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

September 21, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Sep-21 (PDF)

L095 - Thu 21 Sep 2017 / Jeu 21 sep 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 21 September 2017 Jeudi 21 septembre 2017

Orders of the Day

Representation Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la représentation électorale

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Special-needs students

Privatization of public assets

Long-term care

Long-term care

Opioid abuse

Automotive industry

Agri-food industry

Access to justice

Disaster relief

Road safety

Energy policies

Hospital funding

Sexual violence and harassment

Water quality

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

World Alzheimer’s Day

Lois Smedick

CityPlace

Donald Crowe

Wearing of pin

Thinking Rock Community Arts

Navratri

Treetops Community Forest

Rosh Hashanah

Durham College

Introduction of Bills

Indigenous Day Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le jour des Autochtones

Visitor

Petitions

Hydro rates

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Dental care

Highway improvement

Long-term care

Bruce Power

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

GO Transit

Privatization of public assets

Long-term care

Water quality

Private Members’ Public Business

Transparency in Gas Pricing Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la transparence dans la facturation du gaz

Firefighters

Illegal Pill Press Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur les presses à comprimer illégales

Transparency in Gas Pricing Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la transparence dans la facturation du gaz

Firefighters

Illegal Pill Press Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur les presses à comprimer illégales

Transparency in Gas Pricing Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la transparence dans la facturation du gaz

Orders of the Day

Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à bâtir de meilleures collectivités et à protéger les bassins hydrographiques

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Representation Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la représentation électorale

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 20, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 152,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 2015 and certain other Acts / Projet de loi 152, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2015 sur la représentation électorale et d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s a pleasure indeed to speak to Bill 152 today. Many people in the House will remember that last week I spoke to a bill, the Construction Lien Amendment Act, where I extolled some applause and appreciation to the government on how to effectively develop, promote and enact public policy. There will be no such accolades or applause or appreciation today with Bill 152.

Let me first start off by saying that although the title of this bill is the Representation Statute Law Amendment Act and deals with the Far North boundary redistribution, there’s another element, and that is the election financing reforms that are also incorporated into the bill. Everybody in the House will remember: Last year we spent a great deal of time with Bill 201 and Bill 45 to end the cash-for-access shenanigans that were going on with the present government and the Liberal Party.

What we see now in Bill 152 is that the cash-for-access shenanigans are going to continue with this amendment for Far North boundary changes, which now opens up the doors for more Liberal government pay-to-play schemes.

I find it atrocious that they would put this amendment to the Election Finances Act into this bill. Just for clarity, the default condition under our Election Finances Act now is that members of the Legislature or candidates are prevented from attending fundraising events. That’s the default position. That’s the way this House voted last year. There is one change in this act. It’s in

section 23.1 of the Election Finances Act in subsection (2.1). Nothing in this subsection prevents a person mentioned—that’s MPPs and candidates—in that subsection from attending an annual general meeting, policy conference or similar meeting for members held by a registered political party or a registered constituency association, where a charge for attendance includes a contribution portion. So as long as the contribution is embedded within the fee, pay-to-play is back here in Ontario. Pay-to-play is back here and cash-for-access is back here.

Look at the broad latitude they’ve provided—or hidden under; I’m not sure. An annual general meeting, a policy conference or similar meeting: Well, what kind of meeting would be similar as long as it has an embedded contribution into the fee? Clearly, as we can see, the maximum contribution is $1,200. They can have a $50 cost-recovery fee for their policy conference or similar meeting, and then they can have another $1,150 in an embedded contribution and it would now be lawful. I would like somebody on the government side to explain why they are so determined to get back into the cash-for-access.

I did want to also state, Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka and the member from North Bay.

That’s the election financing aspect. There are some other errors in it, but it goes back to what I was saying last week. If a government actually took its time and spent the time listening to people, listening to the opposition, listening at committee hearings—we actually can develop good public policy when there is an attempt or interest to listen. This government has taken no such attempts, has provided no indication that they are interested. Bill 152 is proceeding very much along the lines of political self-interest.

That’s one element on the election financing. I also want to speak to the far north boundaries act, the change in the riding boundaries. I think it is important to state on the record a few of my thoughts on this. First off, they created an expert panel, but instead of charging the expert panel with examining and evaluating a problem, they charged the expert panel with a solution. It’s right in the act that created the expert panel that you will create at least one and possibly two new ridings to address a problem that they say is not effective representation for the north.

Speaker, I find that somewhat an affront to my colleagues in the third party because it is their members who represent those areas. It is two members of the third party who represent those areas: Mr. Bisson from Timmins–James Bay and Sarah from Kenora–Rainy River.

This government said those people are not getting effective representation and we need to do something about it. I have to say, as I look across—

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I would say to the members in the third party: I would take significant exception to that statement. I know the members. I don’t believe for a moment that they should be tarnished in such a manner.

But let’s contrast what the Liberal government has said about effective representation in the north with their own actions. I believe that the member from Toronto Centre stepped down this summer. That riding will not have any representation for 10 months. What is the government doing about that? Well, it’s unimportant to have a member in the Legislature representing an area if it’s a Liberal member. Maybe it doesn’t make any difference if the Liberal member is here or not.

Speaker, I know it’s not parliamentary to name names so I won’t, but I think everybody in this House will recognize that there have been a lot of Toronto Centres happening in the Liberal benches in the last year. There have been a number of members, for various reasons, that we have not seen here for quite an extended period of time, and they’re all Liberal members. I would say: Is there not a level of insincerity when the government says, “There’s not effective representation in the north and we must do something about it,” but when there is no representation in their own ridings, they choose to do nothing?

I think the contradictions are striking. I think the contradictions are profound. I think it exposes this government’s lack of interest in actually representing people and its significant, profound self-interest in keeping power and retaining power and doing anything—anything—to retain that power.

Let me talk about some of the things about this ineffective representation that the Liberals have charged the members of the third party with.

What is really important is the lack of services in northern Ontario, the lack of government attending to their obligations in northern Ontario. For over 10 years in Kenora–Rainy River we have not had a crown attorney—over 10 years. People have asked and requested that they have a crown attorney so that they can indeed have access to justice. They hired one crown attorney after 10 years, and that person promptly resigned a few months later, and still no crown attorney.

Let’s think about the Ring of Fire. For years and years, this government has said that the Ring of Fire is important to the north. It said that it is critical to Ontario. I believe that the first time I heard the government state that was in the throne speech back in 2008. All these years later, there is still no road to the Ring of Fire; there still is no transportation to the Ring of Fire. To this day, the minerals stay in the ground: no employment, no prosperity, no opportunity. Is that because of a lack of, or ineffective, representation? Let’s measure, Speaker.

Through all those years, every Liberal-held riding in the north contained a member of cabinet, a member of the executive. As they thumped their chest and promoted their undying love and sympathy for the north, all those cabinet ministers from the north did nothing for the Ring of Fire, did nothing for northern Ontario. Is it indeed a matter of ineffective representation by the members of the third party that has prevented northern Ontario from succeeding? I think not.

The failure of this government and their northern ministers is indeed profound, real and ongoing. It’s not just the Ring of Fire. It’s not just the lack of crown attorneys. How about the decades-long problem of not having safe and clean drinking water in our northern reserves? Decades. I have heard the previous minister of environment, who is not here and who no longer has any representation in Toronto Centre, talk about the problems of drinking water, but never have we seen a solution offered or a solution implemented.

It is not ineffective representation or under-representation; it is because this government just doesn’t care. If they did care about the north, they would do something. They’ve had many, many years to do so. And they’ve had a very significant number of northern members in the executive, but they have either not had a voice or their voice has been excluded and dismissed.

The problems in health care delivery and services in the north are legendary. I believe the member here from Nickel Belt has spoken often in the House about the failings of health care in the north. I have not heard those comments from the Liberal side. I have not heard any interest explored. I’ve heard it from the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka. I’ve heard it from the member from North Bay. I’ve heard it from this caucus and that caucus, but I have yet to hear it from the Liberal side of this House. Is it a lack of effective representation, or is it no interest by the Liberal members?

I think the people of northern Ontario will see through this facade of Bill 152. They’ll see clearly that this is not meant to improve the influence of northern Ontario in this chamber; it’s meant to pacify, appease and make it appear that something is being done when nothing is being done. The only way we are going to have the people in the north having influence is when this caucus is sitting over there and when northern Ontario will be taken into appropriate—

Laughter.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I know the member from Barrie is laughing. She’s laughing and heckling, the member from Barrie over there, as I talk about the Ring of Fire, as I talk about the drinking water—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: —as I talk about the lack of representation—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. I have called “order” a couple of times. The next time I get up, someone will be warned. It’s never too early. It’s only 20 after 9.

I’m going to return to the member to return to the debate.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Speaker.

The poor administration and the lack of services in the north are legendary. What about the Northland? I think we had a member in cabinet from Sudbury at the time. We had a member in cabinet from Sault Ste. Marie, a member in cabinet from—let’s see, where else? Oh, Thunder Bay–Atikokan—anyway, I may make an error so I’ll not try to go down—the purpose here, though, is lots of cabinet representation from the north. And what happened to the Northland? What happened to transportation for the public in northern Ontario from this government?

It’s not on the subway at Kirby so it’s not that important for the minister to get too involved in helping and assisting transportation; indeed, far from it. We can see where their interest is. Where they push the envelope of ministerial involvement and management is when it may cost them a seat, or in the attempts to improve electoral outcomes.

I just want to go back to this contrast between the Construction Lien Act and this act, and, again, how I stood in this House and applauded the government for doing the right thing with the Construction Lien Act. It took a lot of time but they did engage. They engaged an expert panel, but instead of telling the expert panel what the solution was, they said, “Examine the problem and evaluate options to resolve.” That’s what I think normal people do when they are faced with a problem: Examine the problem and evaluate options.

What do we do with Bill 152? We state a problem, not in sincere terms, that there is ineffective representation in the north and that it must be addressed. Then the government also charges the expert panel, “You will create one or two new ridings.” Isn’t that astonishing? They don’t quantify what the problem is for the expert panel. They don’t ask the expert panel to measure or quantify or put the problem in objective manners. They just say, “Here’s the solution.”

As I said, there are lots of solutions in the north. Let the people of the north actually have some influence in this chamber, because it’s not just the people of the north who feel disenfranchised. It’s people from rural, remote and northern Ontario who don’t feel their interests are being attended to by this government. And I have to say, they’re justified in feeling that. I have seen it here myself; we’ve all seen it. This government knows where it can win an election, and it doesn’t need rural, remote or northern Ontario to win an election, unfortunately.

I would like to see this chamber, this Legislative Assembly, actually demonstrate to the people of northern Ontario and rural Ontario that their voices and interests and concerns do matter; that they do matter and we take those interests deeply and respectfully and act on them. Maybe we ought to have an expert panel, a true expert panel, look at this and say, “Let’s examine the problem. Why are people in northern Ontario and rural Ontario disenfranchised? Why do they not have improved influence in this chamber?” And charge that expert panel with actually proposing and evaluating different options.

I think northern Ontario should have some level of a referendum mechanism, for example, that when this august chamber determines to come up with a policy that is beneficial to the densely populated metropolitan areas of this province but has profound negative consequences for the north, I think the people of the north ought to be consulted and they ought to be able to trigger a mechanism to prevent those negative policies from being imposed from so far away. There’s just one example. I am sure there are many people that could come up with far more interesting options to improve the influence of the people of the north in this province.

I do hope—I don’t know if my hope is misplaced; I don’t know if my optimism is misplaced. This bill will go to committee. Even if I don’t have optimism, I do expect this government to actually listen to the people from northern Ontario during these committee hearings and actually start doing something for the north. That would be far more profound. That would be far more effective.

I’m going to end off with this one element; I’ve got a couple of minutes left before I share with the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka. That is, we essentially have tried to mirror our riding boundaries in this province with the federal government, with the House of Commons, and I think there is benefit in having those ridings mirrored. I think it provides greater clarity for constituents, less confusion for constituents, that they can see, visualize and actually meet with representatives from the same area that have provincial or federal jurisdictions.

We broke with that, we deviated from that policy, a decade ago and provided one additional riding in northern Ontario. Now we’re deviating quite a bit more. There may be some significant advantages, but there may be some disadvantages.

It’s been brought up by a number of people on this bill because of the substantial deviation from the norm on our electoral ridings as well. I think this is important to state for the record and for the members on the other side to consider: Our baseline criteria for establishing an electoral district in this province is a population of approximately 100,000 people and that is also a community of interest. Those are the two essential criteria. A riding association is, in law and by convention, expected to meet that.

Now, of course, you can’t slice and dice up things neatly all the time, so we allow for a deviation. We allow for a deviation of plus or minus 25% from that 100,000. And every 10 years, when the census comes out, we realign those borders for that 100,000 population.

The Supreme Court has recognized, because of the diversity of this country and the large expanses in geography and the remoteness, that you may deviate by more than 25% in specific examples where there’s a large expanse of territory and few people. And the Supreme Court has gone on and given guidance of up to 50% of that deviation, so 100,000 plus or minus 50%.

Well, the government is pushing the envelope here, because a number of these ridings—all of these ridings—go beyond the 50% deviation into the 70% deviation.

I would put that on the record, because the corresponding or the flipside of that equation is this: Our Constitution and our Supreme Court recognize that in a representative democracy, there ought to be and there must be voter parity, that a vote in Lanark ought not to be worth more or less than a vote in Toronto. It’s a sound principle. I think it’s a good principle. We also know that with every sound principle, with every sound rule, there will be exceptions to the rule. Is the government pushing the envelope on the exception to the rule with this? I’ll leave that for consideration and for debate. But a 70% deviation is substantial.

I guess I should just take a step back in historical time period. One of the great periods of time and one of the great periods of parliamentary democracy was when, back in England, in the UK, they went to that convention of voter parity, communities of interest, and they got rid of what was then called the rotten boroughs. Rotten boroughs was gerrymandering by politicians to create ridings that were safe for them, not so much in the interest of effective representation, I believe, but in the interest of electoral success.

This gerrymandering brought the Westminster democracy into a level of significant disrepute. The members of the Commons at the time said, “We’re tarnishing ourselves with our race to the trough.” They said, “We’d best stand up and actually do something that is in the interests of the people,” and they brought in a bill to remove the rotten boroughs.

I fear that not everybody on the other side of the aisle has the same adherence to those principles that were demonstrated so long ago in Westminster.

I’ll leave that with you in the House to consider. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues from Parry Sound–Muskoka and North Bay.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It is wonderful to be able to stand and speak about our beloved north. I was born and raised in the north, lived there 61 years. As a former mayor of North Bay, I can tell you that this is so very important because, as I’ve seen over the years, many people in this place—and I say this respectfully—really do not understand the North.

How on earth would a bill called the Far North Act have ever been passed by this government if they understood the north? They never communicated with any of the leaders in the north, any of the First Nations in the north. Nobody was consulted when they developed the Far North Act. That, by the way, cut off development of mining and lumber. Over half of the north cut off: That’s what happens when you don’t understand the North.

You also come up with a bill called the safe communities act—the Strong Communities Act. It’s a great name, by the way. It sounds powerful: the Strong Communities Act. We had just built a multi-million-dollar tri-government industrial park. The feds, the province, the city, we put millions and millions into an industrial park in North Bay.

In the north, Speaker, if you travel and you fly over and look down, you’re going to see one of two things. You’re going to see either rock or swamp. I’ll use the polite word—

Mr. Norm Miller: Lakes, too.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Lakes—lots of lakes. You’re going to see wetlands. We know how to handle our wetlands in the north. We treasure them, we cherish them and we know the importance of them. Our industrial park is built in a wetland; it was a wetland. You don’t have a choice when you look for a flat piece of land. The feds, the province and the municipality spent tens of millions of dollars building this. The Strong Communities Act came down and it disallowed any development on a wetland.

I understand why you need that in the GTA; I can understand. They have filled in their wetlands here and not done it properly for decades. But in the north, we respect them. We’ve always had arrangements, with the approval of the provincial government, to take any wetland we build on and create an equal piece of wetland somewhere else. That’s what we do in the north. We know how to manage our resources. We know how to be the good stewards.

So you want to build on a wetland? We built Laurier Woods. We built parking lots, signage, fencing and boardwalks on this beautiful piece of wetland, where you can bring your family and come and enjoy a day. There’s all kinds of signage that explains everything to you. Every time we built in our industrial park, we added on to Laurier Woods. It’s hundreds of acres. It’s right in the middle of the city. It’s spectacular, and it’s a model for others to follow.

With the Strong Communities Act, you can no longer build on a wetland. Well, our industrial park is a wetland, so we can no longer sell any of those pieces of property. It’s tens of millions of dollars that the province, the feds and the city spent. It’s sewer, water, high-speed Internet, roads—all through a wetland, all empty. It can’t be built on. That’s the misunderstanding that this government has of northern Ontario. We were always allowed to do that in the past. So now you’ve got this high-speed Internet to nowhere. You’ve got streets that you can’t develop on. It’s because they misunderstand the north.

So I am thrilled, and I encourage you to visit Kiiwetinoong or Mushkegowuk, these new ridings that are being created.

Speaker, I’m going to veer off here, and I’m just going to give you a little bit of a day in your life and what northern Ontario has to do with this.

Think about this: You get up in the morning and you brush your teeth; you’re using toothpaste. You may have had a rough day, or plan on coming in to Queen’s Park, and you’re anticipating the day, so you take an Aspirin. You leave the bathroom and flick the light switch, and you touch the light-switch cover. You are making your lunch, and you put shredded cheese in it. You’ll hear what this has to do with the north in a moment, Speaker. You wrap that lunch in cellophane. You put on a rayon shirt or a rayon blouse or rayon clothing. You look around your place, and you notice how beautiful the place looks.

There’s paint on the walls. You’re preparing your papers for question period, and you put a paper clip on your papers. You get into your vehicle, and you know that you’re safe because you have an airbag.

Speaker, what on earth does all that have to do with northern Ontario? Well, let me tell you: All of those things I mentioned use cellulose from wood pulp—wood chips. This is all due to forestry. Your toothpaste, your Aspirin, the melamine that’s in the light-switch cover, the cellulose gum that stops your shredded cheese from sticking, the paint on the walls, the paper clip that won’t rust, and the airbag that has a detonator, an explosive—all of those things are made from cellulose, from wood chips that you get in northern Ontario.

So I would encourage the members to come and visit the north and get a better understanding of the north.

The problem with creating Kiiwetinoong and Mushkegowuk, of course, is that here in the Legislature, it’s very difficult for MPPs—I don’t mean it’s physically difficult for them to get to the north, but it’s practically difficult. It doesn’t fit our rules and our guidelines. You can’t get to many of these places by a scheduled air service. You need to have a charter air service to get to many, many of the places in the Far North. But it doesn’t fit the guidelines.

So I ask this government, when the bill actually goes into committee and we talk about amendments, to have a serious look at our own requirements for our fellow MPPs to ever, ever get to any of these places. In many cases, you simply can’t get there from here on scheduled air service. We need to make these accommodations and make these allowances for members to be able to charter.

That’s a little guideline of why, in some things, the Far North Act has destroyed any opportunity for half of northern Ontario. I tell you, Speaker, it’s a good job that the Far North Act never got enacted a little bit earlier; we never would have discovered the Ring of Fire that the earlier member spoke about.

The other aspect of this bill that I want to speak about—and I shouldn’t have to; it shouldn’t be in this bill—is the Election Finances Act. Imagine you’ve got a bill that is creating two new ridings in northern Ontario—this is an historic opportunity to talk about the north—and they slip in election finances.

It’s like a big “oops.” They bungled the first round so badly, because they got caught in an election finance scandal, that they jammed through this Election Finances Act to cover over and try to correct all the rules they were breaking. They threw it together so hastily and realized—mostly without speaking to Elections Ontario, I might add. They have bungled it so badly that they now need to try to figure out a way to fix this mess they put themselves and all MPPs in, so they’ve come up with Election Finances Act changes.

Instead of hitting that head-on and saying, “We’re sorry we bungled it so badly; we need to bring this back and talk about it,” they bury it in part of the northern ridings bill. I truly cannot believe that. I find it insulting, first of all, that they made those changes and are trying to slip them through here, and that they are burying them in a bill that should be all about the north—we can’t even have that.

I would encourage very much that the members come up and visit Kiiwetinoong and Mushkegowuk. You’ll learn about forestry; you’ll learn about mining; you’ll learn about the things that not many on that side of the House actually know about. It will be an opportunity to shine a light on northern Ontario. I know that when I stand in this Legislature, and the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, and the member from Sault Ste. Marie now, our three northern members here—we try to weave northern conversations into just about everything we do.

That’s why, when I talk about any bill—it doesn’t matter that it is this northern bill—you will always hear me talking about Mattawa or Trout Cheek or Chisholm or any of the communities. It’s so different. When you’re here in the GTHA and you’ve got 20, 30 or 40 MPPs who share one mayor—20 MPPs certainly share one mayor. In the north, it’s so different. I serve 11 mayors: the mayor of the city of North Bay and 10 rural mayors. In fact, this summer, not long ago, I had the rural mayors over to my home, It was an historic day where we all got together and had an opportunity to talk exclusively about the north.

When they send council resolutions down to me here in Toronto, I read them. They say, “Thank you for reading. You’re shining a light on northern Ontario,” and certainly on the differences in northern Ontario and the members who are here in the south.

Speaker, it’s a great opportunity to have spoken about my beloved riding of Nipissing and our beautiful north and the Far North. I invite everybody: Figure out how you can get up there, and come and visit in Kiiwetinoong and Mushkegowuk. You will be enlightened by what you’re going to see.

I thank you for this opportunity, Speaker. I’ll turn it over to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to speak to Bill 152, the Representation Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017. Before I begin, I do want to apologize in case I mispronounce the new riding names. This bill creates two additional ridings in northern Ontario, splitting what is now Kenora–Rainy River into Kenora–Rainy River and Kiiwetinoong and dividing what is now Timmins–James Bay into Timmins and Mushkegowuk.

The proposed new riding of Kenora–Rainy River will obviously include Kenora and Rainy River as well as Dryden, Fort Frances, Vermilion Bay and many other small communities. It will have a population of 53,027.

Kiiwetinoong will consist of the rest of the current riding of Kenora–Rainy River, minus Weenusk, a Cree-speaking First Nation which has more shared heritage with the First Nations of Mushkegowuk. This proposed riding will include Red Lake, which is one of the world’s most prolific gold districts, and Fort Severn, Ontario’s most northerly community. I visited Fort Severn a number of years ago with then-PC leader John Tory and Stan Beardy, the NAN Grand Chief.

Timmins will be simply the city of Timmins. Mushkegowuk will include the rest of the current riding of Timmins–James Bay, including Hearst, Kapuskasing, Moose Factory, Kashechewan and Attawapiskat.

We do support his redistribution. However, I do hope that the government has considered the constitutionality of this legislation, given that the proposed riding of Mushkegowuk will have a population of 30,037 people. That being said, we do support this redistribution because we recognize the unique challenges of representing the current ridings of Timmins–James Bay and Kenora–Rainy River, huge swaths of which have no roads and face huge challenges.

Whether it’s the endless boil-water advisories, the high level of addiction or the high suicide rates, we can see that these communities need more attention. We support this because this government is right about one thing: The people in northern Ontario feel like they don’t have a voice in government. This is not a comment on the current members for Timmins–James Bay or Kenora–Rainy River; it is, however, a comment about the current government.

This government makes decisions about issues that impact the north without considering what those impacts will be. The Far North Act, which was talked about by the member from Nipissing, is the biggest example of this. The Endangered Species Act is becoming another example.

When this government first introduced the ESA, they had an advocate for northern Ontario and the former member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, the Minister of Natural Resources. When then-Minister Ramsay introduced this legislation, he listened to northerners and to the forestry industry, which employs so many northerners. He committed that the ESA would not apply to the forestry sector, because forestry companies were already regulated under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and doing a great job. The CFSA does protect endangered species.

Unfortunately, Minister Ramsay’s commitment was quickly forgotten by this Liberal government. Thankfully, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry seems to recently have started to listen and has committed to delay the species-at-risk guide for 28 species. The minister had come under criticism for not consulting with indigenous peoples, the forestry sector or northern communities. I can only hope that the minister will hold genuine consultations, truly listen to northerners and take into account the socio-economic impacts before releasing these guides. Entire communities in the north rely on forestry. I hope the minister will listen, but I wouldn’t count on it.

We in the official opposition believe it is important to spend time in northern Ontario to ensure we know what challenges are faced by people, businesses and communities in this region. To that end, our leader Patrick Brown has travelled to the north 27 times since he became leader in May 2015, and he held our last three summer caucus meetings in the north: one in Kenora, one in Sault Ste. Marie and this year in Timmins, obviously showing a great commitment to the north.

I have done a number of northern tours over the past few years. Most recently, this summer I toured northeastern Ontario and visited communities in the proposed riding of Mushkegowuk, as well as Algoma–Manitoulin and Timiskaming–Cochrane.

The first stop on my tour was the Borden gold mine in Chapleau. This will be Ontario’s first all-electric gold mine. It will be the world’s first all-electric gold mine. I want to thank Maarten van Koppen, senior project engineer with Goldcorp, and John Young, superintendent for safety, health, environment and security, for a very informative and interesting tour. This is an example of a mine that is going forward in Ontario, despite this government’s unnecessarily bureaucratic permit process.

I want to point out that when businesses in the north succeed, businesses in southern Ontario succeed as well. For example, I recently visited MacLean Engineering in Collingwood, which builds customized mining equipment like bolters and rock breakers. I learned about MacLean during my visit to the Borden gold mine. MacLean engineering is the largest private sector employer in Collingwood, and their success relies upon the success of northern Ontario.

Back to my northeastern Ontario tour: I met with Angelo Bazzoni, the mayor of White River. We met in the local Robin’s Donuts, where I also heard from other residents of the area. I visited Lecours Lumber near Hearst. Lecours facilities are on the Constance Lake First Nation, and two thirds of their employees are indigenous. Lecours was founded in 1943 and is still owned by the Lecour family. I want to take this opportunity to thank Eric Buteau, the general manager and controller of Lecours, for his time.

I met with the mayor of Hearst, Roger Sigouin. Hearst faces a number of challenges, but one is simply getting to and from the community. There are only buses to and from Hearst two days a week. So if you’re from Hearst and don’t drive or don’t have a car and you need to go to Timmins or Thunder Bay for a doctor’s appointment, what do you do?

I have to say that I found this shocking. The draft Northern Ontario Multi-Modal Transportation Strategy, which was promised in 2011 and just released in July of this year, identifies the problem. But despite the six-year wait for this document, it doesn’t offer a solution. It simply says, “The Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines are developing recommendations on an improved intercommunity bus regime.”

Hon. Steven Del Duca: That’s right; we are.

Mr. Norm Miller: The Minister of Transportation is saying, “That’s right.” This is shocking. In 2011, it was promised. It’s 2017 now, and there’s a bus two days a week in Hearst—two days a week. I think that’s ridiculous for the people of the north. I guess if this government stays in power, we’ll wait another six years for those recommendations, and then another six years for them to be implemented.

While I was in Hearst I also visited Columbia Forest Products. The company invested $15 million in a new lathe line two years ago. I must say, it is an impressive piece of equipment, and it produces very high-quality plywood. I was impressed not only with the equipment, but that this company has invested in jobs in northern Ontario while this government does everything it can do to kill jobs in northern Ontario.

Thank you to Dan Bowes, Ontario woodlands and fibre resources manager; Gilles Levesque, general manager; and Mike Fournier, plant manager, for taking the time to show me around.

From Hearst, I went to Kapuskasing, where I met with executives from Tembec and other local business people. I want to thank André Ouimette and Michel Lessard from Tembec for taking the time to meet with me. In May, it was announced that Tembec has been sold to Rayonier. The new owners have committed to maintaining the Ontario operations, which employ more than 1,100 people, mostly across northern Ontario. I do hope this government will ensure the wood allocation is transferred so this purchase can go through.

Next, I met with a group of local business people, including a residential landlord, retailers, an insurance broker, a car dealer, a landscaping company, a restaurant franchisee and the mayor of Kapuskasing, Al Spacek, president of FONOM, who also dropped in for that round table. This group had a number of concerns, but one of the largest issues they raised was the shortage of skilled workers and the fact that young people leave northern Ontario and don’t come back. One possible cause they mentioned was that there are fewer subsidies for hiring students.

I would like to thank André Robichaud for helping to set up these meetings in Kapuskasing. I should point out that Kapuskasing and Hearst will be the population centres for the proposed riding of Mushkegowuk.

The next morning, I toured the Northern College campus in Kirkland Lake. I got to see the welding shop, the water treatment lab and the nursing lab. This college offers great programs and high-tech facilities. Tyy Dearden is the welding instructor, and I certainly hope his students appreciate not only the facilities, but his enthusiasm. Northern even has an actual miniaturized water treatment plant right there in the classroom. I especially wanted to see the welding shop because, of course, we have Connor Industries in Parry Sound that builds world-famous Stanley boats.

I’ve met with the owner, and they’re always short of welders. When I toured MacLean Engineering in Collingwood recently, they also complained that they could do more work but they have a shortage of welders.

I want to thank Dr. Audrey Penner, vice-president of the college, and her team for opening up their college to me in the middle of August. While this campus of Northern College isn’t in the new ridings, it does serve much of the north.

From Kirkland Lake, I drove to Thornloe to visit the beef farm owned by Ontario beef president Matt Bowman and his wife, Elaine. I wanted to visit a beef farm because Ontario beef is promoting a major expansion of farming in northern Ontario, including into the proposed riding of Mushkegowuk. Having been there and seen it first-hand, I am confident their program would be a success if the government would release crown land for farming. I want to thank Matt and Elaine for welcoming me into their home.

Finally, I met up with a number of my caucus colleagues for a tour of the Georgia-Pacific mill in Englehart, organized by the member from Nipissing. I was disturbed to hear that unreliable electricity is one of the biggest challenges this plant faces. Another huge issue for this plant is that they rely on truck transportation, and they’re located on a dangerous stretch of two-lane highway. Now, Madam Speaker, I’ll point out that they are right on Highway 11, not on a side road, and this is the Trans-Canada Highway. You need to drive it to experience it.

Throughout this tour, I met with businesses and communities that were succeeding not because of this government’s policies, but in spite of them. Time and again, I heard that they felt government did not understand their challenges or care about their livelihoods.

While this summer I didn’t make it to northwestern Ontario, I did get there last year, and I’ve done many week-long northern winter trips with the leader of our party. I remember people’s frustration with the highways, in particular the Trans-Canada Highway. I can only imagine how much more frustrated they are when, in late August, they heard that the twinning of Highway 17 won’t be completed by 2020, as promised, but maybe 2021 or later; the government really isn’t sure.

On the drive from White River to Hearst, we passed through Hornepayne, which has definitely fallen upon hard times because the mill there has closed because the government would not agree to purchase electricity from the cogeneration plant in late 2015. The town looked like a ghost town: stores and restaurants closed, no one out shopping or going to work or otherwise moving around. Unfortunately, unless this government starts to take the concerns of northern Ontarians seriously, I imagine a lot of other towns might start to look like Hornepayne.

Hornepayne is an example of the failure of this government’s northern growth plan. This plan, introduced in 2011, promised to establish a Northern Policy Institute, develop a long-term strategy for a more integrated transportation infrastructure, grow and diversify the northern economy, and attract people and investment to northern Ontario. Let’s see how successful the northern Ontario growth plan has been.

Well, they did establish a Northern Policy Institute, although from what I’ve seen they don’t actually listen to its advice.

As I said, after six years, they finally released a draft Northern Ontario Multi-Modal Transportation Strategy. It took them six years to write a draft that really just reads like a laundry list of campaign promises. It talks about all the right things, like inter-community bus service and passenger rail, but it doesn’t offer any solutions.

As far as attracting people to the north, this government has failed. Between 2011 and 2016, the population aged 15 years of age and older in northern Ontario declined by almost 10,000, from 637,642 to 627,792. And why are they leaving? Because full-time employment dropped from 284,083 jobs in 2011 to 278,717 jobs in 2016, and part-time employment fell from 75,433 jobs to 68,883 jobs.

What about investment? Total building permits in northern Ontario dropped by 26% between 2011 and 2016, and the value of industrial building permits plummeted by 44%, from $117 million to $66 million.

Madam Speaker, I think the numbers speak for themselves. Any way you measure it, the northern growth plan has been a dismal failure.

To get back to this bill, we support it, but I have to say this: The government is offering these two new ridings to northern Ontario as a peace offering. Having not listened to northerners and facing the rise of the separatist Northern Ontario Party, this government says it is offering up two additional ridings to strengthen the voice of northerners. We support strengthening the voice of northern Ontario in the Legislature, but even with two more northern MPPs, we don’t believe this government would listen.

That’s the end of my formal speech, but as I see I have a couple of minutes left, I would just like to further demonstrate how the government is not listening to northern Ontario.

As you know, on that tour that I was talking about, one of the examples I gave was a mill that I visited. When I met with the mill manager, he said, “We’re in the process of trying to deal with a caribou recovery plan under the Endangered Species Act. I’m a hunter. I’m a fisherman. I’ve hunted my whole life. I’ve never seen a caribou. We have to plan for 90 kilometres north of our mill”—and this mill was a mill that was 70% indigenous employees or workers. This caribou recovery plan for caribou that don’t exist could affect the very livelihood of the mill. It could cease to exist, depending on what happens with that plant.

So I simply say that the government needs to take into consideration that people actually live in the north, that people rely on jobs, that those communities should count for something, and the harm that’s going to happen should be at least measured, for a plan for caribou that don’t exist there.

I think that is one of the biggest complaints you hear driving around the north: Toronto-centred decision-making, and we heard it from some of the other members. Decisions made in Toronto just don’t work in northern Ontario. In most cases, they really hurt the people who live and work and rely on a job and are trying to make a go in the north.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill today.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Vanthof: Being from northern Ontario, it’s always an honour to be able to speak about northern Ontario and, today, on the bill to create extra ridings in northern Ontario.

I’d like to focus my comments—because it’s questions and comments—on the comments of the Conservative members; specifically, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, who said that the only way northern Ontario is going to ever get back on its feet is by electing a Conservative government. I’d like to point out that the last time we had a Conservative government, with a Premier from northern Ontario, roads were downloaded and social housing was downloaded with no money to pay for it.

We have a town, Iroquois Falls, in my riding, which has the most kilometres of road per person in the province, and as a result, they had to close bridges and close roads because of our friends to the right. And the Liberals, in 14 years, have never fixed that. We’re still having to close roads.

The member from Nipissing, whom I deeply respect and who is from northern Ontario and proud of it, I’m sure, stated that when you fly over northern Ontario, you don’t see anything but rock and swamp. I’ve farmed my whole life in northern Ontario, and maybe that’s all you see in Nipissing and North Bay, but over northern Ontario, there are all kinds of other opportunities that we can exploit.

Finally, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka was very accurate in his remarks. He recognized that there are more things in northern Ontario than rock and swamp. I appreciated his remarks. I don’t agree with all of them, but I appreciate that he accurately reflected many of the issues that are happening in the north as we speak.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. David Zimmer: I want to speak for just a couple of minutes on this.

One of the things that we as a government are very proud of in the work that was done by the Far North Electoral Boundaries Commission was the extensive degree of consultation. It’s important to remember that there’s great diversity in the northern communities. There are also population issues and so on—scarcity of population. But within that smaller population, there are huge diversity issues. That’s why it was very, very important for the commission to do an extensive consultation and to reach in and hear what those very diverse communities in the north thought about this issue.

So we created the commission and ensured that (1) it was independent and (2) that all of the commissioners had the appropriate skills and sensitivities to deal with this issue.

The commissioners paid special attention to a number of issues to do with this question of diversity and special needs and so on with respect to the north. They were tasked with looking at particular communities, special interests and needs. They were tasked with looking at the whole issue of representation and ensuring that the new ridings provided an adequate voice for indigenous communities. They had to respect the municipal and other administrative boundaries. They had to deal with the sparsity and density of the population.

They had to deal with the whole issue of the difficulty of communication and transportation in the Far North. It was up to those very skilled commissioners to take all of those factors into account when they did their consultation, and I know they did a tremendous job on the consultation.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: As always, it’s an honour to stand and represent the constituents of Niagara West–Glanbrook, which is obviously a southern riding—quite a southern riding—in our beautiful province of Ontario.

Also, as the member for Niagara West–Glanbrook and a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I was very pleased to hear the speeches and the contributions to debate this morning from the members from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Nipissing and Parry Sound–Muskoka. I thank them for their contributions.

I did want to very briefly comment on something that really struck me. As I was listening to this debate, I heard the member for Northumberland–Quinte West heckling the member here. When the member was speaking about the fact that our leader has visited the north 27 times and the fact that our caucus is making an effort to reach out to those in the north and to build a stronger connection with those in the north, the member for Northumberland–Quinte West yelled out that the north is a no-man’s land, and that’s why we go there.

I don’t know; I found that very insulting, quite frankly. I don’t think the north is a no-man’s land. I think we’ve heard that the north is a very important part of our province that contributes to the socio-economic culture of our province in significant ways. We should treasure the north, we should celebrate the north, and we should be doing everything we can to build the north up. Quite frankly, I was disappointed to hear that sentiment from the government benches.

Although I haven’t spent a lot of time in the north myself, I did have the opportunity to go visit Timmins earlier this summer with the PC caucus. I must say, it’s a beautiful area. We need to be doing more to make sure that here in Toronto their voices are heard. Bill 152, I believe, does contribute to that. I look forward to hearing the continued debate on additional ridings and constituencies in the north.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I think it is fair to say that in this House, for the last 150 years that we’ve had a Legislative Assembly, we have had but one First Nation representative ever elected here. How could that be? In order for us to do a good job, we have to be representative of the people who live in this province, and in over a 150-year period we only managed to elect one First Nation representative once. This is a shame on all of us.

I would say in the Far North, there is support for creating those new ridings. I would say there was support. It dwindled away really quickly when we realized that the boundaries that have been chosen will mean that Mushkegowuk only has 27% of indigenous people within its boundaries. It has some 60% of francophones within the boundaries, so you can see the dilemma there. In Kiiwetinoong, we do a bit better, with 78% of indigenous and First Nations represented within the new boundaries. I know that the intentions are there, but the actual results, not so much.

Why is it that they set up a process that they were only allowed to look at two ridings? In the north, those boundaries don’t always make sense. They should have given the commission the right to look at all of northern Ontario if our goal was to make sure that we have a fair representation of the people who live here, which would include indigenous, Inuit, First Nations and Métis.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka to wrap up.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thanks to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the member from Niagara West–Glanbrook and the member from Nickel Belt for their comments.

I’ll focus, to begin with, on the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane: Thank you for saying I’ve got some of it right. I appreciate that. He did take a bit of a slam at the PCs, mind you. I’d like to go back a little further and think back to all the northern PC representatives like Leo Bernier in the northwest, Alan Pope in the Timmins area, René Brunelle from Moonbeam and all the great representation.

I think back to when I toured Detour Gold last year. There was about over a 100-kilometre road into Detour Gold. It’s a provincial highway, and I’m riding on this highway and I said, “Where does this highway go?” and they said, “It goes to the gold mine.” The gold mine opened up in the mid-1980s, so it was the PC government under Bill Davis that built the road to the mine. The mine is still operating, creating all kinds of wealth in the province. If we’d seen action like that in the Ring of Fire, there would be a mine operating there by now, but that has not happened.

In fact, the big issue that they brought up at the Detour Gold mine tour was how long it takes and how hard it is to create a mine in the province of Ontario. There are huge challenges with permitting.

Back to the issue of the two new ridings that this bill creates: You need to get up to the north to see just how huge it is. I think people in southern Ontario don’t realize just how immense it is. There are unique challenges for the indigenous communities. I look forward to having some indigenous representation in this House. I think it’s absolutely needed for the unique challenges that those far remote communities face, and hopefully it can make a difference, if the government listens to those new members and actually deals with the concerns. As I pointed out in my speech, to this point, it seems like the government doesn’t listen. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it’s almost 10:15, I will recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to introduce a student from Elliot Lake Secondary School and a potential future MPP for Algoma–Manitoulin, Quinn Massicotte, and his father, Chris Massicotte, from Elliot Lake.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The Minister of Innovation.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Research, Innovation and Science.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Research, innovation—

Hon. Reza Moridi: And science.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I didn’t get it all right, but that’s good enough.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming my friend Hassan Amirzadeh and his son Arman Amirzadeh and my newly appointed colleague, Rownock Zamani, visiting the House today.

Mr. Michael Harris: I would like to welcome Leila Attar from Ottawa to this Legislature. She joined me this morning at a press conference. Thank you, Leila, for being here today.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to introduce Erin Fotheringham. She’s from the Ontario Association of Food Banks. And just to remind everybody, this week is Hunger Awareness Week.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my pleasure to welcome a group of seniors from Brampton. They are here in the east members’ lobby, and they are Budh Singh Grewal, Sampuran Singh Chanian, Ranjit Singh Bhandhol, Satbir Singh Sidhu, Labh Singh Sohi, Gulzar Singh Bachhal, Surrinder Singh Grewal, Mohinder Singh Nagra, Gurdev Singh Dhaliwal, Harnek Singh Gill, Bhagwan Singh Malhi, Major Singh Sekhon, Harbant Singh Marhar, Narnjan Singh and Jagjit Singh Mann. I welcome them to Queen’s Park. Please join me in welcoming them.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce Gloria Kovach, who is here this morning for the Canadian police and peace officers’ run, in memory of her daughter Jen. Thank you, Gloria, for being here today.

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

To follow my own advice, I am going to introduce someone who will be joining us in the House. This gentleman is coming to us from Wisconsin: Representative Cory Mason of the Wisconsin State Assembly.

Mr. Mason—oh, he made it. Good. Mr. Mason is also currently the chair of the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus. The Ontario Legislature is a member of that caucus. Ontario is hosting the annual meeting of this multilateral parliamentary organization, to be held this weekend in Toronto. Some of the members are participating, and I want to thank them for confirming their participation in this important cross-border forum.

Representative Mason actually lived in the riding of Brantford for a short time, and we’re going on a tour this afternoon later on.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please join Representative Mason in not hearing any heckling.

Please join me in warmly welcoming Representative Mason from Wisconsin.

Oral Questions

Special-needs students

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday, I read a headline and a story that left a knot in the pit of my stomach. The headline read, “Mother Demands Answers after Son, 8, Put in Restraints and Injected on First Day of School.” A young Toronto boy on the first day of school was taken to the hospital in the back of a police car, alone. The young boy was placed in restraints and then the boy was injected with a sedative. The boy was eight years old, injected with a sedative and shackled to a bed at a hospital. That is disgusting and unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, how does something like that happen in Ontario?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s important that every student in our school system has access to the supports they need. The priority for school boards and for the Ministry of Education is the safety of all students. In the situation that the member opposite has raised, this is not a position that I’m in, that I’m going to comment specifically on that case, other than to say that it is my understanding that the parent, the school and the school board have been in communication, in contact, and that they are working on ensuring that the student has the supports they need to attend school. That is happening, Mr. Speaker.

I want the House to know that the safety of all students is a priority.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the minister: I can only imagine the fear of this young boy being placed in the back of a police car, alone, and taken away from school by himself. And when the young boy’s mother made it to the hospital, he pleaded with her. He said, “Please, mommy. Get them off. They’re too tight.”

I want everyone in the chamber to imagine if this was your nephew, if this was your child, your son. No parent should ever have to hear an eight-year-old child plead with them to have restraints removed in the hospital. The minister says, “Well, they’ve been in contact with the family.” We need better than that. It’s absolutely gutting to hear this story, and it is no manner in which our students should be handled in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, without speaking to this specific case, how will this government assure us and guarantee that no other child in Ontario will be shackled and sedated by going to school?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to comment on the actions of hospital staff. That’s not something I can do. I know that, as it relates to the student, as of September 15, the student has been reintegrated into school and that the school, the parents and the board are working together on this matter.

That is the focus: to have schools that are accepting and welcoming of students of all abilities. We are very committed to this and to providing the supports in our school system for students with special needs, for students who have mental health needs. We are providing the assistance and the supports for all of our students. We are working together to make those necessary investments so that students can have every opportunity to succeed in our schools.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: The young boy’s mother has said that her son is on waiting lists for Blue Hills Child and Family Centre, Kinark Child and Family Services and the York Centre. She’s been told that waiting will likely be a very long year.

She is quoted as saying, “We need less wait-lists, because an eight-year-old needs the help now. A year from now, there’s so much more damage that could be done.... Are we going to be looking at more incidents like this? Or on the worst extreme, him actually hurting himself?”

That’s the mother’s plea to the minister. That’s the mother’s plea to the province. We can’t afford a year for her son to wait, or hundreds of thousands of others. We need to make sure this is dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, it’s time this government make real progress to slash these wait-lists. Will they do that? Can we have a commitment from the minister that these wait-lists, leaving this boy abandoned—will they slash these wait-lists?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question. We take mental health, when it comes to young people in this province, quite seriously. In fact, for the last couple of years we’ve built a new strategy, a new approach to looking for ways to eliminate wait-lists because we know that the complexities that young people are going through today are very different from when we were young—in fact, very different from a decade ago. That’s why we put in place Bill 89. Bill 89 looks at reorganizing mental health delivery across this province by setting up 33 lead agencies in all of our ridings.

Mr. Speaker, here’s the interesting point: The member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, voted against Bill 89, and we still don’t even know why he voted against Bill 89.

Interjections.

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

The member’s time is up.

Hon. Michael Coteau: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It was already up.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Finance. CUPE announced this morning that they are appealing the ruling in their lawsuit against the government. That, of course, would be the lawsuit that alleges that the sale of Hydro One was motivated by improper and ulterior purposes. CUPE alleges that it does not benefit the people of Ontario. In a direct quote—this is about “lining the pockets of political cronies on Bay Street and funnelling money” into party coffers.

Mr. Speaker, 80% of the province is against this fire sale of Hydro One. Was the government, according to CUPE, motivated by improper and ulterior purposes?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: One of the government’s defences was that they were going to be using the fire sale of Hydro One for infrastructure. What’s really interesting is that the member for Dufferin–Caledon exposed yesterday that 20% of the infrastructure budget was not used. That added up to $3.3 billion. Coincidentally, that $3.3 billion is pretty close to what the Hydro One sale was supposed to net for infrastructure—an interesting coincidence.

My question is pretty simple. Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance: Why sell Hydro One for apparent infrastructure money if the Liberals weren’t going to use it?

Hon. Charles Sousa: This province, under this government, over the last 10 years, has contributed more to our infrastructure spend than other governments combined over that history. We have put in our budget $190 billion over the next 13 years. That member opposite voted against those measures.

The law case that he makes reference to has been dismissed by the courts without merit. He knows that, and he’s trying to infer something he knows is not true. What we’re doing is stimulating growth, improving our economy and balancing the books, and we are making the investments necessary for our future competitiveness.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Finance—and I did not get a response on why the Hydro One fire sale funds were not used on infrastructure.

Fred Hahn from CUPE had a pretty good quote that I’ll quote right here. He said, “The case is about more than the sale of Hydro One. It’s about the government’s responsibility to act in the best interest of its citizens. When a government abandons that responsibility, and does so to the benefit of their political party, they must be held accountable.”

CUPE is right. There must be accountability. Will the minister admit that the sale of Hydro One was not about the best interests of the province of Ontario; it was about the Liberals trying to find funds to make up for their promises that they can’t honour? This was not about the best interests of Ontario; it was about the best interests of the Ontario Liberal Party.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are repurposing some of our assets, as all governments do over the course of their mandates, to try to ensure that we invest most appropriately in those measures for the benefit of our economy. That is in the best interests of Ontarians. Ontarians will remain the largest shareholder of a much more productive organization, reinvesting those proceeds into infrastructure—

Interjection.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We established the Trillium Trust to ensure that all those proceeds, dollar for dollar, get earmarked specifically for those investments. The member opposite knows that, and he voted against those measures.

We are going to continue to work in the best interests of Ontarians, and that is what’s important. We are looking long-term, and we’re not making these election-cycle decisions that this member opposite, who has no plan, who has offered nothing in return—

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

New question.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. This summer a woman named Mira came to Queen’s Park to tell the Liberal government about a tragic set of circumstances of her mother’s experience in long-term care. Mira told us about finding her mom after almost 17 hours in bed. No one had fed her. No one had helped her reach the bathroom. No one had even shifted her body so she didn’t get bed sores.

Can the Acting Premier confirm that seniors being left in beds without any care at all for 17 hours running will be part of the scope of the Wettlaufer inquiry?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First of all, Mr. Speaker—I appreciate the question—that experience is absolutely unacceptable. Quite frankly, if Justice Gillese believes that that issue or circumstances similar to it need to be part of the public inquiry, she has the full scope to do that. It’s within her terms of reference.

We specifically, categorically left the terms of reference in her brief broad enough. Understanding her expertise and being confident in her ability, we have given her the latitude to pursue the inquiry in whatever direction she feels is most appropriate to ensure the safety and security and well-being of residents in long-term-care homes in this province.

Again, we have spoken about this many, many times. She has the terms of reference and the latitude to pursue this if she deems it appropriate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Margo lives in Windsor. She wrote to MPP Hatfield’s office because she’s concerned about her dad. He suffers from Alzheimer’s and he lives in long-term care. Margo’s dad sometimes wanders—

Hon. David Zimmer: Let Percy ask the question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Maybe these members across the way don’t care about Margo and her dad, but New Democrats do care about Margo and her dad.

He suffers from Alzheimer’s and he lives in long-term care. Her dad sometimes wanders out of the care facility past a rarely staffed front desk. It’s particularly bad over weekends and holidays, and the home says they can’t afford to staff the front desk 24/7.

Can the Acting Premier confirm that the staffing levels, particularly at the front entrances to long-term-care facilities, will be part of the Wettlaufer inquiry?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the example of the resident with high needs because of the presence of Alzheimer’s. It’s a form of dementia, and that’s why I find it unusual and curious that the third party voted against our $100-million investment in dementia in this province. I find it curious that the third party voted against an additional $10 million into Behavioural Supports Ontario to provide care in long-term-care homes specifically tailored to those complex high-needs individuals, including individuals with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

That’s why I find it curious that they voted against a 2% increase to the funding for long-term-care homes, an $80-million increase this year alone—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A sentence to wrap up, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a lot more work to be done to support our residents in long-term-care homes. That’s why we’re making these investments—investments they voted against.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I find it curious that the Minister of Health refused to have a broadly scoped public inquiry to address all of the problems in long-term care. That’s what’s curious, because it will show the failure of this government.

I was in Woodstock a few weeks ago meeting with a group of people who all have loved ones in long-term care. At the meeting, I was handed an internal memo from a local long-term-care home which gave guidelines on how to deal with staff who call in sick to the facility. The memo says that being short 50% staff on any given shift is acceptable; it’s considered acceptable by the management of that long-term-care home.

Will the Acting Premier guarantee that the Wettlaufer inquiry will look into long-term-care-home practices related to staffing levels and procedures for what to do when staff can’t make it in for their shift?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we intentionally drafted the terms of reference broadly so that the justice would be able to have the latitude she felt was important to address the issues that Ontarians are asking about.

But it’s important that the public also understand that since 2014, we have been inspecting 100% of long-term-care homes in this province. When you look at the non-compliances in 2016, we actually saw an 18% decrease in the non-compliances. In fact, there were 12% fewer compliance orders issued in 2016. So our inspections are having an important impact. In fact, since 2014, the average number of compliance orders issued during an annual inspection has been reduced by over 50%.

Our investments are making a difference. Our inspections are making a difference. We’re continuing to work on this challenging issue because we are committed to the safety, security and well-being of Ontarians in long-term-care homes.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. You know what I don’t get? I don’t get why the Minister of Health isn’t the one who needs to identify what the problems are in long-term care and then put an inquiry in place to deal with those problems. It shouldn’t be left up to Ms. Gillese. It should be done by the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario, the person responsible for long-term care here in the province of Ontario, not the justice who is in charge. The minister is in charge.

On June 19, I received a letter from a woman whose 91-year-old father was admitted to the Georgian Bay hospital. Long story short, his condition worsened in that hospital. He was not sent to long-term care, even though he couldn’t be taken care of at home. Why? Because this government doesn’t allow people to move straight from hospital into long-term care. Will this be dealt with by the inquiry?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m confident in the work that Justice Gillese will be undertaking on behalf of Ontarians. I also believe and am confident that Ontarians want this government and this inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened in Woodstock, in London and in the surrounding communities where additional assaults took place.

This was a horrible tragedy, Mr. Speaker, and it’s unfortunate—I have done everything humanly possible to avoid this becoming a partisan issue, despite the approach taken by the third party.

Ontarians want answers to how Elizabeth Wettlaufer was possibly able to get away with the murders and the assaults. We owe them those answers. That’s the focus of the inquiry. That’s what Ontarians have asked for. But we’ve intentionally left the terms broad to give her the latitude to take the approach that she feels will ensure the safety and security of Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Right now in Ontario, there are over 30,000 people on a waiting list for long-term care. That’s 30,000 families who are left dangling, not knowing whether or not their loved ones will get the care they need. Can the Acting Premier guarantee that the 30,000-person waiting list for long-term care in Ontario will be a part of the Wettlaufer inquiry?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I’ve acknowledged many times that there is more work to be done as our population ages and as we are faced with an aging population that also has very complex needs. We’re seeing that in our long-term-care homes.

That’s why we’re making investments in behavioural supports so that we’ve got specialized teams in long-term-care homes that are able to provide that highest-quality, knowledgeable care and support to individuals with dementia, with Alzheimer’s, with other complex needs.

We have more than doubled our budget in long-term care, and we’ve made an important investment of an additional $80 million this year alone in a number of categories and areas. We’re committed to redeveloping 30,000 beds. We’ve built 10,000 new beds since coming into office. We’ve already redeveloped 13,000.

Of course there’s more work to be done. This is my highest priority within the ministry when it comes to long-term care: making sure that these individuals are safe, secure and well supported.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A frail, elderly woman left in bed for 17 hours; a senior with Alzheimer’s leaving his long-term-care home unnoticed and unattended; long-term-care homes that accept 50% staff capacity as safe; a daughter worried about her father being forced to return home to wait, even though the doctors said that he can’t be left alone at home; and 30,000 families hoping that their loved ones will get into a long-term-care home right now: This situation is dire, and yet the Liberal government still refuses to find and fix the problems.

Why won’t the Acting Premier not leave to chance that Justice Gillese might perhaps look at some of these issues, and instead expand the scope of the Wettlaufer inquiry on his own, like he should do, to ensure that all of these systemic issues that are causing so much pain, confusion and difficulty for our loved ones and their families are actually dealt with in the scope of the inquiry? Just do it.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, by her tone and increasing rhetoric, it appears that the leader of the third party may not have confidence in Justice Gillese in terms of her ability to lead this—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have no confidence in you, Eric, and neither does anyone else in Ontario.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know she doesn’t want to hear that, but she came—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, she came dangerously close in her question—I inferred that she may not want a public inquiry at all.

Ontarians want to get to the bottom of what happened in Woodstock, London and the surrounding communities. We owe that to the parents, the brothers, the sisters, the loved ones, those who have been so badly affected by this tragedy. That is the central focus of this public inquiry. It has to be. Those are the answers that we need to reach.

They want this inquiry faster, but they keep loading it up and loading it up so that it will take years—

Mr. Paul Miller: Loading up? We’re doing the right thing. You should get a shovel for that. What a load of baloney.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Is it pharmacare—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

New question?

Opioid abuse

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Health. This morning we heard the personal trauma faced by 19-year-old Leila Attar. Leila has joined us today in the members’ gallery, and I thank you, Leila, for joining us. She endured a near-death experience after taking a Percocet that a pill-press operator laced with fentanyl. Leila, other victims, their families and police officers are calling on governments to restrict illegal use of pill presses churning out counterfeit and often deadly pills onto our streets.

While the minister has called a pill-press ban over-simplistic in dealing with opioids, those directly impacted by counterfeit, laced drugs understand that it is a key step to addressing this deadly threat at its source. Today, the minister and the Liberals will have a choice, with the debate on the Illegal Pill Press Act. Join us to take these death-dealing machines, already in Ontario, off our streets, or allow them to continue tearing families apart. What will the minister do?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I look forward to the debate. I want to acknowledge Leila in the gallery, as well, quite frankly, for her courage in coming forward and telling her story. For anybody, it’s unimaginable, but it must be incredibly difficult to demonstrate that courage, so thank you.

When I said that banning pill presses in an Ontario context was overly simplistic, I meant that in the overall context of addressing the opioid public health crisis in this province.

I also mentioned that, as the member opposite knows, the federal government has already passed legislation in Bill C-37 that includes a provision that explicitly prohibits and renders illegal unregistered importation of designated devices, such as pill presses and encapsulators—it’s actually broader, perhaps—that may be used in the illicit manufacture of narcotics.

I understand why that party is solely focused, it seems, on the law and order aspect. It needs to be a broad, comprehensive response to the public health crisis.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: We acknowledge the actual role the federal government has taken on Bill C-37. They acknowledge the importance and detriment that these pill presses are in fact having on our communities right across Canada, but of course that’s only the importation fact. We’re talking about possession because we know they’re here, right now, in the province of Ontario.

I’m going to make this question as overly simplistic as the minister feels about the united call of victims, their families, police officers and myself to ban pill presses churning out these counterfeit opioids on our streets. Does the minister support getting illegal opioids off our streets through penalties and jail for illegal pill manufacturers—for possessing pill manufacturers—or is he just soft on crime?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s critically important that we address the public health crisis before us, this opioid crisis in this province, in this country, from a multi-faceted approach. Clearly there is a law and order component to this; nobody can deny that. We need to do everything we can to address that.

However, I’m disappointed that this is the only suggestion that the party opposite has brought forward, to a crisis where we, since last summer, have been providing naloxone across the province free of charge for more than 1,500 pharmacies, where we’re now distributing it at the rate of 8,000 a month through our public health units, where we’re making fentanyl testing strips available to our supervised injection sites and the pop-up sites so that those users can test for the presence of fentanyl to save lives.

Automotive industry

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Deputy Premier. There are close to 3,000 CAMI auto workers who have been on strike in Ingersoll since last week. I visited them last night on the picket line. These skilled auto workers are on strike because they need the company to commit to them to keep making the Equinox here in Ontario, instead of moving production to Mexico. It’s obvious that we do not have an auto strategy, which means companies across Ontario can close and move production to Mexico simply to maximize profits. That hurts workers and the communities that they live in.

So my question is: These Unifor workers are fighting to keep jobs here in Ontario. Why isn’t this Liberal government fighting as hard as they are?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let me start off by taking this opportunity to urge both sides, General Motors and Unifor, to redouble their efforts to very quickly reach a settlement in what is a very challenging situation. We know that not only are those workers impacted by being out of work at CAMI; there are ripple effects now starting to impact workers throughout our supply chain. This is a very serious situation, one that we’re following very closely.

Of course, we’re going to allow the collective bargaining process to unfold as it should, but we will definitely urge both parties to do their very best to, as soon as possible, reach a settlement to get these workers back to work.

The member is absolutely wrong when he says that we don’t have an auto strategy. We have one of the most ambitious and aggressive auto strategies anywhere in the industrialized world. In the supplementary, I’ll be happy to talk about the great results we’re getting from that strategy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Again to the Deputy Premier: The CEO of GM made $22.6 million last year while demanding that workers freeze their wages, cut their benefits, cut their pensions and accept a two-tier wage system. Last year, GM saw record profits, yet there are still those who fear that GM is going to move production of the Equinox out of the province of Ontario.

Workers have had enough, and they’re fighting back. They want job security and to know that these jobs will be staying in Ontario, not only for themselves but for their kids and their grandkids.

There are over 15,000 more workers affected across the province, including St. Catharines, including Niagara. If the CAMI jobs are lost, these jobs are lost too. An auto strategy would recognize that.

When is the Liberal government going to show auto workers that their jobs are important and fight along with them to keep these jobs right here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve seen $2.6 billion invested in Ontario since the fall of 2016 alone, just in the auto sector. That’s 40,000 direct jobs that have been supported by those investments and 65,000 indirect jobs across this province out into the auto parts sector. Thousands of indirect jobs have been created because of our investments, Mr. Speaker. In Windsor—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Both members know better than to use somebody’s name. This House is respectful by saying their riding or their title. Also, we could do without the heckling.

Finish, Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since 2004, this government has invested $1.4 billion in the auto sector, leveraging $15.8 billion in private sector investment, helping—

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

New question.

Agri-food industry

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As the minister knows, last week I was in Breslau to announce that our government is investing over $5 million in Conestoga Meat Packers through our Jobs and Prosperity Fund. This investment will not only help support the creation of 170 new jobs; it’s also going to enhance productivity and innovation at this great company to support export and revenue growth.

As processors in Ontario add value to 65% of what is grown in the province, it’s encouraging to see that our government is making these important investments in food and beverage manufacturers. This investment is strengthening companies like Conestoga and Ontario’s pork value chain.

Minister, by the way, you have a lot of fans there in Breslau at Conestoga Meat Packers. Could you please explain how our investment in companies like Conestoga is helping to build up Ontario’s farm and food sector?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Fans in Peterborough and fans in Breslau; that’s pretty good.

I want to thank the member from Kitchener Centre for her great question this morning and for her attendance at the International Plowing Match this week.

Mr. Speaker, our government believes in making strategic investments in our farm and food sector, helping to grow this dynamic, $37-billion industry. That’s why in 2014 we launched the 10-year, $400-million Food and Beverage Growth Fund as part of our government’s Jobs and Prosperity Fund. By partnering with food-processing businesses, we’re helping to keep our farm and food sector strong and helping to support good jobs and a thriving agricultural sector.

I had the opportunity on Monday morning to make a similar announcement at Sofina Foods Inc. in beautiful Mitchell, Ontario, where our government committed over $5 million to support the creation of 100 jobs in this region. By investing in Sofina Foods, we’ll help boost the turkey supply chain in the province of Ontario and build stronger communities in Mitchell and Dublin. On this side of the House—

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: —we believe in making investments—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I say thank you; you stop. I stand; you sit.

Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

The member for Kitchener–Conestoga was invited to this event. It’s in his riding and it is disappointing that he didn’t show up. I think it’s important for us to demonstrate—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Pretty low.

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

The member from Kitchener Centre knows better and shall not mention other ridings’ businesses. Thank you for correcting it, and withdraw.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you, Speaker. I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on with your question.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Speaker, I would like to say that I have noticed many occasions when members of the opposition will point out when the Premier or cabinet ministers do not go to their ridings. I know it’s not appropriate for us to say that—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m standing.

The member’s not helping herself. If it happens again, I will pass on your question. Ask your question.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you, Speaker. In today’s Waterloo Region Record, an editorial states, “Government grants to privately-owned enterprises are often controversial. But if the policy of the Ontario government is to support Ontario businesses, Conestoga Meat Packers is as worthy a recipient as you’ll find.”

Minister, the opposition voted against our Jobs and Prosperity Fund and the opposition has been critical about investment. Speaker, could the minister please share with the members of this House where our government stands on supporting our food processing sector?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Kitchener Centre for her follow-up question. Our government has a clear plan to create jobs and opportunities in Ontario’s farm and food sector, a sector that employs over 800,000 people in this great province. From Breslau to Mitchell, we are making investments in companies so they can continue to grow and make the food and beverage products that people in this province enjoy every day.

On this side of the House, we believe in providing supports needed for our manufacturers to compete in the 21st century. On this side of the House, we believe in providing companies with opportunities to become more productive and use innovative technology. We believe in making investments that will give our companies the tools to grow their exports and compete with brands around the world.

Mr. Speaker, we’ll continue to make investments in our food processing sector to help them scale up, export to more countries and make jobs available in our towns and cities. We look forward to making other great announcements—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Nipissing, come to order.

Hon. Jeff Leal: —that will demonstrate our government’s commitment to growing the food processing sector in Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s disappointing that the member from Nipissing continues to heckle when I actually call him to order.

New question.

Access to justice

Mr. Randy Hillier: My questions is to the Attorney General. In June 2012, Scott Johnson lost his life from a collapse of a stage at a Radiohead concert here in Toronto. The company and engineer were charged with 13 offences alleging neglect. Yet, once again, all charges were stayed due to egregious and excessive court delays.

In a statement released to their millions of followers worldwide, the band said that this decision “offers no consolation, closure or assurance that this kind of accident will not happen again.” And: “This is an insult to the memory of Scott Johnson, his parents and our crew.”

Speaker, the rampant failings of our justice system at the hands of this government is attracting both international attention and universal condemnation. Is the minister so preoccupied giving Liberal advice to his friends on trial that he can’t perform his duty in the administration of justice?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The member opposite raises a very important and serious issue. As we all know, last June, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a monumental decision called the Jordan decision, where they have outlined very specific deadlines under which criminal cases have to be heard. That decision is a game-changer in terms of how criminal justice should be done in not only the province of Ontario but across the country. We responded to the challenge immediately after the Jordan decision by adding new resources within our criminal justice system, hiring 13 new judges, over 30 new assistant crown attorneys and investing money in legal aid, not to mention support staff.

But Speaker, we have not stopped there, and in my supplementary I will speak about the kind of structural changes that Ontario is driving with the federal government to ensure delays are prevented.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Back to the Attorney General: I will say that access to justice didn’t just come along with the Jordan decision. That is a long-standing constitutional obligation. The Attorney General is also charged with ensuring the proper administration of justice. Judge Ann Nelson makes clear in her judgment that this result is a “failure on the part of the administration of justice.” She also notes that “Mr. Johnson’s family ... can justifiably complain that justice has not been done.”

There is a crisis in our courts, a crisis which is a direct result of this lackadaisical approach that this government has taken over the last decade.

Both those seeking justice and those who serve our courts agree that the administration of justice is in disrepute, and our courts cannot effectively deliver their mandate. Speaker, is it not time that we say “enough is enough” and have the minister apologize to the Johnson family and the people of Ontario for these failures?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Decisions like these are very difficult. That is why we are working very actively to make sure we expedite our criminal justice system to make it more efficient.

That’s why Ontario has been the leading voice in the country in making the argument that we need to pay serious attention to the impact of the Jordan decision. It is a game-changer, and we need to bring meaningful structural changes to our criminal court to make sure that our criminal justice system is effective, efficient and actually looks after the victims, their families and, of course, our communities.

That is why just last week I was at the federal, provincial and territorial meeting of justice ministers in Vancouver, where Ontario took the lead in proposing reforms to the system.

I hope the member opposite and the party opposite will support the government’s position as to how we can reform our system to make it more effective.

Disaster relief

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Good morning.

People in Windsor are angry and disappointed with the government’s response to the recent flooding disaster.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs stood in this House and said that private insurance was readily available. He was wrong. The Insurance Bureau of Canada told him he was wrong. Some insurance companies no longer honour claims from people living in our flood-prone areas. The disaster recovery assistance plan doesn’t cover sewer backups.

How will this government close the gap in coverage between private insurers and the government’s disaster assistance recovery program?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Thank you to the member for the question.

Speaker, the program is obviously a pan-Ontario program. I have activated the program in multiple municipalities over the course of the last 15 months or so. I would tell you, and I would tell the House and those who are interested in this file, that the program is very well regarded. The reason that the program is well regarded and in place is because it helps people to recover from disasters where there are events that have occurred for which there is no private insurance available. That is, primarily, overland flooding.

Before I went out and made my visits over the last 15 months, or before I went out very recently in the second Windsor event in the last 12 months, I ensured from staff and my ministry that in fact insurance was available. That’s the information I’ve gotten back from my ministry. I didn’t make that comment willy-nilly. I checked; they tell me there is.

At the end of the day, this is less about private insurance than it is about other things, and I’ll speak more to that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Representatives of the insurance bureau were in my office on Monday saying insurance is not readily available in Windsor, and they said they told the minister that.

Climate change is real; extreme weather events are hitting all parts of Ontario. Natural disasters caused by heavy rains are occurring too frequently. This government is downloading the effects of climate change onto ordinary citizens. Some of my residents have gone through this twice within the past year—less than a year.

When will the government update the coverage guidelines, especially for those who can no longer qualify for private insurance?

Hon. Bill Mauro: When I was in Windsor, and we had a press conference there, I mentioned as part of that press conference that we all have a role to play when it comes to dealing with these unfortunately more regular and more intense weather-related events. In fact, I complimented the city of Windsor and other municipalities that already have programs in place that can directly affect, and lessen the likelihood that they would be affected by, these situations.

The city of Windsor has programs in place and has had them for some time. There are work and options available to individual homeowners.

I also said the municipality has responsibility when it comes to how we plan our communities. I said the province has a role to play when it comes to infrastructure funding—and obviously, we have a fantastic record of demonstrating support for municipalities on infrastructure. As well, I said the federal government, through its National Disaster Mitigation Program, also has a role to play. As a group, we need to look more closely at this, and perhaps over the coming years, programs may evolve.

Road safety

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I know that the minister has said many times, both in and outside of this House, that road safety is his top priority. But the fact of the matter is that there are still far too many collisions that result in serious injuries or fatalities on our roads, and far too often the victim is a vulnerable road user, a pedestrian or a cyclist, who has little to no protection compared to those travelling in a car. We need to take extra care to make sure this group of road users is safe, especially if we want to promote these active and environmentally friendly modes of transportation in Ontario.

A number of these fatalities have unfortunately occurred in my riding of Davenport. I know that there are many people in my community of Davenport who want to make the choice to bike or walk to work, but they want to know that they can do so safely. Would the minister please provide an update to this House on what his ministry is doing to make our roads safer than they are today for our most vulnerable?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member from Davenport for her question and for being a staunch advocate for helping us to understand the importance of making sure that we constantly improve the road safety measures that we have. Our government knows that whether you’re in a vehicle, on a bike or walking on the sidewalk, for example, you deserve to be able to get from point A to B safely at all times.

That’s why we’ve taken serious action over the last number of years to make sure that our roads are even safer, through strong legislation, public education and ongoing work with our extraordinary road safety partners, including enforcement officers.

But last fall and winter, we saw a concerning increase in the number of serious and fatal injuries involving our most vulnerable road users. We knew then that we had to act, and we have not been standing still.

Our work over the last number of months has led us to the point where we are now able to introduce bold new measures that would, if passed, make our roads safer, especially for our seniors and our kids. I look forward to providing more details in my supplementary answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the minister for his answer. I’m pleased to hear that your ministry has been working hard on these various proposals that would keep our roads safer for everyone, but particularly our most vulnerable.

However, with the federal legalization of cannabis less than a year away, we need to be ready to deal with the impact this will have on road safety in order to save lives and keep up our record of having among the safest roads in North America. I know that members in my community of Davenport are eager to hear that we have a plan in place to keep drug-impaired drivers off our roads through strong penalties.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you please provide more information on how these new proposed measures take into account additional road safety challenges that we can expect post-July 1, 2018?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Our proposed changes do, in fact, take into account the upcoming federal legalization of cannabis. For example, we’re proposing zero tolerance for novice, young and commercial drivers, as well as increased penalties for drivers who fail or refuse to take a sobriety test.

Beyond impaired driving, we are also proposing a comprehensive set of tools that would make our roads safer, including tougher penalties to combat distracted driving, increased penalties for drivers who fail to yield for pedestrians, and also a brand new offence, the stiffest penalty that would exist in the Highway Traffic Act, if passed—a new offence for careless driving causing death or bodily harm.

If you’ll permit me, I want to pay tribute to the current Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, the member from Burlington, who has fought hard and long on these issues and, as a private member, brought forward legislation in 2016 to make this happen. Because of her advocacy, we’re going to get it done.

Energy policies

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Energy. In January, this government rolled out another sneaky attack on families and businesses when they launched their cap-and-trade carbon pricing scheme.

The Auditor General conducted a survey of Ontario’s natural gas ratepayers, and 89% of the respondents thought it important to disclose the impact and cost of cap-and-trade on natural gas bills.

Today, we will debate my common-sense legislation to make cap-and-trade a separate line item on natural gas bills.

My question is simple: Do the Liberals support transparency and accountability, or will the government continue hiding the cost of cap-and-trade on consumers’ natural gas bills?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The decision on how to present cap-and-trade on consumers’ bills was made by the Ontario Energy Board. That’s an independent, arm’s-length regulator for the province’s energy sector. It did so based on extensive consultations with consumers, utilities and—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker—including over 40 written submissions.

In their decision, the Ontario Energy Board highlighted that cap-and-trade costs are a part of doing the business of delivering natural gas to homes and businesses. To quote the board: “In the OEB’s view, separating out cap-and-trade-related costs as a line item on the bill is inconsistent with the manner in which all other ongoing costs of operating the utility are reflected on the bill.”

I’ll have more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the minister: I introduced Bill 146, the Transparency in Gas Pricing Act, in the hope of bringing greater accountability to the government’s cap-and-trade carbon pricing scheme. Speaker, my legislation will provide much-needed transparency to Ontario’s taxpayers and ratepayers, transparency that ratepayers in British Columbia and Quebec already enjoy at no cost to the government.

Speaker, will the minister support my common-sense legislation to make cap-and-trade a separate line item on natural gas bills? And if not, why not?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We all know where the Common Sense Revolution got us in the past, Mr. Speaker. We’re actually going to continue to stand up for the people of Ontario, especially when it comes to the OEB. They know that the OEB regulates the natural gas sector in this province, with a strong mandate to protect the public interest and ensure that consumers receive reliable, cost-effective natural gas service. Their decision on the presentation of cap-and-trade costs was made, as I said before, after extensive consultation within this province.

The opposition claims they support the independence of government agencies, and yet claims we should interfere with the OEB in this case simply because they don’t like the decision. Just as the federal government can’t dictate terms to the Supreme Court or to the Bank of Canada, or expect that decisions will be in their favour, the Ontario Energy Board will undertake their due diligence and make independent decisions.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Minister, my constituent has a kidney condition. It could be life-threatening and it is definitely painful. Her specialist needs her to have a CAT scan before he can determine the best course of action for her condition. He referred her for a CAT scan in June. In July, she was informed that her appointment for her CAT scan is at the end of January 2018.

Does the minister think that a six-month wait for a diagnostic test is putting patients first? And does he think that it would lead to good patient care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Of course, as minister, I leave it to our front-line health care professionals—our doctors, nurse practitioners and others—to make the right clinical decision. If there is an urgency to getting a CT scan, I have no doubt that that CT scan can be provided on an urgent basis.

However, we do make every effort to have the shortest or close to the shortest wait times in the entire country. I’m happy to say, when it comes to ultrasound, CT and MRI, we have either the shortest or nearest-to-the-shortest wait times in the country for those procedures. We’ve made additional investments. In fact, of the $7 billion of new funds that we put in this year’s budget over the next three years for health care, a significant portion of that will go to further reduce wait times, including for diagnostic imaging like CTs, MRIs and the like.

I don’t know the circumstances. It seems like a long time. I would hope that the clinician involved is doing the right thing to make sure that she’s getting that at the right time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, the average wait time he talks about applies to southern Ontario, at 50 days. In northern Ontario, our average wait time is 167 days.

Health Sciences North, our hospital, provides complex treatment to people all across the northeast. Unfortunately, not only are wait times getting longer and longer, but Health Sciences North, like most other large community hospitals in our province, now has hallway medicine as the new normal. The Ontario Hospital Association is warning that overcrowding is leading to a crisis. Even our neonatal units are overcrowded and turning away our sickest of newborn babies.

What will it take for this minister to admit that our hospitals, which used to be the crown jewel of our health care system, are now dangerously close to the breaking point?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, this fiscal year we increased the budget of Health Sciences North by almost $6 million. Again, in our budget, we allocated more than $500 million specifically for our hospitals, guaranteeing that every hospital would get at least a 2% increase across the province. On average, the increase to the hospital operating budgets was 3.1%.

We also allocated—which is unprecedented in the history of this province—$9 billion over the next 10 years in addition to the $11 billion already committed, for $20 billion in infrastructure investment, which includes expansion of hospitals, renovations of hospitals and entirely new hospitals.

We’re continuing to invest, whether it’s in operating costs or in reducing wait times, as I mentioned, $11 billion, increasing the health budget over the next three years, including for CTs, MRIs, ultrasounds and those important diagnostic procedures.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Sexual violence and harassment have a devastating impact on the lives of survivors and their families. We have made progress as a society when it comes to changing perceptions around this issue, but we all know that we have more work to do.

The Globe and Mail’s “Unfounded” series earlier this year shone a spotlight on our country’s police services and how cases have been handled. I know that there was a strong will from police services, community groups and government to change things, but my question, Mr. Speaker, through you, is: What actions have been taken by our government?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you very much to the member from Kingston and the Islands for that important question. First, I want to commend many of our police services for having taken immediate action on reviewing how they investigate sexual assault cases. However, I want to reserve special thanks for our province’s largest police service, the OPP, for their leadership on this issue.

Just last week, the OPP announced that investigative officers will receive new comprehensive training, more supervision and external scrutiny from local survivor support groups. To ensure lasting change, a specialized group of senior officers will personally monitor all unresolved sexual assault cases. There will also be five regional review committees modelled on the highly successful Philadelphia model, where advocates work with survivors and police to ensure thorough investigations. Mr. Speaker, we like the OPP’s approach.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to thank the minister for her answer. I would also like to thank the OPP for their leadership on this very important matter. I cannot do so without also acknowledging the Kingston Police and the work that they have done as well in my riding of Kingston and the Islands.

How our law enforcement handles investigations surrounding sexual violence and harassment is a very important part of putting an end to it. Can the minister please speak to what this government and our policing partners are doing to ensure that police have all of the tools that they need and the training to be part of stopping sexual violence and harassment?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Again I want to say thank you to the member for Kingston and the Islands for her advocacy on these women’s issues.

As a woman and a mother of a daughter, I want to once again thank police services that have re-examined their handling of sexual assault cases. My ministry recently invested $1.8 million to support 15 pilot projects to help ensure survivor-centric and effective investigative approaches for sexual assault cases. This initiative is part of It’s Never Okay, our government’s groundbreaking action plan to end sexual violence and harassment.

Mr. Speaker, the Basic Constable Training Program at the Ontario Police College now includes survivor-focused and sensitivity components in the curriculum. We know we will see even greater results if our police recruits have more comprehensive training. Ensuring a compassionate police response is one of the many measures our government and our police services are taking to help survivors—

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

New question.

Water quality

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. This summer, we’ve experienced historic rainfalls across Ontario. Many communities have experienced flooding, and our municipal sewer systems were often overwhelmed. As you know, when these heavy rains occur, municipalities are often forced to initiate a bypass at their sewage treatment plants, releasing partially treated sewage into our local waterways. In 2016, municipalities were forced to bypass more than 6.5 billion litres of partially treated sewage. Will the minister release how many sewage bypasses have occurred in 2017?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member for that question, because water quality is a very important aspect of what we do at the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. I know we have worked extensively with municipalities across Ontario to address bypass concerns. We’re committed to helping municipalities upgrade their infrastructure to separate storm and waste sewage to minimize the sewage discharges.

To be clear, though, Speaker, waste water treatment plants are owned and operated by municipalities, not by the province. That said, the ministry does monitor bypass incidents to confirm that these municipalities have contingency plans to address any discharges at their facilities. We’re going to continue to work with these municipalities to make sure that they minimize the number of discharges.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The time for question period is over. There are no deferred votes. Therefore, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1137 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Michael Coteau: While I was in the elevator, I had the opportunity to meet a filmmaker here in Toronto, Paul Stark. Accompanying him today is Georgina Bencsik. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Manitoulin Island.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Algoma–Manitoulin.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Algoma–Manitoulin Island.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s a beautiful place. Come visit me sometime.

Today, as you’ve heard, Speaker, there are some drums going on on the grounds. We’re having a little powwow today. I want to welcome Chief Stacey Laforme, who is Chief of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, Linda Broer, Lauren Fong, Tina Stevens, Crystal Sinclair, Warren “Smokey” Thomas, president of OPSEU, and Tim Vining, who are joining me today, along with many others at the powwow.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I am delighted to reinforce the introduction done by the Minister of Children and Youth Services of Paul Stark, who is in fact a constituent. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I’d also like to introduce Richard White, who is a principal with PointClickCare, which provides software to the long-term-care industry. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I also want to welcome to the Legislature Georgina Bencsik, because it’s for International Day of Peace that she’s here. She’s the director of the United Nations Association in Canada. I welcome her from Ottawa to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I also want to welcome the eagle staffs, the drums, the jingle dancers, the grass dancers and all the people who are assembling for our great celebration that is happening on the grounds today.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further introduction of guests? The member from Algoma–Manitoulin Island.

M. Michael Mantha: Madame la Présidente, je veux—mon frère n’est pas arrivé. Je n’ai pas souvent de la famille, mais mon frère est ici; il est en train de nous rejoindre bientôt. Son nom, c’est Marcel Mantha.

Members’ Statements

World Alzheimer’s Day

Mr. Bill Walker: As most of you know, today is World Alzheimer’s Day. Alzheimer’s is a debilitating and irreversible brain disease that robs people of memory, feelings and independence, yet a Canadian is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s every five minutes. And it’s not just those diagnosed or living with Alzheimer’s who suffer; it really hurts the family and their caregivers too.

I can share, on a personal note, that my mother-in-law, Dorothy, is in the early stages, and my Aunt Helen and Uncle Russ have both been afflicted, as well as a number of family friends. It is heart-wrenching to watch how this debilitating disease impacts the person and their family.

It’s estimated that caregivers and family spend about 100 hours every month caring for their loved one with everyday tasks, including cooking meals, bathing and dressing them. As this can be quite overwhelming, it’s important we give them the proper supports.

The number of people who are diagnosed with dementia is increasing. As baby boomers age, we will witness a dementia crisis within our health care system. While there is, unfortunately, no cure today, all of us want to unite against dementia and to find a cure so we can create a brighter future for all who are impacted by or at risk of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.

I’d like to recognize the Alzheimer Society of Ontario for its dedication in supporting those living with Alzheimer’s, their families and their caregivers. As well, I’d like to commend Deborah Barker, recently retired executive director; Stephen Musehl, current executive director; and the staff, board members and volunteers of the Alzheimer Society of Grey-Bruce team whom I’ve been honoured to support over the past number of years.

The support provided by everyone involved with Alzheimer’s is quite remarkable, and we need to offer them our greatest gratitude and thanks.

Lois Smedick

Mr. Percy Hatfield: We in the Windsor area have lost a champion of our local arts, cultural and academic community.

Lois chaired the board at Assumption University and was president of the Art Gallery of Windsor for many years. She was a scholar, a volunteer, a donor, a benefactor, a friend and a feminist. When nurse Lori Dupont was murdered at one of our hospitals, Lois Smedick was part of a group of women who fought to change workplace protection laws in Ontario.

Speaker, I last spoke to Lois a few months ago at a concert in Assumption Hall when my first legislative page, Evan Tanovich, was conducting a choir and orchestral piece he wrote, entitled the Assumption Mass. Lois was part of the program. It was so very impressive that evening.

She loved to garden. She was bitten last month by a mosquito, and became the third person from the Windsor area to die from the