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

October 29, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-29 (PDF)

L114 - Thu 29 Oct 2015 / Jeu 29 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 29 October 2015 Jeudi 29 octobre 2015

Orders of the Day

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Community policing

Privatization of public assets

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Transportation infrastructure

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Workplace safety

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Privatization of public assets

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Evan Wellwood

Hydro rates

Turkish Republic Day

Privatization of public assets

Hate crimes

Manufacturing jobs

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Durham Farm Connections

GECO munitions factory

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Francophone immigration / Immigration francophone

Petitions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Water fluoridation

Protection de l’environnement

Public transit

School facilities

Privatization of public assets

Diagnostic services

School facilities

Health care funding

Mental health and addiction services

School facilities

Hospital funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Business Corporations Amendment Act (Meetings of Shareholders and Executive Compensation), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les sociétés par actions (assemblées des actionnaires et rétribution des membres de la direction)

Opportunity in the Sharing Economy Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les possibilités offertes par l’économie de partage

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (Permanent Partial Disability Supplements), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (supplément pour invalidité partielle à caractère permanent)

Business Corporations Amendment Act (Meetings of Shareholders and Executive Compensation), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les sociétés par actions (assemblées des actionnaires et rétribution des membres de la direction)

Opportunity in the Sharing Economy Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les possibilités offertes par l’économie de partage

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (Permanent Partial Disability Supplements), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (supplément pour invalidité partielle à caractère permanent)

Opportunity in the Sharing Economy Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les possibilités offertes par l’économie de partage

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 28, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 109,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to speak to Bill 109 here today. As with every bill this Liberal government puts forward these days, there are quite a few changes across a number of laws that are being pushed through under one piece of legislation. We started to see that some of these bills contain some provisions and changes that are good for hard-working men and women in Ontario, alongside policies that simply make no sense. Bill 109 is no different.

I’m going to touch on several different aspects of the bill during my time. Hopefully, I can cover what makes sense in this bill and what needs to be removed or split into separate bills.

I’d like to first touch on how this bill affects our first responders—our local professional and volunteer firefighters. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, one of the major roles of the bill is to amend the 1997 Fire Protection and Prevention Act. I have stood up in this House many times before and talked about the importance of our first responders and, frankly, I’m happy to do it again. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with me when I talk about how important our first responders are to all our communities. I certainly hope that the work they do for us isn’t lost on anyone in this chamber or anyone watching at home. It’s incredible, it’s heroic and it deserves to be recognized.

When the unthinkable happens in our communities, it is those first responders who keep us safe. They are the ones who put their lives on the line to make sure that our loved ones are all right. Taking a look at these numbers, Mr. Speaker, all 11,000 professional firefighters and 19,000 volunteer firefighters in this province are normal, everyday people like you and me, who take on this great responsibility. Across the province, I am proud to say that they do an incredible job, and I’m even prouder to call many of them my friends.

Briefly, I would like to focus on just one group of these first responders. If I had enough time to talk about all of them, I would; honestly, they all deserve our recognition. In my riding of Niagara Falls, the firefighters, whether they are full-time or volunteer, are an integral part of our community.

These brave men and women already give our communities such an incredible gift that I don’t believe they owe us anything—and yet they continue to give and be the cornerstones of our neighbourhoods. Take the professional firefighters in Niagara Falls, for example: Just last week in Niagara Falls, the local firefighters held their annual haunted house, which brought in donations to our local food bank, Project Share. They were there using their spare time to get donations for those who need it the most. Despite the fact that many of them had spent the previous week working hard throughout the night to ensure that we could sleep well, they still came out for a great cause.

This is no different than the fundraising efforts of the volunteer forces in smaller communities: in Fort Erie, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Stevensville, Crystal Beach and Ridgeway. I would be here all day if I tried to list all the dinners and fundraisers these people put on to help our community. Not one of these groups of dedicated men and women have ever felt that they were only first responders. They all give back to our communities, and they all do an incredible job.

Mr. Speaker, what I’m trying to get at here is that these men and women give so much to us that it’s our obligation to ensure that they are taken care of. We’ve had some movement on recognizing that the unique cancers they face in their workplace need to be covered. But there is still work to do, especially around the issue of making sure post-traumatic stress disorder treatments are taken care of. When it comes to issues of mental health protection for our first responders, this province needs to move forward more quickly and ensure that we are not leaving any first responder behind.

I’m happy to see some pieces of legislation coming in to protect our first responders, but more needs to be done. I’ve seen first-hand in my riding where firefighters have died because of workplace cancers or hazards. Simply put, this is something that our province needs to make sure they have support for.

In my riding, there was a firefighter named Tim Hoday who served the force for 32 years. In April of this year, Tim passed away at the age of 55 after battling leukemia that he contracted during his work years. It was a sad day for the force and, really, for all of Niagara Falls. Clearly, this is an issue that is ongoing and one that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

In Bill 109, I see that we’re bringing a number of protections that exist under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act into the Labour Relations Act. It is my understanding that this would make the grievance arbitration process move more quickly. So long as firefighters aren’t losing any protection—and I don’t believe, with the way this is written, that they will—then this is something I can say is worthy of support. When I read about procedures to ensure we can have a quick grievance arbitration, I see that other unionized workers have this in their collective agreements—and have had it for decades.

So it’s time that we expand these procedures to our firefighters. I understand that they’ve been extremely frustrated in the past by the lengthy nature of the arbitration process, so I’m glad to see it’s being fixed. If other workers have these rights and the Ontario Labour Relations Board can handle these issues quicker than the Ontario courts, then in my mind it makes sense to bring the two together.

Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that every single man and woman who wakes up in the morning and goes to work is fully protected, under the laws of this province, and goes to work in a safe workplace. That means we have to ensure that laws exist that keep them safe and that those laws are Unifor—uniform—across the province.

Interjection.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Sorry about that. Hey, it happens.

In a lot of workplaces where there are gaps in these laws, it’s unions who step in to protect workers. They work language into collective agreements that provides safety training, safety regulations and protections in case of injuries. We need to do everything we can to ensure that every worker in this province has the protection they require to do their job safely and to be secure if the worse should happen.

When a bill of this nature comes forward, I always like to ask my first responders how they feel about it. It’s very important to me to ensure that I bring these bills back to my community, discuss them and bring them back here. That’s the way we should get community input. It is my hope that when we bring these recommendations back to the House, they get implemented when bills go to committee. The Liberals may have a majority government, but they still have a responsibility to represent everyone in the province of Ontario.

When I brought this bill to the local firefighters, they said they were happy with the language that was in it. So I can say I am also happy to know that they will receive the protection afforded to them and other workers under the Labour Relations Act.

I’m also happy to know that grievances can be dealt with in a more efficient manner. We all know that the wheels of justice turn slowly, and there is no need to get these complex cases caught up in the Ontario courts. If there is a way for other workers to solve their problems quickly and cleanly, then our firefighters’ associations should have that same process.

I’d like to touch briefly on

section 3 of this bill as well, which amends the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. The bill adds some provisions which will ensure that employers do not try to stop a worker from reporting a workplace injury. I think I stand with both workers and even employers in this province when I say that this is important. I look at the businesses in my riding, and I know that those employers want their workers to be as safe as they can be.

No one wants to see anyone hurt on the job, or even killed. People in my riding are just honest, hard-working people. Employers do want to help their employees get ahead and live good lives, and they want them to do it safely. So when we write this kind of legislation, I believe it targets very few employers; the kind of people who do not have the health of their employees in mind. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes that happens in the workplace. I don’t believe any single man or woman should have to wake up in the morning and worry about whether or not they will come home at night.

I’ve worked in manufacturing plants where there was quite a bit of danger. I’ve seen workers take up the cause of health and safety themselves. It’s important to them, and it needs to be important to us. As legislators, it is important for us to support them, and it’s the right thing to do.

Frankly, there are reasons that accident reporting needs to happen. If a worker is injured on the job, they may need compensation to recover, or they may need to report an area of the workplace that needs to have safety checks immediately before someone else gets hurt. Any employer who tries to discourage reporting workplace injuries not only shows disregard for their own employees but also for their own business.

I see that Bill 109 also increases penalties against employers who try to break their obligation to keep employees safe and to ensure that they have adequate compensation if they are injured. I’m happy to see that these penalties are being increased. Last year, there were more than 230,000 claims filed with the WSIB. We need to do everything we can to ensure that those people are getting the support they need.

The sad reality of this province is that there are a lot of people living from paycheque to paycheque—far too many people, in fact. In a province as rich as Ontario, this should never happen, but unfortunately it does.

Too many families are struggling to make ends meet. It breaks my heart, but I even see it in my riding: good, hard-working people who just want a chance to put in an honest day’s work and yet can’t find a place to do it. So when they do get a job, they’re worried about reporting a workplace safety violation because they’re worried about losing their jobs.

When workers don’t have proper protection in the workplace, these kinds of things happen. It’s not hard to imagine. Picture a young person, maybe 20 years old, working their first full-time job. It’s easy to see how someone like that might be convinced not to report an accident. As a province, we need to do everything we can in our power to ensure those situations never happen. No one should wake up in the morning and worry about whether or not they’re ever going to see their family again.

I believe this

section of Bill 109 moves towards addressing that, but the NDP has offered many other positive ideas for workplace safety that need to be implemented. These are the steps the government must take to protect the working people who drive our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to turn my attention to where I see the problems in this bill, particularly

section

Section 2 talks about collective bargaining rights when two unionized workplaces merge. Right now, when two unionized workplaces merge, the membership of the new unit holds a vote, and whichever representative wins that vote earns the right to bargain on behalf of the employees. For some reason, which I hope the Liberals can explain, the Liberal government has decided to remove that right. They have decided to add another exception into when these votes happen, which will alter the way these mergers work.

I have seen this happen in workplaces. Workplaces are changing all the time. Sometimes they are growing, but unfortunately today they are shrinking. When this happens, the representatives of the workers have to adapt, too. There are a lot of benefits that come from combining representation in two workplaces. It allows for the union to be diverse and well-represented. I’d like the Liberals to listen to this: For example, Mr.

Speaker—I have to go through the Speaker—when I was president of my local union, Unifor Local 199, which I think I mentioned earlier, we represented workers who had been working in auto plants for decades but also workers in credit unions, security officers, even textbook shipping.

At the time, the name of the union was the Canadian Auto Workers. Some people found it odd that the Auto Workers union had such a large and diverse membership. But if you get past the confusion of the name, you can see why the local’s diversity was a good thing. It meant that our union was well-rounded, that we represented people from all walks of life, not just one sector. It meant that people from all over the community came together for one purpose: securing rights in their workplace.

It meant that when we went to bargain on behalf of the workers, we knew the impacts that our collective agreements would have on the entire community, not just a certain sector. Everyone who was part of the union offered a great insight that helped to make our decisions.

What I’m getting at here is that mergers happen frequently, and typically they are for good reason. So for decades, when these mergers happened, it was simple: Let the workers decide who they want to represent them. That seems pretty simple to me, and in fact it’s something that we should all embrace; it’s actually called democracy. Let the men and women working on the floor decide who they want to speak for them instead of government. When you put it that way, I really don’t see how anyone can justify taking that away from them, yet that’s exactly what Bill 109 does.

In a lot of cases, the larger union wins the vote because it has more resources to draw on to represent the workers. But at least—and this is what’s important to listen to, everybody in this room—the workers had a choice. It’s actually our constitutional right. You can find it in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in

section 2(d), where it says everyone has the fundamental right of freedom of association. That association means the right to freely choose who you associate yourself with and who represents you. It’s a right that those in the labour movement hold very highly, especially when they feel like their rights in the workplace are under attack.

This

section of Bill 109 will fundamentally alter how that right of collective bargaining is carried out. Like I mentioned, these mergers aren’t that rare, and this is something we see impacts all of Ontario. I understand that some associations may want this to speed up the process for certifying a workplace, but it is clear there needs to be more discussion on this section.

There needs to be more discussion about whether or not this removes a person’s right to associate, and there needs to be a discussion about how this will impact working people and their representatives. When these discussions happen, we need to have the representatives of working people present—the ones on the ground who actually deal with this.

I’ve only got a minute left and I’m going to talk about CarePartners, but I’ll do that in my two-minute wrap-up. When you talk about labour and you want to make changes to labour to make it better for workers in the province of Ontario, there is no better example of how government should get involved than when people are on strike for six months, when a private company called CarePartners is taking on a union to break the union in a workplace in St. Catharines, when nurses are on strike for six months, when they’re getting paid $15 an hour.

Guess who is replacing those workers so a private company can make money at the expense of nurses in the province of Ontario? If you’re going to be serious about labour, we have to talk about what’s going on in communities right across Ontario. No scabs should be replacing nurses in the province of Ontario and certainly not in my good friend’s riding of St. Catharines.

I see my time is just about up. I’ll touch on that a little further in my comments. Thank you very much for giving me a chance to speak this morning.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I appreciated the very thoughtful and experienced comments from my colleague from Niagara Falls. I think he offers a very good analysis of this bill and some very good suggestions that I hope the government will certainly look into through the committee process, that these will definitely be examined.

As he said, the big change in this legislation is that for the first time we are placing the firefighters, who are covered by this piece of legislation, which governs firefighters, the fire protection act—before, that wasn’t under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Now it’s been folded in under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. That means that firefighters will now also have all the protections under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, which is something that they’ve asked for.

One of the main benefits of this is, hopefully, that the cumbersome and very awkward arbitration process is going to be expedited, because it can drag on for months and years. This is one of the advantages of doing this.

Also, in terms of this legislation, there is another important part of the legislation. There is the fair practices commission that’s going to be instituted, which gets rid of all the unnecessary delays in resolving workplace disputes between the employer and employee.

This act is a step forward. Again, it’s an ongoing attempt to improve the plight of workers and their protections. Hopefully, together we can make this a very good, helpful piece of legislation.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I think that we’re all very concerned about workplace safety, not just for our first responders, but for our doctors and nurses as well. We’re hearing a lot more reports about assaults in hospitals and nursing homes and things like that. Everybody deserves to work in a safe work environment: safety in terms of physical trauma, but also safety in terms of emotional stresses.

I think that we have to come up with a better plan. It’s not enough just to recognize the dangers. This is a good start, Bill 109, to address a lot of the problems, but we also need to address the fact that some jobs are so physically and emotionally demanding that, really, we have to have people who can kind of take a break the way university professors take a break—every seven years, they have a year of sabbatical where they do research or concentrate on something else.

I’m sure it wasn’t meant to be a break from the classroom; it was meant to be a time to focus on the research. But a lot of the professors that I know say, “You know what? I look forward to that break every seven years. It keeps me, in some ways, mentally strong. It makes me a better professor because, in some ways, I miss it when I have that year off.” I think that that’s maybe something that we have to do.

We have to recognize that we need to keep our first responders emotionally strong and that, perhaps, they have to have a certain time of the year—I’m not saying every seven years; maybe one month of the year—where they’re doing something else: they’re going into classrooms, speaking to students, and it’s not one person’s job that they have for their whole life and somebody else’s job to actually go into burning buildings or get people out of difficult car accidents, which we’ve heard of a lot lately, especially near my riding of Thornhill, just north. We’ve had some horrific car accidents.

So I think we can all appreciate what our first responders have to go through and that there’s a lot more we can do to support them.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: It was a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Niagara Falls go through the different parts of the bills and really show the parts that add value and the parts that are really problematic with this bill, and try to understand why they’re all put together.

While he was talking, I couldn’t help but remember a good friend of mine, Dennis Pietrobon, who was with the Sudbury fire department. He started just before my husband started at the fire department. They grew up through the ranks together. He was a firefighter for many years. He became a captain at one of the stations in Sudbury, and he went on to become platoon chief.

Unfortunately, Dennis is also one of those statistics from the fire department where he did contract a deadly cancer. He retired from the Sudbury fire department as a platoon chief and died really shortly thereafter from a disease he had contracted at work. It was at a time when we were trying to get some of those cancers recognized, and it was a tough go. It was a really difficult thing for his wife, Claire, who is still around with us.

Dennis was from Sudbury. His entire family, his children, all live in and around Sudbury. It was a tough time for the entire service. Unfortunately, Dennis is not the only one who contracted a deadly disease at work. There are a number of other firefighters in Sudbury who work with my husband who are also facing cancers, but things are a little bit easier because the laws got easier.

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

Mr. Grant Crack: Good morning. I’d also like to commend the member from Niagara Falls on his introductory remarks. He’s obviously a very knowledgeable individual when it comes to labour relations.

Bill 109, if it’s passed, is going to amend three acts, as has already been indicated: the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, as well as the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act. These acts came into effect in 1997.

So here we are 18 years later, and, obviously, times have changed. It’s great that this government is moving to update some of the legislation to come in line with current situations that are happening in labour across the province of Ontario.

I want to just speak specifically about our firefighters because I have a lot of good firefighter friends back in my hometown and many throughout my riding. These are 2013 numbers: There are 11,122 full-time firefighters; there are 19,219 volunteer firefighters; and there are 214 part-time firefighters.

We recognize the good work that our first responders do, and our firefighters, the role that they play, not only in fire prevention. They’ve got some of the most difficult jobs, being, obviously, the majority of the time, first on the scene at any incident, especially related to car accidents.

The amendments that we’re proposing to those particular acts would come in greater alignment with the Labour Relations Act of Ontario. So I think it’s important that we give labour the tools to more easily resolve disputes. We know that court costs are quite high—when things get to the courts—but this will make it a little bit easier; it’s a streamlined process. I look forward to further discussion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Niagara Falls. You have two minutes for your reply.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all my colleagues for their comments.

Because the Liberals are really hitting on the firefighters, let’s be clear: We agree with the firefighters. I’ve talked to the firefighters, and they said they just want their issues taken care of. They don’t want to get caught in the weeds on this bill, and there are some weeds in this bill that we have to make sure don’t put them in that thing.

So let’s be clear: The full-time firefighters, the volunteer firefighters, our first responders, agree with what you are doing in this bill. We agree with what you’re doing. The Conservatives agree with what you’re doing. We agree that WSIB has to be taken care of. I know because of my workplace, what I’ve done over a number of years, that a lot of workers would go to a worker when he got hurt on the job and say, “Hey, you know, we’re going to lose the $50 bonus we get every month if you report the injury. Why don’t you just get a paper, go sit in the office and don’t report the injury.” We know that goes on.

And it goes on with big employers. Surprisingly, yesterday, my colleague from Welland said that it happened in the NHS, and it went on for years and years. So we understand that the WSIB has to be taken care of.

What we don’t understand is why you’re attacking the fundamental right of workers to decide who they want to represent them as a union. Why are you pitting the firefighters against unions across the province of Ontario? I say to the unions out there that want this bill that I’ve always felt the worker should have the choice. If they don’t want Unifor to represent them, or if they don’t want Wayne Gates to be their president, they have a mechanism in place to choose. They have the right to choose.

What I’ve always said to unions is that if you service your employees and the membership that you represent, you never have to worry about that happening. They will never leave you because they’re being serviced. So why are we doing this at the expense of the firefighters? Why are we doing this at the expense of WSIB?

So I’m asking the Liberal government to, please, pull that part of the bill out. Let workers choose who they want to represent them. They have a fundamental right to do that; it’s their democratic right to do it. Please, pull it out.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to talk a little bit about the bill, and I just want to talk about something that we don’t get to talk about here, which I think is the importance of organized labour and labour unions to the civility of our society, because we often forget the fundamentals about why we’re doing that.

Just to say, I’m sharing my time today with three of my colleagues: the member for Beaches–East York, the member for Sudbury and the member for Kingston and the Islands.

In my mayor days, I think anyone—and I know there are other mayors, former mayors or recovering mayors in the House. I think one of the hardest duties we had—I know the member for Welland is smiling at me because I think she knows what I’m about to say. All of us go to funerals for firefighters, and we see the children. Mr. Speaker, it has always been, for me, particularly sad when you see the family of firefighters who have spent their whole life protecting other families so that moms and dads and children can grow old together.

I think one of the hardest things I ever did when I was a mayor was having to spend time—it was a bittersweet thing—with moms, often, and sometimes dads, and children whose fathers were taken at far too young an age by a whole raft of horrible diseases. I always made a point of going to those funerals, but more importantly, following up with the families after.

I don’t think anyone who has ever been in local politics, who has seen the sheer numbers of Canadians who have been firefighters who have died with these diseases—removing a lot of the obstacles that we’re removing today is just basic respect for them and their families.

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: She is still alive. She’s 98 years old now, hanging in there, and still a force to be reckoned with.

I remember, it was that tradition of those two great women, that mine labour activism—in the early AIDS epidemic, we were running a clinic that we had to fund ourselves. The federal health minister, who was Conservative, said AIDS was a moral issue, not a health issue. I spent more time raising money to provide basic clinical support—we went to our provincial NDP government to get a billing number for our nurses and doctors, and they wouldn’t give us one.

So we had no federal money, we couldn’t get a billing number, and our docs and our nurses worked for free with young men dying of AIDS at a time when we didn’t know how that virus was transmitted. It was almost all volunteer-given health care. People would throw up and bleed on you, and many mainstream health care institutions were afraid to treat people in those early days of the epidemic.

Then I joined CUPE, and I organized my workshop through CUPE. It was only after the labour movement and the Winnipeg Labour Council got on our side that we finally got financial support. All of that came from unions, including the firefighters, who understood public service.

There’s a lot of detail in this bill that my colleagues, I’m sure, will speak about. I’m very proud to be part of a government—and I know we’re not the only people in this House; I agree with what the member from Niagara Falls said. But we should not get so picky about this. My own view is that firefighters deserve our respect and our support, and they’re getting that today, but so do all kinds of other workers in precarious and vulnerable situations out there who don’t have the rights of firefighters.

So I hope that all of us who stand in this House who have been active in labour and come from labour families, who know that the laws we have weren’t created so much by Legislatures but were often hard fought in courts and by union activism, will see this as a beginning for a much more activist agenda around labour, which I’m very committed to.

I think that beyond partisan politics, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot more work to do, because there are a lot of people out there who would love to have some of these rights and who don’t yet have them. There’s a bigger conversation to be had. Labour has been in decline in membership, and that concerns me as someone who knows that my rights—and my family is in this country and healthy because of labour unions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s a pleasure for me to speak to Bill 109 as well, the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act. It’s always a pleasure to follow the member for Toronto Centre, who brings that emotional piece to our debate so often, reminding us how important it is, the work we are doing; how important it is, putting a face to what is in black and white in statute changes, a face to the fundamental impacts that we will be having on people’s lives.

The member from Niagara Falls spoke at length about the firefighter piece. We are delighted to hear that we’re getting the firefighter piece very much right, according to him and his analysis. Particularly, what we’re doing with this piece of legislation is that we’re streamlining the procedures for what firefighters currently do in their own labour relations environment with the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

This is a very particular personal moment for me because my stepson, Devon Kerr, my partner Lisa Martin’s son, has recently qualified to be a firefighter and has taken his first position up in Bala, Ontario, as a part-time firefighter and is looking forward to a very long career in this field. I know the kinds of protections that we’re bringing in will be of benefit to him. He is, of course, following in his father’s footsteps, who was a captain in Toronto Fire Services, and we wish them both extremely well in their continuing work—those brave men and women who do front-line emergency service for us every year.

As many of you will recall, I have a master’s background in labour management relations. I taught at Seneca for a number of years and I consulted in the field. It’s an old adage in labour relations that when you bring amendments forward, you want to make everybody unhappy, the reason being that you don’t want to be overbalancing in favour of one party or the other. So you inevitably, in most labour relations situations, make all parties a little unhappy. If one party is too happy, maybe the balance has gone too far the other way. I believe that this legislation is striking the appropriate balance.

I know that the member for Niagara Falls was a trade union representative. I was typically on the other side of the fence as a management representative in some of the work I did as a consultant. It was always the experience that in previous administrations, we used to call the minister not the Minister of Labour but the minister for labour because maybe the balance was going the wrong way. I’m pleased to see that our ministry and our government are getting the balance right here.

I used to teach at Seneca about how important this balance is. I would teach, in the general labour relations field, about how important it is to get proper procedures in place for unfair labour practices and to have expedited arbitration processes and that we have the proper union security and the duty of fair representation that’s contained in the act so that for the employer, the trade union and the employees it strikes the right balance so we have expedited processes and we’re not tied up in court processes. I would teach this from the perspective of general labour relations. I wouldn’t get into the weeds on the Fire Protection and Prevention Act; that wasn’t part of our program.

Now what we’re seeing is that those pieces that were missing in the original draft of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act are now coming in under the Labour Relations Act, where we have, since the mid-1940s—postwar—first initiated this type of legislation for collective bargaining, which constitutionally recognizes the right of employees to come together, to unionize, to be certified, and to collectively represent themselves in their discussions with employers. So this is really important.

What we’re also seeing in this piece of legislation is giving the power to arbitrators to enforce a written grievance settlement—it brings those powers forward—or for an arbitration decision from either party to be able to take to the Superior Court of Justice so it can be enforced as an order under the court. Likewise, the Ontario Labour Relations Board will have an opportunity, where necessary, to grant interim orders against parties, which will provide more stability and streamline labour relations processes.

I wanted to speak specifically to that aspect of the bill because I do think we’re getting the balance right. But we will be taking a look more closely at some of the issues that were raised by the member for Niagara Falls. I recognize him and respect him as an expert from that point of view. I look forward very much to delving more into those details as we go forward with the debate of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased to follow my colleagues the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and, of course, my colleague from Beaches–East York.

As I stand today to talk to Bill 109, we’ve had a lot of focus right now on the firefighters, which I think is an important piece and I’ll get to that in my presentation as well, but we’re also looking at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, and, as I said, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. I think my colleague from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell said earlier that it’s 18 years later; it’s 18 years now that we’re looking at trying to update some of our laws. I think it’s important that we talk about how things and times have changed in those 18 years, Mr. Speaker.

For us, I think it’s important that we try to talk about all of the positive things that we’re trying to put in place, Mr. Speaker, and also debate the ones that some see as contentious.

I know it has been brought up a couple of times—it may not necessarily have been brought up this morning. As I’ve been sitting here listening to the hours of debate that relate to this bill, we’ve talked about some of the amendments. Some people were talking about the amendments on claims suppression. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is important to put on record that not reporting a workplace accident is a violation of the WSIA. The WSIB uses a zero-tolerance strategy to try and stop claims suppression.

I know that our government’s proposed change aims to strengthen the WSIB’s efforts by legislating stronger deterrents against employers engaged in any activities to suppress or impede the reporting of a work-related injury or illness to the WSIB by a worker. I think I heard earlier my honourable colleague from the third party talking about schemes that are happening in some workplaces in relation to trying to get a worker not to report an injury or not reporting an illness. I think it’s important that it be recognized that that shouldn’t be happening. We need to ensure that the WSIB has stronger legislation to be able to try and stop these claim suppressions.

I think, if we’re looking at claim suppressions, it can include a range of activities, from an informal agreement between the employer and the worker for paid leave as an inducement for not reporting, to more aggressive approaches such as threatening dismissal or other employment-related penalties upon the worker. Our proposal would add a specific prohibition in the WSI Act against employers engaging. No employer should engage in any activity with the intent to impede a worker from reporting a claim with the WSIB or induce them to withdraw a claim that has already been filed.

If any employer does engage in these activities, they will be subject to administrative penalties and/or prosecution. I think that’s an important aspect to ensure that we get on the record today, to talk about some of the benefits and some of the proposals that are coming out in this bill.

Also, I know the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change spoke about firefighters who he has dealt with, both as a recovering mayor, as he said, and again as an MPP and a minister. My colleague from Beaches–East York and colleagues from the opposition have spoken about this as well.

If you’ll bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I had a great opportunity a few years back. I know my colleague from Nickel Belt attended this as well. It was called Firefighters 101, where SPFFA Local 527 in Greater Sudbury put together an opportunity for community leaders to learn a little bit about their job. They geared us all up and we went through many exercises—many difficult exercises—to learn what their job is like.

Even though I knew I was in a safe environment, when they brought us into this firehouse where flames were rolling over the top of the roof—you know you’re in a secure environment, but it’s still very intimidating and scary. Imagine not being able to see your hand in front of your own face. It’s one of those things where you’re really grateful for the work that our firefighters do each and every day, because when we’re running out, they’re running in. We need to do everything we can to acknowledge that and thank them for that.

For the last seven years, I’ve been holding a barbecue in my riding to say thank you to all our emergency services workers: police, fire and paramedics. For firefighters specifically, it’s one of those where, with these changes that we’re putting in place, I think it’s important for us to make sure that we get it right for our firefighters and to make sure that, as we say, we provide them with the tools to resolve disputes in the fire sector, because they’ve got the tools to keep us safe.

With that, we say thank you to them, and I’d like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being able to stand today and be part of this presentation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Kingston and the Islands.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: It’s a real honour to speak to this bill, Bill 109, the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015, along with my colleagues. We’ve had a very wholesome discussion from all sides, and I would like to thank the members from the opposition and the third party for their comments as well. One thing that becomes very clear to me is that we’re all very passionate about this bill, and we are passionate about protecting the rights of workers.

The member from Niagara Falls mentioned something about being serious about labour, and the one thing I can say wholeheartedly is that each and every member in this House—particularly in this party, because I don’t speak for others except my own party—is very serious about labour.

It’s a comprehensive bill. It’s bringing together three acts, as has already been discussed.

I would also like to commend the member from Nickel Belt for her comments talking about the survivor benefits. This is one area that is of great concern to me as well: the issue with how the WSIB calculates survivor benefits for a worker who dies of an occupational disease and who had no or low earnings on the date of the diagnosis because they were retired. This situation can arise because of the long latency period before the onset of many work-related diseases such as cancer. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has also very eloquently spoken to that as well, so I thank him for his comments.

One of the reasons why that particular piece of the legislation is very important to me is because I’ve worked in a constituency office; I have seen individuals who have gone through this process and who don’t have enough protection built into legislation, so I’m very pleased that we are bringing this forward. I’m also very impressed by the Minister of Labour. He has visited Kingston and the Islands, and we have had some discussions with the paramedics. We’ve discussed a number of issues with them.

Just to go back to the survivor benefits

section of this bill: Right now, in situations where a worker dies of an occupational disease and has no or low earnings at the time of their diagnosis because they were retired, the WSIB’s operational practice is to calculate survivor benefits based on whichever is greater, the average amount of annual earnings of a worker engaged in the same trade in which the worker’s disease was contracted, or the worker’s annual earnings in the 12 months prior to the date of diagnosis, rather than the statutory minimum provided under the WSIA. Now, I know that that’s not always appropriate.

I think that it’s extremely important that this proposed amendment will allow them to continue their practice, which has been challenged on appeal.

I’m pleased that the Minister of Labour has brought forward this very comprehensive bill. It’s an honour to speak to it. I thank my colleagues in the House for bringing their thoughtful comments forward as well.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: I know there were 10 seconds left there of the government’s 20 minutes. There were about five members that spoke to it. I thought maybe a sixth would get up and use those 10 seconds. It’s their portion to speak to this very comprehensive bill—most speaking for probably only three or four minutes on what they’ve claimed is very comprehensive and important; however, they’ve only spent three or four minutes.

I will comment on the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change’s comments—a very passionate discussion on his personal experience with firefighters. I would like to thank our critic, obviously, Ted Arnott, the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, for his work with this, but also, going back some years ago, recognizing the hard work, dedication, and importance of double-hatters in communities. They are full-time employees or workers for the day but volunteer and give to their local departments at all hours of the day—recognizing the importance that they bring to small, rural communities.

Of course, I’ll have a greater opportunity to speak to this bill at length, and I will of course take the full allotted time to do so, because I want to talk a lot about some of the recent issues we’ve had in my community, in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, when it comes to WSIB benefits and the potential for the presumptive cancer legislation as it pertains to benefits and payouts, should either a double-hatter or a full-time, part-time or volunteer firefighter—God forbid they are diagnosed with a presumptive cancer.

I look forward to my briefing today with the Ministry of Labour on this particular bill. I did work with them previously, alongside the critic from Wellington–Halton Hills, on this issue in the last session. I look forward to taking my 10 to 20 minutes because it is a comprehensive bill, and I think that’s the time that needs to be used to speak effectively to this bill. Thank you for the time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker. I just want to address some comments that were made by some of the members from the government. First, the Minister of the Environment, the member from Toronto Centre, talked about being supportive of firefighters and supportive of labour. I believe he is being genuine in his remarks. However, he also talked about the importance of unions, addressing issues like precarious labour and low-paid jobs and their long history in this province and across this country of being advocates in all kinds of policy improvements in government.

But at the same time, this government is interfering with the basic rights of workers in this same bill. He didn’t address that, that in fact they want to take away the right to choose which union would represent you at the end of the day. If you supported labour, you wouldn’t be doing that. You wouldn’t be pitting firefighters against every other public sector union and some private sector unions here in the province of Ontario.

The other thing is that the member from Beaches–East York talked about his labour management training and consulting, and that the balance is to make everybody unhappy at the end of the day, to kind of keep everybody off balance. I don’t know; in my 40 years of negotiating, we tried to get win-wins, so that everybody was happy, not lose-lose. So I don’t think I’d be hiring him as a consultant.

My third point—I’m glad the Minister of Health is here, because you know what? If this government really cared about workers, we would not have nurses from CarePartners on strike for eight months. The government would be intervening and making sure that for-profit companies that are hired by this government through the LHIN to look after patients in this province were actually back working and not on a picket line in this province of Ontario. That’s what you should be doing for the workers.

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

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 109, the Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015.

Our firefighters sacrifice so much to help keep Ontarians safe, and we are grateful for the work that they do. In return, it is up to us to ensure that they, too, are protected. Firefighters deserve and should have the rights and protections afforded by the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that before I came to this House and before I started working with government, I was a journalist. As a beat reporter, that meant, on occasion, going out to fires, going out to accidents on highways and going out to crime scenes before anybody else really arrived. A lot of times we were there just with the first responders.

I have seen first-hand the work, the hard, tough, courageous work that our firefighters do. I have seen them go in and out of buildings, coming back, making sure that they’re being cooled down, making sure that they’re getting on respirators to help them breathe, putting their suits back on again and going back in. I’ve seen this in warm weather, and I have seen it in minus-40-degree weather. I’ve been out there watching and having nothing but praise and confidence in these people who put their lives on the line for all of us to help keep us safe and secure in our homes, buildings and places of work.

So I have the utmost respect for our firefighters and for the people Bill 109 would be trying to safeguard. It is trying to bring greater safeguards to all workers in the province through making changes to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act doing four main things: ensuring that workers know that it is their right to file a WSIB claim and that it is their right to be protected. Secondly, we must do all that we can to make sure that these workers are protected by proposing an increase in maximum corporate penalties for conviction of an offence under WSIA. We also have to provide greater fairness for survivors in cases of work-related deaths.

Those are just some of the things. As a whole and individually, these proposed amendments, if passed through Bill 109, would protect the people of this province and also protect those who work to help keep us safe. Thank you so much.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to have this opportunity this morning to respond to the government members who spoke on Bill 109 at second reading, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the member for Beaches–East York, the member for Sudbury and the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I think it’s also important to point out that the government side had 20 minutes to make a presentation this morning on this bill. We go in rotation, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. Four government members spoke in that 20-minute slot.

We know what’s coming, based on the way the government is handling legislation through this House. At some point, after a few hours of debate on Bill 109, the government House leader will become impatient with the progress in the debate, even though there will be countless members of the opposition who will want to speak to this bill.

At some point, the government, most likely, based on what they’re doing on a number of other important pieces of legislation, will stand up and start saying, “X number of members have spoken to this bill.” They actually have four members speaking to this bill in one 20-minute slot in order to inflate that number and suggest that everybody has had a chance to speak.

The fact is, there will be, I expect, a significant number of opposition members who will want to speak to this bill. I would urge the minister responsible, the Minister of Labour, to use his influence to encourage the government House leader to allow the opposition members to do their job. There will be members of the Legislature on the opposition side who will want to speak about the fire services in their ridings and provide input from their ridings as to what’s happening in their respective constituencies, and they should be allowed to do that.

I know that there will be a significant number of members who will want to discuss this bill, and I would urge the government to make that possible.

In terms of my response, I’ve had a chance to speak for an hour on this bill, so I’m not complaining about my own situation. I had ample opportunity, but I will continue to respond to questions and comments as Bill 109 continues to be debated.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I return to the government side. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I will be forever indebted to the member for Wellington–Halton Hills. I think this is the first time someone has actually suggested I didn’t speak long enough. You are my dearest friend now, sir.

I also want to thank the member for Niagara Falls. He raised a very difficult issue, because this has been a debate in labour: whether unions that have 60% or more automatically assume, as the majority membership, or whether it should be a vote. While he may disagree with the government, he is probably aware, as am I, that this is a very active debate amongst our brothers and sisters in different unions. There isn’t a consensus, at least certainly in the representations I’ve seen. But I do appreciate him raising it. There’s a coffee shop downstairs, and I’m always open to be educated; I’m happy to do that.

I just want to reflect on members on all sides. I thought this was a thoughtful debate. We often slip easily into partisan roles or forget we’re people who all came here hoping to honour our parents and our grandparents, to make sure our kids inherit something better than we inherited from our parents. Given our inheritance, it’s pretty tough to leave a better legacy than our moms and grandmoms gave us. I want to thank members as we go forward on this bill.

I hope, as the member for Welland said, that we can take time to look at other opportunities. I don’t say that flippantly. There are constraints as we get back to balance, obviously, but that doesn’t stop us from doing a lot of human rights things and a lot of advancement of things that don’t cost money.

We both come from parties—and all of us have different traditions and experiences, sometimes in more than one party, and share some common roots, and I think a lot of people elect us hoping that we’ll be more collaborative and co-operative and be Ontarians before we’re partisans.

I think this debate was emblematic, and I thank all members for honouring our firefighters with such a mature debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to add a few comments to this debate on Bill 109.

First of all, I think we need to give people an understanding of the main tenets of Bill 109. It encompasses three areas that, while they each have to do with labour, are completely different in their response to a particular issue in areas of labour. When you put together three areas, as this piece of legislation does, you get the same problem: that there’s a poison pill or there is something there that you are fully supportive of but something that you’re equally concerned about. This has nothing to do with which government—governments of all stripes in the last few decades have tended to do this.

But what effect it has, then, is to cast everything with the same brush, because at the end of the day, it’s only one vote. You are either for it or against it.

I see this as a problem that is obviously to the benefit of the executive area of government, because they can move this piece of legislation and its various parts along and it makes it easier for them, but it diminishes the job of the legislator, and that is the fact that they are faced with the same dilemma in terms of their response to three separate issues that have been put together. I say this in the spirit of, as I said, governments of all stripes, but as members of the Legislature, we should remember that we owe a duty to our constituents in being able to discuss these issues.

The areas are quite different. I certainly want to comment on the first segment of the bill, which deals with changes to the firefighters. I have stood alongside those members of the House—again, in all parties—who have recognized the value of and the past injustices to the double-hatter. Representing a constituency which I think still relies, in all cases—there’s a volunteer component to each of the firefighting stations in my riding, in my communities. It has always been an issue that I’ve felt very strongly about, that when someone is prepared to offer their volunteer professional time, the communities are the beneficiaries.

I’ve spoken at firefighters’ appreciation evenings where I’ve been able to remind the public of the kind of training—and the hours and hours of upgrading of training—that volunteer firefighters must perform before they get on a truck. I think it’s really important that the legislation, as we see here today, recognizes the legitimacy and puts that problem, that issue, behind us. I think that that’s particularly valuable.

However, the part of the bill that I think requires greater attention is the third part, on the WSIB. The WSIB, in the time that I’ve been in this Legislature, sort of comes and goes in terms of issues of legislation, directives or changes in policy.

I think that there are a few principles that one has to keep in mind when you’re looking at issues around the WSIB. Obviously, it has to be just. I look at some of the members of my community who, frankly, have suffered a great deal through injury at work, through no fault of their own. In establishing those principles, obviously you want something that is fair and just for people who have received, in some cases, lifelong encumbrances and problems with the accidents that they’ve had. So, justice and balance.

The attitude of most employers is obviously that it’s good business to have a safe place, and they work very hard at providing opportunities for training and things like that, to make sure that there is that balance on the employer side. The other area, of course, is the cost of what is being provided.

The final point is that it has to be evidence-based. I found, when I started looking at this part of the bill, that there was an issue that seemed to be one of long standing, and that was the one of claim suppression. I know that others have spoken about it in their comments, but this is something that strikes me as very difficult, because of the fact that you have to prove that something happened. You also have to prove some kind of intent.

There has been quite a lot of work done over the years on this issue of claim suppression. Obviously, no one with any sense of fairness wants to witness this or be involved in it; that’s not the issue. The issue is providing the research on this particular issue, so I did a bit of looking around and found that this isn’t the first time claim suppression has shown up as something of interest in legislation. There have been a number of studies that have been done to try to come to some understanding and agreement on this.

You can’t base laws on anecdotal information. In June 2005, the report of the Institute of Work and Health, Assessing the Effects of Experience Rating in Ontario, came up with a couple of comments. The study found that “the large majority of employees stated that they are being encouraged to report accidents and incidents and are being offered suitable modified and early return to work if injured.”

The 2005 report also found, “Our research indicates that experience rating encourages prevention and contributes to positive workplace health and safety practices.” So there are some studies, then, going back 10 years, that have looked at this kind of thing.

In more recent times, the WSIB commissioned a Prism economic analysis and looked at some of the information there. The Prism report defines claim suppression: “For the purpose of this research, ‘claim suppression’ means actions taken by an employer to induce a worker not to report an injury or illness or alternatively to under-report the severity of an injury or illness or the amount of lost time attributable to that injury or illness. The inducement may be coercive, i.e., the inducement may involve an actual or perceived threat of sanctions.

Alternatively the inducement may be accommodating, i.e., the employer may offer the worker benefits in lieu of workers’ compensation, if full WSIB benefits, especially lost time benefits, are not claimed.”

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the opportunity to pick up later, and I’d like to stay at this particular part of my presentation, if I might.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a report from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, An Assessment of the Financial Impact of the Partial Sale of Hydro One.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I just want to take this opportunity to wish the member for Nepean–Carleton a happy birthday.

Mr. John Fraser: We have some people joining us from the Ontario Society of Occupational Therapists. We have Beth Linkewich, the president; she’s joined by Christine Brenchley, a director; and as well, Lesya Dyk is here today. They have a reception at 11:30 in room 228. I hope you all can join us.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to introduce page Victoria Gates’s family who are here today: her mother, Jacqueline Gates; her father, Jeff Gates; grandparents Scott and Sharon Gates; and her grandmother Sandra Armstrong. Thank you for joining us today at Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I would like to welcome grade 10 students and staff from St. Marcellinus Secondary School in my great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. They are visiting Queen’s Park today. I wish them a very pleasant and educational time here.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my great pleasure to welcome His Excellency the consul general of Turkey, Mr. Erdeniz Sen, and the members of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations who are here today. We are celebrating the 92nd anniversary of the Turkish republic. There will be a flag-raising at the south grounds, and I invite all members of the House to participate in this wonderful event.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you, and welcome. I hope the wind is not too bad for you at noon hour.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce Sebastian Lingertat from my riding of St. Paul’s who is our page captain today. I’d also like to introduce his grandparents James and Irene VanLeeuwen, and his aunt Annette, who are here with us today in the gallery.

M me France Gélinas: My intern from OLIP just made her way in. Ça me fait plaisir de vous présenter Olivia Labonté, qui est dans mon bureau pour cette session. Welcome, Olivia.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted to introduce Derek and Robyn Shepherd, who are in the east gallery today, parents of our page captain Gavin Shepherd, who is a student at Bowmore in Beaches–East York. Welcome.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: On behalf of the MPP from Oxford, Ernie Hardeman, and on behalf of page Abby Moreside, I’d like to welcome her mother, Kathy Moreside, and her grandmother Gerda Stefan, who will be in the members’ gallery this morning.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’m not sure if he’s here yet, but I’d like to introduce Lorne Kenney, a former candidate in the riding of Simcoe–Grey.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier got caught. She got caught giving away millions of dollars to teachers’ unions with nothing in return. Then her government came up with a multitude of excuses. Let’s go over the timeline. On Wednesday it was “business as usual.” Last Thursday it was, “We don’t need receipts.” Monday it was, “This is certainly not business as usual.” Tuesday it was, “It will never happen again.” Yesterday it was, “The unions must produce receipts.” Every day is a different storyline. Even open soap operas have longer storylines than this government. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable.

Will the Acting Premier confirm that the government’s position hasn’t changed again today, because there have been six positions in a week?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think what we have demonstrated is a firm commitment to the well-being of students in our classrooms and we have demonstrated evidence of the success of students. This process has been successful. Students have remained in the classroom. They are getting the education that they need to be successful.

So let’s just remember, these negotiations have been difficult. It is in line with our net-zero bargaining process that I would hope the Leader of the Opposition would support—a net-zero bargaining process. We have done this without making any cuts to the classroom whatsoever.

This new process did require resources. We are in a time of transition so that in future, negotiations will go much more smoothly and require much less time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: The only commitment this government has demonstrated is to the Liberal Party. The government said $2.5 million was to go for pizza parties and sleepovers. If that excuse was real, the government would have asked for receipts from the start, even though the public now suspects the money was really just for the government’s own purposes, for their own partisan purposes. The arrogance is astounding. This government is eroding public confidence in the education system.

Does the Premier not understand that her multi-million-dollar union payouts have undermined the integrity of our education system and the people who work in it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s becoming increasingly clear that what this party and what this leader wants to do is continue the attack on our partners in education—the unions and federations. For him to ridicule the bargaining process and describe it as a sleepover and pizza party demonstrates as clearly as anything he said that he has no respect whatsoever for the collective bargaining process or for the federations that represent our teachers.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: This party values our educators. What we will not stand for is the attacks on the classroom. And do you know what? If this government doesn’t want to listen to the public, if they don’t want to listen to the constructive advice of the official opposition, well maybe you can listen to the Toronto Star. The Toronto Star op-ed yesterday said, “If the payments made from the government to the unions really were necessary, then there is no reason they should have been kept hidden from the public.”

“Payments of $2.5 million, which were kept hidden from the public ... seem almost impossible to defend.” The payments are impossible to defend because they were made for political purposes.

Will the deputy leader of the Ontario Liberal Party commit to giving back the millions of dollars she has taken from Ontario’s classrooms? No more spin, no more excuses. Yes or no? Will you pay the money back?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite talks about his party’s commitment to the classroom. Well, let me just remind the third party of what their record was when we took office back in 2003. At that time, one out of every three kids was not graduating from high school. One in three high school students did not graduate. We have been able to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shouting down is not helpful, nor is other heckling from the government side helpful.

Please finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have been able to raise the graduation rate to 84% and we continue to improve programs there.

So let’s make it very clear: The cost of this successful process with unions was offset by savings in the collective agreement, including early discounted payment of retirement gratuities, lowering the cost of sick leave and making the delivery of professional development more efficient. We’re getting—

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

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Acting Premier. Can the Acting Premier, with a straight face, guarantee us today that not one red cent of the millions of dollars funnelled to teachers’ unions was spent on third-party election ads, to the benefit of the Liberal Party?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, she can’t guarantee us because she’s part—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: We’ll see how their votes are on Wednesday when the auditor is asked to look at these transactions, or the Financial Accountability Officer this morning when it comes to trust of their government. She’s part of the chain that sees teachers’ unions spend millions on election ads one year and receive millions back to cover hotel and pizza costs the next. “You scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours,” leading to questions of taxpayers’ money funding election ads.

Yet, just this month, her government again reminded us that the Liberal Party will “be strengthening Ontario’s rules on third-party advertising,” only minutes before rejecting our call on proposed strengthening restrictions.

Speaker, they understand there’s a problem. It seems that the only ones who don’t understand that there’s something inherently wrong here is them. If she can’t guarantee where our money’s been spent, will the Acting Premier deliver on the promise—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Education.

Those were long processes because we were working through a new process. And, yes, we were pleased to invest in making sure that process happened. As the Premier said yesterday, there will be accountability.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: It also led to millions of dollars to unions to run election ads that benefited the Liberal Party. Even the Toronto Star is calling on the Premier to “deliver on that pledge and ensure no future government will be tainted by the suspicion of unfairly funding lavish third-party campaigns.” We agree, Speaker, yet instead the Premier refuses to live up to her word and diverts attention to flip-flop on the need for receipts just to justify those continued payouts. Just follow the money, Speaker, and she’ll know what’s on those receipts: millions of dollars-plus in partisan, third-party election advertising bills. It’s time to end this tired taxpayer-funded charade.

Will the Acting Premier tell us if we will see the promised new regulations to halt potential government payouts for third-party advertising before any further millions are handed over to those unions?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to repeat that what we have done is transform the collective bargaining system. We were able to get net zero. As the Premier said, the particular payments in question have not yet flowed. There will be an accountability process. As I said yesterday, there will be accountability. There will be a

schedule of permissible things, which certainly do not include third-party advertising—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: —and that there will be verification required of those permissible payments that are allowed.

I think what we need to understand is that, in fact, that is part of our net zero, and the net-zero payments and increases to compensation are offset by early discounted payout of retirement gratuities, lowering the cost of sick leave—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This morning’s FAO report—sorry, to the Acting Premier, Speaker. This morning’s FAO report shows what New Democrats have been saying all along. We have been saying it for months: the sell-off of Hydro One is a bad deal for the families and businesses of this province. While the Premier has been telling Ontarians over and over again that the sell-off will raise $4 billion for infrastructure and transit, the FAO report shows that the sell-off could raise as little as $1.4 billion—a fraction of what she has been promising. Will this Premier and her government stop the unnecessary and short-sighted sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do want to take this opportunity to thank the Financial Accountability Officer, Stephen LeClair, for his report. I welcome his assessment of our plan to broaden the ownership of Hydro One.

Let’s not forget, Speaker, that this is all about building infrastructure. We’re making historic investments in infrastructure: $130 billion over the next 10 years to build that badly needed infrastructure right across the province. We need to build that infrastructure. Broadening the ownership of Hydro One allows us to make those investments today, not 10 years down the road. Experts have called for an increase in infrastructure spending—up to 5% of our GDP. This will help us get there.

I think the member also has to recognize that not making investments in infrastructure has a cost as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has been claiming that the sell-off of Hydro One will raise $4 billion for transit and infrastructure, but the FAO clearly shows today that the sell-off could generate just $1.4 billion. Speaker, $1.4 billion is just 1%—1%—of the Premier’s $130 billion of infrastructure and transit promises, and yet the Premier would have the people of Ontario believe that it is essential for her to sell off our most public, our most trusted, most important public asset for that 1%.

Just 1%, and the Premier wants us to lose control of our electricity system and put the future of Ontario’s financial well-being in jeopardy. This is a terrible deal and it makes no sense whatsoever. Will the Premier and her government stop this insane sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Clearly, what the leader of the third party does not understand is that there is a link between broadening the ownership of Hydro One and investments in infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure has a payoff as well, Speaker. The Conference Board of Canada says that for every $100 million invested in infrastructure, about $114 million is produced in real GDP, a payoff of 14%. That is a real return on investment. That is a return on investment that benefits all Ontarians. We do need to make investments in infrastructure.

The leader of the third party has a couple of ideas, neither of which hold water. We’re moving forward with our plan to build up Ontario. We’re moving forward with our plan to build badly needed infrastructure. The people of Ontario support that infrastructure investment.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The FAO report provides Ontarians with the very first independent analysis of this Premier’s wrong-headed sell-off. At $4 billion, this sell-off was unnecessary in the first place. It was a bad deal at $4 billion; at $1.4 billion, it is ludicrous that the Premier would even consider it. Speaker, $1.4 billion works out to $140 million per year over 10 years. If the Premier cannot find $140 million from other sources, then she and her Minister of Finance and her Minister of Energy and her chair of Treasury Board should just step aside.

Will this Premier and her Liberal government commit to Ontarians today to stop the unnecessary sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to thank the Financial Accountability Officer for his report. I recognize how important it is for us to have that open and transparent engagement. We’ve had a strong and positive relationship with the FAO, and it is indeed the first such report by any province, recognizing that we’re building on the very things that we’ve enacted. Furthermore, it is also important to note that the Financial Accountability Officer made no reference—and he purposely said so—in terms of the net benefit that comes from the broadening of ownership and the reinvestment of those dollars into new investments and new issues to stimulate the economy.

Nor does it talk about the appreciation of the value of this company, because we recognize that Hydro One has been underperforming and can do better—which, by the way, we will continue to own and still benefit from dividends over time.

This is going forward for the benefit of the people and for the reinvestment—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. The FAO report shows once again the contempt that this Liberal government and this Premier have for the people of Ontario. It has been repeated by this finance minister and by this chair of Treasury Board just this morning.

They have been promising $4 billion from the sell-off of Hydro One at every opportunity. Yet we now learn that they could get $1.4 billion spread over 10 years. That $140 million a year is only 0.001% of the province’s budget. That’s gross incompetency if you cannot find room in your budget, without selling Hydro One, to fund $140 million each year over 10 years.

Will this Acting Premier commit today to stopping the sell-off of Hydro One and finding a better way to raise that money?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the report very clearly states and affirms that the valuation of Hydro One is going to net the province a substantive amount of dollars to reinvest in infrastructure. The member opposite is speculating on the valuation of Hydro One, which we’ll know in short order, because the market will bear that price. But more importantly—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we are on track. We are on track to provide over $9 billion in receipts to this government, of which $5 billion will go towards debt and the additional $4 billion will be reinvested in infrastructure. What we want to ensure is that we build without borrowing—

Interjection.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’re taking a very careful and staged approach by broadening the ownership of Hydro One, unlike the reckless plan that was proposed by the official opposition. We recognize that these things are important, and we have a greater benefit for society–

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The NDP demanded the creation of the Financial Accountability Office so that we could catch Liberal scandals before they actually happened. It is a good thing that we did, Speaker. Without the FAO, Ontarians would never have known that the sell-off of Hydro One would earn billions of dollars less than what the Premier has promised.

This time, we can actually stop another bad deal before it costs Ontario families and businesses billions and billions of dollars.

Will this Acting Premier commit today to stopping the unnecessary, the wrong-headed, the financially inappropriate sell-off of Hydro One before it’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Trinity–Spadina and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, would you please come to order while the question is being put, and the answer, subsequently?

Minister of Finance

Hon. Charles Sousa: This is one of the largest investment transactions in the history of our province. It is because we recognize that this asset is underperforming and we know it can do better. That is why we proceeded in this way. We’re taking only a 15% stake so we can see and exactly assess its value. We are taking a proper and careful approach, and we’re on track to achieve the results.

But what this is about is investing in Hamilton, investing in public transit and investing in families so that they can get to and from home more quickly and more safely. It is about making us more competitive in the long term. That is what we’re doing.

We’re ensuring that we continue to build without borrowing. The member opposite and the champagne socialists would prefer us to borrow in perpetuity. We cannot do that. We’ve got to be fiscally responsible and we are doing so here.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would remind all of us, but I’d like to acknowledge to the minister, that those are the kinds of things that don’t help or engage in good dialogue and good debate. I would challenge all of us to race to the top and not to the bottom.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll wait. Start the clock.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When the Premier formed her privatization panel, she said that the process would be “transparent ... and independently validated.” It has been anything but transparent. Even now, the government is withholding documents from the Financial Accountability Officer. Now, the first independent analysis, even without those documents, has been done, and it clearly says that this is a bad deal for Ontarians and that the Premier should keep Hydro public.

Will this Liberal government follow the advice of the Financial Accountability Officer and commit today to stopping the sell-off of Hydro One before this project that the Liberals have on their docket actually turns into the next Liberal boondoggle, a billion-dollar Liberal boondoggle, for the province of Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’ve acted in accordance and consistent with the 2013 Financial Accountability Officer Act, which we brought forward and which was agreed to by this entire House unanimously, to ensure that the confidentiality of cabinet documents is upheld. I will not break the law that I’m entitled to report to, and we will continue to abide by that.

More importantly, we are investing in the things that matter most to Ontarians. We are taking an asset that is underperforming, recognizing that we can do better, and ensuring that we protect others. We’re going to be competing with Hydro One and Horizon, as well as Brampton hydro, all of which are actually performing much better than Toronto Hydro. This is an opportunity for us to provide greater discipline and, in the end, more value for that operation, greater dividends to shareholders, of which we will own 85% after the first tranche.

The member opposite is actually suggesting that regulated companies should be owned by the province. In that regard, we might as well buy Enbridge Gas.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Acting Premier. Not only is the sell-off of Hydro One the worst deal in the province’s history, it’s resulted in another scandal this morning. Speaker, you’d think this government would have learned this week about doing things behind closed doors, but I guess some people never learn.

We learned from the Financial Accountability Officer this morning, in his report to the Legislature, that the FAO cannot reproduce the council’s estimate because the province has deemed this methodology to be a cabinet record and has chosen not to release it.

Once again this week, a member of the opposition has to stand up here in the Legislature and ask the government what it is hiding. Why is there so much information the government doesn’t want the public to have? I guess I’m asking the minister responsible for Ornge this question this morning.

Will the Acting Premier commit to turning over all of the cabinet documents related to the sale of Hydro One to the Financial Accountability Officer?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: If we’re going to talk about the worst deal in the history of Ontario, I would like to nominate the Highway 407 sell-off.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m reminded that the 407 was valued at about $12 billion, and I believe you sold it—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’ll do it again. When I said if it continues, I’ll stand again. It’s your time.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It was sold for a fraction of its value, maybe about 25% of its value. It was sold once, the whole thing, 100%. As my colleague likes to say, first we paid to pave it, now we pay to drive all over it—the worst deal ever.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, I know that asking this government to be transparent is quite an ask, and asking them to be transparent is kind of like taking business ethics lessons from Bernie Madoff. That’s what this is like, asking you guys to be transparent.

In his report this morning, the FAO goes on to state that the FAO has requested more information on the calculation of future net income, but the province has determined this information to be a cabinet record and has chosen not to release it.

It turns out that if you work for the Financial Accountability Officer, the government doesn’t want to give you any information, but they can’t slip it to their friends in the media fast enough. Asked about the leak to the Toronto Star this morning, the FAO said he would have to rethink releasing documents to the government 48 hours before the public. Even officers of the Legislature can’t trust these guys.

Speaker, will the minister commit to releasing all cabinet documents about the sale of Hydro One to the public? Or is she actually going to stand in her place and tell the public—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, three important numbers here: 407. They put the 0 in 407. We got squat. We got a doughnut out of that deal.

What we’re doing going forward: We’ve been very open and transparent. We’ve worked very closely with the FAO throughout this process to the extent that we can by law. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we do have a prospectus. We have full information that’s outlined for the benefit of the entire public. As a result of the quiet period, we must also abide by the OSC.

The members opposite want us to break the law. We will not do that. We’re protecting the interests of the public and we’re going to reinvest all of the money, dollar for dollar, for the benefit of new—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order please. New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stubbornly stood by her plan to sell Hydro One. Because of today’s report of the Financial Accountability Officer on the Premier’s plan to sell Hydro One, Ontarians now know that the province’s finances will actually be harmed by the sale. Is that why the Premier chose to prevent the Financial Accountability Officer from accessing information needed to assess the province’s estimate of the market value of Hydro One, citing cabinet confidentiality?

Can the Acting Premier tell Ontarians why she chose not to disclose information about her privatization plan either from the Ministry of Finance, from energy, from Mr. Ed Clark’s panel, or even the $7.5 million in consultant reports that the people of this province already paid for?

Hydro One belongs to the people of this province. They have a right to know what’s going on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the FAO makes reference to the flow of funds, recognizing that the province will net a tremendous amount of appreciation in its value with a broadening of its ownership. Deferred tax benefits and the net proceeds will be invested dollar for dollar into the Trillium Trust. The amount of the book value goes to pay off debt, which I know the third party loves to increase, but we are not going to borrow to keep building. We must find ways to improve the net benefit as we proceed forward.

The forgone revenue that the member opposite talks about doesn’t recognize the reinvestment value and the increased dividends that are appreciated from the ongoing operations of this company, which we will continue to own, Mr. Speaker. That will provide greater benefit overall.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: The FAO was very clear this morning. The net debt will eventually be higher. He also said that it’s a question of simple math. Clearly, this finance minister does not get that.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Accountability Officer’s role is to provide independent financial analysis about the province’s finances to the people of this province. This is one of the reasons why it’s so important that we now have this office. This government needs all the help that they can get.

If the Acting Premier has so much confidence in her plan to sell off Hydro One, why does she need to rely on cabinet confidentiality to shield it from the people of this province? What is she hiding?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’ve responded to this effect. We do have confidentiality requirements within the cabinet as, also, established in the FAO act, which we all agreed to. We also recognize that we have a prospectus and we have to abide by the OSC in regard to what we do next.

So we have a quiet period, but, at the same time, we want to maximize the net benefit on this transaction. That would be harmed based on what this member is asking us to do. Furthermore, what we do want in the end is to maximize the long-term revenues, stimulate the economy, improve our net benefit by reinvesting it. The FAO makes it very clear that he did not assess the net benefits or the ongoing opportunity; just the existence of the company as it stands today.

We know, and he has admitted, that this deal will have a positive effect for the province immediately, and the net benefit can be had as we proceed forward in reinvesting dollar for dollar in other assets to appreciate greater value for all of Ontario.

Community policing

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The police officers in my community of Brampton–Springdale have a difficult job to do and work very hard every day to keep us safe. I often hear about the interactions between police officers and my community members, many of which are positive.

However, over the last several months, we have also heard from many Ontarians in communities across the province about the impact of street checks in their lives.

I had the opportunity to attend one of the street check consultations, which was held in my community of Brampton–Springdale, where many people shared their lived experiences with these interactions. From these stories, I could appreciate just how deep the impact of street checks goes, and I could see that this is an issue that affects not just the people of my community, but people across our province.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please explain what he is doing to resolve this important and ongoing concern?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member for asking a very important and relevant question.

I would like to, first, thank the hundreds of people who came out to the consultations that we hosted across the province, those who provided their feedback and submissions through the online process, and, most importantly, the young people I got the opportunity to meet with, who shared their lived experiences during this entire process. Speaker, I’m going to be very honest with you: Those were very difficult conversations, and they were very emotional conversations. I want to thank them for coming forward and sharing their stories with us.

We heard very clearly from the community that carding or street checks, by definition, are arbitrary as well as discriminatory and therefore cannot be improved or regulated; they simply must be ended. That is why our regulations have some important features that I will present to you during the supplementary.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m glad that the voices of my community and communities across our province have been heard and that you’re taking action to prohibit random and arbitrary stops. This is an important step in ensuring bias-free policing in Ontario and in helping to build trust between our police officers and the communities that they serve. I know that police officers in my community will be able to continue to do the excellent work that they do keeping us safe, while having clear and consistent rules to follow when engaging in public interactions.

But, Mr. Speaker, the changes that the minister is proposing as part of the draft regulations are considerable, and Ontarians need to have confidence that the officers will have the necessary skills to adhere to them. Ontarians also need to know whether this training has been effective in removing bias from policing.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain the training that the officers will undergo and what will be done to study the outcomes?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We had the opportunity to work, of course, with our policing partners and our community, human rights and civil liberty partners.

There are three key parts to this regulation. Number one, there is an express prohibition on random and arbitrary collection of personal information by the police. We are also introducing new rules to protect civil liberties during voluntary police-public interactions where there is a valid policing reason, such as informing individuals that they are not legally required to provide their information to the police officer. As the member mentioned, we are also requiring new training, data management, reporting and other requirements to strengthen accountability and public confidence.

Speaker, we are asking the Ontario Police College to develop this new and mandatory training. We’ll also be creating a panel of experts made up of police, human rights experts and racial issues experts who will work with the Ontario Police College in developing that training.

We are also launching a multi-year study to look into the effectiveness of this practice.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Financial Accountability Officer confirmed today that the Hydro One fire sale is a terrible deal for Ontario. Stephen LeClair told us, “You will have immediate gains, but a loss of revenue over the long term.” He was very clear that “the province would realize a permanent deterioration in budget balance as a result of the transaction.” Further, he said that “the province would experience an ongoing negative impact on budget balance from forgone net income and payments-in-lieu of taxes from Hydro One.”

It cannot be any clearer than this. Minister, the jury is in. Will you advise the Premier to stop this rock-headed fire sale?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Wow, this is great, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite comes from the party that was proposing to sell 100% of this company, which would have been a reckless plan. As I mentioned before—and they have a history of doing so. In fact—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Furthermore, they actually filled in holes on infrastructure projects that would have been of great benefit to our society and our community today. We will not be wrong-headed and we’re not going to put our heads in that sand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t intend to shout over people that are shouting, but I will get attention and I’ll ask the member from Simcoe–Grey to come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The FAO validates our approach in a staged and careful way to ensure that we protect the interests of the parties of concern.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The FAO makes it clear that we are reducing debt, we are paying down debt and we’re retaining a substantive amount for reinvestment to produce new assets. The FAO didn’t go on to the issues around what those assets may be. He didn’t talk about the fact that forgone revenue will be replaced with new investments, new revenue, stronger dividends and a stronger company. That benefits everyone—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: To the minister: I don’t know what report that minister read, but Stephen LeClair told us that this will create “permanent deterioration” in the budget. This is strictly a financing decision; nothing to do with infrastructure.

Now their plan is clear. The actual proceeds from this Hydro One sale are very little. But it’s just enough to make their books look good for a couple of years, bringing us to the next election. Then it all goes downhill for Ontario from there.

The minister and the Premier have been exposed yet again. So I ask: Will you put an end to this charade and stop the fire sale of Hydro One?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we are going to build. And we’re not going to keep borrowing to build; we’re going to make sure that we reinvest assets that we own, and we can do better.

We looked at a number of assets. We said very clearly in the budget that we would. We realized that some of our assets and properties actually have tremendous value—we wouldn’t be able to get a greater net benefit, but for this one we can. He knows we can because they evaluated and they recognized that we can do better than what Hydro One is doing right now. That’s exactly why we’re taking a very careful, staged approach to ensure greater value for that operation and reinvest dollar for dollar into our economy.

The FAO makes it clear that he did not assess what those reinvestments would accrue to the province—that stimulus that would be created. He also didn’t assess the valuation of those dividends over time, nor should we speculate at this time because it’s a quiet period. But we know because a lot of people recognize that Toronto Hydro, Horizon and Enersource have greater value than Hydro One.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, you know that the Financial Accountability Officer works for this House. You know that the Financial Accountability Officer tables his report here in the Legislature. Why? Because he works for us, the members.

Imagine the surprise of many this morning when they wake up to find out in the paper that the entire content of his report has been leaked to the paper. It begs the question, because we know the Financial Accountability Officer said he didn’t leak the information. He said so at the press conference this morning.

So who is it in your government who leaked that information to the paper? Will you come clean and tell us who that is?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’re very concerned about that report having been leaked as well. I can assure this member—I can assure everyone—that the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Finance or our offices did not leak the report. We did not walk the halls of Queen’s Park yesterday. We are very sensitive to that secrecy. We respect the FAO. We respect his position. We want to ensure that we continue to operate in the appropriate manner and we want to ensure that that doesn’t happen again, because that is confidential information, which we respect in this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Somehow, I think most of the people in this province would tend to trust that the Financial Accountability Officer didn’t leak the report. So somebody in your government leaked that report because they’re the only people who got the copy.

I’m going to say it again: You’re denying that you’re the guys who did it. If it wasn’t the FAO, the only person it could have been is somebody within the Ministry of Energy or somebody within your own ministry.

Will you come clean and find out who that person is and let us know who leaked that report out to the public?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy did not leak the report. We want to make certain that those practices are indeed protected. I have no interest in investigating—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: The tooth fairy did it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll ask the third time—the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek come to order, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I have no interest in investigating the media on this as well. The member opposite is making accusations I find offensive, because that is not the practice of this House.

Transportation infrastructure

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. As the member for Halton and as a daily commuter, I know well just how important transit and transportation are to those living in my community. In fact, I often hear from my friends, neighbours and local residents about the impact their community has on their lives. My constituents want accessible and reliable transit at convenient times. They want to get to work quicker in the mornings and they want to get home faster at night so they can spend more time with their friends and families.

This is good for families. This is also good for our economy. With this in mind, can the minister please tell members of this House how our government is investing in transit and transportation in Halton and elsewhere to make the commute easier for Halton residents?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Halton for her strong representation for her community. Of course, this government continues to make key investments in transit and transportation infrastructure in Halton.

Since 2004, we have committed over $5 million through the gas tax fund to the town of Milton to help improve and expand its transit services. As part of budget 2015, our government announced an investment of $13.5 billion to increase transit ridership and reduce travel times across the GO network. This would include service every 15 minutes or better during the morning and afternoon peak periods along the Milton corridor. On top of these investments, we’ve committed over $540 million in Halton region to improve and expand local highways, like the 401.

We know the importance of investing in transit and transportation infrastructure, and we’ll continue to make sure that these investments count for the people of Halton.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the minister for his response. I’m pleased to hear about the investments our government is making for those living in my community and our province. These investments will significantly improve the daily lives of commuters, riders and their families.

Over the summer, I was lucky to have a number of opportunities to speak with my constituents about the issues that matter to them. I heard about the need for increased GO service for those travelling from Halton to Toronto. People want more train trips, more bus trips and more comprehensive service. I also heard about the need for more parking for commuters using GO Transit. As a commuter myself, I know first-hand just how important this issue is.

Can the minister please tell members of this House how we can address some of the challenges those in my community are currently facing?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member for her question. We understand the challenges that those in Halton are facing, whether it be the need for increased GO service or for additional parking. We have identified the potential for an additional 600 to 800 spaces at the Milton GO station and we’re currently undertaking feasibility studies to determine how these might be accommodated. These are concrete steps.

I also certainly look forward to being in Milton later this evening with the member from that community at a town hall meeting. This will give me the opportunity to hear from residents about the concerns they have on a wide variety of transportation issues.

But more than anything else, I am extremely proud to serve alongside this member, and all members on this side of the House, because we understand the importance of building the province up. The members opposite from both opposition parties could take a page out of our book when it comes to making hard decisions to invest in building this province up.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. All along, this government has been spinning a tale that the sale of Hydro One would bring in $9 billion of new money. Today’s report from the Financial Accountability Officer puts a stop to that government spin. Mr. LeClair confirmed that $2.2 billion of that $9-billion figure is not new money.

How can the government be so short-sighted? At best, they’re going to get a temporary boost of $1 billion to $2 billion, but they’re losing an asset that produces $700 million a year in revenue for years going on.

Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Premier finally admit that they have not been giving the people of Ontario the straight goods on this bad fire sale?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In fact, the Financial Accountability Officer today affirms our valuation of Hydro One. We are on track to realizing our $9-billion target through the broadening of ownership of Hydro One.

But I really think it’s important that we look at the lessons we learned from the mistakes you made when you were in government, particularly with regard to the 407 lease. The government of the day did not implement any regulations for price-setting, for example. In fact, Hydro One does not set its own rates. It will continue to be set by the independent Ontario Energy Board, and we will introduce legislation to strengthen the regulatory oversight authority of the Ontario Energy Board to protect ratepayers.

The province does not receive any ongoing direct financial benefit from the 407 lease. In contrast, with Hydro One, the province does continue to receive revenue from Hydro One.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: Dodge, deflect, deny. How many governments in the past can you blame? Are you going to go back to Mitch Hepburn and John Robarts? Can we just try to stick to this decade?

This government has known all along that the most they could get was limited new money on the fire sale of Hydro One. When you deduct the $5 billion that this government committed to putting towards hydro debt, it only leaves $1.4 billion in new money. It makes no sense to sell an asset that will only net $1.4 billion while you lose an asset that brings in $700 million each and every year.

Will the Acting Premier stop this madness and put an immediate stop to the sale of Hydro One? If there is ever a day to stop; if there is ever a day to pause and recognize, given the facts, that this is not in the best interests of Ontario—do the right thing. Stop the fire sale.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We talk about transparency. We recognize and remember that when this government came into power, there was a $5.6-billion hidden deficit that they hid from accountability. We are going to ensure that that never happens again. We work closely with the Financial Accountability Officer—

Interjections.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Furthermore, as we put forward legislation to protect the interests of the public by being more open—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Hon. Charles Sousa: So we’ve taken those steps. In fact, we’ve brought forward the Financial Accountability Officer to provide information prior to these assessments. One thing is critically important that the opposition never talks about, and that’s the fact that we are going to retain 85% ownership of this company after the first tranche. We’ll assess effectively what that means going forward.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Acting Premier. This morning’s FAO report shows that the sell-off of Hydro One is a bad deal for Ontario businesses, but this Liberal government continues to ignore that. In fact, Speaker, if they were listening, they would have heard that Ontario businesses cite soaring electricity costs as the number one factor hurting business competitiveness. This government sell-off won’t even ensure relief from the debt retirement charge for these businesses, and, on top of that, businesses are going to lose the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit.

Will the Acting Premier finally listen to the people of this province and stop the sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There’s a myth that the third party is trying to perpetuate across this province, and that myth is that Hydro One sets its own rates. In fact, the truth is, Hydro One does not and will not set its own rates. Anyone who is drawing the link between the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One and increased rates is simply trying to create—I’m being careful, Speaker, in the choice of my words—they are creating a myth that actually is false. The OEB sets the rates for utilities. The OEB sets the rates now; the OEB will set the rates in the future. As Hydro One becomes a stronger, better company, that will actually reduce the upward pressure on rates.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: We already know that because of the rising cost of electricity, nearly 40% of Ontario businesses will delay or cancel investment in the province. This morning’s report confirms that businesses will continue to face increasing expenses because of this government’s reckless and short-sighted decision to sell off Hydro One.

Business competitiveness is hurting in this province. Will the Acting Premier finally do something about this and stop the sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think that anyone who does business in this province will tell us that investment in infrastructure is one of the most important things we can do to improve our productivity. What the revenue from Hydro One will allow us to do is build the infrastructure that is desperately needed.

There is a real cost to not investing in infrastructure. As I said earlier, for every $100 million invested in public infrastructure, there’s an increase in real GDP of $114 million. So, Speaker, we’re making investments. We’re taking some assets and putting them into other assets that will yield an important return on investment fiscally and also significantly improve the quality of life of people who are asking for improvements in our infrastructure.

Workplace safety

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last year, students from across Ontario participated in the Ministry of Labour’s “It’s Your Job” video contest. In fact, Pranay Noel and Martin Czachor, two students from St. Francis Xavier Catholic Secondary School in my riding, won first prize for their video on workplace safety. They worked hard and dedicated their time to plan, film and direct their video, and learned a great deal about workplace safety.

Contests like this one are a great way to engage our students and empower them to learn about workplace hazards and safety. This year, I hope that even more students participate in this contest. Mr. Speaker, can the minister provide more information so that students can start preparing for this year’s contest?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that very important question about engaging young people in health and safety.

I was able to visit St. Francis last year and personally congratulate Pranay and Martin. I want to congratulate all of the winners from last year and all those students who took time to create the videos.

I would also like to mention that our second-place winners, who came from Trenton High School in the member from Northumberland–Quinte West’s riding, went on to win first place in the all-Canada national contest.

You can still see these videos on the website at the Ministry of Labour. They’re really well done. I’m really impressed by the quality of the videos and the knowledge and awareness that students demonstrated about workplace safety.

I’m happy to announce today that the student video contest is taking place all over again this year. I’d ask all members of this House to encourage students in their own ridings to participate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you, Minister. I’m happy to hear that the Ministry of Labour continues to emphasize the importance of our students learning about workplace health and safety. Young workers need to know that they are protected against workplace health and safety hazards now and even after school.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Ministry of Labour is always looking to promote workplace health and safety. How is this ministry working with people after they leave school to ensure that they understand health and safety in the workplace?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks again to the member for that great question. I’d ask all members of the House to assist me in getting the message out to young people, because we must ensure that Ontarians, including our young workers, know that they’ve got rights to protect them against workplace health and safety hazards. It’s an important part of our job at the Ministry of Labour. Last July, we made basic health and safety awareness training mandatory in this province for all workers and for all supervisors.

Last night, I was really proud to attend the fifth annual Canada’s Safest Employers Awards gala in Toronto. It recognizes those companies, from right across Canada, that have outstanding accomplishments in promoting the health and safety of our workers.

I really want to say that if we start with the young people, we end up with results like this. I was happy to see so many Ontario workplaces, such as the Sault Area Hospital and the Residence Inn by Marriott Downtown London, take home gold awards, last night, in safety.

We can all learn at a young age, continue it on, and get health and safety results that all Ontarians can be proud of.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the Minister of Education. Former Liberal finance minister Greg Sorbara appeared on The Agenda with Steve Paikin this week. When asked about the millions of dollars that this government promised to the teachers’ unions, he said, “The way it was done, it doesn’t feel good, it doesn’t look good and there is a better way of doing it.” Mr. Sorbara suggested that a better way would be to say, “Let’s put our expenses before an independent third party and that independent third party will come up with a number, and it will be transparent, open.”

Is the minister prepared to take her former colleague’s advice and designate a third party to review this apparent misappropriation of education tax dollars?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’ve heard this a couple of times. I’m just going to make a comment on it. The use of some words could imply something different. I would caution the member to make sure that she stays on the other side of the withdrawal issue.

Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: First off, I think it’s important to understand that we have said repeatedly that because negotiations are ongoing, we will not discuss the details of contracts. In fact, the mediator has actually imposed a blackout on the discussions that are going on this week.

The reason that I mention this is because we have always said that we would be quite happy to explain the net-zero construct in the