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

September 13, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Sep-13 (PDF)

L092 - Wed 13 Sep 2017 / Mer 13 sep 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 September 2017 Mercredi 13 septembre 2017

Orders of the Day

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

GO Transit

Minimum wage

Mental health and addiction services

Mental health and addiction services

Human trafficking

Pension plans

Economic development

Taxation

Disaster relief

Infrastructure funding

Wasaga Beach

Beverage alcohol sales

Energy policies

Indigenous land dispute

Notices of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Terry Fox Run

Fire safety

Columbus Centre

Organic labelling

Canadian Student Leadership Conference

Feast of Nayrouz

Cap-and-trade

Events in Northumberland–Quinte West

Highway improvement

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Petitions

Pharmacare

GO Transit

School bus safety

Winter highway maintenance

GO Transit

Sewage treatment

Water fluoridation

Dental care

Missing persons

Minimum wage

Hospital funding

Shingles vaccine

Services for the developmentally disabled

Introduction of Bills

Organic Products Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur les produits biologiques

Visitors

Orders of the Day

Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction

Adjournment Debate

Human trafficking

GO Transit

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 12, 2017, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 148, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi et la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: It is my pleasure to get up and spend an hour talking about Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I was here yesterday and I listened intently to the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Labour, as well as to the member from Nipissing—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Right; there you go.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s me.

Ms. Cindy Forster: That’s right.

It was interesting. Certainly from the government’s perspective, everything is great and we’re doing all these wonderful things for all of these workers in the province. From the PC perspective, they raised concerns about the minimum wage and its impact on small business across the province.

I can tell you that I was part of that whole process, certainly initially when the Changing Workplaces Review started. We tried to participate in that process, which took place over about two years, but MPPs were shut out of that process. If you weren’t making a presentation, you weren’t even able to be there as an observer. So that led to a long and tedious process where we had to collect the submissions from the various presenters from across the province because even those presentations weren’t available to MPPs as they came out.

As MPPs representing your various constituents in your ridings, and your party and your caucus, how do you make decisions on legislation if you aren’t even privy to having that information?

After that, we moved on to review those submissions. Then the initial report came back and then the second report came back. Eventually the Liberals decided, during the long, hot summer of 2017, that they would do a Liberal road show. That show was about going out to 10 communities across the province to kind of kick off the election campaign and talk about the good things they were going to do for the workers here in the province of Ontario.

From my perspective and from the NDP’s perspective, the legislation just doesn’t go far enough. Clearly, the Liberals have had almost two decades—17 years, 18 years by the time we go into the election in 2018—to make workplaces better for the workers in this province, to improve working conditions and to improve the home/work-life balance, all of those kinds of things. They’ve had 17 years to do it, but they chose not to do it until eight or nine months before a provincial election.

The Tories had eight years, actually, before that, to improve the lives of workers in this province, but they chose to freeze the minimum wage. The Liberals as well didn’t do very much until the end of their term in terms of minimum wage increases, and clearly did nothing else.

The Labour Relations Act, the Employment Standards Act, none of those acts have been looked at, other than, I would say, during the Mike Harris years. Mike Harris and the Tories went in and actually stripped important things out of the Labour Relations Act, like successor rights, like people terminated during an organizing campaign having the right to go to the labour board to try and be reinstated. Those things were removed from the Labour Relations Act, and that certainly negatively impacted not only organizing in this province but the ability for workers to be reinstated to their jobs and to be able to support their families.

The NDP believe that, although Bill 148 goes in a certain direction which is good for workers, they could have gone much further, and they should have gone much further. So we put forward a package of amendments to deal with during the clause-by-clause back in August, and each and every one of those amendments, with the exception of one or two, were voted down by the Liberal government. Things that would have made the working lives of people in this province better were voted down.

The amendments that we would have proposed were five sick days for every person in this province. In the government’s Bill 148, they are proposing just two paid sick days here in the province of Ontario for workers. That would include anything that you are off work for, so it could be sick leave, it could be bereavement leave, it could be domestic and sexual violence leave—just two days. We heard from a number of medical officers of health and a number of community health centres during our tour across the province that said that two days is not enough.

We saw yesterday, when the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke was here and did his hour lead and wasn’t feeling very well because he had a bit of influenza—we said that probably half of this chamber will have influenza by the time the weekend comes, because colds and flus and influenza actually take four to five days for people to recover from. The member is here again today, so we can probably all enjoy that on the weekend.

Why the government, which is supposed to be protecting the workers in this province and the people in this province, would only provide for two paid sick days is beyond me, and certainly it was beyond the presenters that were out on our travelling road show in the summer.

The 10 paid days for victims of intimate partner and domestic violence, which would have been provincially funded, was part of Peggy Sattler’s private member’s bill that she put forward a few months ago—the member from London West. She proposed that there be 10 paid days in situations that occur where women or others are victims of sexual and domestic violence.

I think it’s unreasonable to expect that someone suffers an incident of sexual or domestic violence and they can’t get a paid day off. We know that in those situations those women are generally isolated for a long period of time. In some situations, they don’t have any money. They may not even have access to their own paycheque. So it is problematic to say, “Well, you can have the 10 days off, but you can’t have any pay to go along with that.”

There was a story that came out of the Windsor public hearings on this issue. The woman who presented was Sue McKinnon. She was the chairperson for Unifor Women’s Committee, Local 444. She talked about a friend of hers who was in an abusive marriage with a partner for 23 years. Then she decided that she couldn’t take it anymore. It took two more years after that. So for a quarter of a century she was in this abusive relationship. She had no idea where to go; she had no idea what to do. It was not physical abuse, but it was verbal and financial abuse. It was August 26, 2007.

She had three teenagers, 14, 16 and 18 years old, who were living with her at home. She left with one basket of clothes, three children and a van. She went to a women’s shelter because she feared for her life and she feared for her children’s lives, Speaker. Later that night, her partner opened up the gas line and blew up their house, which insurance didn’t cover because he was convicted of arson and he was the co-owner of the house.

A week later, she had to get a restraining order because he left the hospital against medical advice. She was afraid all the time. She was left with nowhere to live and very little money. The debt from the marriage caused her to claim bankruptcy six months later because her part-time wages were being garnished to pay the mortgage for the house that blew up. She was homeless, and for weeks she lived in a shelter. She didn’t have any money to find a place to live, but for the kindness of the people in the neighbourhood who knew her children.

They managed to find a place that was vacant and allowed them to stay until she was able to pay the rent. She had to call in for a leave of absence from her job to rebuild her life, and she lived on unemployment insurance for three months, which wasn’t even covering the waiting period because there was no money coming in during the waiting-period time, that two-week period when you actually have to wait for unemployment.

If any of you have ever collected unemployment benefits: Although the waiting period is two weeks, the federal government does not do a very good job of actually providing enough workers in the system to make sure that you get those cheques on time. I know many workers who often wait six or eight weeks to actually get their unemployment insurance benefits to start.

Anyway, she spent her days going to counsellors, to lawyers, to victim services, talking to anyone who could help her and her children. She had to go back to work, but every day that she went back, she was afraid of losing her job. She had to call in to go to appointments to take care of her kids, who were traumatized, and so was she. Losing a day’s pay for someone like her was very discouraging. She was going through all of this domestic violence, restraining orders on her husband, having to get to all of these appointments with her and her kids and then having to worry about, at the end of the day, “How am I going to feed the kids?”

This is a quick quote from her: “I’m lucky I’m one of the survivors and I made it with the help of the women’s advocate at my workplace; she helped me more than she knows.”

Unions have strongly prioritized negotiating language in collective agreements to protect both the survivors of violence and their co-workers, but we must ensure that the language is carved out in the Employment Standards Act.

That’s a little story about why the member from London West’s private member’s bill, which proposed 10 paid days, is important to victims of sexual and domestic violence. I think we heard from 200, 210 presenters over the 10 days of the public hearings. Probably everyone who spoke to this issue recommended that there be up to 10 days off with pay.

The other thing that the NDP proposed to the clause-by-clause, as amendments to that, was three weeks of paid vacation after the first year of employment, up from two weeks. The reason we proposed that is because there are so many temporary workers in this province, and what we heard from the people who were presenting when we asked them questions was, “How many temporary workers do you think ever last in a job—”

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Seven conversations going on, on that side.

Continue.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker. I was speaking about the three weeks of vacation, which the NDP is committed to, after one year for all workers in this province.

Currently, the Employment Standards Act—and it has provided for many, many years two weeks of vacation after one year and no bump-up after that period of time.

The government, in Bill 148, proposed that you get three weeks of vacation if you’ve been with the same employer for five years. Well, that is not the reality of working life in Ontario today. There are thousands of temporary workers in this province who will never see three weeks of paid vacation because they’re never in the job long enough to actually achieve that. Most people who are in a stable job may already have that in their collective agreement, if they belong to a union. But those workers who are not unionized and who are in temporary or precarious work will never see those three weeks of paid vacation.

That is why the NDP believes that our amendment to increase vacation to three weeks after one year for all workers is something the government should have looked at.

The next thing that the NDP proposed, and that every worker, workers’ advocate and union who submitted to the changing workplaces panel and who submitted to us during the public hearings—probably, between those two processes, there were over 300 submissions. In every situation, whether it was the Workers’ Action Centre, whether it was a union, whether it was a community health centre or a community legal clinic, they asked for card-based union certification for all workers, and it is beyond me why the government did not do this.

The government is now putting a greater divide between sectors of workers in this province. The construction industry, for a number of years, has had card-based certification. It made sense for them. Now the government is saying, “Well, we’re going to expand that, but we’re only going to expand it to community health workers, some of the service workers in the service industry. We’re not going to do it for every worker in this province.” The government well knows that workers in unions generally fare better.

With a collective agreement, they have representation; they have rights; they have the ability to actually negotiate a collective agreement. It is discriminatory, in my view, that they didn’t extend this right to everyone.

Up until the Harris government, we did have card-based certification for every worker in this province, and it worked well for probably 50 years. It was under the Tory regime in the mid-1990s to the early 2000s that the card-check certification process actually ended. The NDP is proposing that the government go back and have a look at that and extend what they’ve put into Bill 148 so that it actually applies to all workers in this province. It would be a good way to make it easier for people to unionize.

I know that the government heard from employers who were opposed to card-check certification, but there’s a saying when you work for a union or are a unionized member: The only employers that get unions are those that deserve them. If you are a good employer and you treat your employees with respect, if you do well by them and they do well by you, then people may not find the need to unionize.

Speaker, I’ll tell you, you know that I worked for many years as an organizer with the Ontario Nurses’ Association representing nurses and I did active organizing full-time for about a six-year period. In my experience, it was never about the money or the benefits when people actually joined a union. It was always about having a voice and feeling respected by the employer. That is generally what led to people coming forward to join. It often was not about, “Well, that hospital over there or that nursing home over there is making a dollar an hour more.” It was about the actual nurses or other health care workers feeling disrespected by the employer.

So I would urge the government to go back and look at Bill 148 and extend card-check certification to all.

What goes along with that card-check piece is the right to actually go to interest arbitration after a campaign, where you’re not able to achieve a first collective agreement. That is probably the most difficult part of the organizing campaign when it’s over, to try and get both sides at the table and to get that first collective agreement into place. I can tell you that that should be the right for all workers in this province who choose to join a union.

I’ll go back to the example, and I’ve used this before in this House, of CarePartners. CarePartners is a community health organization, for-profit, run by a former registered nurse. I think she’s got 14 agencies across the province and makes a lot of money every year in this sector. So the RNs, the RPNs and the support staff at CarePartners in Niagara, in Haldimand, and in Brant joined OPSEU about two years ago. They went into a campaign. They were successful in joining the union.

They tried to negotiate a first collective agreement, and they were on strike for 10 months trying to get a first collective agreement. So we have employers in the health care industry who look after patients and clients across this province actually putting people out on strike.

Had the legislation been in place for first-contract arbitration, within a short period of time that would have forced people back to the table to negotiate a settlement. It would have forced Linda Knight, I think her name was, from CarePartners—these people would not have been on strike; patients would not have been waiting for care in the communities of Niagara and Haldimand; and things would have gone much smoother. It’s just a tool to make sure that when you organize into a union, you can end up with a collective agreement in a timely way at the end of the day.

The parties can then develop a labour relations relationship and they can get on with their lives. The employer can get on with their part of the business, the workers can get on with doing the work, and life goes on and becomes easier for everyone.

Once again, the NDP think the government should go back and revisit card-check and first-contract arbitration for all.

The banning of replacement workers goes along with this. We’ve seen some very long strikes over the past couple of years. There was, I think, one strike that went on for almost two years, just outside of Toronto. We’ve had strikes across the province that have led to a lot of disruption. The government should ban replacement workers.

When we did have a no-scab piece of legislation—no replacement workers—strikes were very short. I think the data is that 97% of all collective agreements get settled in any event, negotiated without any strike. Perhaps you take a strike vote. So there is a need to reintroduce that legislation as well.

I want to spend a little bit of time on the temporary worker piece.

The government—the Minister of Labour—talked yesterday about the improvements that they’ve made to the bill for temporary workers—equal pay for equal work. You won’t make less than the person working beside you. But in fact, that is only in terms of wages; it’s not in terms of benefits. So you can be working beside someone for two or three years on that assembly line, or wherever temporary workers happen to be, making clothes on a knitting machine—like Jenny, who was here yesterday—and the temporary worker could be making $5 an hour less than I’m making.

In addition to that, I might have health benefits, and I might have the ability for the employer to match my RRSP contributions, or there may be some kind of a pension plan available. But for that temporary worker, there is nothing available.

The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton introduced a private member’s bill maybe a year ago, and it would have looked after a number of issues around temporary employees and temporary agencies. That bill, I believe, passed second reading, but of course, it sat in the hopper at some committee and it has never seen the light of day.

There are many more things. If you read the Toronto Star

article last Saturday, Speaker, there was an undercover reporter who went into—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: A bakery factory.

Ms. Cindy Forster: —a bakery factory for a month. The story is horrific, if you read it. It talks about the underground economy that is happening here in the province of Ontario. Really, the Liberal government isn’t doing anything to get rid of those temporary agencies.

In this particular situation, this woman went in, and she had no health and safety training. This was a factory where there had been deaths in the past. People were going to Money Mart to pick up their paycheques. I mean, how could you be working in a factory, with 400 or 500 employees baking for consumers in this province, and you’re getting your paycheque in a brown envelope at a Money Mart; you have no health and safety training, even though we have an Occupational Health and Safety Act here in the province, and the government isn’t doing anything about it? A newspaper reporter could find out about it. Why don’t we have any enforcement?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: She went undercover.

Ms. Cindy Forster: She went undercover. She was there for an entire month. Although there are some measures in the act around equal pay for temporary workers, those kinds of things, there are many more things that are still missing for temporary workers. I think that just that story itself calls on the government to go back and revisit Bill 148 and maybe put some of these temporary agencies out of business.

The other piece of that is the issue of compensation. The government did not open the workers’ safety and insurance board act as part of this Changing Workplaces Review, which is problematic because with temporary workers that are being sent into workplaces where there could be dangers and there’s no health and safety training happening, it is very problematic for the workforce. The government, when they were opening up the ESA and they were opening up the Labour Relations Act, also should have opened up the workers’ safety and insurance board act.

Yesterday, we had the injured workers in here; the Ontario injured workers group were in. We had Jenny Zhou here. She had worked in a knitting factory here in Toronto. That was one of those situations that if you had temporary workers working in that knitting factory where Jenny worked, they were sent in by an agency and they were injured. That employee has no recourse to collect compensation from the factory where they were working. It all now falls upon the agency.

If I go back to that Toronto Star report, the reporter and other employees who actually worked in that bakery factory said that there was no agency. There was no office. It was a phone in an apartment somewhere in Toronto. They never even saw the agency. They were interviewed over the phone. They got a phone call. They never met anybody from an agency. They never signed any papers to be hired on as a worker like you or I would do when we go in to take a job. There’s much more work that needs to be done, certainly, around that.

I want to go back to the issue, as well, of dependent contractors. We had proposed an amendment during the clause-by-clause to update the definition of a dependent contractor under the ESA. The government chose not to do that and Bill 148 failed to do that. That is leaving tens of thousands of workers without real labour relations protections.

We tabled an amendment that would have included a definition of dependent contractor, and it would have given thousands of workers who find themselves in new and unique

definitions of employee-employer relationships. I can tell you that both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted that down, so we’re leaving a wide swath of workers out there vulnerable, without much protection.

I want to talk about successor rights as well. I talked about that briefly when I started this morning. If I go back to my organizing days and talk about successor rights—and that was something that Mike Harris and the Tories stripped out of the Labour Relations Act in their day. It’s something that the government hasn’t really addressed in Bill 148. What happens is—and I’ll go back to health care, because that’s what I know—in the community, we have all of these for-profit agencies in the community. I’ll use an example. I think this was up in Sarnia, where we went up and we did an organizing campaign.

I think it was registered nurses in a community setting, so it was like a home care setting, and we organized those nurses. Calmcare was the employer. Well, within a couple of months, before we even got a collective agreement, Calmcare folded. Now ParaMed is in Sarnia, and we had no successor rights, because the Tories had actually removed them from the Labour Relations Act, so we had to go up and organize that group again.

It makes it very difficult in those situations for workers who have a constitutional right to join a union or to even get a collective agreement. Or, they may get a collective agreement—we’ve seen it at Walmarts across North America, and we’ve seen it in the banking industry, where a particular Walmart unionizes, and all of a sudden, Walmart says, “Well, I’m going to close in this little community, and that’s the end of it.” So there’s no more union, and the workers have no jobs.

So universal successor rights that actually protect existing collective agreements and representation rights in instances where businesses change ownership were sought by many labour groups and many advocacy groups. I think it applies to this whole precarious temporary workforce, as well. Bill 148 limits this only to building services—so those people who clean, secure, or are in food service—and home care and temporary help agencies.

New Democrats tabled amendments that would have extended successor rights to all workplaces, matching standards in all other provinces across Canada, including Manitoba. We’re the only province that doesn’t have universal successor rights. The Liberal government, who say they care about the employees in this province and that they’re in tune with the workers in this province, are actually discriminating once again, not unlike in card-check certification, by only extending those successor rights to certain sectors.

And I can tell you, it extends far beyond that. The unionized ground workers at Pearson airport have suffered for years. They have a staff that is employed by the more than 300 companies operating out of Pearson airport. Over the years, they’ve seen long hours, low wages and increases in accidents. The baggage handlers do everything from loading the bags to signalling the pilots on the runway and prepping the air conditioning and water before the planes take off.

These people multi-task: They’re under pressure, they hoist up to 200 suitcases in a half hour and they race to meet the flight deadlines before starting all over again on the next plane—and you know how many planes go in and out of Pearson.

“Many workers quit after only a few months, because of the low starting wages—less than 12 bucks an hour.” Well, hopefully they’re going to see this minimum wage increase. They have very tough working conditions. “The turnover rate among baggage handlers for Menzies, one of the ground-handling contractors at Pearson, was a staggering 160% last year according to the machinists’ union, IAMAW, which represents the ground crews.

“Swissport, Menzies’ competitor, and the biggest ground-handling contractor in the world, says 400 of its 500 ramp workers, as they’re called, quit last year, making it increasingly difficult for companies to do business at Pearson.” It’s called a “workaholic culture,” where supervisors beg workers to stay overtime to help understaffed ground crew.

“Contract flipping is endemic at Pearson, with both airlines and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority ... switching ground handling and security contractors every few years to cut costs, making airport jobs amongst the most precarious in the country.

“Even Swissport Canada supports the campaign for a $15 minimum wage,” with the president quoted as saying, “It creates a lot of instability in the operations” with those low wages, and “we’ve seen the problem grow.” He said that every time a ground handler quits it costs the company $3,500 in training costs. “With 400 ramp workers quitting last year, he says it cost the company $1.4 million. ‘I can tell you going back to 2014, the problem was in a different category than today. Today, it is serious.’”

So there’s another reason for successor rights to be extended to all workers in this province. This is a group that clearly the government is missing.

I’ve heard rumours, too, around the Legislative Assembly and in the other buildings associated with Queen’s Park where there are cafeterias—the Macdonald Block and other buildings—that those workers are perhaps about to lose their jobs. I think they’re with Eurest, the contractor that employs the workers. They’re going to be doing some major renovations in those buildings over the next few years, so we have workers that are going to be losing their jobs there as well. That is problematic. I raise it as an issue here today because, once again, probably 30% of the work in this province is precarious.

One of the other things that the NDP is recommending is ending the exemptions in Bill 148. There are lots of exemptions, Speaker. There is an exemption under the minimum wage for servers and for workers who are under the age of 18. We know that, in many jurisdictions across Canada, there is no exemption. Why should liquor servers have a different minimum wage than every other worker in this province?

During the hearings—as I said, we went from Windsor to Thunder Bay, right across this province—we heard from many restaurants and bar owners who said, “The tips are good and you have to consider the tips.” But we also heard from individual workers. We stayed at a hotel in downtown Ottawa and we went into the bar. We sat and talked to the bartender one evening, my Queen’s Park staff and I. We asked this young man—he was about 23 or 24 and this was his full-time job. We said, “What do you make in tips, young man?” He said, on a good night, that he made 20 bucks.

Ottawa is a busy city; people are out doing lots of things. Maybe people come in for a drink. Many of them sign it off to their room and don’t leave a tip. He said that some nights he’s made zero or he’s made $5.

We heard from some small businesses that are really going to be hurt, perhaps—mom-and-pop businesses—by the minimum wage increase and are going to have to find ways to address their business model to take that into account. The NDP believes that the government should have no exemptions for the minimum wage, and that workers, regardless of whether they’re serving liquor or regardless of whether they’re under 18, should be paid the same minimum wage as everyone else.

Another example I’ll give you is a young woman who has been working in my office. Her name is Caitlin. She left home when she was 16 years old; she’s been on her own since. She’s a fourth-year political science student at Brock University. She has been supporting herself since she was 16 years old. Why should Caitlin have a part-time job, support herself going into university, pay for her own apartment and her own food and be paid much less than somebody who is over 18 years old and that she’s working with? We believe that there should be no exemptions there.

The government is also proposing, in Bill 148, exemptions for collective agreements. Where the government has proposed improvements to the Employment Standards Act, their bill is actually going to exempt workers across this province who have a collective agreement until their collective agreement expires. I can tell you that a number of people came forward to talk about that during the public hearings in the province. I remember speaking to one young man from a labour union who was there.

I don’t believe he was presenting, but he told me that there are collective agreements in this province that are as long as 10 years now. The norm is probably three or four years, but there are some collective agreements that are as long as 10 years. So why should workers not be entitled to the improvements to the Employment Standards Act for the duration of their collective agreements when every other worker in the province will see those improvements?

Unions were also asking for greater access to information during organizing drives. I don’t think that’s a big ask. The employer has access 24 hours a day, if they’re in a 24-hour operation, or eight hours a day, depending on the model of their business—they have access to those employees all the time. So when a union goes in to do a campaign, they should have some access to employees—to at least the names and email addresses and phone numbers of employees—so that when they’re in the campaign they can get to each and every person, just like the employer does.

If the employees, at the end of the day, after they’ve heard the union’s story and the employer’s story, choose not to join the union, then so be it; but if they choose to, then that’s the way it should be.

You’ll know, Speaker, that during organizing drives, in my experience, you can start out thinking—I remember when I organized McMaster Hospital before it was part of Hamilton Health Sciences, down in your riding. You start out and you’ve got this secret little inside committee and outside committee, and you’ve got reps on the units trying to figure out how many nurses, in my situation, there were to do an organizing drive.

Each one of them comes to you—“Oh, there are 30 on this floor, and there are 20 in this area”—and then you file your application, and at the end of the day you find out, well, you missed 200 people, because there are all these clinics and things that nobody knew about. That’s problematic for unions, and it’s problematic for workers, frankly, who want to join a union. So I think there should be more access to employee lists so that if people choose to exercise their freedom to join a union they in fact have the right to do so.

The last piece that I wanted to talk about was the—

Ms. Catherine Fife: The temp workers?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes, the temp workers. I wanted to focus a little bit more on the temporary workers. It is really a huge problem here in Ontario. We’ve heard—back, Speaker, to you—out of McMaster University out of your area and the study that was done about precarious work and the impact of that work on people and on families here in the province, and how people are trying to juggle two and three jobs. That happens, as well, in health care. I spoke about the for-profit health agencies in this province and the impact of that on a number of things today.

We lost a lot of good jobs in the health care industry and in other industries when the PC government was in power. They opened the door for privatization.

I’ll go back to what I know, and that was in health care. Unfortunately, at that time, a lot of the work being done in community health care was being done by VON, the Victorian Order of Nurses, and it was being done by Saint Elizabeth, which were non-profit agencies. Those workers, during those days, were being paid an hourly wage. They had a pension through those agencies. They had cars. Those agencies had cars donated by car dealerships in some cases. They would do charitable fundraising. They had travel time. They would have a patient load just like you would have a patient load in the hospital or in a nursing home.

Today, that health care work is piecemeal. It’s like working in a canning factory. I tell you, I worked in a canning factory when I was 15 or 16 years old in Niagara-on-the-Lake, canning peaches and cherries; you name it. Under the Tory model, when they tendered out the work—so I go back to my original story about CarePartners—VONs across the province lost most of their work to CarePartners, a for-profit agency that provides home care in a piecemeal fashion. The faster you can get out of the client’s home, the more money you make. For the workers, if you happen to not be able to get out of the client’s home quickly, you lose.

I’ll give you a situation that actually happened in my own home when my husband was having home care and he had a PICC line. One day, this young woman came—a nurse—and she was trying to flush this PICC line. Normally it would take five minutes to flush a PICC line. I think she was being paid $17 for the visit. This is a registered nurse being paid 17 bucks for this visit. She was there for an hour and a half. She made $17 for an hour and a half, and she had no travel time between.

Interjection: Shameful.

Ms. Cindy Forster: It really is. It really is shameful.

I think that you need to look at some of these things that have happened under the PC government and rolled over to the Liberal government, and the Liberal government has done nothing to end it. These for-profit agencies are still in operation. It impacts not only the clients but it also impacts the workers. It impacts the budget as well because we now have money going to pay profit.

In CarePartners’ case, for example, I believe that during that strike that I talked about Linda Knight made $750,000 that year, I think, right? I don’t know how much her company made. Her company may have made $1 million; I’m not absolutely sure. I don’t remember the numbers exactly. But that’s money that could have gone to actually reduce waiting times for home care in our province.

I think I want to finish my few minutes by asking why the government didn’t open up the Occupational Health and Safety Act either. I think that if you’re doing a Changing Workplaces Review and you’re actually looking at the Labour Relations Act and you’re looking at the Employment Standards Act, you can’t separate those things from the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

I spoke about this on Monday, I believe, when I was up for 20 minutes on the wetlands bill. I talked about the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority in my area. It actually flows into your area, Speaker. You have members from Hamilton sitting on that conservation authority. I talked about the widespread harassment. This kind of flows into this bill because we saw, in that undercover Star interview about the bakery factory, the harassment of temporary workers. We know that that is widespread in those kinds of situations as well.

But here at our local conservation authority, where we have about, I think, 40 workers, there was a study done through OHCOW, the occupational health agency that’s funded by the province, and 86.5% of the workers actually filled out the survey, and 60% of the workers reported that they had been harassed or sexually harassed or verbally harassed by the management of the NPCA. That falls under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Unfortunately, the legislation that currently exists has no teeth, so while you can report workplace harassment, in fact, there aren’t orders that flow out of it. If you slip on water that’s spilt on the floor in a hospital and you break your hip, you can file a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and an enforcement officer will actually come in and write orders and might even fine an agency $50,000. But if you report workplace harassment, you’re harassed more. So you’re harassed more by the employer, and, in fact, there are no teeth. The enforcement officers cannot write orders about that.

Now, we’ve heard that the government is going to hire, I don’t know, 120, 130 more enforcement officers. I’m hoping that some of those enforcement officers are going to be to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act, because it is direly in need of addressing the kind of poisoned situations like what is happening here at the NPCA. I wish the labour minister was actually here so that he could hear this, but I’ll have that discussion with him outside of here.

To wrap up, I’m just going to go back to what the NDP proposed as amendments so that it’s clear what we think the government needs to be looking at and needs to address once we finish this debate.

A universal minimum wage with no exemptions for any category of worker, including employees who serve alcohol: The NDP certainly supports the minimum wage at $15 an hour. We’re on record as actually reporting that we would implement a $15 minimum wage when elected, and I think that was reported in April 2016.

Five paid sick or emergency leave days for all workers, and an additional five unpaid days: I talked about that briefly, about how normally it takes four to five days for people to get over even a common cold. Many workers in this province, particularly with single heads of households—single mothers, single fathers, perhaps working in jobs where they have no benefits—need to be able to take a sick day and recover so that they can get back to work, and, of course, not infect the rest of the workers in their workplace.

Ten days of paid leave for victims of intimate partner or domestic violence, which would be provincially funded: It wouldn’t fall on employers to pay, it would actually come out of the government coffers. If the government, if the Liberal government is really concerned about victims of sexual violence and domestic violence, then they should pony up the money and make sure that that is available to people so that they can get out of those situations.

Three weeks’ paid vacation after the first year of employment, up from two weeks: People have had two weeks’ paid vacation as long as—listen, I’ve been working for, I think, 45 years, full-time, and that has never changed that I can remember. So I think it’s time that people working in all kinds of situations, working in precarious work, working 12-hour shifts, working in dangerous situations, get three weeks of vacation after one year.

The model that the government has introduced would be three weeks after five years; although it will work for some people who are in stable employment, it certainly is not going to work for the 30% of employees and workers in this province who are in precarious jobs.

Card-based certification for all workers: I think it was the number-one ask for every group and every individual from the workers’ side who either made submissions to the Changing Workplaces Review, made submissions to various ministries, made submissions during the public hearings and gave their testimony during the public hearings. The government needs to go back. The NDP believes that it is discriminatory to only offer this to certain sectors.

The government talked about how, “Well, this is for workers who don’t see each other. They’re not in the same workplace. They don’t get together. It’s hard to organize.” Well, there are all kinds of sectors like that. I think about the IT sector and virtual home offices where people never see each other. I think this can apply to probably 70% of jobs today. Nobody is working in that traditional office setting anymore, either, and so I think that we need to take another look at card-based certification for all workers.

The banning of replacement workers: I talked about that at length, about how it prolongs strikes and how only 3% of all collective agreement negotiation processes go into a strike. It is not a far jump for the government to ban replacement workers.

Defining in the ESA “independent” and “dependent contractor,” capturing millions of workers; ending the exemptions for collective agreements; and successor rights to prevent contract flipping: We know that that happens in many sectors as well, not just the areas that the government is proposing for it to be in.

Greater access to information during organizing drives—and the last piece, of course, is the minimum wage: Servers and people under the age of 18 should be paid the same as every other worker in this province with respect to what the minimum wage will be.

With that, Speaker, I am done. I hope the government has been listening and that they go back and revisit Bill 148.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: I want to thank the member from Welland for her very thoughtful, meaningful presentation. I just want to say that this is a very significant piece of legislation. It’s the first time in over 25 years that the Labour Relations Act has been modernized, and we’re also updating the Employment Standards Act, so it’s quite significant. As you know, the bill has already gone out to 10 different cities across the province, with very meaningful deputations from people from all walks of life.

There were small business owners, big business owners, chambers of commerce, union representatives, people representing the $15 and Fairness campaign—and a lot of good recommendations. There was criticism and there was praise. It was a very, very thoughtful number of deputations.

Plus, this was preceded by two years of the Changing Workplaces Review, where they brought in unions and they brought in employers. It was a very significant review, and this is what it culminated in: is legislation, Bill 148.

I know the NDP is saying it should go further. I remember—I think it was in Kitchener—the chamber of commerce in Kitchener came in and had a quote saying that if this Bill 148 passes, this will make Ontario the most radical, left-wing jurisdiction in the Western world. That was the quote. I do not know if you were there, Mr. Speaker.

We’re basically trying to do something to ensure that this wage gap that exists in Ontario, the income gap—there are a lot of people doing very well, and God bless them, but there are a lot of people that work two or three jobs and still can’t make ends meet, put food on the table and pay the rent. We’re trying to at least get them to be able to—they want to work. We’re trying to help them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I want to congratulate the member from Welland.

As a former mayor—you can certainly tell you were a former mayor. You had good, thoughtful planning in your presentation. It really was very detailed and very thoughtful and well-presented, so thank you for that, member from Welland. You did a great job.

You opened an hour ago with the fact that there was a road show. You and I both sat, along with the member to my immediate left here, who can barely speak today—thankfully—and what we heard in North Bay was a good example. You talked about the fact that we were on a road show and that here was a chance for the government to listen to the many people from all sides who presented.

I watched our local Cogeco news that evening, and I can say I wasn’t all that shocked at the interview—because I witnessed it myself. The one person from the business community who they interviewed said, “Here, I was nervous to come and present to this committee, and all of the Liberal members never even looked up once. They had their heads down on their BlackBerrys the entire time.” That was his first time ever—shaking; I remember watching him. I’m not surprised that that was his entire interview: that he said he felt like he was talking—on one side, there was nobody listening; they never once looked up.

That was the hearings. That was the road show that you were referring to. So it’s no surprise, then, that we come back here in the Legislature, after this, to the mess that we’re in today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always good to take my seat once again on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

On this bill, I’m very much looking forward to engaging with a lot of the community members and organizations throughout Algoma–Manitoulin, to hear from them in regard to the challenges. I’ve engaged with them over the course of the summer.

I do want to commend the member for Welland for her dedication over the course of the summer. It took a lot of work and it took a lot of time to go out and listen to a lot of the delegations that were there. In her comments, you hear the frustration, not only that she felt, but that stakeholders felt—and we just heard it from the member from Nipissing as well—that people felt when they came and gave their words as far as what they thought should be included in this. She touched on a variety of issues: the minimum wage, the victims of domestic violence.

These victims—just think of the courage that they have to build up within themselves in order to take that step, to make that decision, in order to better their lives. For there not to be an opportunity for them to step away, get into a safe environment, and providing them with the framework that they require—it’s just unfathomable that it’s not in this bill.

Card-based certification, the anti-scab legislation: I’m looking forward to having my full comments about this, to talking about the personal experience of my son, who is in a union environment. Thank goodness that he’s in a union environment and that he has a dad who was a union representative before, who has been helping him through this process.

I do want to tell the member that when she brought up the comments of not having included the Occupational Health and Safety Act as part of the discussion on this bill, I noticed there were some nodding heads on the government side. There’s still a potential and there’s still an opportunity there. We would like to see those changes be included and make sure that those individuals are included in this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise this morning to support Bill 148.

I want to thank the member from Welland for her thoughtfulness and also for sharing some of those critical incidents from the paper and other stories with us this morning.

I want to correct the member from Nipissing in his comments this morning. I was in North Bay, and I was taking notes the entire time. So for him to accuse this member of reading her BlackBerry the entire time—that’s not correct. I know it is not fair for the member to accuse the government. Furthermore, that’s not true, okay? I was taking notes.

The more critical piece about this particular proposed bill is the fact that for the first time we are making significant reform when it comes to labour law. This is a good thing. The other piece is, I’m very pleased to hear from the third party supporting the bill when it comes to the issue of—I won’t call it a minimum wage increase—a living wage to ensure that the most vulnerable are given equal opportunities.

I am very disappointed that, to this day, the official opposition party continues to challenge and oppose the bill that ensures all Ontarians have fairness—and, most importantly, the concern that people consistently said. The member from Nipissing never spoke this morning about the young person who came before the committee in North Bay supporting the university students, okay?

I was in North Bay; I was in London; I was also here in Toronto for those public hearings. For the member opposite to accuse this member—

Interjection.

Ms. Soo Wong: That’s not true. That’s absolutely not true. I know, because some of those witnesses came to me to thank me for listening. So for him to accuse this member: That’s not accurate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Welland has two minutes.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to thank the members from Eglinton–Lawrence, Nipissing-Pembroke-Renfrew—oh, you didn’t speak, did you, John?

Mr. John Yakabuski: No.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I thank you anyway—Algoma–Manitoulin and Scarborough–Agincourt for your comments.

I missed two pieces that I wanted to touch on. I won’t go into any detail, but—deeming. The WSIB Act should have been opened as well to deal with that issue of deeming. If the government does nothing, people are going to see a reduction in their compensation benefits. As the minimum wage goes up, their benefits go down and they move further and further into poverty because they don’t necessarily have a job. They are phantom jobs to deem you, to cut benefits, right? So there’s that piece.

Then there was equal pay, equal work. We heard from university professors across the province. There’s nothing in the legislation that is going to assist those contract university professors who are making 40% less than tenured professors because we didn’t change the definition to “similar work” in the legislation.

I want to say that work has become much less stable over the last 20 years under the Liberal government. In fact, part-time jobs have increased by 20% under Kathleen Wynne. I don’t think that the Conservatives are going to fix that either. Certainly Patrick Brown has stood with Stephen Harper and he stood with Tim Hudak when he announced the 1,000 job cuts in the last election. He supported Stephen Harper along the way. But it has taken the Liberals 17 years, just going into an election campaign, to actually bring forward reforms that they could have brought forward in a much shorter period of time.

I ask you to look at the NDP’s amendments and make real improvements for the workers in this province. If you really care about workers and if you’re really in tune with workers, some of these things wouldn’t be too difficult for you to achieve.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. It’s time for introductions. We have with us a former member, Jane McKenna, who represented Burlington in the 40th Parliament. Jane, welcome; thank you for joining us.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Jacqueline Dobson, a great community member and a good friend. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to acknowledge page captain Rachel McNeilly today, and here with her in the gallery are sisters Theresa and Kat McNeilly and their aunt Linda Durant. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and congrats to Rachel.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to welcome in the members’ gallery Jennifer Franks, the former director of the Augusta Ballet and chair for membership and engagement at the Gardiner Museum; and Andrew Vittas, faculty of industrial relations at Queen’s University. Welcome.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I just want to welcome Houman Tahavori, who is here in the gallery with us up above. He’s a wonderful volunteer and one of the young emerging leaders in Etobicoke Centre. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: While it is not an introduction, I would like to encourage members to attend the Ontario organic council reception this evening. They will of course be serving all things Ontario, and we would love to see members of provincial Parliament join us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you; an introduction to a group, which is fine.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome, from Bruce Power, the world’s largest nuclear power plant, Taylor McKenna, who is here in the members’ gallery.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We have, from Ontario Good Roads, Rick Champagne, Scott Butler, Antoine Boucher, Rick Kester, Chris Traini, Rob Burlie and Rick Harms.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Also from the Ontario Good Roads Association today, we have Tom Bateman from the county of Essex. Welcome, Tom. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: From my riding of Barrie, I would like to welcome Roman Plawiuk from the Organic Council of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do have an introduction. In the Speaker’s gallery today with us are the 10 interns for the Ontario Legislature Internship Programme. Please join me in welcoming Daryl, Matthew, Kassandra, Josef, Danielle, Ana, Shireen, Harmeet, Jaskiran and Mackenzie, and also the director Peter—he’s not there, so I’m not introducing him.

The interns will spend the next 10 months working with MPPs, who are thrilled to have them here in the assembly. I personally have had interns, and I can tell you that it’s a great experience. I urge all eligible members—which the Speaker is not—to participate in this exceptional program. Welcome to the interns, and thank you for being here today.

Oral Questions

GO Transit

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Today the Premier is testifying before the Sudbury bribery hearings, where Liberal ethics and integrity are on trial. Given that leadership starts at the top, few are surprised to hear reports suggesting ethically questionable dealings leading to the approval of a GO station in the minister’s own riding—a $100-million GO station that a Metrolinx business case had already rejected. Yet when Metrolinx said no, the minister approved it himself in a news release.

Mr. Speaker, a simple question: Did the minister override Metrolinx for his own personal political gain?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I appreciate the question from the member across the way. I have spoken on this issue in this Legislature a couple of months ago in response to a question from that same member. I’ve also had the opportunity to speak to the issue publicly on a number of occasions. I will repeat now what I’ve said in the past on this issue.

Firstly, from my perspective as Minister of Transportation but also as someone who has lived and worked in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area my entire life, I believe fundamentally that it’s extremely important for governments at all levels and of all stripes to invest in critical transportation and transit infrastructure as communities grow and evolve. We will see, in parts of the GTHA, as that member knows, explosive growth over the next number of years, and we want to make sure that we’re building in the right place at the right time.

What I’ve said in the last number of days, of course, is that Metrolinx is not to engage or enter into any contractual obligations with respect to either the proposed Kirby GO station or Lawrence East GO station. I understand that Metrolinx will be conducting work in that regard. That was in media reports earlier today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Harris: Yes, back to the minister: Speaker, there is something seriously wrong when the minister is approving backyard GO stations that Metrolinx in fact warned would drive commuters out of their train seats and back onto the road. Even the Toronto Star’s editorial board strongly condemned this minister’s decision, saying, “Politics rather than good policy has determined transit decisions in this region. Politicians, with little or no regard for the evidence, declare what’s to be built, often in a crass effort to garner votes.” Who is the politician they speak of? That would be the Minister of Transportation.

Will the minister come clean and admit that the Star was right and that this was just a crass effort to garner votes?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I appreciate the follow-up question.

First, what I didn’t mention in my original answer but will say now is that, among other things and notwithstanding the fact that I do passionately believe in the importance of investing in transit infrastructure as communities, including my own, grow and evolve—again, there will be explosive growth in this particular part of York region over the next 10 to 15 years—I think it’s also important to note that the proposed Kirby GO station is roughly 10 kilometres away from the riding in which I intend to run in next year’s election campaign.

At the same time, as I said in the second half of my answer to the first question, I have now sent a letter to the chair of the board of Metrolinx to stipulate explicitly that Metrolinx is not to enter into any contractual obligations or essentially spend any money on either the Lawrence East or Kirby GO stations until the Metrolinx staff and board are satisfied that stations both at Lawrence East and Kirby are justified. I understand that the chair has responded with a letter saying that they will have that work completed by their February 2018 board meeting.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the minister: The minister should just come clean here today. No further review or ministerial assurances that he’ll listen to Metrolinx’s station recommendations going forward can cover up questions as to why he didn’t listen to those same experts when his direction tried to drive us backward. Continued attempts to dance around political-influence questions only breed more concern for Liberal ethics and corruption of the process.

That same Toronto Star editorial declared that if the minister “can’t demonstrate to Ontarians that that is not” politically motivated, “he will have left no doubt ... that he is unfit for the job.” Can the minister explain: Was this decision politically motivated, or is he simply unfit for the job?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’ve now served in my role for about three and a half years as Minister of Transportation. I’ve taken many questions from leader Patrick Brown and the member from Kitchener–Conestoga in this Legislature on transit and transportation. And I have to say that I have never heard that member question my fitness to serve when I and our government invested in Kitchener–Conestoga with the GO station at Breslau.

I didn’t hear Patrick Brown or the member from Kitchener–Conestoga suggest that I didn’t have fitness to serve when we doubled the gas tax for 99 communities across the province of Ontario to support public transit. I didn’t hear that member or any member of the opposition complain when we invested in highways in the north, LRTs in Hamilton, subway expansions in every corner of the GTHA—

Interjection.

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

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I didn’t hear any of those members complain when we talked about building GO stations in Stoney Creek, for example; investing in critical cycling infrastructure. I only hear it today—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. New question.

Minimum wage

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday when a reporter asked how business should handle their labour reforms, he responded, “I think they could look at pricing.” The Liberals actually want to raise prices across the board. Everything is about to get more expensive.

By just how much money does the minister want to raise the price of everything from gas to groceries?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that question. What I want to raise is the standard of living for people who are working 35, 40 hours a week or more, working two and three jobs and still not being able to get by.

What I want to know is—I know where the third party stands on this—

Interjection.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: —I know where the government stands on this. I don’t know from day to day where that party across stands. I don’t know where the member stands. He’s telling us yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition supports $15 an hour; the Leader of the Opposition tells us that he doesn’t support $15 an hour.

We stand firmly in the corner of working people in the province of Ontario, who are working hard, as I said, 35, 40-plus hours a week and still can’t pay all the bills. We’re going to change that. That party needs to support us on this.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the minister: This statement from the minister is further evidence that the Wynne Liberals are out of touch with small businesses and families. Their reckless approach to the minimum wage is that it’s their way or the highway. They refuse to listen to any independent experts who are advising them to exercise caution—

Interjection.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: The chamber of commerce and the Financial Accountability Officer have weighed in. The Liberals have ignored their independent advice, advice that warns that these measures could actually hurt Ontarians and lead to job losses of between 50,000 and 185,000 jobs. Why does all Ontario have to suffer when the Liberals try to gain votes?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We know there’s a long list of opinions on this issue and there’s a long list of studies and a long list of literature. It comes from Ontario, it comes from across Canada and it comes from across the entire continent. The Leader of the Opposition and the labour critic can try and ignore those studies.

We’ve had 53 economists step forward; people who were fellows of the Royal Society of Canada and two former presidents of the Canadian Economics Association—one who was used by Jim Flaherty and the Conservative government—have stepped forward and said that Ontario is on the right track.

This government knows that it’s on the side of working people in the province who are working, as I said, 35, 40, 50 hours a week—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s time that the minimum wage in this province reflected the reality of what it costs to live in this province. It’s time for the opposition party to come clean on where they stand on this issue.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the minister: When faced with that evidence from the FAO, the minister chose to double down. He said, “The moral and economic evidence supporting this fundamental belief is without question. We will not back down from this commitment.”

Actually, the moral and economic evidence says otherwise. First, morally speaking, the FAO confirmed that this plan does not target “low-income families,” and “raising the minimum wage would be an inefficient policy tool for reducing overall poverty.”

Second, the economic evidence from the FAO shows a minimum of 50,000 job losses, while the chamber of commerce says it could be as many as 185,000.

Why is the minister ignoring the real, moral and economic evidence? Why not stop being so reckless and conduct their own economic impact analysis?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: As I said, Speaker, you can go out and you can find a variety of opinions on this issue. We’ve looked at them all.

What I’m saying is, it’s not good enough to claim your support of a $15 minimum wage, as the member has done personally, and then not have any plan, and have a leader who’s saying he’s going to vote against it and have a labour critic who says he’s going to vote for it. It’s not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to say, “I don’t think anybody in Ontario can live on $11 an hour,” and then not propose to do anything about it.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker.

There’s a bill before the House that proposes to raise the standard of living for 30% of the people who live in this province. The opposition party either votes for it or against it. I hear they’re voting against it. They should come clean.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. This morning, the member from Nickel Belt and I joined Noah Irvine, a grade 12 student from Guelph, who lost both of his parents to mental illness. In fact, he and his grandparents, Donna and Ross Irvine, are with us in the chamber today.

He is here to call for the creation of a ministry of mental health and addictions in Ontario. Since the loss of his parents, he’s been advocating for an end to the mental health care crisis in Ontario. Having a ministry dedicated to mental health and addictions will go a long way to ensuring that mental health care gets more resources, more funding and the focus and attention that it absolutely deserves.

Will the Liberal government commit to this important step in helping people who are suffering and don’t have access to the services they need?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First, let me say hello to Noah and his grandparents and say, I think on behalf of the Legislature, but certainly for me personally and as Minister of Health, how sorry I am that you have been through such a tragic personal experience. I want to not simply acknowledge that but also applaud you for your courage and your leadership.

Applause.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The leadership that Noah has shown to this province and to the country in the face of such enormous personal tragedies I think is really inspiring to all of us. I look forward to speaking directly in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ve heard from so many people who need urgent care. In fact, I’m sure that every single member in this Legislature has heard from people who urgently need mental health care and addiction services, but they’re stuck waiting months and months on waiting lists. I’ve listened to parents who are trying desperately to get mental health support for their kids, but thousands and thousands of children cannot get the care that they need. And I’ve heard tragic stories, like Noah’s, of families who have suffered so very much because their loved ones could not get the mental health services that they need in their province.

Why won’t the Liberal government commit to giving struggling Ontarians the help and care that they need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are committed to mental health. In fact, there can be no health without mental health. I view them—I think we all do—as two sides of the same coin. When we look at physical health and mental health, they are two sides of the same coin.

We need to invest in and pursue with vigour and intent to the same degree our efforts on mental health as we do in physical health in this province, and we have a long way to go. We have a long way to go.

We have benefited from many sources, many experts, those with lived experience as well as experts across this province and this country, to help us shape our investments. We have created—and this is the third year where we have a mental health and addictions leadership advisory council chair, Susan Pigott, who provides advice directly to me on an ongoing basis on what investments we need to make. That has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment that specifically target those areas where we know where the pressing need is and where we need to make a difference.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everyone who needs access to mental health care and supports should be able to get it when they need it, and that is not happening in this province; it’s not happening today under this Liberal government. If the Liberal government and the Minister of Health refuse to commit to creating a ministry and helping Ontarians, what exactly is the government planning to do to fix the mental health care crisis in this province? Because the efforts to date have not been adequate and they have not been effective.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think the entire country recognizes that our efforts as a nation have not been adequate or sufficient, whether it’s the federal government, whether it’s the individual provincial governments, territorial governments, municipal governments. But there has been a societal change. The stigma that still exists has been lessened. The recognition of political leaders that these investments need to be made, that recognition exists.

We have a long pathway in front of us, and I want to applaud the NDP for coming forward, because I understand and I agree with and I believe in their motivation. It’s the same as mine: to create an environment, a health system, a society where there is no stigma against mental health, individuals suffering from mental illness, and where we do make the investments on par with physical health and we do see it as part of the same whole in terms of the person’s being. There can be no health without mental health, and my commitment to Noah and his grandparents is to achieve that goal.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Deputy Premier. Seven years ago, MPPs from all parties came together on the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. They heard heartbreaking stories from across our province and they made urgent recommendations seven years ago for changes to help save lives in this province. It has been seven years, and those urgent recommendations have not been implemented. My question for the Acting Premier is simple: Why?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We deeply appreciated the work of the individual MPPs who sat on the select committee, and the many hundreds if not thousands who were part of a process that provided that good advice. Within this Legislature today, there are a number of MPPs who sat on that select committee.

In fact, just about 10 days ago we had the inaugural cabinet committee meeting of the new mental wellness table that is comprised of cabinet ministers and MPPs to give an even higher priority to our mandate on mental health. One of the first orders of the day, in fact, was to look at some of the specific recommendations within that select committee report. We have now, through the advisory council as well as this committee, I think, the experience, expertise and determination to make a further difference.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It may be that a committee got together 10 days ago, but seven years ago the recommendations came forward, and now, seven years later, the mental health crisis in Ontario is even worse than it was then, not better. The Wynne government, like the Conservatives before them, has swept problems under the rug and allowed mental health care to slip through the cracks for far too long in this province. When will the government take action that is needed and, actually, action that was recommended seven years ago to help people struggling with mental health and addictions in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Even as recently as this year’s budget, we made a significant 140-million-new-dollar investment in mental health services, a budget that that party voted against. That included—and they’re saying “children’s mental health.” It included the creation of youth wellness hubs, which provide a wraparound support service for children and youth up to the age of 25 across this province, those integrated services that are so important to restoring wellness.

We were the first province in the entire country to do so, to fund structured psychotherapy, therapy such as cognitive behavioural therapy, which has highly proven effectiveness and can be delivered through a number of disciplines and has a dramatic impact, particularly for those who have mood disorders.

These are the sorts of investments that we made this year that that party voted against.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Mental health and addictions care in this province must be a priority, not an afterthought. Not an afterthought. We need to bring it out of the shadows and give mental health care the attention and the focus that it needs to be able to provide the kind of services and the kind of care that people in crisis and that people overall deserve in order to be well in the province of Ontario.

One crucial way to give mental health and addictions care is to have a stand-alone, separate ministry: the ministry of mental health and addictions. That’s what we would do, Speaker, if we were in government. We are committed to creating a ministry of addictions and mental health. Will this government do the same? Will they make that commitment today?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to—I believe it’s being debated during private members’ business tomorrow afternoon. I do know that the party opposite looked to their sister NDP in British Columbia, which a couple of weeks ago announced a stand-alone ministry on mental health and addictions. I applaud, understand and agree with their motivation. It’s to make sure that we have integrated, coordinated care.

We have more than doubled our investment in mental health. It’s just plain wrong to suggest that this government isn’t absolutely committed to prioritizing mental health in our investments, whether it’s in supportive housing or whether it’s in youth services. There are a myriad of investments that we have made, approaching a quarter of a billion dollars over just the last several years alone. We are committed to this.

I look forward to the discussion tomorrow, because I think that any discussion about mental health, particularly in this Legislature, is important and positive and helps to reduce and eliminate the stigma that’s still out there.

Human trafficking

Ms. Laurie Scott: To the Minister of the Status of Women: It’s clear that this government would rather have us focusing on issues like cannabis than on fighting human sex trafficking. I spent the past two days at an excellent conference on human sex trafficking hosted by the Ontario Provincial Police in Barrie. It was a gathering of some of the best experts working to address the ongoing crisis that now reaches every corner of Ontario. But, sadly, not one minister bothered to show up.

It’s the same story across the province. Police officers, community organizations and individuals are working day and night to stop traffickers and to save the lives of victims without adequate provincial coordination, information or resources. Mr. Speaker, how can the Wynne government claim to be acting on this issue when they don’t even bother to show up?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m pleased to rise today and talk about this very important issue. I want to thank the member opposite for this important question.

I want to start out by saying that we on this side of the House will not take accusations of being inactive when it comes to actually getting out there and doing the job. I am not going to go through the list of things that we did this summer, but I can tell you that I visited the Canadian border institute. I also talked to people across the province about various issues when it comes to women and women’s issues and sexual violence and harassment.

Absolutely, human trafficking is a devastating crime that violates human rights, and I want you to know that we are working hard every day to put a stop to it and to help survivors and to put in place the pieces that they need in order to heal.

That’s why we launched an across-government strategy to end human trafficking. I’m not sure. Perhaps, the member opposite isn’t aware that we did this. We absolutely did it last—

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: Again to the minister: It’s time to stop the shell game. What do we see on the ground? Ministers missing in action, delays in the rollout of funding for victim services, under-resourced police departments. They’ve had years to act but have little to show for it, except for press releases and conversations. That just doesn’t cut it.

Mr. Speaker, does the government not see how important this issue is, or do they just not have it in them to lead this fight against human sex trafficking?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I am happy to talk about what the government is doing on this side to help the survivors of this deplorable and brutal crime. Let me start by telling you that we don’t just talk about it; we move money forward and we move money into actual pieces that are building support and services. Let me tell you, enhanced funding of $6.65 million to 47 community-based partners—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Both sides, come to order, and the member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Finish, please.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: It is easy to sit on that side and criticize and wander around, talking about how we’re not doing anything. We are doing something. We’re working very hard with our partners. We’re not just listening; we’re actually putting our actions into words and into actual legislation: $72 million, working with all of our other ministries to deliver a strategy that will take care of this problem on a real, fundamental basis.

Pension plans

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Acting Premier. Earlier this year, Sears Canada filed for creditor protection and began the process of closing stores and liquidating assets. So far, 59 locations have been closed and nearly 3,000 jobs have been lost. We have a Sears in Oshawa and our community is watching anxiously.

Now, Sears Canada has filed a petition to terminate its vastly underfunded pension plan, leaving thousands at risk of losing their pensions. There are 18,000 retirees who depend on this pension plan.

What does the government have to say to the Sears pensioners who are worried about supporting their families?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. It’s certainly an issue of great concern for all of us when any company is faltering on their commitments. We’ve done this on a number of other occasions. Ontario is the only province that offers a pension guarantee.

We’ve recognized that the assets of the pension must be supported. We are working to ensure that Sears, which does remain an operating company at this point, is continuing. FSCO, which administers the PBA, including the pension benefits guarantee, is also monitoring the situation. May I add that it does not affect the assets in the pension plan.

We are taking the steps necessary. In the supplementary, I’ll advise more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Back to the Acting Premier: This government is failing pensioners. Last year, the Premier—actually, everyone in this whole House—supported my motion to protect pensioners by prioritizing them during bankruptcy proceedings. Now the Premier is saying that there isn’t a role for government. Now she doesn’t seem to think they deserve her help.

Why did the Premier go back on her word and decide that pensioners should be left to fend for themselves?

Hon. Charles Sousa: That’s total nonsense. The member opposite recognizes exactly that the federal government is in charge of the prioritization of pension assets.

We, on this side of the House, through our reforms, are increasing the pension guarantee. We’ve made reforms to support our pensioners and retirees. We’ve taken the steps necessary in our last budget around this very issue, which you did not support—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Finance, wrap up, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’re continuing to do our best to support our pensioners and retirees. We’re taking the steps to reform our pensions all across the province to protect their interests. The member opposite knows that, and she voted against them.

Economic development

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Growth. Minister, Amazon recently announced that it wants to open a second North American headquarters, and has opened the bidding to large cities in North America. Amazon said that the campus will cost up to about $5 billion and will create up to 50,000 new jobs.

Now, I know from my business experience prior to entering politics that as the presence of companies increases in a particular sector, this also increases the likelihood of investment from other companies in that sector, so the winning city in this case is not only going to attract the 50,000 jobs and the investment, but it could attract additional investments in the years to come.

I actually think this is a great opportunity for Ontario. I know there’s a lot of buzz about Amazon being able to locate its headquarters here in Ontario. Minister, could you tell this House and the people of Ontario what you are doing and what we are doing to attract Amazon here to Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member is absolutely right: This is a huge and exciting opportunity for Ontario. We recently created our Ontario Investment Office, and they are already fully engaged on this, working closely with our municipal partners in developing what will be a compelling pitch for Ontario.

Allan O’Dette, our Chief Investment Officer, is working closely with Ed Clark and a group of Ontario business leaders on this very important initiative. We’re going to leave no stone unturned on this. We’re going to fight for this investment. We’re going to do what we need to do, to do everything we can to land it.

I have no doubt, because of the investments we’ve made in our people, because of the investments we’ve made in driving and transforming our economy, that Ontario is the best location for this, but let’s stay grounded on this. We’re asking an American company now to make an investment of a head office, a significant investment, outside of the United States. In the current climate, this is going to be challenging, but we’re up to that challenge and we’re going to do everything we can to try to land this for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

As you know, prior to being elected, I was in business. I was a management consultant, and one of the things that I did when I worked in consulting was to advise companies on important investment decisions like the one Amazon is about to make about its second headquarters.

I know from experience that there are many criteria that companies consider. One of the most important criteria that they consider when expanding their business is knowing that they will have access to skilled workers, the talent they need to grow their business. In fact, Amazon has indicated that it is trying to attract and retain talent focused in the software development and related fields.

You mentioned in your response to me just now that we have fierce competition for this bid. With all the cities and jurisdictions competing for this kind of investment, what are Ontario’s competitive advantages, and what can we do to attract businesses like Amazon to our province, to Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member hinted at it: Because of the investments we’ve made in transforming our economy, because of the investments we’ve made in growing one of the most talented workforces anywhere in the world, Ontario already is a global tech leader, and that gives us a leg up. Just ask companies like Facebook, Thomson Reuters, Google, IBM and many others that have located offices here in this province. We’re second now only to the Silicon Valley when it comes to the number of ICT companies. That’s 20,000 companies doing business here in the province of Ontario. We graduate 40,000 science, tech, engineering and math students.

And we’re not done. We continue to make investments in the new economy. We’re investing in AI, autonomous vehicles, 5G technology, quantum computing and cybersecurity. Because of the investments we’re making, we are growing this economy in the new economy, and I have no doubt but to say that Ontario is the best location for Amazon and any other company that wants to get ahead in this global economy.

Taxation

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Acting Premier. While the Premier herself is spending time testifying today at the Sudbury bribery trial, the Ontario PC Party—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock for a moment, please. We’re weaving in and out of getting close to mentioning people’s attendance, and that is not an acceptable practice in the House. Find another way to say it, please.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, the Ontario PC Party is going to be here today defending small businesses, farmers and health care professionals. That’s why, a month ago, I wrote to this government about the federal Liberal government’s recently proposed changes to professional corporations and the unintended negative impacts it will have on patients, taxpayers and doctors.

This government has spent three years in an aggressive attempt to contain physician costs, to the extent of imposing unilateral cuts and using heavy-handed tactics designed to embarrass doctors. These federal cuts are another attack on doctors. It has to stop.

Will the Acting Premier and the Minister of Health tell their Liberal friends that enough is enough?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the member opposite recognizing that the federal government has taken upon themselves a bill to look at small business and the corporate taxes that go for consultants and others, and the sprinkling effect. We’re allowing the federal government to do its job. We, ourselves, will be in constant contact and recognize that it will have an impact on many of us here in the province of Ontario as well as across Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Acting Premier: These federal Liberal changes will create financial barriers for doctors to make investments in their practices. In addition, the changes will negatively impact the retirement planning process and, most importantly, will make it very difficult for doctors to continue to pay staff and office expenses during absences such as maternity leave or illness. This government gave the doctors the ability to incorporate in lieu of fee increases. If the federal tax changes go through, it will have massive financial implications on the province, and patient care will suffer.

Will the Acting Premier call Prime Minister Trudeau today and tell him to stop his Liberal download of costs to our health care system?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite is requesting and asking about an item that is in the federal government’s purview. We recognize that impact.

But I can tell you what we can do in this House and in this Legislative Assembly: I can ask this member why he doesn’t support the tremendous amount of increases that we’ve provided for our health care, the amounts we’ve provided to support more doctors—

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Attach a note to a new pair of socks; he’ll get it right away.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time. I might have gone to a warning because he knew that I had quiet.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite and the other member who asked the question have the ability to support our initiatives that are progressive and enable us to support doctors. They’re voting against those measures. They’ve done so consistently. We will continue to support our doctors and our health care by investing more in them. That we control on this side of the House.

Disaster relief

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Good morning. Criteria for Ontario’s disaster recovery assistance program were written in the last century. Sewer backup claims during torrential rainfalls aren’t covered. In our area, we had more than 6,000 homes flooded recently. The Minister of Municipal Affairs took a look and says that few of them will qualify under the existing guidelines. Well, duh: Let’s change the guidelines.

Speaker, climate change is real. Torrential downpours causing sewer backups are the norm in this century. When will this government accept this and change the rules so people can get some help as they try to recover from natural disasters?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Thank you to the member for the question. He’s accurate. I had the opportunity to be in Windsor yesterday for the second time within a year, unfortunately, related to significant flooding in that particular community.

At the heart of his question is private insurance for sewage backup. Before I made the comments publicly yesterday and last week when we activated the program, I checked: It was made known to me that insurance is broadly and readily available for sewage backup in these instances. I don’t think that most of the public would expect the province of Ontario and all of their taxpayers to be supporting or paying for something for which there is private sector insurance readily available. At the end of the day, the program is there to deal with overland flooding. The reason it deals with overland flooding—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Since I’m not 100% sure, I think somebody avoided a second time.

Hon. Bill Mauro: The reason the program is structured the way it is structured is to deal with overland flooding, and that is because there is no readily available private sector insurance to deal with that particular issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, some private insurance companies have cut off people without warning. Some of them cap claims at ridiculous amounts.

Municipalities have been building better sewers for years. Windsor’s mayor says that floods from this last storm caused $175 million in damage in his city alone. Such storms are hitting all across Ontario. The evidence is in. We need a decision.

When will this government do the right thing, change the guidelines and offer real hope for people affected by natural disasters?

Hon. Bill Mauro: We recently changed the program to relieve local municipalities of the requirement to have a local fundraising effort and a committee, so we’ve made it better already.

At the heart of the issue, this is ultimately about infrastructure. I would say quite openly and proudly that there’s probably not another provincial government in this country that has a better record of investing in infrastructure, including in cities like Windsor, since we came to government in 2003. The most recent example of that is the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund, first announced by the federal government as a 50% federal-50% municipal fund, except many municipalities would not have been able to tap into that.

I worked very hard, along with the Minister of Infrastructure and our Premier, to bring 270 million new dollars into that fund—the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund—from the federal government to help our municipalities, even more than we have been for a great number of years, to deal with their infrastructure issues. At the end of the day, that’s what this is about.

I made the point, Speaker, that we all have a role to play. Individuals can avail themselves of programs that are available; municipalities need to plan their communities appropriately and invest in infrastructure; and the province and the federal government also have a role to play.

Infrastructure funding

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. Part of our government’s plan to build a fair and open economy is enhancing quality of life by investing in the schools, hospitals, roads and public transit that people in Ontario expect and deserve. But we know that provincial governments alone cannot make 100% of the investments needed to address the existing infrastructure deficit and accommodate future needs. The federal government needs to be at the table as a reliable and flexible partner.

In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, I have had the opportunity to see first-hand the results of the federal-provincial partnership on infrastructure. Hello Future at St. Lawrence College is a project supported by the collaboration between the provincial and federal governments through the Post-Secondary Institutions Strategic Investment Fund. This successful partnership will help St. Lawrence College reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage on campus, which will result in positive impacts.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could he please provide the House with what the lay of the land is for federal-provincial relations on infrastructure in this province?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member from Kingston and the Islands is absolutely correct: Ontario is best served when different levels of government work together. We are glad finally to have a federal partner at the table with a plan to spend $186 billion nationally on infrastructure. While it is less than the $190 billion that Ontario alone is investing, it is a level of investment we haven’t seen from the federal government in a generation.

We worked very closely with the federal government on its phase one investments, which have resulted in over 1,300 clean water and waste water projects and over 600 public transit infrastructure projects. We have just started negotiations to bring an additional $11.8 billion of federal investment to Ontario.

As the Premier said at the Council of the Federation meeting in July, Ontario wants the federal programs to be flexible and to build on our existing joint investments. It is critical that we work together—all orders of government—to get this right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My thanks to the minister for his response.

I’m glad to hear that after decades of underinvestment under previous governments, we finally have both a provincial and federal government committed to spurring economic growth and enhancing the quality of life by investing in infrastructure. It’s already clear that the productive relationship that Ontario has built and fostered with the federal government results in every riding across this province, including every riding held by a member of the opposition, receiving that advantage.

I myself have had the chance to work alongside my riding’s federal member of Parliament, MP Mark Gerretsen, to announce some of the projects the minister mentioned. While we have made significant progress on the infrastructure file, we know that the work is far from over. There is always more work that can be done.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please give the House insight into next steps for negotiations with the federal government?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. Our government is making the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history, an unprecedented $190 billion over 13 years, and we want to maximize every dollar. That means working with the federal government to align spending wherever possible.

Next week, I will be co-chairing a meeting of Canada’s infrastructure ministers where we will continue discussions on phase two investments. We are advocating for programs that respect past investments and existing priorities. We are optimistic that the federal government’s commitment to some additional flexibility will occur. Negotiations are expected to continue through the fall and winter, with the goal of concluding by the date set by the federal government: March 2018.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario are best served when all orders of government work together.

Wasaga Beach

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. For years I’ve been contacting this government over and over again about the deteriorating condition of the beachfront in Wasaga Beach. Various issues have been identified, including overgrowth of vegetation, care of the washrooms, piping plover nesting areas, and the list goes on and on. Residents are concerned, tourists are concerned, the town is concerned, yet nothing is being done by your government. Over 2,300 people have recently signed a petition asking the government to fix these issues.

Wasaga Beach is a jewel in this province. The Guinness Book of Records calls this beach the longest freshwater beach in the world. From a provincial standpoint, I cannot understand why more attention is not being given to its proper care and maintenance.

Will you do the right thing and commit to finally resolving these issues?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the member for the question. I had a very good meeting with Mayor Brian Smith and the councillors from the area that looks after Wasaga Beach this summer at AMO. I can tell you that we provided some information back and forth together.

Number one, I did compliment them on 10 years as a Blue Flag designation for Wasaga Beach in this province. That’s something we can all be proud of. Some of the beach items that the members brought up are beach raking and secondary park plan management; we discussed funding etc.

What I would like to say to this member is that there is a secondary beach plan that’s been put in place. Ontario Parks continues to work very closely with the municipality. I know that all the gate receipts, which help provide for the services in any Ontario park, are put into this area. We continue to work with them. I’ll address some of the details in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the minister: In the letter I received from you just the other day about the lack of proper maintenance of the beach, you offered me a tour with park staff. Well, I don’t need a tour in my own riding, Minister. It’s insulting. You’re the one who needs the tour. Local ratepayer associations have been asking for years that a minister actually come up and look at the beach and look at the concerns.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Brown has been there twice recently. For the first 15 years of my life, our family had a cottage at Wasaga Beach. I’ve lived there full—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Come to order.

Please finish.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’ve lived there full-time for the past 25 years and recently I sent you pictures, actual pictures, of what’s going on now, of the deterioration and degradation of the beach. My constituents and I don’t appreciate getting the same form letter from you and previous ministers every time we raise our concerns. Frankly, we’re just tired of it. People in my riding want these issues addressed.

So, Speaker, I ask the minister: Will she join me on a tour and meet with the town—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’ve not only been to the beach several times in the summer but I visited in all seasons, including the winter.

I know that the secondary beach plan that we’ve been working very hard on, again, ascribes to the values of the Blue Flag designation. There are areas of that longest freshwater beach area that remain ecologically intact. We have the piping plovers that are nesting on that area and, recently, with the new secondary plan, we’re allowing some light raking in that area. We’re also allowing some reclamation of some of the beach sand that has gone away from that area to be put back on the beach. But one of the reasons we have vegetation on beaches is to prevent erosion so that we can maintain that fine sand there.

We are very proud of the work that they’ve done, and if that member and that party over there would help to vote for the investments that have been contained in our provincial budgets in the last few years—

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

New question.

Beverage alcohol sales

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The area around Larder Lake has about 1,000 residents. The town has one gas station, one co-op grocery store, two restaurants, several tourist lodges and campgrounds and, until recently, it had one LCBO outlet. In a northern Ontario tourist town, an LCBO outlet is an anchor store. Due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control, LCBO could no longer stay in their current location. But instead of moving locations, they got out of Dodge. They abandoned the town. They abandoned the residents.

In response to our inquiries, the president of the LCBO stated, “There are other areas ... that are underserviced where we can better allocate resources. While it is not as convenient, Larder Lake residents can purchase ... alcohol in Kirkland Lake and Englehart or online....”

Kirkland Lake is 27 kilometres away, Englehart is 45, and there is no Internet service in half the places. Does the minister agree with the president of the LCBO that maximizing profits for the LCBO should be the only basis on deciding where to locate a store?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. I also appreciate and applaud your advocacy and the letter you sent to both the LCBO and myself, recognizing the impact it has on your community as well as other communities across the province that do not have an LCBO.

I appreciate the fact that many do want the retail outlet to exist, recognizing the positive impact it has on a community. We also recognize that one of the reasons we came up with online delivery is to facilitate those communities that don’t have access to an LCBO. Some of them do take an agency store and other aspects to provide service and convenience to consumers. It’s also one of the reasons we’ve expanded into grocery stores and other means by which to expand distribution across the province.

But I appreciate your question. I know we are looking at ways to try to facilitate the community as they’re impacted by this decision.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the minister: According to the president of the LCBO, rural Ontarians travelling 27 to 40 kilometres one way for service is reasonable. With this ratio in mind, many other outlets in my region are at risk. In fact, many outlets throughout rural Ontario are at risk under that ratio. The province, through the LCBO, has a social responsibility to all Ontarians, including rural Ontarians. Will the minister work with me and actually restore that social responsibility to the town of Larder Lake and ensure that all rural Ontarians in the future also have the benefit of the social responsibility of the government through the LCBO and aren’t abandoned?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Again, the member talks about social responsibility and taking the precautions necessary to support our communities and our citizens who are not only looking for alcohol, but want to be doing so in a socially responsible way by having something like the LCBO and their staff to provide that service.

I know that Larder Lake, from my understanding, was closed as a result of safety issues, and I’m not sure as to the details why it was so, but I will continue to look into it and I recognize the impacts it has on any community that doesn’t have access to an LCBO. They, of course, have access in other ways, and to some that means travelling longer distances based upon their location and the remoteness of their communities. But it is something that we are considering, we are looking at and, again, thank you for the question.

Energy policies

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, last year the Premier set an essential goal for this government: to make everyday life more affordable for the people of Ontario. While our economy is doing well, not every family is seeing that impact on their personal budgets. The cost of electricity had become a concern for many in my community. I heard from many people in the most rural parts of my riding, like Gores Landing, Morganston and Stockdale. I know the people of Ontario were eager to see the government take action.

This spring, our government took a big step forward in ensuring that our clean and reliable electricity is affordable to everyone in Ontario. The fair hydro plan, passed last session, is a 25% reduction, on average, to all households in the province—no loopholes, no exceptions.

Mr. Speaker, to the minister: When did the fair hydro plan begin to lower bills, and how will it help households across the province?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for that question and, of course, for all of his hard work that he does day in and day out for his constituents.

Our government inherited an electricity system that was in disrepair. We invested $50 billion in rebuilding the system and eliminating dirty coal from our generation mix. However, we asked one generation alone to pay the freight of these investments for everyone before and after.

That’s why, this spring, we took action. We passed legislation which has, since July 1, lowered electricity bills by the full 25%, on average, for every household in this province. Under our plan, rates will increase no more than inflation for the next four years.

We’re proud of the work that we’ve done and we’re putting our plan into action to make life more affordable for Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I know that this has been a positive initiative for the families and small businesses in my riding and indeed across the province. I can testify that I’ve seen the difference in my own bill. The 25% reduction, on average, will help to curb electricity costs for the people of Ontario across the board, while other programs provide the type of support that keeps our province fair and competitive.

However, there are also other elements of the government plan that provide additional support to particular communities who need it. Many low-income Ontarians take advantage of the Ontario Electricity Support Program, the OESP, which provides an on-bill subsidy for those who qualify for the program. I understand that under the fair hydro plan, the government has expanded this program.

Could the minister provide more details on the programs that are being expanded for the benefit of those who need it the most in our province?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, I just want to acknowledge the work that this member has done to talk about those who are vulnerable in his community and right across the province.

With our government, over the summer, the OESP program, for example, that helps vulnerable consumers has been expanded by 50%, with a maximum credit of now $900 a year. And a special credit for those with unique electricity needs offers a maximum of $1,300 a year.

Another program that was expanded over the summer under our fair hydro plan is designed to lower delivery rates; it’s called the RRRP. This program provides a substantial subsidy that lowers distribution costs for those in the most expensive-to-serve areas of our province.

While the opposition chose to vote against expanding these programs to help people, I’m pleased to say that our fair hydro plan is providing real and substantial relief for everyone in Ontario.

Indigenous land dispute

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Acting Premier: From August 10 to September 4, Labour Day, the main thoroughfare of Caledonia was blockaded, putting businesses and homeowners through psychological and economic hell. More specifically, many customers faced a six-mile detour, businesses lost 25% to 60%, and staff were let go or had their hours cut. Homeowners expressed concern about property values and compromised service from firefighters, police and ambulance. However, on September 1, your government announced it was standing down from dealing with the Caledonia blockade.

Acting Premier, what steps have you taken to arrange compensation, as has been done in the past, for Caledonia and area homeowners and area businesses?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: The member opposite is quite correct: There was a blockade that was put up a couple of weeks ago. Our ministry, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, took that situation very seriously, as did the Six Nations elected council and the Haudenosaunee Traditional Confederacy.

I can assure the members opposite and everyone in this House that after a series of negotiations with First Nations, with the Ontario Provincial Police and with the various ministries that blockade was peacefully ended. I want to congratulate and recognize the hard work of the Ontario Provincial Police in working in a way that was respectful of the Six Nations, the Haudenosaunee and the government of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to allow the supplementary.

Mr. Toby Barrett: This past month was a nightmare yet again for people in the Caledonia area, and I’ve dealt with many ministries.

On September 2 a local newspaper reported that when a fire was set on the Southern Ontario Railway in Caledonia, a Caledonia fire truck was not allowed to pass through the barricade, not allowed to put it out.

On September 4, Labour Day, police attempted to secure Haldimand county Sixth Line at the bridge. Again, to quote another local paper, they “were sent away by protesters and ordered to take up a position further back, which they did.”

We’ve seen this film before—no firefighters, no police, no customers in the stores. Caledonia now worries: “When will this happen again?”

Acting Premier, my question is: Are you working with the federal government, as has been done in the past, to compensate residents of Caledonia?

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you again for that question. The point here is that 10 years ago there was a situation in Caledonia that went on and on and on, and there were real issues of public safety. This time, there was a blockade that went up and issues developed. But the point, again, is that all persons involved in the resolution of that blockade, be they police, fire responders, first responders, the ministry of indigenous affairs or the Ontario Provincial Police—it was resolved peacefully. That’s progress. That’s in the spirit of reconciliation.

We will continue to deal with issues involving matters that First Nations raise, wherever in the province. We will deal with them in a respectful way and in a peaceful way to a constructive resolution.

Notices of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of the Status of Women concerning human sex trafficking. This matter will be debated—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s called respect.

This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Kitchener–Conestoga has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation concerning GO station approval. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Question period being over, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I see that in the members’ gallery there are a few representatives from the Ontario organics council. Just a reminder to members and staff that there will be a reception later on this afternoon. There’s some good news that’s going to come out of that reception. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I like teasers. That’s good.

Members’ Statements

Terry Fox Run

Mr. Bill Walker: On Sunday, September 17, all of us, regardless of our ability or age, will have an opportunity to take

part in the annual Terry Fox Run. For some people I know, this year’s Marathon of Hope will be a special way to mark Canada’s 150th birthday.

When our beloved Terry Fox set out on his Marathon of Hope in 1980, running a marathon with one leg every day that lasted 143 days and 5,373 kilometres, it was, in all honesty, considered wild—crazy, actually. But Terry was motivated to show all of his strength, will and determination. Soon, his motivation to want to reach out and help others inspired people around the world. His tenacity and courage also made him a hero to countless Canadians, including myself.

For me, it’s important to remember who Terry Fox was and what he stood for, which is to always inspire hope in people. He inspired me, like he has so many other people, and this is why I showed my appreciation by organizing the Wiarton Terry Fox Run for 10 years. I’m proud to say that the run continues, thanks to many dedicated volunteers.

This month, as we mark Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, we are reminded of our opportunity to build on Terry’s hope and to continue his journey, which to date has raised over $750 million worldwide, from Canada to Vietnam to the United Arab Emirates.

I mentioned in Monday’s member’s statement on childhood cancer the amazing work of Dr. Mark Greenberg, who founded the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario. I previously talked about David and Maureen Jenkins’ Maggie Project and Neal Rourke’s work with the Coalition Against Childhood Cancer and with the Advocacy for Canadian Childhood Oncology Research Network. There is no shortage of people who follow in Fox’s footsteps. So I encourage all of you to join in the fight and help build a world free from cancer. It is my hope that we will soon, for the dream of my hero Terry Fox, find a cure. “Somewhere the hurting must stop.”

Fire safety

Ms. Cindy Forster: A Tim Hortons Smile Cookie can go a long way in raising fire safety awareness. Until Sunday, $1 from every Tim Hortons Smile Cookie bought in Welland will be donated back to the Hope Centre for the 2017 Smile Cookie Campaign. The centre hopes to raise $20,000 for the Port Colborne Fire and Emergency Services’ smoke alarm program, helping to make sure homeowners have working smoke alarms. The campaign kicked off after a fatal fire claimed the lives of a family of four last December, including a two-year-old boy and his 15-year-old sister.

After meeting with the Port Colborne fire chief at a CKTB round table last spring, I asked the Office of the Fire Marshal how much government-paid advertising goes toward fire safety and public awareness. It turns out that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services doesn’t compile that information. Worse, they didn’t have any data on smoke alarm compliance for Ontario homes either. Between 2011 and 2015, almost half of all fires in Ontario were residential. Between 2006 and 2015, fire fatalities increased from 72 to 83. Of those, 12 of the alarms didn’t operate and 14 had no alarms.

I stand today to call on the government to put fire safety awareness first and make sure it isn’t offloading their responsibility to our non-profit community agenci