone teachers. We’ve spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours with our francophone teachers. We have been working with anybody who wanted to come to the table to make sure that we have agreement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to note that the education minister has also neglected 55,000 education workers with CUPE this last year.

Back to the Premier: Parents and students are frustrated and disappointed with the Premier. For over a year this Liberal government has failed to reach agreements that will protect the quality of our children’s education and respect all of our teachers and education workers. The only way to reach those agreements is to show leadership. Get back to the bargaining table and negotiate in a genuine and meaningful way. Why won’t the Premier do the right thing, restart negotiations, and send her minister back to the bargaining table today?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I do want to note that we do value our relationship with our education workers. We in fact have been actively negotiating with CUPE, which represents a number of the education workers. We continue to negotiate with CUPE. We’ve had a lot of hours, a lot of days with CUPE over the last several weeks, so we are actively negotiating with our education workers.

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

Bear control

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question this morning is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. This summer my riding of Sudbury and the surrounding area has seen a significant increase in black bear sightings. Already this year there have been over 2,000 calls to the ministry’s bear reporting line. This is an increase from the 1,400 calls reported in 2014. Last week, I organized a meeting with the local municipal leaders, the police service, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to discuss black bear management.

Constituents in my riding are concerned about the increase in bear sightings in the community and want to know what is being done to ensure public safety. So, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: Can the minister please explain what is your ministry’s role when it comes to managing black bear encounters?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for his question. I know that this has been a difficult summer for him and for his community of Sudbury in regard to this particular issue, and I want to thank the member for his advocacy on this particular file.

Speaker, on this issue, of course, public safety is the number one priority for our government when it comes to black bear management in the province of Ontario. You, your family, your property—in any circumstance where you feel threatened—the first and appropriate response is 911. There’s been no equivocation from our government under any circumstances; that is absolutely the first thing that you should do.

Once they’re on the scene, the police have the ability, where they feel it’s necessary in certain circumstances, to call the MNRF for further support on this file. That happens on occasion. But we want to be clear: The police agency is absolutely the appropriate response, as a first responder, in any emergency situation, including black bears.

I want to thank the member for his advocacy on this issue—

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

Hon. Bill Mauro: —and there’s more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry for that answer.

Recent meetings with municipal leaders and the local police service and the MNRF representatives are a positive step in coordinating our response efforts to bear encounters in my community. Constituents in my riding have asked what options are available to address bear encounters. Some have suggested that trapping is an option. Others claim that MNRF needs more resources.

I understand that our government has invested over $35.3 million to educate Ontarians on ways to prevent bear encounters, and no other jurisdiction has invested as much as Ontario in teaching people about how to prevent bear encounters.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the minister please explain what his ministry is doing to address all of these bear encounters?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Again, I thank the member for the question. I want to start by addressing the resourcing issue.

I know that the third party has been in northern Ontario this summer, suggesting that the issue related to black bears is a result of the planning resources from our ministry. I would remind especially northern Ontarians that it was the NDP, when in government, that cut the MNRF budget by some 21%. I would further remind people that when the Conservatives came into power, they additionally cut a further 21% from the MNRF budget.

Since 2003 or 2004, our Liberal government has increased the budget of MNRF by some $200 million, so I think it’s important for people to know that.

Obviously, I would add, in terms of the member’s question, on the trapping issue, some see this as a response. The science has been pretty clear: It is not an effective bear management tool. Oftentimes, when the animals are trapped and relocated, they return to the area from which they came. Quite frankly, trapping does not deal with the emergent situation when people feel they’re threatened and that their health and safety is threatened—

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

Hon. Bill Mauro: Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I entertain the next question—the bantering that’s going on is disruptive, and somebody has a W, so I don’t think I would want to continue.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, on October 1, the ministry will slash another $235 million from physician services, at a time when Ontario’s population is growing and struggling to find a doctor; at a time when our aging population requires more help, more time with front-line services, and more complex care.

Minister, you’re turning your back on doctors and the patients they care for. How can you continue to insist you’re fully funding health care when you continue to make cuts to doctors, nurses and pharmacists?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the first question coming from my new PC Party health critic. I welcome the question, and I welcome the ones to come.

I think the member opposite knows—because he’s from the health sector himself—that we negotiated with our doctors for more than a year, and we used a framework, in fact, for those negotiations that was agreed to by both parties.

We brought in a facilitator, Dr. David Naylor, to try and bring the two parties together. We brought in retired judge Warren Winkler as a conciliator, to try to reach an agreement. In fact, it was Warren Winkler’s recommendation to the government and to the OMA that the OMA accept the government’s reasonable offer. Unfortunately, the OMA decided not to accept that offer.

As the framework—that both parties had agreed to—provides for, we continue to implement that framework and made the changes that Warren Winkler had actually recommended to both parties.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: Minister, you’re asking doctors to foot the bill for medical care your government should be covering. We know you tried to hide the $54-million cut in the health care budget. The deal you forced on Ontario’s doctors is restricting access to care for those in need.

Doctors know how much their patients need them, and you aren’t allowing them to do their job. These cuts will impact care in the future, as doctors will retire or leave the province instead of continuing to work in Ontario.

Minister, how can you justify these cuts when so many patients are in need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As this Legislature knows, not only am I a physician, but I have nothing but the greatest respect for the doctors that practise in this province. They are the best in Canada, and they are among the best, in terms of compensation, in Canada, as well they should be.

What I think disturbs me a little bit is that the OMA has characterized this as about the provision of health services to Ontarians, that somehow we’re cutting services that are available to Ontarians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, these negotiations have only been about one thing: They’ve been about compensation to physicians; over the past 10 years roughly we’ve seen an increase in physician compensation from the government of roughly 70%. So we’re asking our physicians to take a pause in that. We’ve had to make a modest reduction to the compensation that they receive, but it enables us to continue to fund and indeed expand our funding to areas like home care, our personal support workers and others.

Government accountability

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Today The Globe and Mail reported that an Infrastructure Ontario executive had admitted in February 2011 to taking

part in a $1.2-million kickback scheme, and at least one senior official executive at Infrastructure Ontario knew about this admission. Despite this, the executive was later hired to oversee St. Michael’s Hospital’s $300-million patient centre construction project. Apparently the hospital was unaware of this executive’s admitted role and involvement in the kickback scheme.

Why didn’t the Infrastructure Ontario executives let anybody know that one of their top executives had admitted to fraud?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question. It is a question, I think, that is a very serious one and one that we take very seriously. I can assure you that Infrastructure Ontario also shares those concerns. They’ve taken action right from learning of this particular challenge.

The first thing they did is retain an external law firm to review the procurement process with that St. Michael’s Hospital project, which is important. They immediately informed the chair and vice-chair of their board of directors, which was important. They immediately informed my ministry, which was also an important act for them to take. They’ve written to the CEO of St. Michael’s Hospital requesting that the employee in question be removed from the project, which has since been done.

Just as importantly, IO has also just initiated a process to retain an independent firm to investigate the employment and the departure of this employee. I thank the member for the question. It’s a serious issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It seems that unfortunately Infrastructure Ontario has taken action immediately four years after the fact, which is a serious problem. The Globe investigation revealed that Infrastructure Ontario’s chief risk officer knew about the kickback scheme as early as January 2012. The risk officer reported directly to the CEO of Infrastructure Ontario, David Livingston.

In May 2012, Mr. Livingston left Infrastructure Ontario to become Dalton McGuinty’s chief of staff. Did Mr. Livingston or anybody else in Infrastructure Ontario know anything about this kickback scheme and did they inform anybody within the ministry?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think the questions raised by the member are legitimate questions. I think that’s why it’s important that Infrastructure Ontario has brought forward an independent adviser, an independent firm, to investigate the issue. They are serious issues here. To the best of our knowledge, the board had not been informed of the particular circumstances around this individual, which is something that I think is open to question.

So I take the matter seriously. Infrastructure Ontario takes the matters seriously. Indeed, we look forward to determining—while the actions taken by this individual, the alleged actions, were outside of his capacity as an employee of IO, the fact is, he was an employee of IO at the time, and we want to make sure there are no discrepancies during his time employed by IO.

Poverty

Mr. Mike Colle: My question is for the minister responsible for poverty reduction. This morning, Minister, you made an important announcement at FoodShare, a non-profit that works with communities and schools to deliver healthy food and food education as part of the local poverty reduction fund.

Minister, you announced that the fund will help FoodShare evaluate two existing programs, the Good Food program and the Urban Agriculture program, and measure their success in improving the quality of life for those living in poverty. It would also help FoodShare determine how it can expand its program and bring good, healthy food to more communities in need. I know that the fund is an important part of our second poverty reduction program that will make sure programs improve people’s lives and better focus our poverty reduction targets.

Speaker, could the minister please tell the House about this new Local Poverty Reduction Fund?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: That is an excellent question, and I do want to thank the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for his ongoing commitment to improving the lives of people in his community and well beyond.

I was delighted this morning to be in the riding of Davenport with the member for Davenport at FoodShare to announce one of the successful projects in our Local Poverty Reduction Fund.

Speaker, the Local Poverty Reduction Fund was established as part of our second Poverty Reduction Strategy. It’s a $50-million investment over six years in innovative community-based projects that measurably improve the lives of people. We announce