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

October 26, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-26 (PDF)

L111 - Mon 26 Oct 2015 / Lun 26 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 26 October 2015 Lundi 26 octobre 2015

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Teacher’s collective bargaining

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Municipal elections

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Pension plans

Community safety

Privatization of public assets

International trade agreement

Northern Ontario development

Access to justice

Members’ Statements

Echologics

Downtown Windsor Business Accelerator

OCAD University

Stratford Perth Community Foundation

John and Sarah Pruyn

Youth employment program

Grape Harvest Festival

Richmond Gardens Ratepayers and Residents Association

Events in Punjab

Petitions

Sauble Beach land claim

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Health care

Gasoline prices

Employment standards

Taxation

Breastfeeding

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Water fluoridation

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour renforcer la protection des consommateurs et la surveillance du réseau d’électricité

Time allocation

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to welcome Mayor Trevor Birtch from the city of Woodstock, and Brian Donlevy, a great reporter from CKOT in Tillsonburg, who are both here in the gallery today. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Kathy Moreside, who is the mother of page Abby Moreside from the great riding of Oxford. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Vanthof: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the folks from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario here today, some of whom I have had the honour to work with. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jeff Leal: With great pleasure, I want to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Ontario to Queen’s Park today, in the members’ east gallery, including Peter Gould, the general manager and CEO; and Ralph Dietrich, who is the board chair. We also have a director from the wonderful riding of Peterborough, Will Vanderhorst.

DFO is hosting a reception this afternoon from 5 to 7 p.m. in committee rooms 228 and 230. I say to all members, this would be a great opportunity to see one of the great sectors of Ontario’s agricultural economy.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Adding to everyone, I would also like to extend my personal welcome to my friend and fellow community member from South Bruce, DFO chair Ralph Dietrich. I know he’s proud to call Mildmay home, and he does a great job representing dairy farmers.

M me France Gélinas: This little page, Vanessa, is page captain today, and she has some nice visitors with her: her mother, Josée Morris; her father, Michael Morris; her brother David; her grandmother Pauline Chartrand; and her grandfather Laurier Chartrand. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and congratulations, Vanessa.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to introduce two special people to the House today. With us are Brooke Crewson, my executive assistant here at Queen’s Park, and Scott Parry, my new legislative assistant here at Queen’s Park. Welcome to both.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m very pleased to welcome an outstanding farm leader, here with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario: my friend Ian Harrop.

As well, the family of page captain John Millar—Kathleen Millar, his mother; Daniel Millar, his father; Murry Trask, his grandfather; and his aunt Dianne Trask—are all here today to see John Millar in action.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, especially Sid Atkinson from the Campbellford-Warkworth area.

Mr. Steve Clark: I have two introductions. In the east members’ gallery, I have a local dairy farmer from Leeds county, Henry Oosterhof, who is here today with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. Welcome, Henry.

In the west members’ gallery, I’d like to introduce a Scarborough resident, Mukund Purohit, who is here with us today and has the distinction of having worked on Indian Prime Minister Modi’s campaign. Welcome both to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Today I’d like to welcome, from Dairy Farmers of Ontario, Peter Gould, general manager; and Peter Van Sleeuwen and Nick Thurler, both board members from my riding. Of course, we look forward to seeing them again this afternoon. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Henry Wydeven, a board member with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario from the St. Marys area; and Will Patterson, a student who is here to learn more about our work at Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Murray Sherk from New Dundee in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, part of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce dairy farmers—I don’t know if there are any here from Oxford, but being the dairy capital, I’m sure that they all represent Oxford in one way or the other.

I also have to note that the mother to Abby Moreside, one of our pages, is here: Kathy Moreside. I introduced her earlier, but I thought maybe I’d do it a second time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My friends, we have some very special guests here in the Speaker’s gallery. With us today are the children who attend Ronald McDonald House, and their teacher, Danielle Myers. We are glad that they are here with us today. Welcome. This is one of their wishes, to be here.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Due to the mounting public outrage, this government has admitted to doling out an additional $2.5 million in taxpayer money because of their failed two-tier bargaining system. But that admission is not going to satisfy the thousands of Ontarians who have contacted us, and I’m sure they’ve contacted the Premier’s office as well.

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple: Where did that money come from?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said repeatedly, there is a cost associated with negotiations. There is always a cost associated with negotiations, and I have said quite clearly that any of the money that has been on the table has been part of the overall compensation package. I’ve answered that question a number of times. I answered it in the media.

The reality is that our top priority is to ensure that our students enjoy one of the best education systems in the world. They do enjoy that. We want to keep it that way, and we are in a process right now—it’s an unprecedented process. There hasn’t been a provincial bargaining system in place before. This is the first round of bargaining within that provincial process. We will reach a conclusion with all of our education partners, and at the conclusion of that, if the Leader of the Opposition would like to engage in a conversation about how to modify Bill 122 or how to modify that process, we are open and welcoming that process.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I hope I don’t have to start.

Supplementary question.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier, and I’ll be more specific: Every dollar budgeted in the education ministry is assigned to a specific program. In June 2014, we learned that the Minister of Education took $1.6 million in funding for an anti-bullying and autism awareness program to pay the legal fees in their lawsuit with Ontario school bus drivers.

So again, Mr. Speaker, a very simple accounting question for the Premier: From which program line item in the 2015 education budget did the Premier take the $2.5 million for her mismanaged negotiations?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said, the proposals that are on the table and the money that is on the table are all part of the compensation envelope. That’s what we’ve said all along, because these negotiations are operating within a net-zero environment.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It sounds to me that my message wasn’t strong enough. If I have to ramp it up, I will. Stop it.

Please carry on.

Premier Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will be aware that on Friday, the education minister and I said to our education partners that what is critical right now is that we come to an agreement. The situation that pertains in our schools right now in terms of the cleanliness of the schools and the opportunity for kids to take

part in a full program, including extracurriculars, has to be dealt with.

So we’ve said that by November 1, if there is not a deal in place, if there’s not an agreement in place or the labour action has not stopped, then there will be the potential for the terms of employment to be changed, and that could include docking of pay. But we have not issued that permission yet. We have said quite clearly we need until November 1, and everyone is at the table, but bargaining is continuing now.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: This explanation doesn’t wash. Even though the Premier has said this is business as usual, last week the Globe and Mail’s

article reported that ETFO has not accepted and will not accept any government money to pay for bargaining costs. The CBC quotes labour lawyer Howard Levitt, who said covering a union’s bargaining costs is unusual and raises all kinds of questions. He said, “It’s counterintuitive and antithetical to the interests of the taxpayers and employers.”

Mr. Speaker, if the payments were not made in the best interest of taxpayers, will the Premier tell us who, other than the Liberal Party, this is in the best interest of?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware of the commentary of many people on this subject. It’s not unprecedented for a party in the public or the private sector to assist unions with the cost of collective bargaining. A CAW negotiator told the Star, “It is not unheard of for private companies to cover all or part of the cost of a union’s expenses associated directly with negotiating a contract.”

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: If, at the conclusion of this round of negotiations—which is unprecedented; there has not been a provincial round before. If, at the end of that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The decision has been made by those who decided that shouting people down is the answer. I will move to warnings.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If, at the end of this process, the Leader of the Opposition—I don’t know what his experience with negotiating is, but I would be happy to have him and, quite frankly, the leader of the third party. We can talk about input into the negotiating process. I’d be very interested to hear their concerns after we have come to agreements with our education partners.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is to the Premier. The Premier told the Toronto Star last week that paying $2.5 million for union negotiations is business as usual. No one is buying that. The only reason the Liberals’ idea of business as usual is out is because their secret deal was leaked. Every business I know keeps receipts to justify their expenses.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier find it acceptable that she gave $2.5 million without a single receipt? A simple yes or no: Is it acceptable to pay that amount of money, of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars, without a single receipt?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I guess somebody didn’t hear what I said.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I believe what I said is that in a $20-billion—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The publicly funded education system in this province—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —is a more than $20-billion enterprise. There are costs associated with negotiating agreements in that environment. That is what I said.

What is critical to me right now, as the Premier, and to the Minister of Education, is that we’ve got students in our public elementary schools who are not able to have the full program. Their schools are not being cleaned in the way that they should be.

My focus is on working with our education partners to get an agreement in an environment where we are operating in a provincial negotiation process. That is new, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time we have gone through this formal process. At the conclusion of this process, if the Leader of the Opposition would like—

Interjection.

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

Wrap up, please.

Premier Wynne: —to bring his experience and his knowledge of negotiations to the table, we’d be happy to hear from him on how he’d like to make the system better.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again, to the Premier: The public isn’t going to buy that excuse.

Business as usual, to the Premier, means paying multi-million-dollar organizations to negotiate, and they’re making up a one-page document to justify it?

If this bargaining is really business as usual as you say, as the Globe and Mail has said, “Let’s see an accounting, down to the penny. All those zeros in a row suggest that no accounting was done....”

The Globe went on to ask, “What was this money really for?”

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier can’t produce a spreadsheet down to the penny that justifies this $2.5 million, maybe the Premier can explain and tell the House what this was really for.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think it’s important to understand that, in fact, this is not business as usual. This is a transformational round of negotiations that’s implementing a new collective bargaining scheme for the first time ever.

In fact, we have had significant discussions for the last year. We spent six months with the initial step of settling on central-local split. We have been in the process of, literally, bringing hundreds and hundreds of collective agreements into nine central collective agreements. That takes a lot of work and a long time.

We recognize that both the school boards and the unions have unusual costs in this unique round of collective bargaining.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again, for the Premier: “Business as usual” is your government’s talking point. You can run from it now, but it’s what you’ve said.

This government gave away $2.5 million without asking for a single receipt. The best explanation the Minister of Education could muster was that the money was for hotel rooms and pizza. I’m not sure where the minister buys her pizza, but the pepperoni must be gold-plated.

Is the Premier really going to insult the intelligence of the people of Ontario and expect them to believe that $2.5 million was for hotels and pizza? Or will the Premier come clean and tell the Legislature, tell the people of Ontario, what this money was really for?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You are not going to get an opportunity to get shots in when I’m standing.

Please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The pizza is not gold-plated—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: —but the process of renting hotel rooms for, literally, a year—not residential rooms, but meeting rooms. We have been renting meeting rooms for over a year—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If I were some people who are already warned, I wouldn’t be saying anything.

Hon. Liz Sandals: This is not an unusual practice. I can remember an occasion during the Mike Harris government where his people called in school boards and unions, and do you know who paid for the hotel?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the chair, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Mike Harris’s government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. A reminder for everyone: to the chair, please.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The Premier has been rushing to sell off Hydro One. She has refused to allow a referendum, public hearings or any form at all of public feedback. But every time that the people of Ontario have had a chance to express an opinion, they have overwhelmingly told this Premier to stop the sell-off of Hydro One and to find another way to fund infrastructure.

Ontario families, municipalities and businesses all want the Premier to slow down and find another way to fund infrastructure. Does the Premier believe that the people of Ontario are wrong and that there is no other way to finance infrastructure?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is extremely important that we look at all avenues to invest in infrastructure, because the fact is, there is a long backlog of need in this province. I remember there were 10 years before we came into office where a government didn’t invest in infrastructure. We came in in 2003 and we started making those investments.

I’ve said all along that the money that we are putting into infrastructure, the $130 billion over the next 10 years—that is what we can do, but we’ve always said that we need a federal partner to work with us. So we are implementing our plan as we committed to do when we went to the people last year. We will implement that plan and we will make those investments, but we also need a federal partner so that we can do all of the things that are necessary across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has said many times that they have to rush the sell-off of Hydro One. She said that she will push her half-baked scheme out the door because of the sudden urgency of building infrastructure. She more or less repeated that just now.

But here are the facts: In 2014-15, the government spent $300 million less on transportation capital than it had budgeted for. In 2013-14, the government spent a whopping $1.2 billion less than budgeted for. Will the Premier admit finally that the sell-off of Hydro One has never been about money for infrastructure?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, broadening the ownership in Hydro One is all about investment in infrastructure. There is a 10-year plan that we have in place, and if there are projects that come in under budget, that’s something that the leader of the third party should be celebrating. There is planning, there is building going on.

She knows full well that in every municipality around this province—in every community—there is a need for investment within the community and there is a need for investment to link communities to one another. That is in the best interests of our economic prosperity as a province, but also, community by community, it’s what businesses need in order to be able to expand and bring more business here to Ontario. That’s why we’re making these investments.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, in fact, the Liberals have had 12 years to build infrastructure, but really they haven’t. For 12 years, New Democrats have been pushing them—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. For the sake of those that may not have been here to hear what I had said, we’re at the warning stage.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —to make those badly needed investments, but, frankly, they didn’t. And now, suddenly, the Premier says it is urgent, but public accounts—

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —show us very clearly that in just the last two years, this Premier spent $1.5 billion less than she budgeted for. The Premier is not even utilizing the money that she has, and yet she continues to insist that she has to sell off Hydro One in an urgent way.

Will this Premier admit that she does not need to sell off Hydro One and just stop this wrong-headed move?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, Mr. Speaker, I won’t.

I’m not sure how the leader of the third party gets around this province, but if she’s been in the Windsor region at all over the last three years, she will know that there’s been building going on. She just has to go up to Eglinton Avenue in Toronto and she will see that there is building going on. There is infrastructure being built all over this province—historic investment.

The fact is, the way that budgets work is there is money that is invested in planning, there’s money invested in accumulating property, there are environmental assessments that go on. There is work going on across the province. That work can’t go on unless we make the investments that we are making, so we are going to continue to do that because the Hamilton LRT will not happen if we don’t do the upfront work to make sure that those shovels get in the ground.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. People have been telling this Premier to find another way to fund infrastructure instead of selling off Hydro One. We know that the Premier has other options. According to the government’s own reports, a 1% increase in corporate taxes would raise up to $700 million a year. That’s much more than the $400 million a year that her sell-off scheme will apparently earn.

Will this Premier admit that she has other options but instead stubbornly refuses to take those options, and instead sell off Hydro One, a plan, a scheme, an effort, that Ontarians soundly reject?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Whether we are talking about investment in infrastructure or whether we’re talking about enhancement to social programs or whether we’re talking about supporting businesses and communities, the leader of the third party only has one answer, and that is to raise corporate taxes. She spends that $700 million over and over and over again.

The fact is, we know that businesses in Ontario need to be competitive. They are operating now in a competitive tax environment, but they need something else. They need infrastructure investment so that they can move their goods, and their people can move around and be connected to the communities they want to be connected to. That’s why we’re making these investments.

The oversimplification by the third party will not get business investing in this province. We are taking the steps to bring business to Ontario, to increase connectivity and improve people’s quality of life.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier, in the past, has often said, “It would be great if we had a federal partner working with us” on infrastructure. In fact, she said that today, Speaker. And now, the federal government has promised billions upon billions of dollars for infrastructure and transit. The Premier insists she can’t wait for the federal money, though, because she has to rush to sell off Hydro One. The Premier also has $1.5 billion in unspent infrastructure money from the last two years.

It is clear that the Premier doesn’t need the money all that quickly. So my question is a simple one: Why is the Premier plowing ahead with the sell-off of Hydro One when it is so obviously unnecessary?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just because the money hasn’t been put out—spent—doesn’t mean that it’s not needed for current projects. I would just explain to the leader of the third party that the money that’s allocated actually has to be kept for that purpose so that when that bill comes in for the work that’s been done, we actually have the money to pay for it. That is the way the funding works. The projects are under way.

The fact is that we’ve said all along we need a federal partner. The money we have to invest in infrastructure will do a lot of good, but it’s not all that needs to be done. I’ve worked with Premiers across the country, and we know that we are just barely keeping up—in some cases, not keeping up—with the needs of infrastructure in the country. We need that federal partner to make sure that we can build new and we can enhance the economy of the whole country.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: According to media reports, it is this Premier herself who refuses to even consider asking Ontario’s wealthiest corporations to pay just a little bit more to fund infrastructure. It is this Premier who has allowed $1.5 billion in infrastructure money to go unspent. And it is this Premier who cannot wait for the billions of dollars promised from the federal government.

The Premier’s justifications for this unnecessary sell-off are insulting to the public’s intelligence. Will this Premier do the right thing: stop the sell-off of Hydro One and find another way to fund her infrastructure promises?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: What’s insulting to the intelligence of the people of this province is the leader of the third party’s contention that to raise corporate taxes by a little bit is going to solve all of our problems in this provinces, that that’s going to cover all of the expenses we need when it comes to investing in infrastructure.

The biggest concern of our business community in a fiercely competitive global economy is that we would take the advice of the party opposite, jack up corporate taxes, kill jobs in this province, stop building infrastructure and make our economy uncompetitive.

Mr. Speaker, this party and this Premier are committed to making our business community competitive in a fiercely competitive global economy. We’re going to do what it takes to do that, and we’re going to act contrary to the views of the member opposite.

Teacher’s collective bargaining

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Treasury Board president. Her job is to eliminate the deficit and to ensure government accountability, but the slush fund payments to education unions fly in the face of her personal commitments to this assembly.

We learned of a secret $1-million payment to OSSTF in the media. The education minister says that it was a one-time thing, until she got caught, and now it’s $2.5 million. Who knows what secret payments will add up to by the time she finishes speaking here in question period today—and all without any receipts. Now we know that other unions who may not have gotten this golden handshake, or golden milkshake, at the meeting space may want more.

My question is—and it’s a very serious one—to the Treasury Board president: How could you let the education minister undermine your deficit reduction targets and, as importantly, Bill 8, a law you put before this House to increase accountability after eHealth, Ornge and the cancelled gas plants scandal?

Interjections.

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

President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Education.

We have three precedential collective agreements. Those represent hundreds of collective agreements being folded into three central provincial collective agreements. That took time, and when you take time, there are costs involved in taking that time. We recognize that and we have supported both our school board colleagues and our union colleagues in coming to a three-way, tripartite agreement in this transformational round of bargaining.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: She may have been spending some time at the hotel Grand-Mère with Chuck Guité and unresolved receipts, but the rest of us were standing here defending Ontario taxpayers and, particularly, Ontario students.

Back to the Treasury Board president: The Liberals handed out at least $2.5 million in slush fund money that was intended for kids in classrooms. They cut cheques to the same unions who helped them, 18 months ago, run attack adds against the Progressive Conservative Party. Even Sam Hammond, from one of the unions they do not have a deal with, called this deal “unethical.”

I ask the Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’ve heard of stealing candy from a baby, but I’ve never heard of stealing money from kids in the classroom to get re-elected.

Will the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no. I’ll ask the member to withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Will the Treasury Board minister explain to this House why it’s okay to get rid of her deficit reduction targets; why it’s okay to eliminate her own Bill 8, her own accountability law, and will the—

Interjections.

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

Stop the clock. Be seated, please. When I stand, members sit.

Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think, Speaker, we’ve now discovered what the fundamental issue here is: We have a difference in the way that we work with our colleagues in both the school boards and in the unions. The way they want to work with the unions, as we found from their campaign platform, was to fire 100,000 people; probably, as near as we could figure out with their calculations, fire 20,000 people in the school board sector. We actually don’t think that’s the way to work with people. We think that we need to bring together our school board colleagues and our union colleagues, and we all need to sit at the same table and come to agreement.

That’s why we brought new school board collective bargaining legislation, which, if memory serves me, they voted against because they don’t believe in the principle of negotiation.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. The Premier’s recent threat aimed at education workers continues to create chaos in our schools. Students, parents and education workers want quality education in Ontario, but this government is only providing cuts and uncertainty.

For more than a year, the Liberal government has failed to treat the negotiating process with respect and attention, just like this government has failed to treat education with respect and attention, given more than a decade of chronic underfunding of our public education system. They are proud of a planned $500-million cut to education, proud of firing 21 early childhood educators in Windsor-Essex, proud of laying off 118 teachers in Peterborough.

This government’s record on education is nothing to be proud of. The Minister of Education has lost all credibility and needs to go.

Will the Premier admit that her recent threat to education workers is only going to cause more chaos in our schools and force students and families to pay the price for her minister’s failure?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, we have the official opposition saying that we have spent too much time because there are costs associated with collective bargaining, and we have spent too much time in negotiating and we shouldn’t be putting out that money to pay for those negotiation processes.

On the other hand, we’ve got the NDP saying that we really should let this go on forever, that the collective bargaining process should go on forever; that we shouldn’t use any of the tools that are actually part of the labour law to bring to a conclusion a situation that is putting kids at risk, that is not giving families the information they need about their kids’ progress, that is keeping schools dirty. Well, I’m not willing to do that. I’m not willing to let that go on and on and on.

Our education partners know that I believe in collective bargaining. They know that I believe that we are allies with them, but they also know that we have to act in the best interests of children.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It was, in fact, the government that walked away from bargaining, not ETFO. Let’s get back to the facts, Speaker.

The Premier uttering threats and stomping her feet because the Minister of Education couldn’t do her job is no way to negotiate. Since the beginning of the process, the Minister of Education has failed to do her job when it comes to bargaining. Now our kids are paying the price of increased chaos in our schools, as if cuts to special education funding in eight boards totalling $22.5 million wasn’t bad enough.

Students and families shouldn’t be paying the price for the minister’s incompetence and neglect of the education file.

My question is simple: Will the Premier fire the Minister of Education immediately—yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want this House and the people of Ontario to know that our Minister of Education has, as her top priority, the best interests of the students of this province. There are probably few people in the province who know as much about the education system as the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have one of the best education systems in the world. People come from all over the world to look at how we have developed the education system. Eighty-four per cent of kids in this province graduate from high school. It is a model.

The fact is that our government needs to be working with school boards and with our education partners, both teachers and support staff. That’s what we’re doing as part of the collective bargaining process. It’s not easy, Mr. Speaker. It takes time, but it is necessary.

Municipal elections

Mrs. Cristina Martins: This question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, over the summer, as mandated by the Premier, your ministry conducted a review of the rules governing our municipal elections. We are keenly aware that our local democracies are critical hubs of civic activity and an important entry point to Ontario’s governance system. That’s why our municipalities and the local leaders we choose need to be supported by strong, clear and fair rules. These rules need to be simple and reflect how modern campaigns should be run. They should address the changing spectrum of needs that communities encounter throughout the municipal election process.

Mr. Speaker, these are important goals. Through you, can the minister tell this House a bit about the review and its consultation process?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d be delighted to respond to the question from the member from Davenport. I want to begin by saying that Ontarians really care about municipal elections. They care about voting, and they want to make sure that their voices are heard.

Over the last several months, I’ve been travelling the province, talking to over 200 municipal councils and a number of citizens about how they view their elections system. We’ve been hearing a lot about what works and what doesn’t work so well. We’ve looked specifically and closely at campaign finance rules, whether third-party advertising should be regulated, challenges and barriers to making elections more accessible, and whether municipal election rules are effectively enforced.

Speaker, I believe that hearing from as many municipalities and Ontarians as possible—and we’ve had wonderful feedback—is the way to move forward. We’ll be presenting more specifics very soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: In addition to the goals the minister has laid out, this time around, the Municipal Elections Act review has an added objective, and that’s our government’s commitment to provide municipalities with the option to implement ranked ballot voting for our next municipal election cycle in 2018. As a new frontier, this interesting election tool has garnered significant attention in conversations throughout our communities, including my own riding of Davenport, and in various news coverage throughout the media.

Our municipal partners have been considering whether moving forward with efforts to establish ranked ballot voting in 2018 will meet their communities’ needs. Across some municipal councils, there has been some confusion as of late on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister share what he and his team have been hearing and working on in regard to ranked ballots?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d be delighted to respond as simply as I can. We’ve had over 1,900 responses on the issue of ranked ballots. About 97% of them view it very positively. There are some who don’t; some of those people might be predictable, but that’s okay. So we’re working very hard on it.

We think that anything that will enhance voter turnout and get people to give a little bit more attention to the importance of municipal campaigns is worth doing.

We have reason to believe, based on the experience of other countries, that a move to ranked ballots would make election campaigns more civil, ensure candidates will have a vested interest in working better together right from the get-go and reduce negative campaigning while increasing focus on issues that matter.

It will be an option. It will be coming forward when we deliver the whole package. I look forward to—

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

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last week, this minister was quick to defend her government’s payouts—$1 million to OSSTF, $1 million to OECTA and $500,000 to AEFO—on the grounds that, “We haven’t fired anybody. We haven’t cut anybody.”

I want to remind the minister of the reality that her government is firing and they are cutting and they are compromising our children’s education by taking away $2.5 million from students and giving it to teachers’ unions.

In my riding alone, 50 educational assistants have been eliminated and, consequently, special education students have been told to stay at home or not to come to school as a result of scant resources.

My question to the minister is: Does she not respect our students and educational assistants enough to acknowledge that there is a cut to the classroom?

Hon. Liz Sandals: No, there are not any cuts to the classroom as a result of the collective agreements that we have negotiated. In fact, the generators in terms of class size generators are the same. In fact, many of them are actually the same as the ones you legislated. The class size generators are the ones that were in place prior to the agreements being cut. We agreed in a previous round of bargaining that we would hire additional teachers beyond those class size ratios and, in fact, as a result of those previous agreements, we hired 2,300 additional teachers over and beyond the class size generators.

As a result of these collective agreements, we continue to fund those 2,300 teachers in addition to the classroom teachers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Again to the Minister of Education: When is a cut not a cut? The reality is, you have taken $2.5 million away from our vulnerable students: Aaron Vessie’s sons, Owen and Noah, who are autistic; Kathy Cotter’s seven-year-old daughter, who has retinal dystrophy and is legally blind; Candice Huber’s eight-year-old son, who has type 1 diabetes and suffers from hypoglycemic episodes. With their EAs gone, there is no one to watch and keep them safe.

I sent the minister personal letters from more than 30 parents of special needs students whose EAs have been fired. These students, their parents and every special education teacher and support staff who received their pink slips are deeply offended that this minister is flippant in regard to their loss of jobs and classroom resources. They can’t understand how she can continue to stand there and say, with a straight face, “We haven’t fired; we haven’t cut.”

The minister is responsible for this mess. On behalf of these students and families who want their children to receive the education they’re entitled to, I ask: Will you bring back the EAs? Will you put the children first?

Hon. Liz Sandals: If we can just reflect a little bit on special needs funding, special education funding, this year, the 2015-16 school year, students with spec ed requirements are receiving $2.72 billion in addition to the regular funding that goes to every student. If you look at that, that’s an increase of $225.7 million, or 9%, since 2012-13, so over the last few years. If you go back to the start year, the 2002-03 year, it’s an increase of 68%, or $1.1 billion since we took office. We are not cutting special education funding.

Pension plans

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Just two weeks ago, in reference to US Steel, Justin Trudeau stated that the Canadian government needs to work with its provincial partners to ensure that people’s pensions are protected. I couldn’t agree more. US Steel has a towering moral debt to its workers and its pensioners.

Will the Premier use her influence with Mr. Trudeau to protect US Steel pensioners, to push for the release of those secret documents and agreements with US Steel, and to ensure that these moral debts will in the future be legal debts so that this kind of theft can never happen to Canadians again?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite makes an important point. Mind you, court proceedings are still ongoing, but our government remains committed to working with all the stakeholders. Our goal, of course, is to achieve the long-term viability of the ongoing operations of US Steel Canada, and more importantly, to protect the employees and the retirees and suppliers and customers who are affected.

While it is still ongoing, we do want to assure the member opposite that our government will work with the retirees by providing the support necessary over the next six months so that they can have their health benefits, and more importantly, we’ll establish a transition fund to enable that to take place. As the restructuring is ongoing, it’s important to note that the pensioners and the workers will be receiving their benefit plan.

To the point made around unsealing those secret documents by the Harris government that was achieved previously, indeed we will stand by the retirees and US Steel Canada to ensure that that’s unlocked.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, it’s bad enough that the US Steel pension funds themselves are underfunded, but there is no trust account at all to pay for the benefits of the pensioners. Indeed, there seldom is.

The benefits that form part of an employer’s promise to its retirees are funded from a company’s current cash flows, not from trust accounts. Pensions were once funded this way, and after many bitter lessons, we decided on a better way. Perhaps it’s time for other post-retirement benefits to receive the same protection.

What will the Premier do to ensure that the medical, dental and health benefits of retirees are given the same financial stability and security as their pensions?

Hon. Charles Sousa: As the member knows, as restructuring continues it’s important to remember that the company is still operating and the retirees are still receiving their pensions.

As the member knows, and he makes reference to this, Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada with a fund like the PBGF, the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund. This was made in 2012 to put in more sustainable footing, including increasing assessments and eligibility conditions to cover those benefits. I can confirm that the current estimates indicate that the PBGF is financially sound. The bottom line is that although the courts are processing and going through the approval process, this will not affect the PBGF coverage, if needed, in the future.

Again, I add that we will, as a government, continue to support the retirees and the workers over the next six months. That will not implicate the PBGF, but it is there—the only province in Canada that offers that, and we recognize that more has to be done.

Community safety

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. We all know that Ontario’s police officers work hard in our communities every day to keep us all safe. They have helped make Sudbury and Ontario one of the safest places to live, work and raise a family.

There is a growing recognition that everyone has a role to play in building partnerships, providing opportunities to prevent crime and to promote safe, healthy communities. This means our police services must form partnerships with social service, education, health and community groups to address social ills and proactively prevent crime. We all know that this is the most effective way to create positive, lasting change. For example, in my community of Sudbury, we have seen the positive impact of the strong partnerships between the Greater Sudbury Police Service and local service providers to proactively address these kinds of issues.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please explain what he is doing to support the development of community safety planning across Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member from Sudbury for the important question.

Speaker, as we work to build stronger, safer and healthier communities right across Ontario, one of the key challenges is addressing social issues that lead to crime. Our proceeds of crime front-line policing grant helps form partnerships between local police services and social service providers to do just that.

This year, Ontario is investing $2 million in 25 community safety and well-being programs to support local police and community groups in their efforts to build safer and stronger communities. For example, the St. Thomas and Aylmer police services are working to help police connect with seniors to combat elder abuse. Peterborough Police Service is increasing access to safe housing. Through the OPP Prince Edward county detachment, we are making sure that our kids stay safe online. Through the Cornwall police service, we’re providing counselling and other services to combat domestic violence and help those affected by it.

In fact, this year Ontario is investing $100,000 in the second phase of the crime prevention through social development program in Sudbury to support local police and community groups.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you to the minister for his response.

I am pleased to hear about the important contribution the proceeds of crime front-line policing grant is making to community safety and well-being initiatives in Sudbury and across our great province. As the minister mentioned, the grant will go to funding phase 2 of the crime prevention through social development program. This initiative is being led by the community safety and well-being planning steering committee, which is made up of important local service groups. Their goal is to come together to build a collective crime reduction strategy and improve overall community safety and well-being, to prevent crime and address social issues in the community.

But Ontarians need to know that good work like this is also happening in communities across this province. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain what he is doing to encourage other communities to develop the same sort of community safety and well-being initiatives that we have in Sudbury?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, we are working to ensure that the good work that is happening in Sudbury will also happen in other neighbourhoods and communities across the province. That is why the cornerstone of our new Strategy for a Safer Ontario will be community safety and well-being plans, which will be in every part of the province. These plans will help to lower the demand for reactive, resource-intensive emergency responses by developing a collaborative and evidence-based approach to community safety.

I would like to recognize those communities from across the province which are already taking steps to make the province an even safer place to live by putting these kinds of plans in place, because the only way to truly fight crime is to prevent it from happening in the first place. These are the kinds of proactive and collaborative efforts we will continue to encourage through our community safety and well-being plans as we work to build stronger and safer communities across Ontario.

We thank communities like Sudbury, which has taken a leadership role in setting up an example of how this proactive model could work.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs—clearly a minister who should be fighting for farmers at the cabinet table. We have dairy farmers here today. However, the minister has sat idly by while now 174 municipalities, the vast majority of them rural, have passed resolutions opposing the sale of Hydro One. The minister himself has said that we will keep Hydro One “in public hands.”

Speaker, when will the minister speak up at the cabinet table to keep Hydro One in public hands?

Hon. Jeff Leal: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It’s a strange question, coming from a member of that party. As we all know in this House, in the 2014 election, that party campaigned in favour of broadening the ownership of Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One. Not only that, they indicated that rates would be protected through the Ontario Energy Board. Not only that, the present leader of that party has essentially said the same thing.

So when will that party disavow themselves of the commitment they made in the 2014 election campaign?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is sitting over here, silent—sitting idly and silent, I might say—with respect to the Hydro One fire sale while rural municipalities pass resolution after resolution opposing it. Among the now 174 municipalities that oppose this sale are the ag minister’s own Peterborough county and Peterborough itself.

In the past, Minister Leal opposed privatization: “We’ll never look at” it. His constituents oppose the sale; the farmers his ministry represents oppose the sale.

My question: When will the minister finally represent farmers at the cabinet table—I’m not referring to other cabinet ministers—and oppose the sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Rural municipalities want infrastructure. They’ve said it over and over again. If they look at the results of the recent federal election campaign, the country, in every province, said it wants infrastructure. That’s why they got the result that they did for a party that was promising infrastructure.

We did a lot of consultation, and the mayors, one after the other, said that they need infrastructure. We have a $130-billion infrastructure program, over 10 years, led by the Premier. That is real change in terms of meeting the infrastructure deficit.

The $4 billion that will go to infrastructure from broadening the ownership of Hydro One is $4 billion that will not come from taxpayers’ money, will not come from cuts and will not come from borrowing. It’s sound fiscal management.

International trade agreement

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. Manufacturing is part of the foundation of our community in Oshawa. Consecutive Liberal governments, however, have stayed seated on the sidelines while auto jobs have disappeared, and our community has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in auto investment.

Now, the Premier has endorsed the TPP sight unseen—a secret deal that is expected to put approximately 20,000 jobs in the auto industry at risk. In fact, this past weekend, the CEO of Ford Canada said, “We see [the Trans-Pacific Partnership] as a setback....”

Premier, what do you have to say to the thousands of people in Oshawa and across the province whose jobs are at risk because you have decided to support a deal that you haven’t even seen yet?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: One of the things that’s correct in the member’s comments is that we haven’t seen the deal yet. I think it is important for us to see the deal, but we’ve seen a lot of speculation about it, and the previous federal government did provide some details which, the member is right, are concerning to us in terms of the impact on our auto sector.

Now, we’re not suggesting that the federal government be totally irresponsible and walk away from this incredibly huge trading block. That wouldn’t be good for any Canadians or any Ontarians or any sector. But we do believe that the previous government did not do a good job when it came to negotiating on behalf of our auto sector. We were very clear about that. In fact, we’ve written to the federal minister. We were very clear in our comments between the Premier and the Prime Minister that they had to stand up for that sector and our agri-food sector as well.

We don’t think they did a good job in negotiating the aspects with regard to auto, but at the same time, we’ve got to be responsible in our overall comments on the TPP because we have to think of the overall good of our economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: The actions of the Liberal government, or lack thereof, come with a real cost to families in my riding, making it that much harder for them to keep up or get ahead without good, stable jobs.

The TPP has significant consequences for the province. From what we do know, Canada got the wrong end of this lopsided deal. Even Stephen Harper admitted that the auto sector may not benefit from the TPP trade agreement. Now we’re hearing from industry giants like Dianne Craig that not only will this deal jeopardize auto sector jobs in Ontario, but it will also negatively impact manufacturing sales. This is yet another example of the Premier’s short-sighted vision for Ontario and for Ontarians.

Premier, will you reconsider your position on the TPP and ensure that good automotive jobs are protected in the province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the member has to pay better attention to these issues as they’re developing. We are on record—publicly. We’ve written to the minister to ensure that it’s on the record—the federal minister, the previous one—that we’re standing up for the auto industry in this province. We’ve stood up repeatedly on this particular issue, and we will continue to.

What that sector is really concerned about as well is having a third party in this province that wants to jack up their corporate tax rates. Mr. Speaker, that’s not going to help investment in auto in this province. That’s going to kill jobs in Oshawa; that’s going to kill jobs across this province. What they also want is to ensure they can get their auto parts to and from their plants. They can’t do that if we don’t have the courage to make the investments that we need to make in infrastructure.

You can’t have it both ways. If you’re standing up for the auto sector, you’ve got to stand up for keeping them competitive from a tax perspective and competitive in terms of infrastructure as well.

Northern Ontario development

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, under Premier Wynne’s leadership, our government has placed strong emphasis on supporting small, rural and northern communities across the province.

Our government’s economic plan is targeted to create jobs and spur economic growth. We’re focused on investing in people, investing in infrastructure and supporting a dynamic and innovative business climate. I know our investment through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund is doing just that. Committing $100 million annually through the NOHFC is a very clear indication that, in fact, the north is being heard.

Speaker, can the minister tell this House how our government is investing in northern Ontario communities to ensure that they have the tools they need to compete in the global market?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much to the member for Northumberland–Quinte West for that great question. You did indeed reference the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. I’m very proud to chair that great program, a $100-million fund annually, which has brought forward extraordinary investments in the north. In fact, over the last 10 years, we’ve invested over $1 billion, which has leveraged about $3.6 billion in thousands of projects, creating or sustaining 26,000 jobs across northern Ontario. We know how important each and every job is.

While we are incredibly proud of our continued support for public sector projects all across the north—I’ve often said, Speaker, that I honestly think there is not one community in northern Ontario that has not seen a successful application to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.—we are equally proud of our government’s decision 10 years ago to support private sector business expansion in our northern communities. I’ll look forward to speaking about that in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you to the minister for his response.

No one can argue that it is small business that creates a vast majority of jobs in this province. In 2013, our government implemented strategic programs to better align with key sectors identified in the growth plan, like the business opportunity program, the Strategic Economic Infrastructure Program and the Northern Innovation Program, as well as community capacity building and internship programs.

The minister has made it clear that we’re continuing to work with all of our northern organizations to keep building and creating jobs in northern Ontario. We need to support an innovative business climate across the north. Can the minister please share the status of some of the NOHFC’s most recent investments when it comes to innovation and job creation in the north?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you again to the member for the question.

There are so many examples. Just this past month, my colleague from Thunder Bay–Atikokan and I announced the expansion of broadband in northwestern Ontario with a $750,000 expansion partnership with Tbaytel. In the film industry, in the culture industry, $3.4 million went into North Bay’s film and television industry. One of our greatest investments—we’ve very proud of our investments in Sudbury’s SNOLAB, where Nobel prize winner and physicist Arthur McDonald did much of his research. We’re very proud of that as well.

The bottom line is that we are going to continue to invest in northern Ontario. We’re doing this for larger established businesses, small and start-up businesses. We’re fostering valuable work experience through our extremely successful internship program. Mr. Speaker, we’re encouraging major business productivity and expansion as well as global investment in northern communities, and we’re going to keep on doing that as we expand the economy in northern Ontario.

Access to justice

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General. It’s expected that all government departments track relevant data to identify areas that need improvement. Last week, I questioned the competency regarding lost or misplaced transcripts at the Licence Appeal Tribunal—the LAT, for short—which adjudicates home warranty disputes. In addition, in response to order table question 378, the minister stated that “for matters that proceed to a hearing, statistics are not kept regarding dispositions” at the LAT.

Furthermore, Frank Denton, the ADM, stated that “homeowners ... are dissuaded from pursuing LAT appeals because the process is not transparent, is complicated, time-consuming, and unbalanced.”

Speaker, why does the minister frustrate new homeowners and allow the LAT to hide data regarding case success and failure rates? Surely that is part of the problem?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I appreciate the comment coming from my friend in the opposite party, but I want to remind him that the administrative tribunals are like courts, like judges: They are independent. The member from the opposition wants me to get involved and tell them how to do their work, but I’ll say this: When my friend was appointed my critic, we called him and asked him—we wanted to provide him with a briefing. To date, he has not responded to our invitation, so I would like to again invite you to a briefing. Moreover, the president of that tribunal would also like to meet with the member and answer all his questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: To correct the record, my office has never received a request from the Attorney General, but I’d be happy to go any time.

The Ministry of the Attorney General doesn’t document these cases; however, the not-for-profit group Canadians for Properly Built Homes does. Over the last nine years, they found that homeowners lost 90% of the time at the LAT for their new home warranty claims.

The minister’s tribunals have created a David-versus-Goliath situation for homeowners seeking remedies regarding new home warranties, and homeowners are being ripped off at this tribunal. Now, with Bill 15 passed, she will be adding auto accident disputes to this very-much-maligned and broken LAT system.

Speaker, will the minister commit to fixing the outstanding and significant problems at the LAT before she grants them authority to adjudicate and rip off auto disputes as well?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, Mr. Speaker, those tribunals are independent. We have a very good chair of that tribunal. If there is concern, again, the chair of the tribunal would very much like to meet with the member opposite and hear his concerns.

Again, I reiterate the invitation. I’ll ask the member to check with his staff, because it’s the second time we’ve invited him to a briefing. So would you please check with your staff and accept our invitation to a briefing?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1300.

Members’ Statements

Echologics

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand today to speak about Echologics, a company that opened its innovation site in the town of Walkerton recently. The Echologics innovation site is a detailed replica of a municipal water system and features over 2,000 feet of underground water pipe. The site will be used for the research and development of technology focused on water main leak detection and assessment of pipe conditions.

In addition to its research and development purposes, the site will also serve as a training and certification facility for engineers, field staff, business partners and utilities. This will enable field teams and operators to gain considerable experience while remaining under controlled situations.

Echologics’ long-term plan is to have a permanent presence in Walkerton and to provide full-time employment opportunities in the area.

The new generation of trained professionals being educated at this site will be an important resource for municipalities in preventing water main breaks before they occur. The average leak in a municipal water system can last up to 20 years before the effects are felt. Mitigating this problem, then, will not only decrease its associated risk but save millions of dollars for municipalities.

Echologics aims to shape the future of the water industry. I’m excited to support them as they strive to achieve this goal in Walkerton, and I’m proud to say that this is happening right at home in Huron–Bruce.

Downtown Windsor Business Accelerator

Mr. Percy Hatfield: The Windsor area has an unemployment rate of 10.5%. However, I rise today to say that it’s not all gloom and doom down our way. Let me tell you about the Downtown Windsor Business Accelerator and what they’ve been up to lately.

The accelerator was formed four and a half years ago. It has become the entrepreneurial hub of the region. Built in an old bingo hall, the accelerator offers turnkey office space, on-site mentoring and even free legal advice. The accelerator is home to 30 companies, and a dozen or more others have graduated to their own locations. The current members have 86 full-time employees and 68 part-time. The alumni companies report 31 full-time and 48 part-time staff. The combined revenues from these small companies already total $3 million.

The accelerator also provides incredible support to many of our local non-profit groups. Their first high school entrepreneurial summit attracted more than 300 students, with the second planned for later this year. They’ve also started a youth-at-risk program where young people will be mentored and given micro-financing of up to $3,000 to start a business.

The business accelerator created a women’s entrepreneurial networking series, and more than 300 women have taken advantage of that opportunity.

The economic impact the Downtown Windsor Business Accelerator has had on our local economy is substantial, so from the Ontario Legislature, a salute on a job well done.

OCAD University

Mr. Han Dong: I rise today to recognize and celebrate the Ontario College of Art and Design University. It is dedicated to education and innovation. OCAD is situated in my riding of Trinity–Spadina, and it is at the heart of Toronto’s art, design, and new media industries.

Recently, 99 projects by 74 OCAD students, alumni and faculty were unveiled at the Mississauga office of Mercedes-Benz Financial Services. The October 21 opening of the exhibition, titled Experiencing Perspectives, was well attended by OCAD alumni and Mercedes-Benz staff. This event highlighted their seventh year of partnership with Mercedes-Benz to encourage creativity and art appreciation in the workplace.

OCAD is a state-of-the-art institution with competitive entrance requirements, 17 undergrad programs and six grad programs. Since being founded in 1876, OCAD has evolved into a champion of cross-disciplinary education and continues to integrate emerging technology for the age of imagination.

Stratford Perth Community Foundation

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Today, I would like to recognize an example of outstanding generosity in Perth–Wellington. The Stratford Perth Community Foundation is dedicated to building strong and vibrant local communities. Since 2004, the Stratford Perth Community Foundation has distributed close to $450,000 to area charities. That money has been donated through 45 different funds that support all types of services in Stratford, St. Marys and Perth county.

In response to a challenge issued by Governor General David Johnston to imagine the country as a smart and caring nation, the foundation has created specific funds for each community. These smart and caring community funds allow community members to donate in their hometown, with the funds remaining in that specific municipality.

On October 8, the Stratford Smart and Caring Community Fund was launched and has already received an incredibly generous kick-start. Two outstanding community leaders, Steve and Carolyn Rae, have donated $25,000 to the Stratford Smart and Caring Community Fund. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Steve and Carolyn for their outstanding generosity. Thank you to the Stratford Perth Community Foundation’s board of directors, and to Tracy, Roxy and Amanda for their dedication to our communities.

Next week, the foundation is spearheading Random Act of Kindness Day, and I look forward to participating.

John and Sarah Pruyn

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s an honour to stand today and recognize two constituents from Thorold in my riding of Welland: John Pruyn and his daughter, Sarah. John and Sarah led a cross-country bike ride this summer to tell our governments that illegally detaining a peaceful protester and ripping off his prosthetic leg in the name of justice and security is an insult to democracy in Canada.

John Pruyn, an amputee from a farm accident, recalls that while taking a break from the G20 demonstration right here, lounging on the grass of Queen’s Park, they were approached by officers, ordered to get up and, when John took longer than the officers would have liked, they were attacked. He recounts that they were assaulted and were detained in cages for over 72 hours. Worse, his prosthetic leg was ripped off and confiscated. Despite that, no charges were ever laid and no apology was ever given—no explanation, even.

After calls for a federal inquiry fell on deaf ears, both set out on bikes this summer for a four-month tour, stopping at police stations and MP offices from British Columbia right through to Prince Edward Island.

Today, I’d like to thank John and Sarah Pruyn for reminding Canadians that our charter of guaranteed rights and freedoms can never be compromised and must always be respected.

Youth employment program

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about a great new program in my riding of York–South Weston that will allow youth from the community access to the jobs and training opportunities that are coming with the major public transit expansion projects like the Eglinton Crosstown. My community and I are glad that Metrolinx has agreed to include community benefit agreements in all their projects. These are vital for good-paying jobs for young people.

The third program intake will start today, October 26, and more information on this program can be found on the Labour Education Centre’s website.

Participants of the I’m Eglinton program will learn essential skills that will enable youth who may not have other opportunities the chance to pursue a successful career path.

Grape Harvest Festival

Mr. Toby Barrett: Saturday evening I attended, yet again, the annual Grape Harvest Festival at the Delhi Hungarian Hall in our tobacco district, a European tradition that’s been carried on in that hall since 1949 in the town of Delhi and in what is now a developed Norfolk wine and grape-growing area. It’s a great evening. The hall is famous for its chicken and its cabbage rolls.

The event derives from the hard work of the grape harvest, spanning September through to November. There are many area people there from their native Hungary celebrating Hungarian wine in something like 22 different regions across the country. The Hungarian House in Delhi celebrates the same way as those do in their homeland.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, once the baskets were overflowing with fruit, they would be transported on the backs of men to the winepress and dropped into a large vat. This would have been my favourite part of the ceremony: Barefoot women jumped into the large containers and stomped the fruit. Saturday night, my EA, Bobbi Ann Dwornikiewicz, kicked those grapes to juice. She could not defend her title. Dan Wiest of SNAP almost put the vat out on the dance floor, but in the end, Norfolk Mayor Charlie Luke was crowned the new champion.

Köszönöm to Hungarian House for the hospitality.

Richmond Gardens Ratepayers and Residents Association

Mr. Yvan Baker: Speaker, as elected members, we’re here to improve the quality of life for the people who live in our ridings. But when I think of the people who shape the quality of life in my community, I often think of the people who volunteer their time day after day to make Etobicoke Centre even better. Today I rise in the House to recognize the important contributions of a group of people and an organization in my riding who are doing just that, the Richmond Gardens Ratepayers and Residents Association.

The association re-formed earlier this year to represent the homeowners and apartment building dwellers who live in Richmond Gardens. I had the pleasure of meeting with the association’s board earlier this year and was impressed by the amount of work that they had taken on and their dedication to our community.

We discussed a number of issues that are important to the community, including the potential redevelopment of the Eglinton corridor, potential transit in the corridor, and the future of Silver Creek school and the adjoining green space.

The Silver Creek building hosts two major organizations that support children with physical and developmental challenges and special needs: the Etobicoke Children’s Centre and the Silver Creek Pre-School. I visited both this year and I have to say that I was touched, not only by the children I met, but by the dedication of the teachers, the staff and the volunteers who care for them each single day.

These two organizations provide a critical service, and the adjoining green space is very important to our community. That is why I believe it is critical that these two organizations and the green space remain so that they can continue to serve our community.

I’d like to thank the Richmond Gardens Ratepayers and Residents Association, their board and their members for all their hard work and their advocacy. I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come to continue to strengthen the quality of life of the people of Etobicoke Centre.

Events in Punjab

Ms. Harinder Malhi: According to recent news stories, parts of India are engulfed in unrest and demonstrations against desecration of the Sikh holy book, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. This is a most unfortunate development in an otherwise peaceful, tolerant, multi-religious, multi-ethnic and law-abiding state of Punjab. One would like to strongly disassociate and condemn any such acts against any holy book or religious practices. The current state of endless demonstrations leading to violence has resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

To put an end to this most unfortunate state of unrest, I strongly urge the authorities to bring to justice the perpetrators of these current acts of cowardice, which would certainly be termed as hate crimes. One hopes that our Canadian values of inclusiveness, tolerance, and respect for each other will be reflected amongst the people.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I want to strongly urge the appropriate authorities to help bring peace to the affected areas and, as well, to make sure that the people responsible for these cowardly acts are properly charged and punished. This is important not only to my constituents but to Sikhs living abroad and in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their statements.

Petitions

Sauble Beach land claim

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are serious concerns with the government’s policy involving third-parties named in land claim disputes in Ontario, namely the Sauble Beach land claim;

“Whereas there is no indication that any effort is being made to protect the interest of the public or third-parties named in the Sauble Beach land claim dispute;

“Whereas the current process concerning the dissemination of information to third-parties named in this land claim dispute is deeply flawed;

“Whereas there is no consultation with the third parties as to crown land planning and decision-making nor any engagement in a process that must be open as per the MNRF’s publicly stated principles on land negotiations;

“Whereas third parties named in the land claim should be consulted and their concerns should be reflected in negotiations;

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to do the following:

“To review its guiding principles for land claim negotiations and the respective roles of Canada and Ontario in settling claims in an effort to enhance protection of third-parties and all citizens affected by land disputes, to provide open communication and accountability to all pertinent stakeholders, and to provide appropriate financial support to ensure this matter is dealt with in a fair and timely manner.”

I support it and will send it to the Clerks’ table with page Marco.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Privatizing Hydro One: Another Wrong Choice.

“Whereas once you privatize hydro, there’s no return; and

“We’ll lose billions in reliable annual revenues for schools and hospitals; and

“We’ll lose our biggest economic asset and control over our energy future; and

“We’ll pay higher and higher hydro bills just like what’s happened elsewhere;

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

“To stop the sale of Hydro One and make sure Ontario families benefit from owning Hydro One now and for generations to come.”

I sign this petition and give it to page Shirley.

Lung health

Mr. Arthur Potts: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

“Whereas lung disease affects more than 2.4 million people in the province of Ontario, more than 570,000 of whom are children and youth living with asthma.

“Of the four chronic diseases responsible for 79% of deaths (cancers, cardiovascular diseases, lung disease and diabetes) lung disease is the only one without a dedicated province-wide strategy;

“In the Ontario Lung Association report, Your Lungs, Your Life, it is estimated that lung disease currently costs the Ontario taxpayers more than $4 billion a year in direct and indirect health care costs, and that this figure is estimated to rise to more than $80 billion seven short years from now;

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

“To allow for deputations on MPP Kathryn McGarry’s private member’s bill, Bill 41, Lung Health Act, 2014, which establishes a Lung Health Advisory Council to make recommendations to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on lung health issues and requires the minister to develop and implement an Ontario Lung Health Action Plan with respect to research, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of lung disease; and

“Once debated at committee, to expedite Bill 41, Lung Health Act, 2014, through the committee stage and back to the Legislature for third and final reading; and to immediately call for a vote on Bill 41 and to seek royal assent immediately upon its passage.”

I agree with this petition and sign it and leave it with page Julia.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition that came from Mr. Dennis Thompson in Lively, in my riding, and it reads as follows:

“Whereas Health Sciences North is facing major budget shortfalls leading to a decrease of 87,000 hours of nursing care in psychiatry, day surgery, the surgical unit, obstetrics, mental health services, oncology, critical care, and the emergency department...;

“Whereas Ontario’s provincial government has cut hospital funding in real dollar terms for” at least “eight years in a row; and

“Whereas these cuts will risk higher medical accident rates as nursing and direct patient care hours are reduced all across the hospital;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“Stop the proposed cuts to Health Sciences North and protect beds and services.

“Increase overall hospital funding in Ontario with a plan to increase funding at least to the average of other provinces.”

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my good page Vanessa to bring it to the Clerk.

Water fluoridation

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I have a petition here addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

“Whereas fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, even the ocean; and

“Whereas scientific studies conducted during the past 70 years have consistently shown that the fluoridation of community water supplies is a safe and effective means of preventing dental decay, and is a public health measure endorsed by more than 90 national and international health organizations; and

“Whereas dental decay is the second-most frequent condition suffered by children, and is one of the leading causes of absences from school; and

“Whereas Health Canada has determined that the optimal concentration of fluoride in municipal drinking water for dental health is 0.7 mg/L, providing optimal dental health benefits, and well below the maximum acceptable concentration ; and

“Whereas the decision to add fluoride to municipal drinking water is a patchwork of individual choices across Ontario, with municipal councils often vulnerable to the influence of misinformation, and studies of questionable or no scientific merit;

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

“That the ministries of the government of Ontario adopt the number one recommendation made by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health in a 2012 report on oral health in Ontario, and amend all applicable legislation and regulations to make the fluoridation of municipal drinking water mandatory in all municipal water systems across the province of Ontario.”

I agree with this petition. I will affix my name and send it to the table with page Cameron.

Health care

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s lack of leadership is forcing the closure of the South Bruce Grey Health Centre restorative care Chesley site; and

“Whereas it is ignoring evidence that the restorative care program has had major successes since its inception three years ago; and

“Whereas it has helped over 300 patients to increase their quality of life by helping them regain strength, balance and independence; and

“Whereas it has improved patient outcomes for over 80% of patients who returned home feeling confident of their recovery; and

“Whereas the loss of this critical care will see patients readmitted to hospitals, to emergency room visits or having to stay in acute care beds longer, representing the costliest options in our health care system; and

“Whereas vulnerable seniors in our communities take the position that there is evidence of funding cuts for home care services; and

“Whereas our senior and all other vulnerable patients deserve access to compassionate care and treatment as close to home as possible;

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

“To provide the necessary base funding to keep the South Bruce Grey Health Centre restorative care Chesley site in operation so that the health and welfare of our most vulnerable patients remains intact.”

I fully support this. I will sign my name and send it with page Abby.

Gasoline prices

M me France Gélinas: I have hundreds of people who have signed this petition, including Deborah Kennelly from Hanmer in my riding. It reads as follows:

“Whereas northern Ontario motorists continue to be subject to wild fluctuations in the price of gasoline; and

“Whereas the province could eliminate opportunistic price gouging and deliver fair, stable and predictable fuel prices; and

“Whereas five provinces and many US states already have some sort of gas price regulation; and

“Whereas jurisdictions with gas price regulation have seen an end to wild price fluctuations, a shrinking of price discrepancies between urban and rural communities and lower annualized gas prices;

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

“Mandate the Ontario Energy Board to monitor the price of gasoline across Ontario in order to reduce price volatility and unfair regional price differences while encouraging competition.”

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page John to bring it to the Clerk.

Employment standards

Mr. Arthur Potts: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas a growing number of Ontarians are concerned about the growth in low-wage, part-time, casual, temporary and insecure employment; and

“Whereas too many workers are not protected by the minimum standards outlined in existing employment and labour laws; and

“Whereas the Ontario government is currently engaging in a public consultation to review and improve employment and labour laws in the province;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement a decent work agenda by making sure that Ontario’s labour and employment laws:

“—require all workers be paid a uniform, provincial minimum wage regardless of a worker’s age, job or sector of employment;

“—promote full-time, permanent work with adequate hours for all those who choose it;

“—ensure part-time, temporary, casual and contract workers receive the same pay and benefits as their full-time, permanent counterparts;

“—provide at least seven (7) days of paid sick leave each year;

“—support job security for workers when companies or contracts change ownership;

“—prevent employers from downloading their responsibilities for minimum standards onto temp agencies, subcontractors or workers themselves;

“—extend minimum protections to all workers by eliminating exemptions to the laws;

“—protect workers who stand up for their rights;

“—offer proactive enforcement of laws, supported by adequate public staffing and meaningful penalties for employers who violate the law;

“—make it easier for workers to join unions; and

“—require a $15 minimum wage for all workers.”

I sign this petition and leave it with page Gavin from Beaches–East York.

Taxation

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government has indicated they plan on introducing a new carbon tax in 2015; and

“Whereas Ontario taxpayers have already been burdened with a health tax of $300 to $900 per person that doesn’t necessarily go into health care, a $2-billion smart meter program that failed to conserve energy, and households are paying almost $700 more annually for unaffordable subsidies under the Green Energy Act; and

“Whereas a carbon tax scheme would increase the cost of everyday goods including gasoline and home heating; and

“Whereas the government continues to run unaffordable deficits without a plan to reduce spending while collecting $30 billion more annually in tax revenues than 11 years ago; and

“Whereas the aforementioned points lead to the conclusion that the government is seeking justification to raise taxes to pay for their excessive spending, without accomplishing any concrete targets;

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

“To abandon the idea of introducing yet another unaffordable and ineffective tax on Ontario families and businesses.”

I support this, will sign my name and send it with page Abby.

Breastfeeding

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition that was collected by Donna Byron, and it reads as follows:

“Whereas Health Canada, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the World Health Organization recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life with continued breastfeeding along with other food sources for up to two years ... for optimal health;

“Whereas breastfeeding is normal and natural but like childbirth it can be complicated requiring specialized support for a family’s success;

“Whereas lactation consultants are trained, internationally certified breastfeeding specialists who can assist women having breastfeeding problems...;

“Whereas Brantford, until 2005 when the service was cut, had a breastfeeding clinic run by lactation consultants ... which was highly utilized;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to facilitate the reinstatement of a lactation consultant-led breastfeeding clinic in Brantford General Hospital.”

I support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask Marco to bring it to the Clerk.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government’s proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP) is a mandatory pension plan which would target small businesses and their employees; and

“Whereas there has been little to no discussion on what the costs would be, or who would pay them; and

“Whereas affected businesses would be hit with up to $1,643 per employee, per year in new payroll taxes starting in 2017; and

“Whereas affected employees would have up to $1,643 per year extra deducted from their paycheques, and it would take 40 years for them to see the full pension benefits; and

“Whereas the Canadian Federation of Independent Business predicts the unemployment rate in Ontario would rise by 0.5%, and there would be a reduction in wages over the longer term; and

“Whereas all of these costs would be shouldered exclusively by small businesses and their employees; and

“Whereas public sector and big business employees who already have a pension plan will not be asked to pay into the plan;

“We, the undersigned, do not support implementation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan and petition the government of Ontario to axe the pension tax.”

I fully support it, will sign my name and send it with page Nicole.

Privatization of public assets

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition that comes from Jeannine Kingsley, who is a resident of Hanmer in my riding. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the provincial government is creating a privatization scheme that will lead to higher hydro rates, lower reliability, and hundreds of millions less for our schools, roads, and hospitals; and

“Whereas the privatization scheme will be particularly harmful to northern and First Nations communities; and

“Whereas the provincial government is creating this privatization scheme under a veil of secrecy that means Ontarians don’t have a say on a change that will affect their lives dramatically; and

“Whereas it is not too late to cancel the scheme;

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

“That the province of Ontario immediately cancel its scheme to privatize Ontario’s Hydro One.”

I fully support, will affix my name to it and ask page Samuel to bring it to the Clerk.

Water fluoridation

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I have a petition here addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

“Whereas fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, even the ocean; and

“Whereas scientific studies conducted during the past 70 years have consistently shown that the fluoridation of community water supplies is a safe and effective means of preventing dental decay, and is a public health measure endorsed by more than 90 national and international health organizations; and

“Whereas dental decay is the second most frequent condition suffered by children, and is one of the leading causes of absences from school; and

“Whereas Health Canada has determined that the optimal concentration of fluoride in municipal drinking water for dental health is 0.7 mg/L, a concentration providing optimal dental health benefits, and well below the maximum acceptable concentration to protect against adverse health effects; and

“Whereas the decision to add fluoride to municipal drinking water is a patchwork of individual choices across Ontario, with municipal councils often vulnerable to the influence of misinformation, and studies of questionable or no scientific merit;

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

“That the ministries of the government of Ontario amend all applicable legislation and regulations to make the fluoridation of municipal drinking water mandatory in all municipal water systems across the province of Ontario.”

I will affix my signature to this petition and hand it over to Soham.

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour renforcer la protection des consommateurs et la surveillance du réseau d’électricité

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 5, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2010 sur la protection des consommateurs d’énergie et la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 22, 2015, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Chiarelli has moved second reading of Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

I have received a deferral note from the deputy government whip asking that this vote be deferred until tomorrow during the time for deferred votes.

I have to inform the House that I have been advised that it requires a written notification from the chief government whip to defer the vote. Therefore, call in the members; again, a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1333 to 1337.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I have received a request for a deferral from the chief whip of the third party. As such, this vote will be deferred until tomorrow during the time of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Orders of the day?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to first of all thank the chief whips for the government, opposition and third party for their assistance. I’m going to now ask for government notice of motion 42.

Time allocation

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I believe I have to move the motion, Speaker.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 113,

An Act respecting police record checks, 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 Justice Policy; and,

That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 5, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. in Toronto 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 113:

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

—that the deadline for requests to appear be 12 noon on Tuesday, November 3, 2015; and

—that witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first-come, first-served basis; and

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

—that the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, November 5, 2015; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 10 a.m. on Tuesday, November 17, 2015; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 19, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., on Thursday, November 19, 2015, from 6:45 p.m. to 9 p.m., in Toronto, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

On Thursday, November 19, 2015, 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. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period, pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, November 23, 2015. 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 Justice Policy, 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 of debate 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. Ted Arnott): Mr. Naqvi has moved government notice of motion number 42. I look to the government House leader to lead off the debate.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me to speak on this motion.

I really want to stress that this is a very important piece of legislation that has been championed by both policing and civil liberties partners and all three political parties represented in the House.

While many police forces have already adopted the learned guideline, which is voluntary in nature, it is important that we put this legislation in place quickly to ensure that no more non-conviction records are being released across our province. It is also important, for consistency across the province, that we provide a clear definition to Ontarians of what a police record check entails. This legislation will protect individual civil liberties while keeping our province safe as we work to build stronger communities across Ontario.

There are a number of stakeholders who have championed this legislation and have worked very hard over the last few years and were consulted in the development of this bill. I want to mention a few: For example, the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the John Howard Society, the African Canadian Legal Clinic and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association and, of course, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce have been very supportive of this legislation.

I have been listening to the debate in this House on Bill 113, and I’m very heartened to see that all parties have stated in the Legislature during second reading that they will be supporting this bill. In fact, Christine Elliott, the former member for Whitby–Oshawa, recognized the need for these reforms as well, telling the Toronto Star: “The privacy issues are so important here and can have a huge impact on people’s lives. People shouldn’t be held back by information that may or may not be relevant to a police check that isn’t criminal in nature. I think we need discussion around that and I think there’s wide support for that within the party.... I think a review is long overdue.”

During second reading debate, the member for Huron–Bruce stated: “We, too, on this side of the House, as opposition, support the right of all Ontarians to be treated fairly and equally. We support this legislation because it brings consistency to police record checks, based on recommendations by Ontario police chiefs, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and other groups.”

Similarly, the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton stated: “I must commend the government on bringing forward this bill. It’s rare that opposition does that, but this is an important bill. It addresses a very important issue, and I do acknowledge the government’s work in introducing a bill that addresses such a serious issue.”

Speaker, it’s heartening to see, again, support from all three parties who have recognized the work that not only the government has done in drafting this bill but, of course, the work, most importantly, that all our policing and civil liberties partners have done. It is they who actually did a lot of heavy lifting in making sure that the learned guidelines, which are voluntary in nature, address this particular issue.

But they also insisted that the government bring in legislation in keeping with the learned guidelines so that the requirements outlined become mandatory across the province and we have a consistent practice across the province for all police services when it comes to disclosure of information in a police record check.

Speaker, as you may recall, this issue actually came up during the last election, and all three party leaders, at that time, including our Premier, spoke to the need to address this issue and look into it.

After the election, when the government was formed, the Premier asked me, through the mandate letter, to develop this legislation. We worked very hard, and within our first year we were able to, with the support of all our partners, table this bill. That’s why it is that much more important that we pass this bill into law as soon as possible: because it will allow our police services across the province to develop appropriate procedures consistent with the legislation, but also, of course, for our civil liberties partners to inform Ontarians as to what their rights are under this bill.

The voters of Ontario sent a clear message last June when it comes to the mandate of this government and this particular bill. They wanted our government to get on with the business of governing in their best interests.

There has been considerable debate on this bill and the ideas in this bill. We have heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives, most of them in support of this bill, with some suggestions for improvement within the committee, which is absolutely appropriate. That’s why it is time, we feel, that we end second reading and refer this bill to committee. In committee, the stakeholders, of course, will be able to present their views. We’ll be able to hear directly from the public their thoughts on the bill—not to mention, members will have an opportunity to move amendments to the bill to further strengthen and improve this important piece of legislation.

At the same time, this House can move to other substantive debate on other important matters. There are a number of important pieces of legislation that have already been introduced that the government would like to debate in the House and move through the legislative process; for example, Bill 85, which is the good government act; Bill 109, which is the employment and labour statute act; Bill 115, which is the Electoral Boundaries Act; and Bill 122, which is the Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act.

Speaker, we’d like to spend our time debating some of those other important pieces of legislation currently before the House but we cannot until Bill 113 is dealt with. That’s why I’m speaking in support of this particular motion and urge all members to support this motion: so that we can take Bill 113 to the committee stage, get our partners to come and present their views and, of course, entertain important amendments that other members will present as well, so that we can get down the road of making Bill 113 a reality, hopefully with the approval of this House at third reading debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m happy to follow the minister today.

I find myself speaking this afternoon to a time allocation motion. I believe there was a time when these time allocation motions were rare, but this government has made them quite routine in the Legislature. Today, it’s for Bill 113, the Police Record Checks Reform Act.

I’ll be speaking for about 10 minutes, and I know the members from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will also be adding their comments to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks on the time allocation, the minister said there are other good bills that we should be discussing in the House. It’s interesting: He didn’t mention once legislation that talks about an economic plan for Ontario—nothing about creating private sector jobs; nothing about reducing taxes, making life more affordable in the province of Ontario. It’s very unfortunate that today in the Legislature and for the last number of days, we continue to hear about certain pet projects that this government has undertaken in secrecy.

One example of that—and I think our leader, Patrick Brown, did a great job in question period today talking about the millions of dollars given to teachers’ unions secretly. We need to be dealing with legislation that creates jobs in Ontario and really sends a signal that we want Ontario to be competitive again.

Regarding Bill 113, there has been thoughtful and productive debate on this bill, and it’s a shame that the government feels the need to choke off that debate. This bill was brought forward because the system we have in place has failed a lot of people. There is a real need for this legislation and a real interest from everyone in this House in passing into law measures which will address the issues I’m sure we’ve all heard from our constituents in communities right across the province.

Bill 113 has the potential to expedite the process of enabling volunteers to serve their communities, and prospective employees to get to work. I understand a lot of time has been dedicated to finding solutions to ensure that we address the problems with the current system, but now the government wants to rush it through the legislative process. I think this is an important piece of legislation that we need to get right and that deserves the benefit of the full democratic legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that this government loves to say how great it is to consult and have conversations with everyone about everything, right up until its public debate in this House. The democratic process is not just about the conversations you have in stakeholder meetings; it’s about having unfettered debate in this House, in this assembly, with every elected representative having the opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents.

For Bill 113 in particular, I think it is completely inappropriate to limit debate. There are a number of ways in which this bill inserts politicians into the administration of justice, and that raises some red flags. We’re talking about balancing public safety and civil liberties, and when that is the question of the day, robust debate should be the order of the day.

My colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington did an excellent job last week of highlighting issues of concern. Frankly, I heard no satisfactory answers from the government side to the questions he raised, so clearly there is more discussion needed here: either an acknowledgement from the government side that there are some questionable elements to this bill that will need to be revised or an explanation as to why it is necessary for the government to insert itself into the administration of justice.

I’d like to revisit some of these issues, to underscore why debate needs to continue for Bill 113.

To begin with,

section 22(1) allows cabinet to exempt anyone from any provision of this bill, so cabinet essentially has full discretion on who this bill actually applies to. They can pick and choose who is subject to the rule of law. Those are some very broad powers which this government is bestowing on cabinet. What is the oversight here? Will there be a nonpartisan party who will be made aware of who is exempted and why, and then be empowered to take some sort of action if this is ever abused?

Along the same line,

section 19(3) says, “A prosecution shall not be commenced under this

section without the minister’s consent,” so every charge will need the seal of approval of the minister. Why is this included? It’s a highly unusual clause and it warrants a thorough explanation, which we have yet to hear in this House. I want to see this debate continue so we can hear from the minister himself why he needs to sign off on every prosecution under this particular section.

Then there is

section 22(2)(c), which allows the minister to create new offences under this act. Of course we support this legislation, which is long overdue, to bring consistency to police record checks, and I understand that the offences which this bill establishes are based on recommendations by Ontario’s police chiefs, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and other groups, but going forward, it will be at the minister’s discretion to determine what might be considered an offence under this particular act, without the involvement of this House.

Before legislative oversight is removed entirely from the process of evaluating this act and the issue it seeks to address, I think we should ensure that all concerns, opinions and explanations are thoroughly aired. When the government is putting forward provisions like this, there is a need for a full and serious debate. The minister himself has said that this bill is about ensuring there is fairness, clarity and consistent practice right across the province, but the discretionary powers of cabinet and the minister that this bill allows for seem inconsistent with that particular goal.

The fact of the matter is that we have a majority government here in Ontario that will vote through whatever legislation they please. At committee, they will ignore 99% of the amendments put forward by the opposition, and they will remake the laws to suit their purposes.

The very least they can do is keep up appearances by allowing unfettered debate to run its course before they bequeath themselves a new set of powers. To limit debate in these circumstances, it’s really this government coming clean on how little they value the process of this House and the voices of the people of this province who elected opposition members. There are questions that should be asked and answered before this bill moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this province are taking notice of this government’s disrespect of the democratic process. In fact, I’d like to quote an

article from the Toronto Star from earlier this year: “It’s a government that uses omnibus bills to ram through controversial new measures—and then limits debate on them.

“Its leader says one thing during an election campaign and then, once in office, surprises voters with something entirely different.

“It is routinely scolded by watchdog officials for its lacklustre approach to public accountability.

“And no, it is not the federal Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the man critics like to call mean and reactionary.

“Rather it is the Ontario Liberal government of Premier Kathleen Wynne, the personable grandmother who won office last year as a political progressive.”

Or, Mr. Speaker, there is this quote from CBC News for the government to consider: “It turns out there are actually two Kathleen Wynnes.

“There’s the minority Premier promising to be ‘new and different’ and ‘open and transparent.’

“And there’s the majority Premier who appears to have all but wiped those four words from her political vocabulary.”

This

article goes on and says: “Wynne’s approach—often echoed by her cabinet ministers—is now more of: we won, you didn’t.

“And as a result, she wants legislation passed quickly, limiting debate....”

Speaker, I hope the government is aware that these manoeuvres are not going unnoticed. This is a pattern of behaviour of disrespect for the process of this place. It’s arrogance, and the media and the public are picking up on it.

This is legislation that is needed, but to skip due process risks creating problematic and substandard legislation. The minister himself has said Bill 113 is all about protecting individual civil liberties and public safety. I believe that the legislative process is in place to do exactly that. It is in the public interest that we debate this bill and all bills thoroughly and that, as opposition, we continue to seek answers to our concerns about this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, there will be other of my colleagues who will be speaking to the time allocation motion later.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, yet again, here we are debating another time allocation motion. I’ve just got to say, if there is a bad way of dealing with how you process legislation through this Legislature, this is one of them. The Legislature is supposed to be about what? It’s supposed to be about the people of Ontario. One of the ways that you do that—it’s not necessarily giving me the right to debate a bill at length in the Legislature, although that is a right of members and that’s what Parliament is about; it’s about giving any member of the House of whatever side the ability to speak to whatever bill is being called.

But the bigger issue is what doesn’t happen in committee, because in the end, it should really be about the people of Ontario. It should be about their right and their ability to access committees not just here at Queen’s Park, but access committees on the road as committees are travelling around the province, to be able to speak on bills of substance. For example, there are a number of bills before the House now that are somewhat controversial. The big one for us, obviously, is hydro, the privatization of Ontario hydro when the government brought in their budget bill.

We think that it would have been fairer for the government to at least have travelled that bill throughout the province for a period of time—not forever—to be able to give the public the opportunity to have their say.

We’re here spending their money, Mr. Speaker. It’s the people of Ontario who pay the taxes. Our job, once we receive those taxes, is to carefully and with some thought figure out a budget and be able to spend that in some way that reflects the respect that we should give our constituents. Well, how can you do that if you don’t give the public the opportunity to come before committees? That’s a problem with time allocation.

A government is very, very—how would you say—prone, when they use the tool of time allocation, to limit the amount of time a bill will be in committee. Typically, when a bill is referred to committee, we see this government give it two, three or four days at the most of hearings and clause-by-clause, and then the bill is back into the House for a couple of hours of debate at third reading. Well, it shouldn’t be that way.

It used to be that there were no time allocation procedures here. The only thing you were able to do when I was first elected here was call the question, which meant that the parties had to work together, even though they were a majority government, such as the Davis government, the Peterson government and the Rae government. Those governments, in majority, had to work with the opposition to be able to move their agenda through the House. So, yes, there were some trade-offs.

You know, the government of the day would have a bill—I remember when we were government that the big one was our first budget. When we went to the first budget in 1991, as everybody knows, there was a deficit within the budget of about $8.5 billion at that time. We raised it by $2 billion in order to stimulate the economy with infrastructure and the wage protection fund, for a total of around an $11-billion deficit. The Conservatives, at the time, said, “We are opposed to deficits,” which was their right.

They wanted to have the bill travel, so that the public could have their say when it came to that budget. So they used every trick in the book that they had to be able to stand in the House to slow the House down, in order to put pressure on the then Bob Rae NDP government, to give that bill some time in committee.

Well, the government had to back down. The government had to accept that the opposition, even though they were the third party, in that case—they weren’t even the official opposition; they were the third party—had the right as a party to be able to say, “We want to travel that bill.” You were there, Mr. Speaker, because you were elected the same year I was. By the way, congratulations; we just went through our 25th anniversary—yourself and Mr. Wilson—sometime back last fall.

What happened was that the government had to back down and give—I don’t remember how long it was, but I think it was a couple of weeks of hearings on the budget bill—not the pre-budget consultation, but actually on the budget bill—across Ontario. You know what? The government heard some things that it didn’t particularly like. Some of them we accepted; some of them we did not. We got some good ideas that we eventually brought into the next budget, which came in 1992, but that’s the process of the public having its say.

When governments use the time allocation tool that has been here since 1993—and I take no pride in being the government that brought time allocation to this Legislature; as I look back at it, it was probably the worst thing we could have done—what it does is it takes away the incentive to negotiate agreements about how legislation goes through the House. Parliament, if you look at it, I think is fascinating. I’m probably one of the few in this Legislature who really likes reading procedural stuff and the history of the House and the history of the British Parliament.

Over a period of, you know, a couple of hundred years, we developed a role for Parliament that essentially is that we have a responsibility to not just represent our constituents, but to allow due process in that entire parliamentary process.

Yes, this Legislature is about appropriating dollars so that the government—the executive—can run the province. We have a budget of around $130 billion a year. The province, through its cabinet, makes a decision about how it’s going to spend that money, but then they’ve got to come to House and get the appropriation from the Legislature to be able to spend that money.

There are processes in there in order to allow that there is clear transparency that allows free discussion, so that we’re able to give the public their say in how we’re going to spend their money, and what the policies in the budget will or will not be. This is not a budget bill, but I use that as an example that using time allocation very much diminishes the ability to negotiate a