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

December 2, 2014

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Dec-02 (PDF)

L036 - Tue 2 Dec 2014 / Mar 2 déc 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 December 2014 Mardi 2 décembre 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Aboriginal land claims

Energy policies

Social Assistance Management System

Social Assistance Management System

Social Assistance Management System

Poverty

Long-term care

Fish and wildlife management

Community care access centres

Immigrants’ skills

Health care funding

Government’s agenda

Impaired drivers

Disaster relief

Hospital funding

Correction of record

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Child Care Modernization Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la modernisation des services de garde d’enfants

Better Business Climate Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 visant à instaurer un climat plus propice aux affaires

Members’ Statements

Giving Tuesday

Municipalities

Larry Walker

Dr. Douglas A. MacIntosh Cancer Clinic

Forest industry

Portuguese Cultural Centre of Mississauga

Municipality of Callander

Seniors Community Grant Program

Inside and Out conference

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on General Government

Motions

Appointment of temporary Information and Privacy Commissioner

Petitions

Fishing regulations

Forest industry

Hispanic Heritage Month

Hydro rates

Government services

French-language education

Asthma

Forest industry

Legal aid

Hydro rates

Government services

Midwifery

Gasoline prices

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

Adjournment Debate

Government announcements / Annonces du gouvernement

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 35,

An Act to repeal the Public Works Protection Act, amend the Police Services Act with respect to court security and enact the Security for Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2014, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government; and,

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Monday, December 8, 2014, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 35:

—notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—witnesses are scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis; and

—each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation, followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

—the deadline for written submissions is 6 p.m. on the day of public hearings; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 6 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2014, and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 9, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Wednesday, December 10, 2014. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Naqvi has moved government notice of motion number 12. I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, and good morning to you. Thank you for recognizing me to speak on this important motion. I’m very pleased to participate in this debate. I had the opportunity to speak on Bill 35 before, but I’m very happy to speak again on this particular motion.

It’s an interesting position for me as I speak on this motion, because I’m wearing two hats: my hat as the government House leader and my other hat as the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the ministry that brought forward this particular bill and has worked on this for some time.

I can speak from the point of view of the importance of the passage of this bill. I can, of course, share with the members, as I have done in the past, as to the history of this bill. I think members have a good understanding and recognition of what events precipitated this bill and, of course, the many times the bill has been introduced and debated in this House, and I’ll elaborate on that as well for your pleasure.

Of course, I very much look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the House, and I would urge them to support this important motion.

It is my hope that with the support of all members in this House for Bill 35, the reintroduction of the Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2014, will carry through and we would, before the end of this year, have this bill into law.

As many in this Legislature already know, this is the third time that our government has introduced this important bill—not once, not twice, but three times. As the saying goes, third time lucky, so I’m really hoping this is the time that this very important bill passes through this Legislature because, as we have heard in the debate in this House from many members, from all three sides of the Legislature, this is a bill that’s needed. This is a bill that has been sought. The community at large, the partners that we have in policing and civil liberties, all have asked for this bill. So I think it is due time that this bill passes into law.

This bill first passed second reading on March 20, 2012. I’ll repeat: The first time this bill passed second reading was March 20, 2012. It was over two years ago when this bill was introduced for the first time, passed second reading and was then, also at the same time, referred to committee.

While at committee, important feedback was provided—of course, as committees do important work—during public hearings by over 15 organizations that participated in the public hearing process back in 2012.

Some of those organizations that participated in the conversation that took place during the committee included organizations like the Ontario Bar Association, a very important organization that I have been a part of in my past life as a lawyer; the Canadian Sikh Association, another very active community group in our province; the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, an organization that we all listen to very carefully, because they represent all the chiefs of police in our province; and Ontario Power Generation. These are just to give you an example of the over 15 organizations that presented.

They were part of the process that took place in the committee. As a result of that, a number of important amendments were also made before referring the bill back to the Legislature for third reading.

The bill was then reintroduced a second time on April 10, 2013. The government has been very much committed to making sure that this bill becomes law. We first introduced it in 2012. We went through the entire process, we went through committee, got to third reading, and then I believe the House was prorogued and that’s why the bill died on the order paper. Immediately, on April 10, 2013, we reintroduced the bill under our new Premier, Premier Wynne. That bill then was stalled for a year before dying on the order paper, when the NDP forced the election last May.

I know the NDP likes to think they didn’t call the election, but we know how the system works. In a minority Legislature in particular, if you’ve got a budget tabled and both parties opposite, which at that time had the majority of the members, say, “We will not support the budget bill,” the way the system works, that means the government falls. That is why, once we heard from the official opposition—they have said for every single budget, in fact, that they would not support it, and I respect their very consistent position on that—and then the NDP also said “No, we will not be supporting this budget,” an election was called last May, which we all participated in.

After the election, after June 12, we were back, with the privilege of having the opportunity to serve Ontarians with a majority government. We are committed to the passage of this bill in this House. That’s why we have introduced this bill for the third time.

I just wanted to give you, by way of an example, the amount of work that has gone on, on this very important bill, over the last two and a half years, and the persistence the government has shown to ensure that this modern, very focused and balanced piece of legislation, which deals with the security of critical infrastructure like our courthouses, electricity generating facilities and nuclear facilities, becomes law. That’s why we’re keen to see that this Legislature approves this bill before the end of the year, so that this law can come into place.

Speaker, because we’re talking about the fact that this bill has been tabled and debated three times in the House, you can imagine the number of hours of debate that have gone on, on this bill. By my last count, including, I think, the debate that took place yesterday, we are getting close to about 20 hours of debate on this bill, and—wait for it—how many speakers? About 40 speakers have spoken in this House on this bill, and the substance of the bill hasn’t really changed much. The bill changed after the amendments that were made in committee, which was extremely important. But that’s a lot of speakers.

And I encourage debate, because that’s exactly what we are supposed to do in the House, and I’m happy to see the kind of debate that has taken place.

I just noticed that our Attorney General is here as well. The first two introductions came from the Attorney General, who has done an incredible amount of work on this particular file, and I want to thank the Attorney General, the MPP from Ottawa–Vanier, for her great work on this file. I just want to get this done for her; I’m just the messenger. She has done incredible work and has met with many, many stakeholders. Be it the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, all the civil liberties associations or the Sikh associations, she has met them all and has struck the right balance that is presented in this bill that will ensure, as I said earlier—

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: With the help of the member for Nipissing.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —with the help of the member for Nipissing, the Attorney General adds. It is important to know that that collaboration existed.

But as I mentioned at one point, I believe that the second time this bill was tabled, it actually went to committee as well, where we heard from many stakeholders. The member from York South–Weston was part of the committee, so she recalls the work that was done. Like I said, over 15 organizations presented at that time.

But there was a robust debate that took place within the committee as well, among the members, and amendments were presented to improve the bill. I’m very happy to note that 16 amendments were put forward by the opposition and were all incorporated into the proposed legislation.

Mr. John Yakabuski: All of those amendments were incorporated into the bill.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you to the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke; he’s making my point right now. The three parties worked together, and the opposition introduced 16 amendments. All 16 were approved and are part of this bill. The bill that is before this House, Bill 35—

Interjection.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We’re looking for the opportunity to speak on this very important bill.

Bill 35 includes all of those 16 amendments. We did not change anything, Speaker, in the reintroduction of this bill since it was last at the committee. I think that’s an important point. I want all the members to know this and, of course, I want all Ontarians to know this: that this bill reflects not only the point of view of the organizations that spoke on this bill, but that of other members as well.

I really strongly feel, and I think the members on this side of the House strongly feel, that it is now time to pass this bill into law.

Very quickly, just to share a little bit of the history of this bill, and I think everybody is quite aware of this—I was listening to the debate that has taken place on this bill: almost 20 hours now. This bill was developed in response to the recommendations that were made by Ontario’s Ombudsman in December 2010 and also the very important work that our former Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Roy McMurtry, did and provided to the government in April 2011. I want to thank not only the Ombudsman, but most importantly I want to thank Mr. McMurtry for his incredible work on this particular file.

During the G20, the use of the Public Works Protection Act had become the subject of significant public concern. Both the Ombudsman and the former Chief Justice recommended that the Public Works Protection Act be repealed and replaced with more modern, focused legislation. Our government, under the leadership of then-Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, now our Attorney General, the member from Ottawa–Vanier, conducted extensive consultations while developing this bill to determine what measures would be needed to ensure security should the Public Works Protection Act be repealed.

We sought input and advice from nuclear operators and regulators, electricity producers, justice partners and municipalities. We also consulted with civil liberties advocates to be sure that the appropriate balance was struck between security and civil liberty, including the organizations I mentioned earlier: the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights. All of the legislative debates, amendments and extensive feedback that we have heard are incorporated in this particular bill.

If passed, this bill will (1) repeal the Public Works Protection Act; (2) amend the Police Services Act as it relates to our courthouses and safety and security in our courthouses; and (3) create a new bill that outlines a security mechanism for our nuclear facilities and large electricity generating facilities—all, you would agree, Speaker, critical infrastructure in our province.

I’m going to end at this point, but again, I urge the members that this is an important bill. This is a bill that is a result of extensive work that has been done over the last almost three years. That this is a bill that is tabled for the third time demonstrates government’s goodwill and commitment to pass this bill into legislation. This is a bill that has gone through extensive debate, significant input and changes as a result of work that the opposition parties have done. I really urge, Speaker, through you, all members to support this bill and ensure its speedy passage before we recess for Christmas.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to get this morning started on the right foot. I want to pay a compliment to the House leader of the government. I remember when he was first elected here, and I say this with all due respect: He used to really get upset if you heckled him when he was speaking. But he has grown so much now that he ignores everything I say when he’s speaking. Either I’m losing my touch or he has gotten a lot better at tuning out the noise from within. That’s the compliment.

Now I’m going to challenge him. I’m going to ask him why he won’t work with the opposition on this. This is a bill that—my goodness, as he said—when the current Attorney General, the then Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the Honourable Madeleine Meilleur, introduced this bill, I was the critic for that portfolio at that time. We worked closely to come up with a bill that would represent what needed to be done. I think we’re there. But the House leader knows they’re in a majority now. This bill will pass. What’s the hurry?

You see, since it was introduced in early 2012, the world has not fallen apart. We’re still having courts, and the nuclear facilities are still operating. In fact, Darlington won an award for efficiency last year. It’s not like the world has come to a stop. It’s not like we’ve shut down our nuclear facilities, and it’s not like the court system has been put into limbo; it’s still functioning. Why would he not take this opportunity—on a bill that we’re going to work with them again—and allow us to have the input at this stage to see if there’s anything further that can be done to improve this piece of legislation?

He seems to be on a time allocation mission.

Mr. Todd Smith: He’s addicted to time allocation.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He’s addicted to time allocation. I hope that when he comes back from the Christmas recess he has found a cure, or, perhaps, he’s gone to “time allocation anonymous.” He doesn’t have to give his name there, either, he can just go to the meetings and he can, “I am”—one name—“and I’m”—how would you say that?—“I’m an allocation-olic. My name is such-and-such, and I’m an allocation-olic.” Hopefully, when he comes back, he’ll be cured of that addiction. It would be a good thing for his government as well.

You see, what has happened here is this government—and there are wonderful people over there. I know many of them fairly well now over the years, and the newer ones I’m getting to know a little bit, but they’re falling into this trap.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Kool-Aid.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s not just the Kool-Aid, I say to the member from Barrie—it’s called the idea that arrogance is okay.

I want to remind you, because you’re all old enough to remember—do you remember David Peterson? He became the Premier in 1985 because of a deal that was made between him and Bob Rae. He became Premier even though he had less seats than the Frank Miller Conservatives—52 to 48. They had some legitimacy in calling for them to become the government because they actually had a slightly higher share of the popular vote in the 1985 general election.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They also had more seats.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, they didn’t have more seats. They had 48; Miller had 52.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m saying, between the opposition.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Of course they had more than—Miller didn’t have a majority. Gilles, you just stick to what you’re doing there. Look on the computer; you’ll get the facts.

In 1985, they had a slightly higher popular vote than the Conservatives, so they took over the government. You know, it wasn’t that bad. Obviously, the people in Ontario liked what they saw because in 1987 David Peterson won what was the highest number of seats, I believe, in Ontario’s history—92 seats they won in the general election of 1987. But what happened then is, this all went to their heads. They thought that they weren’t just elected but that they were deified, and that somehow they were governing from above the clouds and they were untouchable.

They became extremely arrogant and believed that under no circumstances would they ever lose government, because they had a divine right to rule. It was ordained from the heavenly host that David Peterson and the Liberals would rule in Ontario. But you see, what happened was he took that and he said, “Oh, I want to go for another mandate.” So in 1990, only three years into his term, he said, “I’d like to secure another four years. We’re going to win another big majority, and I’ll be the Premier until at least 1994, or maybe longer.

If I call this election in 1990 and ignore what’s been happening in Ontario—don’t worry about the opposition. They don’t matter. I’ve got 92 seats. Who cares about those people on the other side?”

Lo and behold, David Peterson, in his arrogance, decided, “Yeah, we’re going to the polls.” In September 1990, what happened? That 92-seat majority government that was held by the Liberals—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would remind the member—I appreciate the history lesson, but I’m sure you’re going to get around to the point in terms of speaking to the motion that is before us. Just to remind you to keep that focus. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I most certainly am, Speaker. I think this is the crux of the matter, because it is absolutely unnecessary for this government to be bringing in this time allocation, and I’m reminding what can happen when your zeal to rule with an iron fist becomes so powerful that you lose sight of the fact that there are people elected on this side of the House, there are people whose constituents have sent them here to hold this government to account and they are being ignored by the government. That’s what happened to David Peterson, and we all know what happened in the end. That’s what I’m trying to explain, sir, and I think that speaks to the point precisely—precisely.

In 1990, the New Democrats, who had never formed government in the province of Ontario, threw a beating on David Peterson like you wouldn’t believe. He couldn’t have even got out of that one using the rope-a-dope. David Peterson was crushed. Why? Because he was too arrogant to believe that the democracy that gave him 92 seats in 1987—just as democracy giveth, democracy tooketh away. That is my reminder to the Liberals here—

Mr. Todd Smith: That’s a good lesson.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That is a good lesson for you to learn and look back on. Don’t think that somehow these actions of yours in 2014 will not come back to haunt you some day if you don’t change your ways. The belief that you have this ironclad right or this divine right to rule as you see fit because you have a majority is very dangerous. It can leave you with the idea that you are untouchable, but you will find that in the end, the people are the final arbiter of whether or not you have governed properly.

You have the legal and the legislative right to do what you’re doing here today. You’ve done it how many times, I say to my friend from Timmins—now I’m asking for his help. How many times, since we got here in October, have they brought in time allocation?

Mr. John Vanthof: As many times as possible.

Mr. John Yakabuski: As many times as there have been bills, they’ve brought in time allocation. Have we passed a single bill through the normal channels in this session?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Not yet.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not yet, other than the budget bill. The budget bill was passed before we came back in October. That was passed back in July. But we have not passed a single bill through the normal channels in this legislative session, and that really says an awful lot about the way the government is viewing the collaborative sense that was envisioned when Parliaments under the British system were developed in the first place. Each party has a role to play, each side of the chamber has a vital role to play, and they’re freezing the opposition out.

I will say this: The previous majority governments of Dalton McGuinty—and I know that’s not a good word to say in here because I know that the Liberals don’t want to use his name very much—didn’t use this time allocation to the extent that our new Premier, Premier Kathleen Wynne, is using it, and I really do want to caution her that I think she is overstepping the bounds of parliamentary decency. That’s what I’m appealing.

I’ve had about five different approaches in my speeches on time allocation in this session, because I am trying every angle I can think of to appeal to the sense of fair play and justice in the hearts and the minds of the members on the opposite side. I have come out and railed against them. I have come out and spoken of dreams that I’ve had about the House leader and the ghost of time allocation past, not unlike the Christmas Carol and Ebenezer Scrooge, which I talked about. But in the end, Ebenezer Scrooge came around. Not only did he find that being kind and generous was better, but it changed his life completely, and he became the most generous man in the city.

I’ve tried that approach. I’ve tried getting up and venting my anger at how frustrated we are on this side of the House, and now I’m trying to appeal to their sense of fair play, to their sense of what is right, to their sense of giving something to the other members who were elected. Look, I’m not arguing with the numbers; you’ve got your majority. Congratulations to all the new members who were elected—12 or 13 new members on that side of the House, and I’ve had a chance to say hello to every one of them—but I don’t think this is what they believed they were buying into when they got here either.

I think that they believed they were coming here to a House of debate, not a House of one side railroading the other, using its pure power, because in a democracy, 50% plus one gives you absolute power, but it is the wise ruler who uses that power benevolently.

You can choose to be as callous and to be as controlling and to ignore everything that the other side of the House has to say. You can choose to do that when you have the majority, but you can also choose to say, “Those are good people over there, elected by their constituents. There’s a reason they got here. There are reasons they got here. They didn’t run on our platform.” Understandably, the people on the other side believed that that platform had everything in it that Ontario needs, and they won the election, but all the members on this side of the House ran on different platforms, yet we all got elected.

There must be a reason that we all got elected; we must have been doing something right so that the people of our constituencies believed that we were the right persons for the job.

All I’m asking for is that the government take that into consideration. New members: Do an examination of your conscience, and ask yourself, “Should we simply take the orders from headquarters, that corner office on the second floor, right over there?” If I had a straight line that I could pierce walls and concrete, it would be right about there. Would they take this opportunity to vote against, to set a precedent that might set things right? We can’t stop this time allocation motion.

We’re getting two hours to debate it, and essentially it’s just fluff and just a waste of time in some regards, but we do have to fill the time. At the end of that two hours, there will be a deferred vote, and we’re going to lose the vote. We’re going to lose the vote unless those new members, who were also elected by their constituents, ask themselves, “Is this the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do?”

In my mind, Speaker, it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do, especially since we haven’t—and I’ll talk a little bit about the bill, if I may. I spoke to the bill yesterday. There are an awful lot of good things in this bill, and we want to get it passed. I believe that absolutely we could have negotiated our way to passing this bill. We could have been part of that discussion; we could have been part of that decision. This government decided, “We don’t need you. We’re going to poke our finger in your eye once more and tell you when this bill is going to pass,” because it’s all outlined right in the motion, I say to my friends in the third party.

There it is, right in the motion. We know exactly when this bill is going to pass. It’s like telling the future. The only thing that could change that future is if some of those members on the other side of the House decide, “You know what? It’s Christmastime and we’re going to do the right thing and we’re going to show the kind of respect that people in the opposition should be given.”

Mr. Todd Smith: They could do that at caucus today.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They could do that at caucus.

I say that the bill itself is not the problem. The world changed after 9/11. We needed to change the way we dealt with security around our large generating facilities, particularly nuclear plants. We got almost 60% of our power last year from nuclear power. It’s vital to our economy. It’s vital to our health and welfare. Everybody knows that if you’re out of power, it’s not a good life. Here in the Canadian winter, if you’re out of power it’s a matter of life and death. If you’re out of power for indeterminate or long periods of time, your safety is in danger.

We know how vital power is, and we’ve got to do whatever we can to protect those facilities that provide that power. This bill will assist in doing so.

In reality, the way we conduct security around nuclear facilities has changed already, and rightfully so, because we cannot leave those things to chance. There’s a significant threat, because of the fact that we have radioactive materials in these facilities, that they could be used for nefarious purposes as well. So we do have to protect them, and that’s what we’re trying to do with this bill. We’re working with the government on this bill. We have worked with the government on this bill. All we’re asking for is an opportunity to let this bill pass through negotiation and agreement as opposed to having it rammed down our throats every time we turn around.

I think what they’re trying to do here is render the opposition irrelevant. Do you know how dangerous that would be? They’re trying to set a tone here that as long as you have a majority, you might as well have an empty chamber on the opposite side because you do whatever you want. But everyone knows that unless they change the electoral system and make themselves dictators for life, there will be an election someday, and how they behave—not just whether or not their legislative agenda has been satisfactory to the people, but how they’ve respected democracy, the bedrock of our society.

Democracy is what our society is founded on, so that the people always have the final say. How they respect democracy is going to go a long way to determine whether or not they’ll be successful the next time they go to the people and the polls.

This is an opportunity, here on the 2nd of December, for them to change the channel, to switch—to do a 180 and show the people of Ontario that they actually are listening. To be fair, I don’t think the people of Ontario pay that close attention to the machinations that go on in this House and to some of the things—they have a good eye on the big picture but they maybe don’t understand the inside baseball. But if they knew and if they understood that every bill in this House is being rammed through without following the usual procedures of debate and input from third party stakeholders, they would be distressed.

They would be upset. They would be asking themselves, “What government wants to operate that way? Why wouldn’t a government want the input from those third party stakeholders and honest, constructive criticism from the opposition?”

This is an opportunity for you to change the channel, so I appeal—I know I’m not going to get anywhere with the members of the cabinet, because they’re not going to disobey the Premier. They would be out of a job the next day. They would be out of cabinet. Maybe I should say to the members in the backbench that if a few of those people in the cabinet get fired, you might get in. There are only two kinds of people over on that side: those who are in cabinet and those who want to be in cabinet. You see? So there’s an opportunity there as well. But what happens either way, somebody on the other side has to see the other side and what they’re saying. This is your opportunity.

I’m going to end now, because I know I have other members who want to speak to this as well. Thank you very much for hearing me this morning.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just before I start my comments on this particular time allocation motion: I thought it interesting that the member from Renfrew–Nipissing talked about how the Liberals ran on their platform. I was thinking, and I would just like to share this with the member from Renfrew, that they actually ran against your platform and now they’re implementing it. That must be pretty frustrating, from your perspective. You may have had the winning platform, according to these guys.

No, it is kind of ironic. Liberals are really notorious for that; they profess something different in an election. They profess that they have these great values and they want to do the right things and are so progressive. Then they get elected and they do the complete opposite.

Remember Mr. Trudeau? Remember there was this guy by the name of Trudeau? He was Prime Minister of Canada. Remember Mr. Stanfield?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Stanfield ran during the general election and said, “I think that because of the high inflation in this country, we need to have wage and price controls.” Mr. Trudeau ran across the country and campaigned against Mr. Stanfield and attacked him viciously throughout the entire campaign, saying, “My God, this is terrible, and any Prime Minister and party that runs on wage and price controls shouldn’t be elected by the people of Canada. That’s terrible.” What did he do when he got elected?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Wage and price controls.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Wage and price controls—and he got away with it.

You remember Joe Clark, who had that very short minority Parliament, Mr. Speaker? Joe Clark wanted to increase—

Mr. Mike Colle: Joe Who.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They called him Joe Who.

Joe Clark—you remember?—wanted to increase the tax on fuel. So he brought in his budget, and one of the measures in his budget was increasing the taxes on fuel. The Liberals voted against it, along with the NDP, because they said, “This is not fair to the economy of Canada.” What’s the first thing Mr. Trudeau did when he got re-elected?

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, not Trudeau.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He raised the price of fuel.

Now, in this last provincial election, Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals—oh, my God, Tim Hudak was going to take away jobs in the public sector. He was going to cut services and cut budgets. Oh, my God, it was the end of the world. “If you vote Liberal, everything will be fine. We’ll do the opposite.”

What are these guys doing?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Chop, chop, chop.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They’re doing exactly what Tim Hudak suggested doing: chopping jobs in the public sector and really reducing expenditures. We look at hospitals in our communities. All of them are losing ER time. They’re shutting down physiotherapy at the Timmins and District General Hospital. If you look at social services across the province, this government is actually doing what the Tories said they would do.

I’ve always said Liberals are just Tories in a hurry. The quicker people recognize it, the easier—

Mr. John Vanthof: They’re Tories on the fly.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Tories on the slide.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I digress. I had to point that one out, because I find it very frustrating, from my perspective as a New Democrat, that Liberals continually get away, with the public, with saying one thing in an election and doing completely the opposite.

The wonderful thing is, the Liberals think it’s a virtue. They really think it’s a virtue. They call it pragmatic and practical. Well, I would call it something else. I would call it something that’s non-parliamentary, and I’m not going to use that word in this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is the seventh time allocation motion this government has brought in in this fall session. This is number 7. What is really unfortunate about this is that, in fact, because we’re time-allocating everything, there’s actually less business being done for the government than there would be if they negotiated with the opposition.

We said to the government at the beginning—because the government House leader came into the House leaders’ meetings at the beginning of this fall session and he said yes, in fact, he wanted to work with the opposition. “If you could only tell us what you want as far as time on these particular bills, or time in committee on these particular bills, let us know and maybe we can let some of the other ones go fast.”

So he came originally with a package of four bills. Was it four?

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, it was four initially. He said, “Here are the four bills that we want to have passed at the end of the session.”

Both the opposition parties agreed. We said, “Yes, okay, not a problem. We understand you want your four bills, but we want to be able to have some time in committee on some of the bills that you’re bringing before the House.”

The Conservatives had indicated that they wanted some public hearings on the daycare bill, and we obviously wanted time for public hearings on other bills. After making the offer and having the opposition House leaders go back to the government with, “Okay, this is kind of what we were looking at”—there was no deal, but we were starting to have that discussion—the government House leader came in and said, “All bets are off. I’m time-allocating everything,” by way of his actions.

My argument is simply this: If government backbenchers think this is a great, wonderful strategy that your House leader has come up with, and that you’re getting your agenda, that is so important, through the House lickety-split, there’s a lot to learn about parliamentary democracy. In fact, things are slower this way than they would be if we just did them in the normal way that Parliaments are supposed to.

Here’s how it works. Mr. Speaker, you’ve heard me say this before. At one time, there was no such thing as time allocation in this Legislature. It was a completely foreign concept. Majority governments met in this very Legislature for over 100 years. Majority governments did not have time allocation, but they passed their business through this House, because what they eventually were able to do was sit down with the opposition House leaders and work out an agreement on whatever it was that they wanted to do in that session or that year.

This is the way it worked: The Premier would go to the government House leader and say, “Here is what cabinet would like to have done in this calendar year—12 months. I don’t care how you work it out at House leaders’. Just go work it out. But here are the things that I want: I want Bills 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 done by Christmas and I want Bills 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 done by spring. These are must-dos; we have to get them done.” But of course, the government had probably double and triple that amount of bills that they were going to put on the order paper through those sessions. So the government House leader knew what his marching orders were.

That actually meant to say that the Premier’s office had to manage, had to figure out what they wanted and had to be able to figure out a way of what it was they wanted and when they needed it. They really had to manage it in the sense of being clear with their House leader about what they wanted.

Then the government House leader would come in to the House leaders’ meetings and say, “Okay, here’s what I need. What do you guys want?” The opposition would say, “Well, on Bill 2 and on Bill 7, we want more time at second reading. We want to be able to travel the bill on committee across Ontario in the intersession.”

The opposition would give its wants when it came to how much time we were going to have on bills and debate. That was a good thing, Mr. Speaker, because the bills that really needed public attention were the bills that were being flagged by the opposition for more time—not all of them, but some of them, the key ones.

Here’s the kicker: The bills actually travelled outside the Legislature so that the people of Ontario—do you remember those people, Mr. Speaker, the people that we work for, the citizens of Ontario? Well, they actually got a chance to come to places like Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Cornwall, Sarnia and Timmins and to be able to speak to the bill and say, “I like this. Please change that. I don’t like this. Please don’t do it.” They just gave their views.

The committee would come back. All members on all sides of the House would sit at committee. They would do clause-by-clause. They would amend the bill, based on what they heard. What you ended up with was a better product at the end. That’s the way that it worked.

But here’s the thing: Not every bill was debated at full infinitum at second reading, and hardly a bill was even debated at third reading.

It was Jim Bradley, the member from wherever, St. Catharines—

Mr. John Vanthof: St. Catharines.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —St. Catharines, I think it is, who was the opposition House leader at the time I was in government, in the early 1990s. When time allocation was brought in, Mr. Bradley pointed out correctly that third reading would completely change as a result of time allocation. Prior to time allocation, there was no debate at third reading—hardly ever. But he said, “I guarantee you now, we will debate everything at third reading as long as we can,” and that’s exactly what’s happening.

What the government has done by bringing time allocation to this House on these bills is that they’ve forced the opposition to debate every bill entirely at length as long as we can by the standing orders, which is six and a half hours at second reading; to use all the time in a time allocation motion, which is two hours each; and use all the time we can at third reading, which is two hours per bill—so far, unless the government changes that in the time allocation motion, which they probably will at one point.

My question to the government members in the backbench—you’ve been told this is a great strategy—and for cabinet ministers who are here as well: Are you really saving any time by using time allocation to deal with these bills? I would argue not.

The government moved Bill 18 by way of time allocation. Now, I need a little bit of help because I don’t have it. That was which one? Ah, there we go. My House team is—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I got it. It was the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Bill 18 was a bill that was brought through the House. Bill 15, Bill 10, Bill 21, Bill 7, Bill 35—without referring to each one of them because I don’t have the list in front of me, the issue is that a lot of those bills probably would not have been debated any longer than two or three hours at second reading. You probably would have had a lead by the minister on the bill. You probably would have had an hour, maybe a little bit less, by the critics of each party, a couple of speeches and done, into committee.

In fact, out of the seven bills that the government has brought before us, these seven bills, I will argue, would have not had six and half hours each of debate at second reading. Some of them would have had less. But here’s the thing: In exchange, we would have said, “Let’s travel some of these bills.” The government told us, and we found out through this fall session, that they didn’t want to have the bills travelled in the intersession because they wanted the bills passed by the end of the session this December.

Well, okay, if that’s what the government wanted, the opposition would have said, “Okay. We have a constituency week coming up in there. Let’s use the constituency week to do the hearings outside of Toronto”; and possibly we might have been open to the idea of travelling the bill while the House sat. But at least there would have been an opportunity for the public to have their say on the bills and the government would have gotten its entire agenda through the House.

But instead, the government says, “I’m going to time-allocate it.” My point is this: By the very nature of going the time allocation route, it’s less efficient use of this time than it would be if we just did things the way we normally should, by negotiations with the House leaders.

And the other thing is that it’s a failure of management on the part of the Premier and the House leader. If they can’t manage seven little bills through the House by way of an agreement with the opposition, both the Premier and the opposition leader, well, then it’s a failure of management on their part. What does that say about the management of government overall? If they can’t manage a little agenda—a legislative agenda is seven bills on time allocation, and they’ve got Bills 6, 7, 9, 13, 37, 40, 45, 49 and 52, so they’ve got about 10 other bills on the order paper to deal with.

If you’re going to tell me that as a government you can’t prioritize those 10 plus these seven for a total of 17 bills, and prioritize at the beginning of the fall which of these bills you wanted passed by the end of December and which ones you wanted to get done in the intersession, it’s a failure on your part.

It means to say that the Premier is not taking the time to seriously look at her legislative agenda as to what it is she, along with her cabinet, actually needs passed by the second week of December, and it’s a failure on her part to decide what her priorities are, which stifles her government House leader to be able to do his job. I don’t think the government should be proud that time allocation is solving anything, because what it does is, it exposes the government’s inability to manage. If you can’t manage 17 bills through the House, how are you going to manage the Ministry of Health?

How are you going to manage the Ministry of Education, if you can’t even manage 17 bills through the House?

I say to the government across the way, I listen to the comments, especially the new backbenchers within the government caucus, and I don’t begrudge your comments. I used to be a government backbencher, elected in 1990, and I used to think that everything my cabinet did and my Premier did was the bee’s knees to everything. My God, we had the God-inherent right to govern. I believed all that pap at that time, too. It took me a while to figure out that, in fact, the only people being disserved were the constituents that we represented. It took the wisdom of certain members of this House—remember Bob Nixon?

He was a Liberal, by the way, in case you don’t know who he is. But guys like Bob Nixon, Mr. Scott, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Rae, Mr. Pouliot, Mr. Laughren, Mr. Eves—it took listening to the speeches that they had in this House and the conversations I had with those people around the committees and around this House to slowly understand that the British parliamentary system is an amazing system if you allow it to work.

You know, it was at one time a king who decided everything, decided literally life and death. At one point, the British, with the amazing history of the British parliamentary system and how it developed, created a Parliament in order to limit the power of the king. That’s what Parliaments were all about. Initially, it was to stop the king from being able to utilize his complete authority to the detriment of the people of England. You know, why did they bring the Magna Carta around King John? It was to stop the excesses of King John. So we created a Parliament.

Parliament was around before King John, but Parliament started exerting its authority and its power over the years so that we could limit the authority of the king so that it is measured and done for the good of the people. Now we have kings, or in this case a queen, but the real executive power no longer resides with the monarch. It resides with your Premier and with your cabinet.

So this Legislature, essentially, is here to make sure that we approve the budgetary measures of the government and we deal with the money issues—because anything that has to do with money has to be approved through this House, and that’s the way it should be—and the policies of the government. And if you think, as a member of this House, either on the opposition side or the government side, that time allocation is a wonderful tool that allows you to do your jobs and makes Parliament more efficient, well, I just suggest that you go back and read your history of Parliament and how it was developed.

You’ll learn an appreciation that the British parliamentary system, as Winston Churchill said, is the best of the worst systems of democracy that we have, because over almost 1,000 years, we’ve developed this check and balance system in which the legislative and the executive are able to cohabitate in a way that complements each other. So if we allowed Parliament to work the way that it was, I think we’d probably be in a much better position to be able to actually get the agenda of the House done through here.

Let’s look at what’s left. I’m going to leave the rest of the time in a few minutes for my colleagues who want to speak to this. But the government’s got a couple of more bills that I imagine might be time-allocated. They’ve got Bill 6, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act. I would not be surprised to see the government time-allocate that. They’ve got Bill 7 to enact the Burden Reduction Reporting Act. They might time-allocate that. I’m not going to go through the 17 bills, but the point is, there are a lot of those bills that would have gotten no debate time, or hardly any, if the government had actually negotiated with the opposition to be able to get things done.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There goes the new government member. My God, he’s a parliamentary authority already. You remind me of me when I used to be over there as a new member.

Mr. Grant Crack: How many bills did we get passed last session?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, no. Listen, I admit it. I freely admit, when I got elected in this place, I was in a majority government and I thought just like you. But it’s taken me a lot of years to figure out that, in fact, the government is doing itself a disservice. The reality is that we would not have debated all of these bills ad infinitum, because we would have had to give something to the government. That’s how it works.

If the government had come in and said, “We have 17 bills that we’re going to have on the order paper this fall; here are the three or four that we want passed, third reading, by the end of December, and here are the ones that can go into the intersession,” we would have sat down and worked something out. And yes, the government would have been forced by the opposition to travel a couple of bills in committee, maybe in the November 11 break and maybe in the intersession in January or February. But that’s what Parliament is all about.

I would only end on this point: We have not travelled bills in this House in a long, long time in the way that we used to. We’ve had some travelling committees, but not anywhere near what we used to. The great thing about committees was, when members of all sides of the House were forced to share the plane, share the bus, share the hotel—not the rooms but share our meals and stuff—members actually sat down and got to know each other.

You know what? There’s not a person who is elected to this place who is not an honourable person. There’s not a person who is elected to this place who has a monopoly on anything. All of us are trying to do the right thing on all sides of the House. But what committee did was it showed us the human side of the relationship as parliamentarians and it allowed us to do our jobs better, because some of those people who were on committee eventually ended up in positions of leadership, in both parties. You grow together as far as learning and getting to appreciate each other’s position, and it allows this place to work a lot better.

I would argue that the government is doing a great disservice by doing time allocation and should heed the advice of the opposition and actually sit down and try to negotiate how we get the agenda of the government through the House. I accept, as an opposition member, that the government has to have its way in the end. That’s the way the system works. But the government has to accept that we have the authority and we have the responsibility to give scrutiny to those bills.

With that, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to other people who have something to say in this debate.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s unfortunate that I have to stand to talk again about another time allocation bill that has come before us. We have a government here—this is about the seventh bill they’ve brought through, and you’ve got to wonder why, especially with this bill, because the last time they introduced it, it was over a year before it came back up for debate. Obviously in that time there was nobody really opposing it. We were debating it, but they never even called it for debate for over a year. So why, all of a sudden, does this one have to be rushed through?

I think it’s become clear, because I remember speaking on it the last time—it was one of my first debates in the House, actually—that it was an embarrassment to this government. They didn’t want to talk about all the details around the G20 conference that was held. When they enacted kind of a secret regulation, they didn’t even tell all the police forces about it, and it led to a lot of confusion, more arrests in this country than have ever happened in the history of it. I know it’s only coming up to 150 years old, but this government’s claim to fame is over 1,100 arrests. It just talked about a fiasco and really about not thinking things through.

We see this is another bill that, yes, I guess restricts some of the powers of the minister, which we see now from the G20 was well overdue. We saw some of the talks about the Ombudsman at the time. André Marin said that it was an illegal regulation that resulted in a massive breach of civil liberties. I saw some of the videos that went on there, and it really was an embarrassment. This looked like a Third World country. The one instance where the amputee’s leg was pulled off and he was arrested because he wouldn’t move—those are just things that you’re really not very proud to see happen in this province, let alone this country, but that was happening under the Liberal watch.

Roy McMurtry’s comments in the independent inquiry found the act “beyond troubling” and recommended that it be repealed. Of course, we agreed with that. At that time, the bill was introduced—I guess it was Bill 51—and it sat there. They didn’t want to debate it because any debate that we had pointed out major failings of this government. That’s something they have found a way around now. With time allocation, they can push this through and get it through without debate and without our pointing out some of the issues that we saw with this bill.

I look through long lists—I guess this is seventh bill that they’re pushing through on time allocation. Every one seems to have a common agenda: They don’t want the debate that we think would be important. Bill 7, the Better Business Climate Act: Could there be anything worse than the regulation we have in this province? We would like to see it pass, anything that will take down regulation. But there is no debate on it. We have no say on what comes down, what this bill will include. I know they say it goes for amendments. There is no realistic public consultation.

Bill 8, public sector and MPP accountability: A laughable bill, and, of course, I can see why that, again, was time-allocated, with the failings of this government: the gas plant violations, the deletions—anything but accountability.

If you go around my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, people talk about this government and just can’t believe that a government that acts this way is actually in the free world, let alone in Canada, and now they’re talking about an accountability act.

Talking about the Advocate for Children and Youth Services, he was trying to get some investigative powers—negotiating with this government for six years. Somebody that was appointed by them, a commissioner of this Legislature, had restricted powers. The bill comes out and, my God, they forgot to include him in the bill. They sent him to amendments, if you can believe that.

He talked about how he’s the only advocate for child and youth services in this country that has no investigative powers. Why wouldn’t they do that? Why wouldn’t they want to know where there are issues? I guess, again, anything that is a threat to them, anything that points out an issue with wrongdoing or just a lack of oversight just comes back to haunt them, so the easy way around is to make sure it doesn’t happen. We’re going to be working through amendments on that bill to see that we can get this important role—what is more vulnerable than our youth?

He talked about getting phone calls from children in trouble but was not allowed to investigate—a sad state of affairs. For a government that seems to be encouraging that, it’s hard to believe.

Another bill we looked at: child care modernization—the loss of 140,000 child care spots. Again, no meaningful discussion with independent child care providers, which welcome being licensed. Now they have to join either a franchise or an association. All that does is drive up costs and make it—the people they should be helping, the people who are on low incomes who are having a hard time finding meaningful work, especially when they have children, now will be taxed even further by increased rates—again, certainly not working for them. When will this government start looking around and seeing how much trouble there is?

I attended the new mayor-elect’s swearing-in last night in Cornwall—a very nice ceremony. Mayor Leslie O’Shaughnessy—I sat with him in the counties, actually, in Charlottenburg township, before. He was a great mayor there, and we’re looking for great things in the city of Cornwall.

Employees in social services came up, and they talked about—they were asking, “What can we do about hydro? We’ve got people in our riding who aren’t getting services. They can’t afford their hydro bills.” They said that, generally, they used to have a way of covering some of these costs—United Way used to have money. We’re starting at the beginning of the winter; there’s no money there. What are people doing? I know, legally, there is a regulation that after December 1 you can’t cut their power off, but they can limit the power with power limiters.

I talked to somebody just last week who had their power cut off. You know how expensive it is now to get it reconnected? These are people who can’t afford their bills, especially after last year, where we went through and saw places where hydro went into people’s bank accounts and took money out—more money than they were owed, and then refused to pay it back. Again, this is something that you wouldn’t expect in a province like Ontario, where a government crown corporation had the ability to go in, overcharge people and then have the gall not to pay it back. We’re talking, sometimes, well over $1,000.

You’re looking at seniors that had cheques bouncing, rent cheques bouncing, because the government, in their wisdom, overcharged them and then refused—until it blew up last—it’s funny how bad publicity changes things. When people became aware of how bad it was, all of a sudden all the things they couldn’t do were just changed. All of a sudden there was no problem to change it. Change was very quick—between bills, actually; less than a few weeks.

It’s our job here to really bring scrutiny to this government, to provide a meaningful opposition. We’re being cut off; we’re not allowed to provide that service. In our system, that’s a very important service. The member from Pembroke talked about the eagles and the owls. This is an eagle that seems to be ready to pounce on anything he can, and not always very favourably sometimes. I think we need a little more of the owls here on this side to point out some of the issues.

This bill will go through with no debate again, with a problem that was so international. This was a huge embarrassment to this country, the way this province, this government, ran the security around the G20, and now they’re going to push through legislation without debate. I think that alone points out that this is a bill that should be allowed to move around in committee—should be able to talk to the experts and look at some of the fallacies or faults of this bill, because I’m sure there are some; there always are. Nobody gets everything perfect.

But time allocation will push through a bill that this government had no hurry at all to put through just a year ago. Now, all of a sudden, it’s a panic.

I think that speaks to the way this government is running things. This is the seventh bill now in a row that we see being pushed through—just introduced. Meanwhile, the province, as I say, is going to hell in a hand wagon, with youth unemployment at one of its highest levels. It’s a sad shame. We just need to get back to properly running this government, having the opposition providing meaningful opposition, going through committee and actually being listened to.

I’m very curious after the ministry pointed to our Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth and suggested they will go the amendment route, because if the amendments actually get adopted, that will be a first that I can see. I sat through the last Legislature and this one as well, and amendments are just voted down, without any regard—and in some cases, when the bill was introduced, the amendments that they so strongly voted down were actually included in the new legislation.

Everybody remembers when the House was prorogued by former Premier McGuinty when things got too hot the last time. Bills that were sitting on the table with amendments that we had proposed were turned down, but when the bill was resurrected, they were put in. There’s a case where there’s no working together. I think that’s a strong indication—and I remember that in the cellphone bill we were looking at the original bill that had your cellphone service cancelled on the day that your contract ran out and you lost your number, which I think was ridiculous. We tried to point that out to the minister of the day. We tried to put an amendment in, and both were turned down.

When we came back after prorogation, we were surprised that that very amendment was included in the bill. All of a sudden, it was a good idea. This is a government that doesn’t seem to want to listen to the opposition, even when it’s an idea that obviously they thought was worthwhile. It speaks to what we’re likely going to see going through committee on this bill. We’re going to see a government that’s likely not going to adopt any of the recommendations of the hearings that we go through, the amendments we would make and any of the amendments that are suggested by outside parties or by the third party.

I would encourage them—part of this—we’ve been very successful. We used to be the engine of Confederation until this government came to power. Everybody remembers that. People came to work in Ontario, but now it’s not that way. I think that’s because we’re not running the government the way it should be run. The opposition does have some good ideas, some merit, and I think we should work together to put those amendments, or at least listen to them.

My son came back from working out in Fort McMurray for two years. One of his classmates in Toronto as a civil engineer out of Queen’s couldn’t get work—working as a waitress. She finally gave up looking for a job in her home province, moved out to Alberta and got a job within two days of moving out there. That’s the difference. That used to be Ontario: where people got their jobs. Maybe not in every degree but some degrees like engineering, that’s the way it used to be.

My time is up for this morning, so we will look forward to further debate.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is now 10:15. This Legislature stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to acknowledge that Wendy Eaton, who is the mother of page captain Nicole Eaton, will be here today, and she’ll be in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Granville Anderson: It’s with great pleasure that I announce the mother and friends of Hannah Hamilton: her mother, Jennifer Hamilton, and friends Renee Homenuck, Halley Gavey, Grace Marlow, Lilly Tuck and Ashley Best. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I am very happy to introduce the family of page Tyler. They’re here today: mother, Jennifer; father, Rodney; sister Hannah, sister Abby, brother Carter; and grandparents Kathy and Andy Jakiwchuk. Welcome. Tyler is doing an excellent job.

Mr. Arthur Potts: From the excellent riding of Beaches–East York, I have Canadian Martyrs Separate School in the House today. Parents Mila Viray, Kim Shum, Mark Hahn and Marjorie Lee are here with teachers Kelly Waywell and Robert Mycoot. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Han Dong: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House staff and delegates from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance: Danielle Pierre, Jen Carter, Rodrigo Narro Perez, Phil Lloyd and Sam Lambert. They’re sitting in the members’ east gallery. Welcome.

Hon.

Yasir Naqvi: We’ve got some distinguished guests from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters who are visiting Queen’s Park today: Jayson Myers, president and CEO, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; Craig McIntosh, executive chairman, Acrylon Plastics Inc., who is the CME’s national board chair; Mathew Wilson, vice-president, national policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; David Fowler, CEO of Wescast Industries Inc.; Rory McAlpine, vice-president, government and industry relations, Maple Leaf Foods; Ian Howcroft, vice-president, Ontario, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; Rick Jamieson, CEO of ABS Friction Inc.; Bob Masterson, vice-president, responsible care, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada; Nancy Coulas, director of environment and energy policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; Steve Gushie, president, Carquest Canada Ltd.; John Margeson, manager, business and economics, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada; Jennifer Steeves, director of industry and consumer affairs, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association; and Norm Huebel, regional director, Ontario, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada.

We welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yvan Baker: This morning I had a chance to meet with three students from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance. I’d just like to welcome them here to the members’ gallery. We have Rebecca Little, academic affairs commissioner; Philip Lloyd, vice-president, university affairs, the Alma Mater Society at Queen’s University; and Shawn Murphy, vice-president, university affairs, at Trent Oshawa Student Association. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Aboriginal land claims

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier.

The government is one that frequently suggests that it is open and transparent. In fact, recent initiatives, whether it has been Open Government or Bill 8, were designed to leave the public with the impression that your government listens. Unfortunately, with the Algonquin land claim in much of eastern Ontario, that hasn’t been the case.

What’s concerning here is that while there has been an agreement in principle, many people in the public, particularly in Ottawa, feel left out of the process.

Given that an entire region of Ontario will be impacted by the land claim, could the Premier provide an update on the status of public consultation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the member opposite, and I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will want to comment. Let me just say that my understanding of the process that has been under way for many years, actually—I was just checking; 20 years—in order to get this modern-day land claim right has been very comprehensive. I know when I was in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, we were working with First Nations and working with community groups and municipalities to make sure that we landed in a place that would work for everyone.

Again, I appreciate the questions from the member opposite, but this has been a decades-long process and it is still under way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: No one disputes that the land claim should be between the Algonquin peoples and the federal and provincial governments. I respect that and I know all Ontarians respect that. However, no public consultation was held until after the fact and only to “infill the detail of what will be contained in a final settlement.”

I’m sure that the Premier understand that a claim of this size impacts 117,000 acres, over one million people and the city of Ottawa, including other residents and municipalities across this province and anglers, hunters, cottagers and landowners. All they’re asking for is transparency in the process moving forward with the additional agreements that will be in place.

Will the Premier review the government’s plan for public consultation and provide Ontarians with the opportunity for further input into this process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I say, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, in the final supplementary, will give us exactly where we’re at on this.

More than 20 years of negotiations, Canada, Ontario—and remember, the Canadian government, the Ontario government and the Algonquins of Ontario have consulted with stakeholders, with legal tenure holders, with adjacent landowners, with cottage associations and members of the public. My understanding is that there has also been an advisory group that has been part of this process, that has been a parallel part of this process. So it has been very thorough.

I appreciate the concerns of the member opposite that everyone who needs to have input have that input, but I would just reassure the member opposite and, quite frankly, the people of Ontario that this process has been extremely thorough. It is ongoing. The process has not been completed at this point.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Again, no one disputes the importance or length of this land claim. What is concerning, however, to people across the province, particularly those in eastern and northern Ontario, is that you’re not allowing residents the opportunity to have input on harvesting, land use and waterways. This government once committed to the public that it would be consultative on negotiations of this type.

Premier, my question is: What has changed? Why won’t the Premier update the public? We’ve given her two opportunities to do that today. Why is this government refusing to allow public consultation on the Algonquin land claim, particularly in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for the question. The fact of the matter is that this treaty negotiation has been going on for some 20 years. In the last two years, we’ve been approaching a draft agreement in principle. When that draft agreement in principle became available, we intensified the negotiations. There have been negotiations with municipalities. There have been negotiations with individual owners. There have been consultations with cottage owners. Anybody in the Ottawa River watershed on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River has been given an opportunity to attend these consultations.

I myself, as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, have conducted three consultations here in the Legislature to which all members—Liberal, Tory and NDP—have been invited, and a number of you have attended or have sent staff. We have been open and above board with these consultations.

Mr. Crane, who is our principal negotiator, is continuing to have those negotiations—

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

New question?

Energy policies

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier, moving from one set of secret and private negotiations to another. The Green Energy Act has increased hydro rates; has been harmful to wildlife, animals as well as birds; and, according to the Auditor General, has lost us jobs. For every one created, we have lost four. Many municipalities oppose wind turbine developments in their communities because the government has stripped them of their locally based decision-making power. They are now forced to host these wind turbines despite the fact that they don’t want them.

The leader of the official opposition has reintroduced legislation in order to ensure that locally based decision-making is given back to municipalities across the province. The question remains: Will the government support the leader of the official opposition’s motion and allow us to give back locally based decision-making to our communities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just before I answer the first part of the question, I understand that Norm Sterling, our former member—where is he? He’s somewhere. Where is—

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

Premier, I’m not happy with that one. I will even tell the Premier: Don’t step on my job. I’m just going to do that. That’s my fun opportunity. I do always want to introduce former members to give them the due respect. You’ve done that, but I want to make sure that people are aware of a sterling example in the west public gallery: from Carleton–Grenville in the 31st, 32nd, 33rd; Carleton in the 34th, 35th and 36th; Lanark–Carleton in the 37th and 38th; and Carleton–Mississippi Mills in the 39th, Mr. Norm Sterling.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now that she’s stepped on my job, but—

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier, you’re now in the middle of your answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes. I apologize.

To the member opposite: I think the member opposite knows full well that when I took on this role as Premier almost two years ago, I made it clear that we were going to change the process. That’s exactly what has happened, Mr. Speaker. Mayors spoke to us, communities spoke to us, and we have changed the process so that there is increased control over decision-making by those local communities. That is built right into the process.

We are very proud of the clean renewable energy sources in this province. We’re also proud of an industry that was jump-started because of our focus on clean renewable energy, but we knew that there were some changes that had to be made, and we made those changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Norm Sterling here today was the first to tell me I should run for the Ontario PC leadership, and I support his determination.

I also supported Norm Sterling back in 2009, when we on this side of the House all unanimously opposed the Green Energy Act, which, by the way, overrides 21 different pieces of legislation, including the Ontario Heritage Act and the Planning Act, so wind turbine developers can build wind turbines in communities that don’t want them without any pushback by local residents.

Now, despite what the government claims, their new procurement process promises more community input, but it hasn’t really changed. Just ask the 72 unwilling host communities across this province. The only way to truly allow municipalities and their residents to have their say on wind turbine developments is to support the leader of the official opposition’s bill. So will the Premier listen to rural Ontario and restore locally based decision-making once and for all?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just be clear on what the member opposite is suggesting. What she is suggesting is that we tear up contracts that are already in place, we enter processes that are already under way—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the volume of the reaction is in direct proportion to the veracity of what I’m saying. The reality is that I came into this office and said we were going to change the process. We have changed the process. There is more local control, Mr. Speaker. We have built that right into the process so that communities can have that control that, quite frankly, I think is a good thing. I think it’s a good thing for there to be that kind of local control.

I also think it’s a good thing that our clean energy policies have created more than 42,000 jobs. That’s a very important aspect of our economic recovery. We will continue to work with communities and make sure those decisions are made locally.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: With a response like that, there’s no wonder, of course, that to find a Liberal in rural Ontario is a rare sighting indeed. One of the biggest challenges that this government has is credibility with rural and remote communities across all of Ontario. The rural-urban divide is caused by disastrous policies like the Green Energy Act.

If the Premier is serious about enfranchising rural Ontarians, she will support the leader of the official opposition’s bill. It is reasonable. It is never too late to admit you are wrong. Will the Premier reverse her decision to override 21 separate pieces of legislation and make wind turbine developers go through the same processes any other developer would have to go through in the process of Ontario? Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Because of the policies that we have put in place, the air is cleaner in Ontario. We have 2,700 clean tech firms that employ 65,000 people in the clean technology sector. Because of the policies that we have put in place and because of the industry—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I travelled to China with the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment and the Minister of International Trade, we were able to take clean tech companies with us and talk to leaders in China who are desperately looking for solutions to the terrible pollution problems they have in that country. We live in the world; we do not live in isolation from the rest of the world. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to have a cleaner environment. That’s the side that we’re on.

Social Assistance Management System

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. People who rely on social assistance count on every penny, but when a family sees a cheque for nearly $200 reduced to $1.70, or a family of five gets a support cheque for $5, that means they’re stuck.

The Premier and her minister yesterday insisted that this was only an issue with overpayments and that people weren’t hurt. Now we know that that’s not true. Will the Premier correct her record?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I actually said that my understanding was that there was about 1% of the 500,000 cheques that go out every month where there was a problem, and I didn’t actually know, in that 1% of cheques, what the issue was, whether it was underpayment or overpayment. But what I asked first thing yesterday morning was that we check into that and we make sure that people were getting money and that those situations were rectified.

I am absolutely in agreement with the member opposite that people who are dependent on the social assistance system need our support and we need to make sure they get the money that they rely on, because it is imperative that they have that every month. So the minister is working on that. You know, I wish that this technological issue hadn’t happened, but the system will be better for those clients in the long run.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Some of the most vulnerable Ontarians are being hurt by a computer problem that the government was warned about last February. The Premier was saying that problems with the Social Assistance Management System are just minor glitches, but this is what people were facing: One parent was owed $170.35 for the Transition Child Benefit, but instead she got $1.79; a family with five children got an assistance cheque for $5. That minor glitch might be the difference between making rent or not for that family.

Will the Premier make sure that she does absolutely everything she can to make sure all of the issues that are outstanding are addressed immediately?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Absolutely. I absolutely will do that. The minister and I have spoken this morning, and she is in communication with municipalities. She’s going to be talking to some of the offices to get a handle on exactly what is happening at the local level. She has already spoken to some of the municipalities’ leadership.

I am not minimizing in any way the impact on individual families. I understand that this is a very serious problem for an individual family. But we are introducing a new system that will help those individual families and all the families like them to get better service because caseworkers will be able to spend more time with them once this system is updated.

It is not acceptable that certain families would have had to undergo this problem, and we are working as hard as we can to make sure that those situations are rectified, but I want the system to work better for them in the medium and long term.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Those very same problems that the Premier has insisted are just minor glitches have meant that people’s support cheques were going to their exes, to non-existent bank accounts, or to former trustees for those people.

The Premier was warned about these problems nearly a year ago. Why did she ignore the concerns that were being raised and rush into a computer system that wasn’t ready, causing havoc for hundreds and hundreds of Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There was no rushing into this process. It was a very well-thought-through process, and it has not been perfect. Every month, $570 million worth of cheques is sent out in Ontario Works and ODSP payments—$570 million in cheques. The outstanding overpayments, the issue that we’re dealing with right now, is in the order of $123,000.

Mostly the system worked, but there were some situations that I have already said are unacceptable, and for those families that was not a minor glitch. For those families, it was a very serious thing. We are working to rectify it. As I said, in the long term, in the medium term, the system will be better for all of those families because their workers will be able to spend more time with them.

Social Assistance Management System

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The next question is also for the Premier. The Premier and her minister have insisted that they acted as soon as they learned about problems with their new computer system, but the government got a letter from front-line workers back in February 2014. That’s nearly a year ago. In fact, I’ll send it over to the Premier as a reminder.

Will the Premier come clean and admit that she was warned nearly a year ago in that letter, and that she did nothing until the whole issue blew up just a couple of days ago?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact is that this implementation has been ongoing, and as there have been concerns, those concerns have been addressed. It did not mean that there was no problem with the implementation; we’ve already acknowledged that there were problems. But I have no way of knowing whether this letter sent from OPSEU was identifying issues that actually were addressed in the implementation. My suspicion is that they were. I certainly will double-check that with the minister.

The reality is that this is a system that needed to be updated. The new system will allow caseworkers to spend more time with their clients, and that is the objective. The objective is to have better time spent with the clients.

I am absolutely clear that it’s unacceptable that some families have had an issue with this implementation. We are working on making sure that it’s corrected for everyone.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It wasn’t just Ontario’s front-line workers who were warning the Liberals. They were consulting with Minnesota and Maryland, two states in the US who use the same software. Last December, the governor of Minnesota wrote to the makers of SAMS and said, “Your product has made it impossible to provide Minnesotans with reasonable customer service.” That sounds familiar.

Why didn’t the Premier listen when red flags were being raised by other jurisdictions using the same software that failed Ontarians just so recently?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s just look at this situation. This system is actually used. It’s state-of-the-art software that’s used by Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Germany and New York city. This system will deliver social assistance programs more efficiently. It will give clients 24/7 access to a portal that will allow them to get their case information. I think that is a very good thing, that people are able to get their case information; they can get it online at any time of day.

Kira Heineck, who is head of the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, said this. She said it’s “going to be a better system than the one we had before.” It seems to me that that has to be the measure of the changes that government makes: Are the systems that we put in place better than what we had before? Are the implementations as smooth as they can be? Yes. Do we have to correct when there are problems? Absolutely, and that is what we’re doing.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The fact is, when the alarm was sounding about a computer problem that would mean major problems for the most vulnerable Ontarians, the Liberal government stuck its fingers in its ears.

People on social assistance have a difficult time making ends meet already, and with the holidays around the corner, it’s even more difficult. The problem that was created by the Premier meant that some people got only 1% of the money that they were counting on.

The Premier is out of touch. This isn’t a glitch. It’s an issue that’s affecting people’s lives in a very, very serious way. Will the Premier immediately call her minister into her office and haul her on the carpet about why this went so wrong?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, that may be the way the leader of the third party deals with people, but on this side of the House, we work together, we find solutions, and we make sure that when there’s a problem, we solve the problem. So the minister and I have had a number of conversations. I know that she is working very hard to make sure that this situation gets addressed.

Here’s what I’m focused on today. I’m focused on making sure that next month, this doesn’t happen; making sure that whatever the issues were, they don’t happen next month; and making sure that this month—because I agree with the member opposite that this is a time when families are gathering, and we want people to have their resources—people get what they are entitled to in this next round.

Social Assistance Management System

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, in response to the scandal brewing with your quarter-billion-dollar social assistance management system, SAMS—or scams—that resulted in $20 million in overpayments to 17,000 individuals last week, you stated yesterday it was nothing, a small glitch that you fixed in an effective way.

The front-line staff disagree with you. They made over 6,000 calls to report problems with the new system. Again, it’s your word against theirs. Clearly, they don’t want you to sweep this under the rug. Minister, will you be transparent and accountable and commit to re-striking the estimates committee so we can get to the bottom of this and prevent any more nightmares for these people?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member opposite for this question. I certainly want to thank our front-line workers and our municipal partners for their very hard work on this issue. I know that they’re working overtime. I want to acknowledge that adapting to the new system has been stressful, and we do thank them all for their patience.

We will continue to support local offices as they get comfortable with the new system, and they have our support. We have sent out additional staff to local offices. As we’ve said so many times in this House both yesterday and today, when an error was identified by those front-line workers, we immediately took action to reverse the impact of that particular error so that within 24 hours approximately 99% of payments were stopped or retracted immediately.

We know that cheques went out yesterday. I would simply like to say, in terms of those vulnerable people, if they notice an error, contact their caseworker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Again, my question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Your own confidential ministry documents show that problems were identified last October, a year ago. You had to delay implementation in March and then again in July. You knew there were problems. It’s obvious they weren’t fixed, but you went ahead anyway. The front-line workers who knew about these problems should be able to be in estimates and identify these and testify.

Minister, if you really want to thank the front-line staff and respect them, you’ll commit to re-striking the estimates committee and allowing them to testify. Minister, will you do the right thing? Will you re-strike the committee and allow those front-line workers to come and tell the truth?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: While we acknowledge that adapting to the new system can be stressful, we have been working with caseworkers and our service delivery partners to help them learn the new system and support them in this transition. When I received the letter from OPSEU and from CUPE, I actually visited a couple of offices to see the training first-hand. I attended at the Hamilton office, the municipal office. I went out to the Newmarket ODSP office. I could see that there was a need for more training, and I immediately took action and instructed my officials to ensure that everyone would feel comfortable when we went live in mid-November.

Even before implementation, the ministry made significant investments in training to help front-line staff prepare for the transition. Over the past three years, we have been working with our service delivery partners, including front-line staff on the requirements, design and testing of the new system. We have trained some 11,000 users in approximately 257 offices, and we know that at the end of the day, we will have a very—

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

New question.

Poverty

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Each month, Speaker, 375,000 people in this province turn to food banks. That is a 20% increase since this government launched its Poverty Reduction Strategy in 2008. When it comes to putting food on the table and a roof over the heads of every family in Ontario, the Liberals have failed to get the job done. The government’s inaction has left hundreds of thousands of people in poverty.

Will the minister admit that this Liberal government has failed to address the desperate needs of Ontario families living in poverty and has failed to reduce the use of food banks in our province?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member for Welland for the question. As I’m sure she’s aware, we have re-struck our Poverty Reduction Strategy, under the very capable leadership of the President of the Treasury Board, to address a number of issues as they relate to poverty. In particular, I think the member should know that our government is committed to making long-term improvements to social assistance programs. It’s in my mandate letter, and I will continue to work in this regard. We have made it a priority to improve the social services system and help people in need to participate fully in our communities and our economy.

Building on the rate increase—I believe you probably voted against it in the 2013 budget—our government will increase social assistance rates again in 2014, voted against twice by the member of the third party. We are adding an additional 1% for adults, Ontario Works recipients and people with disabilities receiving—

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: The minister can make excuses, but the numbers speak for themselves: 130,000 children rely on food banks each and every month. That’s a staggering number of kids going hungry in this province. Seven hundred thousand meals are served by our amazing food banks—who do a lot of fundraising—each and every month. And the numbers of families turning to food banks for the first time increased by over 20% this year. That’s the reality of poverty in our communities. That’s the reality of failed Liberal policies and promises.

Will the minister admit that with no target, no timeline and no urgency to reduce poverty, this Liberal government still has no real plan to improve poverty for many Ontarians in this province?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Minister responsible for the poverty reduction strategy.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I completely reject the argument being made across the way that our Poverty Reduction Strategy is not making a real difference in the lives of people. Let’s take, for example, a single mom with two kids who is working full-time at a minimum wage job. When we took office, her income would have been less than $20,000. It is now almost $35,000. That family is doing far, far better now because of the changes we have made. But we are by no means finished. We are just beginning our work on poverty reduction.

In our first strategy, we identified eight indicators, because poverty is also about breaking the cycle of poverty and improving outcomes for kids in schools. All of our eight indicators have demonstrated that we have made progress. Our new Poverty Reduction Strategy is looking very, very closely and strategically at the issue of homelessness. We can eliminate homelessness. We can eliminate chronic homelessness, and that is what we are going to do, Speaker.

Long-term care

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: My question is to the Associate Minister of Health, Long-Term Care and Wellness.

Minister, the health, safety and satisfaction of our long-term-care-home residents is a high priority for this government. Indeed, the fact that you have been appointed to oversee our long-term-care homes is evidence of that. We are well aware that the government is obligated to ensure residents’ rights and safety and the quality of life for those in long-term care. Part of how we do that is through the inspection system for long-term-care homes. Although I’m familiar with this process, the people of my riding of Ottawa–Orléans in Ontario may be interested in hearing about this government’s inspection initiative.

Mr. Speaker, could the associate minister provide us with some background on the essential purpose of long-term-care-home inspections?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Thanks to the member from Ottawa–Orléans for this very important question.

The member is quite right. The Premier has indeed charged me with providing a laser-like focus on long-term care. In particular, my number one priority is the safety of all 77,000 residents in Ontario’s long-term-care homes. And it is in this context that we have committed to performing a comprehensive annual inspection of all of the 632 homes. The inspections, which are unannounced, ensure that long-term-care homes in Ontario are indeed providing the highest levels of care. The inspections serve not only to find out if there are any weaknesses, but also to work with long-term-care homes to improve our processes so that our residents continue to feel truly at home and safe in their homes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: The people of Ottawa–Orléans will be glad to know that the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and Wellness is concerned with senior safety and is making long-term-care-home inspections her top priority. However, speaking as someone with a background in senior and long-term care, I’m apprehensive about the sheer number of inspections that have to occur in a one-year period.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the associate minister assure us that the ministry has properly trained staff to deal with the volume and to enforce these inspections at 630 long-term-care homes per year?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Thanks again to the member for this important question. I want to reassure the member and the House that indeed, we do have the capacity at the ministry to conduct inspections at all 632 homes. That is why we have hired and trained additional long-term-care inspectors. In 2003, the ministry only had 59 inspectors working; today we have 170. The supplementary inspectors hired will enable my ministry to ensure that every single long-term-care-home inspection is scheduled by the end of 2014.

My ministry has taken concrete steps to ensure the accuracy and depth of new resident quality inspections. These inspections are resident-focused, with an emphasis placed on quality of care and quality of life. All inspections will place a high importance on interviewing the residents, family council and staff of the establishment.

Fish and wildlife management

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Minister, yesterday your government levied a new tax grab in the form of service fees to hunters and anglers of this province, an increase of 23% in certain instances. Minister, this isn’t a basic one-fee-for-all-services but a fee for each and every service. It means $2 is added to each of a multitude of licences a hunter-angler must purchase, such as an outdoors card, various fishing and game licences, and tags for the harvest. This comes in addition to the yearly price increases to licences. This isn’t a simple $2 increase, as you like to portray.

Minister, you justify these new fees based on your claim that the special purpose account is declining. However, nobody knows the details of the special purpose account because you’re ignoring legislation and refusing to table the documents.

Minister, instead of introducing new fees, why will you not release the details of the special purpose account to show hunters and anglers how their money is being spent?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I thank the member for the question. I would say that when the Conservatives brought in the special purpose account, the intention of the account was to be funded to the tune of about $100 million annually. About 66%, or $66 million, of that would come from the licences and fees that were paid by hunters and anglers in the community across the province of Ontario. It’s our intention to continue to try and meet that percentage base from the hunters and fishers from the fees that they pay. If we don’t do that, the very programming that the account was intended to provide for can’t be met.

I know that the member opposite has a very keen interest in that. I know he’s had briefings where he’s asked about expenditures from this account within his own riding.

It’s the intent of this account to be able to continue to meet that mandate, providing hunting and fishing, good programming, and fish and wildlife management in the province of Ontario. That’s the intention, Speaker. I would say as well—well, I’ll provide the further information on this in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, I’ve asked the questions; I just want an answer.

Minister, if only the hunters and anglers knew how their money is being spent. I’ve recently just found out that over 14%—or $9.9 million—of the special purpose account money that is to be used in the management of resources like deer and fish goes to administering the burdensome licensing system that your government has created. Over half of that money goes to the United States, none of which is invested in our economy or resource management. In fact, over the course of the contract you signed, over $34.12 million of the special-purpose account will go to the United States. Instead of finding efficiencies in the administration of the system, you create new fees.

Minister, hunters and anglers, like most Ontarians, do not trust this government with their money. Why will you not show some good faith, repeal the new fees, release the special purpose account documents and bring the licensing system home to Canada where it belongs?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Before the fees that the member refers to came into effect on December 1 this year, there was a significant period of consultation that was undertaken, going back at least one to one and a half years ago. The decision was made then that the fees would come into effect on December 1.

It’s not as if these fees just came forward and were forced down the throats of anybody. There was significant consultation undertaken, and I know that OFAH came forward with the view that, rather than having a little bit every year, perhaps this was the approach they would prefer on a go-forward basis.

The member raises a fair point: I said in a response to a question he asked last week that those reports he has been asking about will be brought forward in very short order. I can’t speak to why they haven’t been brought forward in the past over three years; it’s our intention to have them tabled within the Legislature in the very near future.

Community care access centres

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: This past weekend, I met with people in my riding of Windsor West to hear stories about how CCAC service cuts have impacted their lives.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister, please?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Sorry. To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The round table was hosted by our leader, Andrea Horwath, and I was accompanied by my colleagues from Essex and Windsor–Tecumseh. We heard from people like Sandra Havens and Sharon Mueller, who had their home care services reduced or cut off completely. These are the same service cuts that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has been denying for weeks.

Now that the minister can no longer deny that these service cuts are affecting real people, will he finally commit to ceasing further reductions in CCAC services and restore services to all those affected by the cuts?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m aware of the leader of the third party hosting this meeting and rally this past weekend in Windsor and speaking to some of the individuals concerned. It’s unfortunate for this meeting that the CCAC was not invited to attend as well, so that they could actually hear some of these concerns from the public.

On November 10, I know that the member opposite and two of her colleagues met with the CEO of the local Erie St. Clair CCAC and talked about the plans going forward to address the deficit. It’s important to understand the challenge that the Erie St. Clair CCAC is facing. There was a review done by the LHIN and by the CCAC some time ago, leading to the projection of a deficit, and part of that was evidence that showed that the level of nursing services provided by Erie St. Clair was actually 33%—

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The same day that the CCAC received an influx of funding, people in my riding continued to be told that their services were being reduced or cut off. Peggy Hoover was told that the CCAC would no longer be administering IV treatment to her diabetic husband, and that this duty now fell to her. Sandra Havens, who suffers from MS, was told last month that her assistance from the community care access centre was being completely cut off.

While I’m relieved that the CCAC is less burdened by debt, the issue has always been more than spreadsheets. Will the minister apologize to my constituents and commit to providing them with adequate home care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite knows that I’m working very closely with the LHIN, as well as the CCAC. But I mentioned that when Erie St. Clair did the analysis, they found that the level of nursing services was actually one third higher than for the province, despite similar demographics. In fact, for patients who are in the mild needs category, it’s twice as high as it is in the provincial average.

The CCAC CEO—responsibly, I think—undertook a review to see how they could bring that CCAC more in sync with the rest of the province in terms of what is being provided, and in fact it was on my instruction last week that an additional $4.1 million was provided to the CCAC. That actual process was in process long before the member opposite raised her concerns here in the Legislature. We’ll continue to make sure they get back to balance, and it may take an additional year to do that. We’re going to make sure that patient care does not suffer.

Immigrants’ skills

Mr. Vic Dhillon: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Minister, Ontario is consistently ranked the number one province for immigrants to call home. Many of my constituents tell me that one of the biggest challenges facing new immigrants is the transition to a new workforce. For many highly skilled newcomers, the qualifications needed in their field differ from their home country. In order to start providing for their families and integrating into their communities, these newcomers need assistance to find a job in their field.

Minister, could you tell the House what action Ontario is taking to help our immigrants transition?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the member from Brampton West for asking. As an immigrant myself, I know how critical it is for Ontario to develop programs that will help newcomers. Ontario recognizes that nearly three of every four working-age immigrants arriving in Ontario have a post-secondary education. When we can effectively engage them in our workforce, everyone will benefit. This is why we have 92 active bridge training projects in place to help highly skilled newcomers access licensure and employment in their field.

So far, our projects have assisted close to 50,000 newcomers in over 100 professions to continue their career in Ontario. We are proud that the Ontario bridge training program is working.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

The minister is not the only immigrant here today. In fact, many members from all sides of the House came here from another country or are the children of Canadian immigrants. We should be able to agree that newcomers are a vital part of Ontario’s economic and cultural fibre. They need and deserve our help to integrate and adapt, particularly in the workforce, but instead of what should be a united front, we too often see newcomers being treated as a second priority.

Speaker, will the minister tell us what the government of Ontario is doing to ensure that the programs newcomers need are being protected?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you again for the question. Our bridge training programs help highly skilled immigrants from a variety of fields, and we are committed to continuing these services. We have budgeted to contribute over $63 million over three years. In 2014 alone, we provided over $26 million to these programs. Without this funding, bridge training services would not be able to operate. We are making sure that highly skilled immigrants from around the world can obtain the fast-track training and customized services needed to quickly and effectively transition into our workforce.

Ontario, Canada is the land of hope and opportunities for newcomers. Our goal is to help them succeed because we know that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

Health care funding

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, on the same day the Erie St. Clair LHIN gave millions in bailout dollars to one group, they told another group that they need to prove their worth. The community care access centre has managed to run a $5-million deficit only eight months into this current year. The CCAC CEO’s salary has jumped 37% in the last five years, and the number of employees making more than $100,000 has more than doubled to 21 from nine during that same time period. This agency was given a multi-million-dollar bailout.

Now, compare that with the Leamington District Memorial Hospital, one of the province’s most efficient small hospitals, whose obstetrics unit’s future is unsure.

My question, Minister, is this: Why is the Leamington District Memorial Hospital left hanging while the CCAC is given bailout after bailout?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I don’t know how the member opposite can say that the CEO’s salary has increased that dramatically over five years since she only started at the CCAC in May of this year. But I have to say that, apart from the fact that Bill 8, which is making its way through the Legislature, addresses this specific issue, I think one part of the question that the member opposite asked, which is the issue of executive compensation—and I do want to say as well that the proportion of CCAC funding that goes to executive or management-level compensation has actually decreased substantially since 2007.

The administrative costs that are attributed to our CCACs have also declined over a similar period. So we’re taking those steps and putting them in place but, importantly, Bill 8, I think, is going to give us additional tools so that we can address that issue of executive compensation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Minister, back in December 2012, the Erie St. Clair LHIN was forced to postpone knee and hip replacement surgeries because it had used up its budget. The same scenario happened last year, and this year we’re waiting with bated breath just to see what happens.

In 2013, the CCAC had to ask for an additional $4.5 million in funding, and now the CCAC is forcing your hand, forcing the Ministry of Health to actually give them a $4.1-million bailout. Yet Leamington District Memorial Hospital remains with a $2-million shortfall, forcing obstetrics to close.

Leamington residents cannot understand why this government has millions to spare each time the LHIN or CCAC runs out of money, but can’t spare the needed funding for the highly efficient Leamington District Memorial Hospital obstetrics clinic. My question, Minister, is this: Why are your appointed health bureaucrats held to a different standard of accountability in the rural hospitals—

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I guess what I’m beginning to understand is that the third party wants an increase to the budget to the CCAC, and the official opposition wants to see a decrease to the funding to the CCAC in Erie St. Clair.

With regard to the Leamington hospital specifically, I know that the member opposite has been involved and concerned about the impact on potential changes to the obstetrics unit there in the hospital. He does know that the Leamington District Memorial Hospital is working closely with the regional LHIN—it’s the LHIN, not the CCAC—to look at various options. There was a meeting on November 27 as well between the hospital as well as the LHIN and community members to enable all sides, really, to speak to and address this important issue of obstetrical services.

Roughly half of the residents in the Leamington area currently choose to deliver in Windsor at the regional hospital already, but I’m committed to making sure that we have an open and transparent process led by our LHIN, overseen by the ministry, with community involvement and certainly with the hospital, to determine what the best outcome should be.

Government’s agenda

Ms. Catherine Fife: To the President of the Treasury Board: Yesterday, this government rammed through amendments to Bill 8. That’s 11 pieces of distinct legislation all in one Harper-style omnibus bill. Liberal committee members voted against granting the children’s advocate investigative powers over his entire mandate. They voted to open up questions over the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to court rulings. Shockingly, they voted against making the patient ombudsman a true and independent ombudsman. They won’t be able to investigate infectious disease outbreaks that happen in private clinics, when we know that this happens.

All of this happened in fewer than three hours. How can this government say they’re open and transparent and then ram through legislation that is so deeply flawed?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted with the progress of Bill 8. As you know, it’s been a long time coming. We introduced this legislation long before it came in this form and, unfortunately, it was blocked when the NDP forced an unnecessary election.

So we’re moving forward. I want to thank the committee members for having done an excellent job. They actually accepted amendments from the opposition parties, and I was very pleased to see that the bill actually was improved thanks to the work of the members opposite, so that’s good news.

What we’re doing is moving forward with important accountability legislation. It has been discussed for many, many, many, many months because it has been before the House before. I’m pleased that this bill has gone through committee and will be back in the House very soon for third reading.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Treasury Board president: You called the election, just for the record. This government can say—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Finish, please.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this government can say what they want about Bill 8, but it won’t change this fact: Yesterday they voted to limit the powers of the child advocate. Yesterday they limited powers in oversight over the patient ombudsman, a $52-billion budget item. And they have actually opened the door for oversight by invitation only in the health care sector. Mr. Speaker, how can this government say they’re open and transparent when they’ve created a patient ombudsman designed to fail?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I am actually looking into a nomination for the Stephen Leacock award for MPPs, because that might be the funniest line we have heard in this House in a long time, Speaker.

I’m very pleased, as I said, that Bill 8 is moving forward. Actually, I correct my record: The legislation around Ornge oversight has been before the House for three years; we couldn’t get it passed. So I’m delighted that this necessary legislation is being passed.

Let’s just remind ourselves what we’re getting in this legislation. We’re expanding the role of the Ontario Ombudsman to include municipalities, school boards, publicly funded universities. We’re establishing a patient ombudsman. This is a fantastic step forward, Speaker. We’re giving the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth new powers, new investigative powers. That’s very good.

I know you’re trying to justify why you won’t support the bill, but I tell you that this is very, very good and important legislation.

Impaired drivers

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Sécurité communautaire et des Services correctionnels, the Honourable Yasir Naqvi.

Speaker, as you’ll appreciate, Ontario has, and continues to aspire to have, some of the safest roads in North America. But even so, with the holiday season fast approaching, my constituents in Etobicoke North, and Ontarians across the province, are worried about the potential road safety related to impaired driving caused by drugs or alcohol, or often a judicious combination of both.

It’s unfortunate to say this, but during the past decade in Ontario more than 2,000 lives have been lost and more than 50,000 people have been injured in collisions involving impaired driving. These numbers are intolerable, and there is absolutely no room for impaired driving of any kind in this province.

Recently, I attended I kickoff event for the 2014-15 holiday RIDE campaign to remind my own constituents about the importance of this issue.

Will the minister please explain to this House some of the details that we’re taking to the discourage the very serious problem of impaired driving in Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I first want to thank the member from Etobicoke North for attending the kickoff event in his riding for the holiday RIDE campaign. The RIDE campaign is a year-round initiative that seeks to discourage impaired driving and catch drivers who drive while intoxicated. During the holiday season, police in Ontario conduct more RIDE spot checks.

Our government is committed to supporting this important initiative and to keeping Ontarians safe from impaired drivers. Since 2008 and 2009, we have doubled the RIDE grant program funding, from $1.2 million to $2.4 million annually, to support more spot check activities across th