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

October 31, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Oct-31 (PDF)

L113 - Tue 31 Oct 2017 / Mar 31 oct 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 31 October 2017 Mardi 31 octobre 2017

Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles

Introduction of Visitors

Halloween

Answers to written questions

Oral Questions

Casinos

Casinos

Hospital services

Hospital services

Hospital services

Labour dispute

Halloween safety

Hydro rates

Employment standards

Consumer protection

Long-term care

Hospital services

Autism treatment

Air quality

Correction of record

Members’ Statements

Town of Halton Hills and Village of Arthur

Climate change

Ontario film industry

Waste recovery facility

Labour dispute

Holocaust Education Week

Labour dispute

Pumpkin-carving event

Show Your 4-H Colours

Introduction of Bills

Dr. Marchand Optometry Professional Corporation Act, 2017

Beechwood Cemetery Company Act, 2017

1729293 Ontario Inc. Act, 2017

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Crime Prevention Week / Semaine de la prévention du crime

Halloween safety

Crime Prevention Week

Halloween safety

Crime Prevention Week

Halloween safety

Petitions

Hospital funding

Long-term care

Curriculum

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Employment standards

Hydro rates

Dental care

Elevator maintenance

Addiction services

Child care

Employment standards

Hospital funding

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le renforcement de la protection des consommateurs ontariens

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 30, 2017, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 154,

An Act to cut unnecessary red tape by enacting one new Act and making various amendments and repeals / Projet de loi 154, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles, à édicter diverses lois et à modifier et abroger d’autres lois.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to continue the debate from yesterday. I was able to speak for about 20 minutes, and I think I have about 40 minutes to share some of the concerns that we have with regard to Bill 154, which is a government bill cutting unnecessary red tape.

I know there was some interesting debate yesterday about what is necessary and what is unnecessary. For New Democrats, we very clearly draw the line around health and safety and environmental regulations. We come from this place of having seen that regulations are not upheld or they are changed very quickly for political reasons—not thought through—and how damaging that process can be for the people we serve.

I think my colleague was very articulate yesterday as a small businessman. There are very clearly regulations in the province of Ontario that are burdensome for small businesses. Ironically, this process as it relates to those business regulations is quite burdensome, as an administrative process to reduce those regulations.

I think where our concerns lie, very clearly, is in

schedule 4 of Bill 154. There are particular sections which cause us concern, and we are not alone in those concerns. I did let the House know of the voices that we had heard from, as had the government, and I still would like to maintain that I don’t think the government fully understands the opposition to

schedule 4.

Keep in mind that New Democrats support Bill 154 in its entirety, except for

schedule 4, even though the regulations that had been determined through the Red Tape Challenge only reduce those burdens by about $22 million in the province of Ontario.

When the Canadian Environmental Law Association comes and speaks about crown responsibility; when the Environmental Defence group comes and speaks very clearly and produces evidence which demonstrates how this process could undermine already very poorly managed environmental regulations; and when organizations like the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and the Toronto Environmental Alliance—these are groups that have articulated their concerns around this bartering system where one regulation gets thrown out and another one possibly gets brought in, but not likely. So these are concerns.

Actually, I do want to thank the Canadian Union of Public Employees because they, in their submission to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy relating to Bill 154, shared a legal opinion, an assessment of

schedule 4, with us. I want to read this into the record because there is a whole

section on how poorly designed this legislation is.

It goes on to say, “Both

schedule 4 and the corresponding regulation are poorly written.

Schedule 4 spells out that businesses should receive offsets for regulatory compliance, and it defines ‘business’ as those with a ‘view to profit.’ The

schedule suggests that if you are trying to make a profit, you should be made whole of any losses associated with the administrative cost of complying with a regulation. This, of course, flies in the face of the fact that one of the purposes of regulation—in fact, of legislation and of government in general—is to create rules and put limits on the free market and business to ensure that things are done with the public interest in mind. Environmental regulation that saves lives and saves the planet will cost business money, for example, but will also save the planet, and will save business money in the long run, avoiding costly and traumatic environmental disasters.”

I think that we generally agree with this statement. There are regulations in place that prevent environmental spills, for instance, or prevent the over-taking of our groundwater for plastic-bottled-water production, leaving municipalities very short of resources.

It goes on to say, “Regulations do what the free market cannot: think long-term.” They plan for the long term. “And narrowing in on only for-profit business will create an unfair playing field compared to non-profits....”

This is one point that, because

schedule 4 is buried in this huge piece of legislation, I don’t think that anyone, even from the government side, has explored. For example, the Canadian Union of Public Employees has “members who work in both for-profit and non-profit long-term-care facilities. Any attempt to offset the for-profit long-term care would negatively impact the not-for-profit long-term-care facilities. Any attempt to offset for-profit LTC would negatively impact” the not-for-profit long-term care. “Having a non-profit mandate should not disadvantage a company. This is just another example of the many problems within the

schedule and why it should be removed.”

I should say who did this legal opinion, just for the record. I’ll get that to you at the end. Oh, no, it’s Goldblatt Partners, and the lawyers are Steven M. Barrett and Ethan Poskanzer.

The reason I raise the impact of

schedule 4 on the not-for-profit sector is because the not-for-profit sector, which basically, in Waterloo region, anyway—and I know across the province—has been holding together the fragmented social fabric of this province. They are the ones that fill in when people can’t find child care, home care, or a long-term-care facility.

The registered nurses of Ontario are also one of the groups that have come forward and shared their concerns. I recently took a meeting with RNAO in my Waterloo office. They’re trying to get the attention of this government, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, because they see the long-term-care facilities in the province of Ontario as honestly in a state of crisis. This is also a very highly regulated sector—long-term care—as it should be.

The Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007, asserts that a long-term-care facility must provide its residents with a secure, safe and comfortable home. That’s the

preamble for the act. It’s important to know that if you’re weighing the not-for-profit versus the for-profit emerging trends in long-term care in the province of Ontario, the overall budget for long-term care is $4 billion. It’s almost 8% of the overall health budget. There are 627 long-term-care homes in the province, although some of them, I’m pretty sure, would like to leave, with more than 78,000 beds in total and comprised of a mix of public, private for-profit, private not-for-profit and other—religious—providers. The facilities receive most of their funding from the government, and some, if they’re private, also receive fees through a fee-based system.

The reason that I raise the issue of long-term care is that there is this growing trend of for-profit long-term-care facilities. New Democrats had been very firm—there’s really no money in long-term care if you’re doing it right, because if you’re funding the resources and minimum standards of care, which at present this government is not doing, then you’re using all of the funding that you do receive for the quality of care. But if you are a long-term care which is private and which is for-profit, then some of that care money, obviously, is going into the profit agenda.

The reason that long-term-care facilities are so highly regulated is because we are talking about very vulnerable people. They are vulnerable because of some of the changes that this government has made. In this RNAO report it says:

“The needs of LTC residents are also changing. Compared to previous generations, residents in LTC homes today have increasingly complex care needs. For instance, nearly all residents have multiple chronic conditions” like heart disease, diabetes, arthritis. “This is partly due to changes to LTC admission criteria in 2010 that required new residents to have high or very high physical and cognitive challenges to qualify for admission” into long-term care. So basically, you almost have to be in a full crisis mode before you get into a long-term-care facility.

“About 90% of LTC residents have cognitive impairment, including dementia.” Now, we’re supposed to have a provincial dementia strategy, but I think you know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that there’s no targeted funding with that dementia strategy. This flies in the face of the knowledge that we have that this tsunami around dementia is coming. Well, we would contend that it is already here.

As long-term-care facilities are so highly regulated and the funding for long-term-care homes—and I just want to say that it was very interesting for me to learn that the government does fund, through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, homes at $96.26 for nursing and personal care; that’s the per diem. Program and support services: $9.60 a day for programming for seniors in long-term care. Raw food is at $9, and I think there has been some talk about that $9 fee, given what the meal allotment is for prisoners. Then there are other accommodations at $55.28. So the total per diem for a long-term-care facility for a senior is $170.14.

Now, in this RNAO report, they go into the funding and the staffing models which must change to keep long-term-care residents safe. I’ll read this directly from the report:

“It is shocking that the only legislated LTC staffing requirements in Ontario are a vague instruction for care ‘to meet the assessed needs of residents’ and a minimum requirement of one registered nurse ... on duty at all times. Currently, there is no legislated minimum staffing ratio (the number of nursing home staff members compared to the number of residents), and no requirements related to how much care residents receive on a daily basis.” So this includes “paid hours of care per resident per day....

Most residents in Ontario receive just over three hours of care each day, even though a target staffing level of four” hours per day “was a major recommendation from a 2008” Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care-commissioned review.

So this government doesn’t even fund long-term-care facilities at the rate that their own report recommended that they do so. This was recently introduced to the Ontario Legislature through a private member’s bill. On this side of the House, we are trying to get the government to follow their own recommendations to bring regulations in to ensure that long-term-care residents actually receive the care that they need. As

schedule 4 is crafted, if a for-profit home didn’t want to fund at four hours per day, they could lobby this government. They could come to the table and say, “Well, we’ll take these regulations, these offsets, off the table if you keep it at three hours per day.” This is a conceivable scenario.

I think the people in this province who are on the front lines of health care have already seen a watering down of this commitment to direct care. We’ve seen, as the Auditor General has identified, a huge increase, to the tune of 30%—so 30% of $4 billion is a lot of money. When the AG identified that 30% was going to administration, it was going to bureaucracy and, yes, it was going to profit—because these companies are not in the business of just delivering health care for the sake of health care, they are businesses and they want to make money.

This government has embraced this model, the privatization of our health care services, and they’ve absolutely accelerated it based on even what the Conservatives had started back in the early 2000s.

I think it’s important for us to have a tangible example here of a highly regulated sector and how

schedule 4 could potentially impact that sector, especially when you have that tension between for-profit companies not wanting to be compliant with regulations which cost them money, because they’re in the business of making money. So you can see how this tension would happen.

If

schedule 4 had not been embedded in government Bill 154, I think it’s very clear that there would be a huge amount of public attention on this schedule. I think it’s important for us to be cognizant of the unintended consequences, or the intended consequences, of legislation. I think the environmental causes have—and I’m going to reference a few of them in a couple of minutes—for very good reason, been very public.

We’ve called for a full review of long-term care—a full review. We’ve made the case that if this government is going to investigate the Wettlaufer murders, as they should, then while you’re going through that process—if you’re going to spend two years and all of that money, and if you’re going to go through this process, let’s get to the heart of the matter of what is going wrong in our long-term-care facilities.

I think that the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario has rightly pointed out that if you don’t have legislated long-term-care staffing requirements in Ontario, then you’re not going to meet the assessed needs of those residents. What’s ironic is that long-term-care facilities have to do the assessment, but the government doesn’t have to fund the assessment. That’s where we are in long-term-care facilities right now. That’s where we are with 30,000 seniors on a wait-list.

That’s where we are where, in 2010, this government said that you have to have the most complex needs, the crisis needs, to get into long-term care, because we’re going to try to deal with these other issues like home care, but we’re not going to fund those home care options.

So you can see where the tension is around legislation and bringing in regulations to serve the public. And I think it’s really important for us to say, honestly and openly, that serving seniors in long-term-care facilities is a public service, just as the early childhood educators who deliver quality programming in the not-for-profit sector are delivering a very important public service. There are definitely some parallels between the long-term-care facilities and our child care facilities and how regulation is supposed to balance and protect both the vulnerable young children and vulnerable seniors at the same time.

This RNAO report goes on to say, “Funding in LTC penalizes quality improvement practices.” Now, every MPP should have been visited by the Registered Nurses’ Association, but, for me, I knew that they weren’t funding the minimum standards of care. I didn’t know the exact numbers, and this is the value of the education process for MPPs, which we all should engage in. The nurses told me that “LTC funding models are severely flawed and must be transformed and modernized.

Under existing funding structure, there is a financial disincentive to improve patient outcomes”—a financial disincentive to improve patient outcomes. And you wonder why we have a crisis in long-term care, Mr. Speaker. “As a result, funding and services have failed to keep pace with residents’ increasing care needs, and retroactive data determines current funding levels.”

These are their three major points.

Number one: There’s a disincentive to improve patient outcomes. “When evidence-based practices are implemented and resident problems are prevented or resolved, resident acuity decreases. While this is good for residents”—which is why we’re here; we’re supposed to be trying to benefit the residents in long-term-care facilities—“the home’s CMI correspondingly falls and funding in future years is decreased. In other words, the unintended negative consequence of improving resident outcomes is that long-term-care homes are financially penalized. This financial penalty is a disincentive to improve patient outcomes.”

Now, why don’t we get that done in Bill 154? Why don’t we reverse that penalty? That goes back to the original funding formula, and that actually goes back to the 2008 commissioned report that this government asked for and has then not followed.

Number two: “Increased complexity and presentation not accurately funded.” Actually, we know this anecdotally, for sure. “Funding is not provided for activities or conditions that are not captured in the resident assessment tool, including some preventative interventions.”

So you have two major things that are not working in the long-term-care facilities—which are, as I pointed out, highly regulated—which, if you actually funded them appropriately, would be very costly but obviously would improve the quality for the residents in our long-term-care facilities.

Then, finally: “Retroactive data used to determine current funding.... Consequently, funding is always outdated.”

These are systemic issues in a highly regulated sector which will not be fixed by the need to address unnecessary red tape or necessary red tape. But

schedule 4 opens the door for this bartering system around these regulations, and I think all of us in this House should be very concerned. I can tell you that having a

preamble saying that Bill 154 can’t compromise health and safety or the environment isn’t good enough.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, Mr. Speaker, but there is a tremendous amount of distrust in this Liberal government. You can go all the way back to the G20, for instance, when civil rights were suspended in the province of Ontario. I think it’s incredible that there haven’t been greater consequences for that. It’s true that it’s scandal-plagued and that people have scandal fatigue, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be paying attention as legislators, as people who create laws, to ensure that the public interest is at the centre of this legislation.

Much of Bill 154 is left to regulation, which I know you will know has been a trend of this government. We need to see minimum standards of care right in the legislation so it’s not negotiable, so it doesn’t get bartered at the regulatory table.

I wanted to bring that forward, and I think CUPE brought forward this legal opinion because they definitely see this tension between the not-for-profit sector and the for-profit sector in the delivery of public services. Definitely it has been a sliding scale; the government has abdicated much of its responsibility to seniors in long-term care to the for-profit sector.

We’ve seen child care—I’m the critic for this, and I still can’t believe that the government has made a $1-billion commitment and yet kept the corporate interest right there at the table when 30 years of research demonstrates that corporate, for-profit child care compromises the overall goals of early learning and care, which are to enhance the educational and the caring component of the ECE experience.

In Waterloo region, I’ll tell you that these scarce child care dollars—two bids went out for two new centres. One not-for-profit centre got the contract, and then a for-profit, corporate child care centre got the funding. Let’s think about, where is the money going in that scenario? You have the not-for-profit-sector, in which every dollar is being invested into nutrition, into the ECE wages so that there’s not higher turnover; it’s going into the educational resources that are in that centre. It is such a different experience, the parent experience, but, more importantly, the experience of that young child.

It’s not a business, where you pay a fee and you cycle in as if you’re going through a drive-through. It’s not something where profit is driving the entire programming. It’s not being traded on the stock exchange as if child care and caring for children is a commodity—which currently happens in the province of Ontario. As this relates to the regulatory burdens, because

schedule 4 is directed at services that make a profit, and because—it’s been officially introduced, now that the government is fully partnering with corporations in the delivery of public service. In fact, they’re willing to negotiate and barter regulations with them.

The issue of child care should be non-negotiable, protecting children. We have so many examples where the Day Nurseries Act was not upheld in the province of Ontario, once again because there was no dedicated funding to ensure that the regulations that are in place are even enforced. So what has this government done? They’ve opened the door and they’ve said, “Listen, we want your business. We want to make sure that you’re still delivering child care. So what’s difficult for you? And then we’ll create an offset. It will be a public process. You don’t have to meet these certain standards in your child care centre; just stay in business.”

This is neo-liberalism at its worst. We have so many examples where so-called progressive governments—I’m thinking particularly of the UK—have brought in and watered down the regulations, particularly around the safety of buildings. It was a slow process. They just sort of slid it in here, just like this Liberal government slid

schedule 4 into Bill 154. Just slide it in there, call it whatever you want. If it had been a stand-alone piece of legislation—which is what Donald Trump did, which mirrors the semantics and the logistics of this piece of legislation, where one regulation gets knocked out, and then negotiate what the new regulation will be, or the offset or the cost.

This is really a worrisome trend for us. When you see the kind of validators that have come forward that share our concerns—because I know, as we head closer to the election, which is much anticipated—I don’t have the day countdown. Do you have the day countdown yet?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Not soon enough.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Not soon enough. Six months; we’re six months out.

The Liberals are going to say, “Well, this is what the New Democrats don’t believe in. They don’t believe in reducing red tape,” even though we would support everything in this piece of legislation except for

schedule 4. The Conservatives are obviously supporting this piece of legislation, even though the critic got up for almost an hour yesterday and criticized the ineffectiveness of this piece of legislation.

We’ve seen the reports around the confidence level of the business sector in this province. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce put out a report last spring saying that confidence in this government to strengthen the economy is at an all-time low. Businesses have faith in themselves. They identify as being incredibly resilient in the face of the highest hydro rates, the lack of connectivity around our infrastructure, and they have been very vocal about it. But they’re just so happy to get something, anything, from this government after 14 years.

What’s ironic is that some of the things that are actually in this bill have been on the order paper for seven years. The fact that the not-for-profit sector came into the committee and said, “We have been waiting for this”—it’s been on the order paper; it just didn’t get royal assent—so that not-for-profits can invest in social enterprise to subsidize the lack of funding from the government. That has been on the order paper for seven years. They’re just so happy that the government is doing what they said they were going to do seven years ago. This is the state of affairs at this place.

I did ask that one particular delegation whether the not-for-profit sector had done any assessment as to how

schedule 4 would impact their sector. They hadn’t, because the not-for-profit sector is constantly fundraising to keep women safe, fundraising for women’s shelter beds, and fundraising for housing, as they were in the Waterloo region with Hockey Helps the Homeless this past weekend. They are in constant fundraising mode because of the gaps in the social fabric and social policy of this government. So she had not had the opportunity to do the assessment as to how reducing the regulatory burdens for the for-profit sector who are delivering public services but are in the process of making money—how

schedule 4 could inadvertently disadvantage the not-for-profit sector, because

schedule 4 is not about reducing regulations or red tape in the not-for-profit sector.

I can tell you that some of the administrative overheads in those sectors are oppressive. One not-for-profit sector executive director told me that 30% of her funding goes into justifying to the government that this is where the money is going.

If only the government had to do that; right, Mr. Speaker? If only we could follow the money on that side of the House, especially when they talk about the infrastructure investments that they’ve made—that they had to sell off Hydro One in order to expand infrastructure in the province of Ontario. This is probably the biggest transfer of wealth from the public sector, from the people of this province, into the private sector in the history of the province, and all under the guise of broadening ownership, if you will.

That certainly isn’t what we were promised by this Premier when she promised to lead from the activist centre. We didn’t know that behind that little green curtain was a privatization czar saying, “Sell, sell, sell. Compromise the public purse for short-term gain.”

Then, to add insult to injury, when you go through the public accounts for the last four consecutive years, this government has underspent on infrastructure investment to the tune of $3 billion every single year—

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Excuse me, Speaker. Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. We have a point of order. I recognize the member from Davenport.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I believe the member from Kitchener–Waterloo has diverted her conversation and her debate, and I’d like her to bring the debate back to what we’re debating here today, which is this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point well taken. I’ve been listening closely, and I’m sure that she will draw a conclusion with regard to her comments.

I’ll turn it back to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: With pleasure. Thank you very much.

As I was saying, infrastructure funding in the province of Ontario has been underfunded for four consecutive years.

So this happens:

Schedule 4 gets dropped into this massive piece of legislation, where you have a government that’s very focused on abdicating their responsibility around delivering public services, and then

schedule 4 actually builds in an unfair disadvantage to the not-for-profit sector. It won’t surprise me that this government doesn’t see that, because they’re very focused on the corporatization of our public services. They very much are.

I think that the college strike that we’re facing in the province of Ontario—the Premier has said that she’s considering legislating it back. That worked out so well in Bill 115. You remember Bill 115. Some of us are here because of Bill 115.

This is the context. This new culture of this Liberal government is that they are very, very focused on looking like they’re addressing unnecessary red tape when, really, this huge bill only reduces very small pieces of regulatory burdens, to the tune of $22 million, some of which, as I have already mentioned, has already been on the books for seven years.

One of the recommendations was turned down, and it was by the Trillium Automobile Dealers Association—

Mr. Steve Clark: Yes.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Right? Steve Clark—sorry; I should say your riding.

Mr. Steve Clark: That’s okay. I’m in Hansard today.

Ms. Catherine Fife: But in 2011, the province conducted a modernization-of-vehicle-registration pilot project at two new-car dealerships. The pilot allowed these dealers to stock licence plates and register the sold vehicles online from their dealership, exactly what Bill 3 would have done, which all parties supported, Mr. Speaker. This is six years ago.

Not being able to have a convenient or local ServiceOntario in the north, in our rural communities, is a great disadvantage. In Waterloo region, there is a huge issue with being able to get your licence or updating your licence. Anyway, the PCs brought forward this amendment. We voted for it back in 2011. We would have supported this because it streamlines the licensing process, it addresses some of the inequities across the province based on geography, but it’s not in this piece of legislation. How many more years is it going to take to address the streamlining of the licensing processes in the province of Ontario?

This government has already privatized most of the ServiceOntario kiosks. They have slid in privatization on almost every single file. Energy is very public, of course—the privatization of energy. Who knew that they would privatize the entire Green Energy Act? Who does that in a modern economy, when the competitive rate for a kilowatt hour is between six and eight cents? They signed contracts at 86 cents per kilowatt hour. In what business environment would that ever fly? It just doesn’t make—

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, for your friends, yes, and for your donors.

The opposition to the government amendment to

schedule 4—it’s important that you understand the drama around red tape, because I’m trying to make this as interesting as possible. At the last minute, the government brought forward, basically, an amendment that said, “Anything that we do in this act will take into consideration the health and the safety and the environment,” sort of like a catch-all amendment. There were some complications because it addressed the wrong regulation, and so that took some time.

It was only after pressure from us, from the NDP, from a number of stakeholders, that the government was willing to make the changes to

schedule 4. They’ve amended the legislation to say that if there are to be any regulatory changes—because it’s basically all left to the LG in Council—the Lieutenant Governor in Council must first review the change “to take into account ... the public interest, including health, safety and the environment.”

This strikes me, really, as a get-out-of-jail-free card, a little bit, at the end of it, because it’s important to acknowledge that the crown has also relieved itself of any responsibility, which is a huge part of this legislation. We agree with all of the stakeholders that this amendment does not go far enough. We share the opinion of the Canadian Environmental Law Association that “If the government had wanted to ensure that Bill 154 did not result in the deregulation of public interest regulations, it should have granted an outright exemption for regulations dealing with public health and safety and the environment.”

What we have here is public health, public safety and the environment as an afterthought to Bill 154. This amendment for us demonstrates that this legislation hasn’t been thought through, and that now, each and every new prescribed offset to a regulation has to go through a separate screening process, and still we don’t know what a prescribed offset is or how the public interest will be measured during these reviews.

I think that there’s some responsibility on the part of the government to have some clarity around what those offsets will look like, what those offsets will cost, what the timeline will be. I think that it’s important to understand—and I’ve already talked about the child care piece—the implications around prescribed offsets, because this is a new process; it hasn’t worked well in other jurisdictions.

It’s important to know that when the crown absolves itself of the responsibility—which they’ve done; they’ve embedded this piece into

schedule 4,

section 8, and it’s called “Immunity.” “The government has not provided any justification as to why immunizing the crown from liability is warranted or even appropriate under Bill 154. In fact, the inclusion of a crown immunity ... pursuant to the bill could cause adverse impacts to the public and may result in regulatory negligence lawsuits. It should be noted that affording the crown with protection from liability has been called into question by Canadian courts. In Alberta Government Telephones v.

Canadian Radio-television Commission, the Supreme Court of Canada, while upholding the claim for crown immunity, observed that the doctrine conflicts with the ‘basic notions of equality before the law.’”

So if you have trust issues with this Liberal government, if you have concerns about the way that they enforce the current regulations and the current legislation, if you have concerns about this tension and this direction that this government has aggressively accelerated towards—the privatization and the corporatization of public services and then they’ve embedded an unfair advantage in

schedule 4 against the not-for-profit sector—if you share those concerns, then you should speak to them as government members because there is definitely the opportunity for the public to not be well served by this piece of legislation.

This government seems unwilling or unable to recognize that we should learn from Walkerton. We should learn about how regulations, and the watering-down of regulations, can affect the overall safety of the people that we serve. As New Democrats, there is this balance that needs to be found between ensuring that the public is served, and then reducing and streamlining unnecessary, bureaucratic red tape. That does exist in this province—ask any car dealer or any small business—but this massive piece of legislation has a poison pill in it, and it is

schedule 4.

The government will pat us on the head, as the minister did yesterday, and say, “Don’t worry there. Don’t worry about this. It’s all fine. We don’t mean to do anything bad.” Well, we have 14 years of a track record of this government where this public has not been served. Safety regulations have been compromised, the workers in the province of Ontario have faced the largest influx of precarious, part-time contract work in now some of the most unsafe situations, and so we feel very justified and validated in our concerns and we will not be supporting Bill 154 for those reasons.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo for her debate here this morning. She spoke on seniors’ care and child care here in the province of Ontario earlier in her debate. I absolutely agree with her that our seniors and our children need to receive the highest quality of care, and that we are not, Speaker, in any way, shape or form, putting in jeopardy the health and safety of our seniors or our children.

Prior to getting into politics, I worked in the pharmaceutical industry. Let me tell you, Speaker, if there is one industry that is highly regulated, it is the pharmaceutical industry, so I understand the need to ensure that we have appropriate regulations in place when it’s needed. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that speaks to what the member opposite spoke of, which is the bartering or negotiating on required regulations. If a regulation is required, it’s going to stay. There’s absolutely no debate about this here.

This is an annual burden reduction bill that will allow ministries to cut that unnecessary red tape—those regulations that are really not necessary for the day-to-day—and is going to make it easier for the businesses, especially the small businesses. There is nothing in this bill that will reduce environment, health or safety protections. This bill is about reducing administrative costs to businesses, not cutting regulations. These are regulations that are important to our overall health, safety and the environment.

This government, we on this side of the House, are committed and continue to be committed to protecting the environment, health and safety. This is a priority for our government and will always be a priority for our government, and we made an amendment to ensure that our commitment to health, safety and the environment is now codified as part of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to join in the debate, and I want to thank the member for Kitchener–Conestoga—sorry, Kitchener–Waterloo; I don’t want a turf war in Kitchener—the member for Kitchener–Waterloo for mentioning my Bill 3 and the Trillium auto dealers who made a deputation at the committee. I know Mr. Notte had hoped that the government would bring in its own amendment to deal with the bill. They didn’t, so we tried, and I appreciate the fact that both our party and the opposition party, the New Democrats, supported that.

Again, I can’t understand why the government hasn’t moved forward since they had that initial pilot project in 2011. I actually got an order paper answer from the minister yesterday asking after the successful modernization pilot project. The Ministry of Transportation had a sustainability implementation plan for the following year, 2012-13, where they actually indicated in writing that they would roll this out to 5,000 car dealers in Ontario. No one seems to understand the reasons—the excuse the minister used yesterday in her order paper response. She talked about logistical issues and IT costs.

No one who was involved in this pilot project got that feedback from the government. Certainly, the Trillium automotive dealers, who have made many, many deputations to ministers on the government side, have ever brought this up—this has never been an issue. I think the government is just stalling.

I appreciate the fact that people on this side of the House support this and have listened to the automotive dealers. This would have been a really good amendment for the government to put forward. I want to remind members that back in December 2015 it received the unanimous support of the Legislature and was referred to committee. So it’s an amendment that I think deserves another look by this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate today. I want to commend our colleague the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, because she does her homework on these files. She delves into them in a way that I think provides the critical analysis that is our job as opposition members. She has, effectively, sounded an alarm for members of the government to take a look at the serious implications of, specifically,

schedule 4.

In my time in this House and through the various meeting that we all have with stakeholders, I’ve come to learn that, certainly, there are cases and areas in our regulatory regime that can be addressed and need to be addressed. Whether they be antiquated regulations or something that could, in this era of technology, be replaced with a more efficient mechanism to provide the oversight and accountability that civil society requires, yes, we can do that. That is something where I’m sure we could find consensus throughout all the parties and the stakeholders, and that should be an ongoing process.

But this one-for-one provision under

schedule 4 is indeed a slippery slope, and I’ll tell you why: because a lot of the regulations that you see on the books weren’t born from the genius of government. These folks are not so savvy that they know all and are omnipotent when it comes to what needs to happen outside of the halls of this place. They are, in fact, suggestions that have come from various sectors and that would enforce compliance and provide a level playing field.

What I’m trying to say, Speaker, is that many times the regulations that affect certain businesses come from those businesses, because they’ve identified gaps where there is not a level playing field, and those folks who are doing it right and providing good service and quality service want to ensure that everyone does that.

When you take a broad approach and you say, “Well, this regulation is causing too much harm. We’re going to further reduce it with an offset,” that puts at jeopardy a lot of different factors, and it’s one we should be cognizant of.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’m happy to add a few comments in regard to the remarks from the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

First of all, I’m really disappointed and surprised that the third party is not going to support this bill to cut unnecessary red tape, because, as far as I’m concerned, those who are opposed are effectively advocating for imposing unnecessary costs on business. This is at a time when Ontario needs to continue growing. We know that our economy is strong, very much in part because of our activist government and the policies that we’ve put in place. So we feel very strongly that, while maintaining regulations that serve the public interest, we need to ensure that we’re not adding any unnecessary cost to business.

The member from Kitchener–Waterloo referred to our government as having said we wish to lead from an activist centre. When you look at what we have done through the years—I think of the introduction of the HST, another very progressive measure to reduce the burden on business which, as I seem to recall, was not supported by the parties opposite—this is the type of thing that we, as the government, are doing over and over with our pieces of legislation.

With this approach that we have put forward in this particular bill, we are very anxious that we ensure, when we do impose new regulations, that we harmonize with other jurisdictions. This, again, will reduce the burden on business so they don’t have to look at different standards in different areas. This, of course, is very important as we look to our neighbours to the south.

We wish to consider the unique needs of small businesses. We are very conscious of the important role they play in our economy. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. I urge all members to support it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo for final comments.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the comments.

The member who just spoke—you have looked to the south. You’ve modelled this one-for-one rule after what Donald Trump has brought forward and also what David Cameron brought forward and what Stephen Harper brought forward.

I’ll quote from Bruce Campbell, formerly from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He writes, “My concern about the contents of Bill 154, notably the one-for-one rule, stems from this research. The Harper government introduced a one-for-one rule” in 2012, “the result of a recommendation from its Red Tape Reduction Commission, which in turn was inspired by the Mike Harris Conservative government in the 1990s.”

Mr. Robert Bailey: Hear, hear.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I wouldn’t be applauding Walkerton, my friend.

“The Harper government patterned itself on the British government’s similar but more aggressive two-for-one rule. Prime Minister Cameron boasted of running the first government in modern history that at the end of its parliamentary term had less regulation in place than there was at the beginning. His zeal to cut ‘red tape’—for example, eliminating the rule requiring builders to install sprinkler systems in apartments—is now seen as a contributing factor” at “the recent Grenfell Tower fire in which 80 people died.”

He goes on to talk about the impact of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, where “regulations limiting the length of oil trains; mandating crude oil be transported in upgraded tank cars; classification of crude oil as a dangerous good” were ignored by industry, because the industry lobbied the government and “it also helped to reinforce the government’s message of regulation as a cost of business rather than an essential tool to protect the public.”

We have examples. We have history. Any government should pay attention to that history if your true goal is to support businesses and find that balance in protecting the public interest, which is what we are elected to do, Mr. Speaker.

Schedule 4 cannot be supported by New Democrats and thus we cannot support Bill 154. Thank you. Shame, and shame on—

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to add my voice to the debate today on Bill 154, which is all about reducing red tape, which gives me an opportunity to reflect on real-life examples coming out of my amazing riding of Huron–Bruce. We’re going to be touching on the government’s approach to reducing red tape and the realities of the burden that this government has also laid on people throughout this province with their incessant abundance of red tape that has happened over the last 14 years.

With that said, all of us here know the merits of reducing excessive and unnecessary regulations, Speaker. It helps make businesses run more efficiently and allows them to focus on the task at hand, instead of jumping through unnecessary hoops to get started or to keep manoeuvring so that their business can be handed down from generation to generation.

Successfully reducing red tape can give our businesses an edge, allow them to take advantage of new market opportunities, and grow. But I have to share with you that over the last 14 years this government seemingly has done everything in its power to inhibit growth for new business. An example that I want to share is that, stemming from my riding, stemming from Walkerton, we have a great business. It’s a stainless steel manufacturer, and they have a client base that is second to none.

They’re very proud of the fact that their client base is primarily due to their success and word of mouth from customer to customer. To move the product from Walkerton down to Port Huron so it could continue travelling through the States to its final customer, this particular company had to wait six months for the Ministry of Transportation to approve and process the paperwork for an oversized load. Again, it was travelling just from Walkerton down to Port Huron. Guess how long it took for three states to generate that same amount of paperwork? It only took 10 business days.

Think about it: six months in Ontario; 10 business days collectively in three states south of the border.

There is something wrong with the excessive amount of paperwork and regulation, and it affects customer satisfaction. So the next time a customer makes an order, will they take into consideration the delays that this government chooses to put on our businesses? It’s a concrete example of how red tape is putting Ontario’s competitiveness and jobs at risk.

Ontario’s international customers may not be forgiving of bureaucratic delays, and as I said, it hurts our global competitiveness.

In fact, regarding this bill, the Minister of International Trade told the House: “We know that working to reduce outdated, unnecessary regulations is very important to helping businesses so that they can focus on growing their business and also growing our economy.”

So, Speaker, it’s safe to say that we can agree on both sides of the aisle that reducing red tape will help our businesses, but as always with this government, we’re wanting a little less talk and a lot more action when it actually comes to reducing red tape. This government has been proudly touting that this bill will save between $6.3 million and $8.9 million for businesses across Ontario. On the surface, that looks great, but in 2014, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimated that the total cost of regulation in this province is $14.7 billion.

Maybe this government should be giving its head a shake a little bit. They are sitting there proudly saying that we in opposition should have expedited this bill because the Liberals have managed to find a way to eliminate a paltry 0.06% of regulatory burden in this province. Again, the government is needing to step up, and we want to see a lot less talk and much more action because the reality is, Speaker, there are still over 380,000 rules and regulations on the books.

I want to share another anecdote with you. When I was general manager of a dairy goat co-operative, in 2009 I attended a commodity meeting in Bruce county where the then-member said—and she was a member of the Liberal government—“For every one regulation we introduce, nine regulations will be taken off the books.” I have to say, Speaker, I don’t think that’s happening. It’s time for this government to walk its talk and really reduce red tape in a meaningful way, and get out of the way of business.

Burden reduction is desperately needed, and the government picked the absolutely lowest-hanging fruit. That’s all they did. They basically picked one apple off the ground and went on to tell and brag that they picked the entire apple tree. Well, Speaker, we know better.

Everyone in this House, as I said before, can agree that reducing excessive red tape is necessary and good for our economy. For instance, the Minister of International Trade also acknowledged that red tape reduction allows businesses to focus on their growth. In fact, his ministry spends over $60 million per year trying to help businesses grow, expand and attract investment to Ontario. So it baffles me, Speaker, that this government treats about one twentieth of a percentage point of saved administrative costs as a major success.

Again, they barely move the dial and then they talk that they have just done such a great job, when in actual fact our Ontario businesses are no further ahead under this Liberal government.

We all meet with small business owners in our respective ridings and we all know the struggles that they face with red tape. Sometimes it’s just a matter of these businesses needing some help navigating the system, and that’s what we’re there for. We are happy to help them. But sometimes, reflecting back, I’m sure we have all seen opportunities to reduce red tape where things may overlap or where regulations may appear to be outdated.

In one case, the great, working, successful member from Leeds–Grenville identified outdated red tape and took action, tabling Bill 152, the Cutting Red Tape for Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. This was thoughtful, it was reflective of real life and a great example of how this Liberal government is out of touch. The member introduced a bill that unfortunately had to be tabled again after the Premier prorogued the Legislature. It’s currently sitting on the order paper as Bill 3.

If passed, this bill would allow auto dealers to register vehicles online from their dealership. This is such a simple concept and it’s easy to implement. When it was originally tabled, it received all-party support. In fact, the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore said at the time, “This bill proposes to make it easier for motor vehicle dealers to get a permit, number plates, sticker validations and used vehicle information packages, all online. This is certainly something that, in the 21st century that we find ourselves in, is the direction we should be going.” I agree with that member.

This bill is a shining example of red tape that could have been tackled by the member from Leeds–Grenville’s bill. Again, it was supported by parties on all sides. If the provisions in Bill 3 were included in this particular bill, Bill 154, there would be significantly less red tape on the approximately 806,000 vehicles sold in Ontario every year.

In fact, in my riding, I was recently speaking to an owner of a car dealership in Goderich. He has a variety of client bases. In some cases, he sells 20, 30, 40 vehicles at a time. He has trouble getting enough licence plates to move his vehicles. It is awful, again, the disparities between rural Ontario and a larger urban centre.

Here’s an example. The local ServiceOntario office tries its best, but because it has a smaller volume of plates when compared on an annual basis to ServiceOntario offices throughout Ontario in larger city centres, they get questioned: “Why do you need so many plates? What’s going on?” So they have to jump through hoops, as well as this car dealer, to try to get enough plates in a timely fashion to satisfy his sales. This is a perfect example of government getting in the way.

I’m sure it’s hard enough to navigate necessary regulations when you own a car dealership, generally speaking, but a shortage of licence plates is just unnecessary and a burden on business. The member from Leeds–Grenville had an easy fix to that. Unfortunately, this government, time and time again, chooses to play partisan politics as opposed to accepting and embracing good ideas.

I have to tell you that I’m sure that a simplified process for car dealerships across Ontario and specifically in my riding, in Huron–Bruce, could make a world of difference. Surely such a move would have bolstered the $8.9 million that the government is so proudly doling over, saying that this bill is going to reduce regulations in such a way that they’re going to save a measly $10 million. I say that kind of tritely, because when this government is choosing to purposefully blow $4 billion in interest payments on an unfair hydro plan, come on, $8.9 million really isn’t that significant in the bigger picture. We can be doing so much better.

I would suggest that although this government recognizes the importance of reducing red tape, they have come up short in so many different ways. We have to hold this government to account and make sure that we do better. We’ve wasted so many opportunities to further reduce red tape and promote growth and job creation in Ontario.

On top of missed opportunities, my colleagues and I also find ourselves disappointed over and over again at some of the rhetoric that we’re hearing, even in this bill, Bill 154. Specifically, one opposition member raised a regulation that was left out of the bill which could have harmonized trucking regulations.

The member from Perth–Wellington questioned why regulations that work in one province are so different from Ontario. But instead of accepting a good idea, the Minister of Economic Development accused our side of not caring about safety or the environment. Speaker, he was wrong to say that. We stand absolutely in solidarity in the PC Party of Ontario, by everything that we do, in keeping safety and the environment as a priority.

With regard to the comment that the Minister of Economic Development shared, blanket accusations such as those are not productive in this House.

When the government brings forward a package of amendments to multiple bills in the spirit of reducing red tape, they should consult with as many stakeholders as they can, but we all know that the government’s definition of consultation is very, very different from what we would do on this side of the House.

The member from Davenport even told us that this bill “ensures that we’ll bring regulations into line with national or international standards,” so the suggestion made by the member from Perth–Wellington was clearly in line with the government’s priority for this legislation. But again, perhaps partisan ways got in the way, and they ignored the good suggestion coming from the member from Perth–Wellington.

We agree with the spirit of the bill and we want to work with the government to make it work as well as possible, but unfortunately, on a whole host of examples of issues, opposition members rightly suggest that this government could have consulted more broadly. We have also said that there is an opportunity to work together, but in many cases, that doesn’t happen.

It’s frustrating when the government chirps at us as opposition. When the opposition believes that more red tape could be cut, we should not be accused of not caring about the environment or safety. As I said before, and I’ll say it again, nothing could be further from the truth.

To illustrate this point, I have another example from my riding, which actually led me to writing the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. A gentleman in my riding owns a recycling company that recycles a specific form of plastic. It’s bale wrap, and everybody in rural Ontario will appreciate the fact that bale wrap is tough to manage, especially in landfills. This gentleman is innovative. He has got a great concept, and he has been waiting and waiting—and, I would suggest, waiting—for regulations under the Waste-Free Ontario Act to prescribe how his business will operate in the future.

He is looking to make a substantial investment in his company, but he has been left, as I said, waiting now for close to a year for this government to get moving.

Removing this type of red tape will help the environment and facilitate recycling. The only thing preventing the activity is updated regulations, which includes replacing the previous regulations on the books, but again we’re not seeing any action. In this case, red tape is preventing private investment in a business that would help the environment.

The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington said it best: We should not conflate the terms “regulation” and “red tape.” There is a difference. Red tape is unnecessary regulations. To be fair, I was pleased to hear the Minister of Economic Development acknowledge this distinction yesterday.

Speaker, our party will be supporting this bill, because we’re always in support of reducing excessive administrative burden, but we support this bill knowing full well that the government could have gone leaps further in addressing red tape in Ontario.

I must take a moment to reflect on the reality of the day: Even after promising to reduce administrative burden, this government has piled more and more red tape onto the shoulders of businesses across this province this past year. For example, Bill 148 adds many different kinds of red tape to employers. I’ve heard stories from small business owners in my riding about how one-size-fits-all approaches to legislation impose significant burdens on their businesses.

For example, at an event in my riding, I heard about how a seasonal business dependent on good weather cannot necessarily provide 48 hours to cancel a shift. The weather can change instantaneously, as we all know, and a business can close due to a sudden thunderstorm with little notice.

On top of that, the expedited increase in the minimum wage has led to a considerable increase in payroll, which becomes very, very worrisome. TD Bank estimated that the changes in that particular bill could cost our economy up to 90,000 jobs. Even if a business survives Bill 148, they are still burdened with the other costs that this government has imposed.

Electricity prices, for example, have imposed all kinds of extra costs. Then the government brings in programs that actually incentivize businesses to shut down in the middle of the day. Again, businesses—and there’s a manufacturer in my riding that actually has had to take on extra effort. They have employees specifically dedicated to watching their electricity use during the day. If they are threatened to go over their allotment, guess what they do? They send home their employees in the middle of the day. They have to shut down their electric furnaces and send their employees home.

It’s a double whammy. The loss of production is realized by the manufacturer, and employees go home in the heat of the summer. They’re not getting their hourly wage. And what do they do? They’re either in their air-conditioned home, using more electricity, so their home bills are going up; or they’re just not getting ahead because of these crazy, extra, red tape burdens that this government has become addicted to over the last 14 years.

Another example that I’d be remiss in not mentioning is cap-and-trade. Because the government has been delayed with rolling out regulations for carbon offsets, we see additional administrative costs for businesses without the incentives being paid back for good behaviour. When all these decisions made by this government are taken together, the $8.9 million that they’re offering in terms of savings by reducing their chosen red tape is truly a drop in the bucket.

With that said, I’d like to speak to one very positive aspect of this bill, though, and that is

schedule 4, which brings in a rule that for every $1 in new regulatory costs, a regulatory burden of $1.25 must be taken off the books. But, Speaker, I have to say that we’ve heard this song over and over again. It’s the same message, different day. I heard it in 2009, and we didn’t see the results that were projected. Here we go again. I think based on the record of this government, we just don’t trust them to get this right.

Ensuring that the government continues to focus on red tape reduction is definitely an important priority, and I commend the government for writing this into the legislation in terms of their aspirational goals. But again, we want a lot less talk and more action.

Through this debate, I’ve shared many examples of ideas to reduce red tape that have been introduced by the PC Party of Ontario, and I encourage this government to stop their partisan ways and start embracing good ideas for the sake of Ontarians across this province. The amended bill includes a public interest provision that is controlled by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Again, I encourage this government to embrace the good ideas coming from the PC Party of Ontario, and then we’ll finally get down to reducing red tape.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. It is now 10:15. This House will stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: First off, happy Halloween. Secondly, I’d like to introduce page captain Swetlana Kumar from York West and her mother, Jaimala Kumar, who will be in the members’ gallery this morning.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, with your indulgence and that of our colleagues, I’d like to introduce, from my riding of Essex, today’s page co-captain. Her name is Airika Natyshak. Her dad is not in the gallery but he’s standing right here. My wife, Jenny, and our son, Drake, and Airika’s grandparents can’t be here today. They’re watching on the live stream, so hi, guys. We love you.

This has been the best three weeks of my tenure in this House, getting to watch Airika participate and to challenge herself and to grow in her page duties. As a page dad, I’ve come to appreciate the program. I want to thank Ms. Colley, Ms. Paula Carreiro, Ms. Debi, Bruno and Marcus, and yourself too, Speaker, for being so wonderful with our pages.

I’ve learned a lot about the page program as a dad. It’s a wonderful experience, and my hope for all the pages is that you’ve grown, you’ve challenged yourself and you’ve experienced the wonderment of this place and this building.

I want to thank all of my colleagues who have been so kind to Airika throughout the process.

Lastly, I think I speak on behalf of all the page parents when I say I hope that Bruno has sufficiently traumatized all the kids that a snap of the fingers will force them to clean their rooms. So thank you very much, Speaker.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, indeed. We do love our pages.

Further introductions?

With us in the Speaker’s gallery today are several guests of mine from the Brantford area: the Brantford Regional Real Estate Association members and the Ontario Real Estate Association, here to discuss some issues with their MPPs. Welcome, and we’re glad you’re with us.

Halloween

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to welcome everybody to Halloween at Queen’s Park. I know it’s going to be a very exciting night. I’ll be with my daughter this evening.

I wish everybody out there a very happy and safe Halloween. I think that we should continue to celebrate Halloween each and every year, and perhaps maybe next year we could all dress up.

Answers to written questions

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville on a point of order.

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order: I have a number of order paper questions that are now overdue. Tomorrow will be five months since I tabled order paper question 491 for the Minister of Transportation, which is now overdue, and I have four questions—492, 493, 495 and 497—that are directed to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

In addition, I want the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport to know that her response, which I received yesterday, on time, for order paper question 489—the last line says, “Please see attached for the report you requested.” There was no report attached to my order paper question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On the last issue, I’m going to make an assumption that it was a clerical error and that it will be corrected, so I will defer to the House leader on that one. And on the other questions, I will defer to the House leader for a response.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I fully undertake to look into the order number and any pending orders that may be with the table, and to get the responses as soon as possible.

Oral Questions

Casinos

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The lobbyist registry for Great Canadian Gaming includes a who’s-who of Liberal insiders. The list includes some of the biggest backroom dealers in the Liberal Party.

We all know that despite money laundering investigations involving Great Canadian Gaming, they were awarded a massive government contract to operate the Toronto casino. Mr. Speaker, just how much influence did these Liberal insiders have on the Toronto casino project? Was Great Canadian Gaming picked because of their Liberal insider connections?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite may know that there is a process in place where the AGCO has to approve all proponents, which are then pre-approved to bid. Then there is a Fairness Commissioner and fairness monitor that oversees a procurement process. And then, as they proceed through that process, a number of bids come in.

One thing that never happens, Mr. Speaker, and is totally inappropriate—and the member opposite and his finance critic were inferring that it should have occurred—is that the Minister of Finance should have been aware who those proponents are. That is not what happens. That’s totally inappropriate. I am not apprised of who is bidding nor who ultimately gets selected until it’s done, to avoid the very issue that that member is inferring.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the minister: Phil Dewan was the former chief of staff to Dalton McGuinty from 1999 to 2003. His online bio says he played a leading role in crafting the Liberal platform, team and strategy. Did Phil Dewan lobby the government on behalf of Great Canadian Gaming for the Toronto casino project and did his involvement in the company result in this contract being given to this company?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The former chair and the former president of the OLG are all part of political parties from the other side. As we proceed forward, we don’t look at the partisan matters; we look at what’s in the best interests of Ontarians, and we are following the proper processes in making those selections.

We have had a very robust interest in gaming here in Ontario. It is improving by way of its modernization projections. The revenues and dividends being sourced from OLG are almost $2.4 billion now and growing further, investing in hospitals, investing in our schools, investing in infrastructure and providing—

Mr. John Yakabuski: How much in hockey bags?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It has now been signalled that I’m not impressed with what he said, and I won’t tolerate it. If we need to go to yesterday, we’ll do so.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: The question was, did Phil Dewan lobby the government? I did not get a response. The government keeps saying everything is fine because there’s no criminal investigation. While yes, there is no criminal investigation, BC’s Attorney General has launched a probe into the case. They are reviewing money laundering allegations at Great Canadian Gaming’s BC casino. You’d think that would be enough simply to have a pause, yet the government continues to say everything is fine.

I want to know, directly to the Minister of Finance: Given these newspaper stories, given these allegations, doesn’t it give you enough to say that we need to put a pause on this? Isn’t that the right, responsible approach?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The right and responsible approach is to allow the process to proceed, as is intended. The member opposite is already inferring criminality on a public company that is commercially sensitive and having tremendous market implications. We have a fairness monitor. We have the AGCO, which is in constant contact with the BC regulatory authorities. We’ve got the OLG, which is also engaged. And it has been going on for some time now that these suspicious activities occur, which occur in many companies across the world and across Canada. So the member opposite suggesting that banks are involved in anti-money-laundering prohibition activities—they should stop working with them.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are sensitive to the market conditions and we’re sensitive to the role that the Minister of Finance has, as well as any minister of the crown, not to provide political risk and not to engage in a process that has duly proceeded as it should.

Casinos

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance continues to say that this process isn’t political, but the biggest name on this lobbying list is actually Bob Lopinski. He was described as the architect of Premier McGuinty’s rise to power. It sounds pretty political to me. Lopinski also led the current Premier’s 2014 Liberal campaign war room. He’s the ultimate Liberal insider.

Did Bob Lopinski lobby on behalf of Great Canadian Gaming and did this have anything to do with the Liberals awarding a contract to this casino operator? I would like a simple response: yes or no?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Here we have a leader of a party who is now saying that a registered lobbyist has now provided a full disclosure of their respective activities, as do other lobbyists who happen to have been Conservatives and, for that matter, even proponents, who I’m told have had some conversations. That is inappropriate. What is appropriate is that he’s disclosing it and he’s providing forward with their job.

On this side of the House, the minister does not make the decision on who the proponents will be or who is selected.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Finance: My question was, did Bob Lopinski lobby the Minister of Finance on this issue? I didn’t get a response.

Liberal insiders have had their hands on Great Canadian Gaming for many years. Unfortunately, it surprises absolutely no one that Liberal insiders are pulling the strings once again here at Queen’s Park.

The Office of the Integrity Commissioner’s own records reveal that senior Liberals connected to Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty were hired to lobby Great Canadian Gaming. It has gone on for years. Great Canadian Gaming is clearly the preferred company of this Liberal government.

Are the Liberals planning to put insiders first or the people of Ontario first?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s offensive, because the member is now trying to implicate an individual who is a registered lobbyist who’s providing for his own business. And it’s not just him; it’s a number of other lobbyists.

I can assure the member and this House that Mr. Lopinski has not come to me on any matter regarding Great Canadian Gaming. In fact, I do know Great Canadian Gaming has been a donor to the Conservative Party. I’ll leave it to them to respond to that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m standing. You might not realize how close we are to warnings.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the minister: Mr. Speaker, we can’t give any contracts to anyone; this government does. This government does give contracts. So as much as the Minister of Finance is trying to pretend right now that he has nothing to do with Great Canadian Gaming, when it was announced he said he was very excited. Now he’s saying he’s not related to this at all, but he celebrated this contract being given.

They refuse to admit that this deal smells rotten. It does smell rotten. Liberal insiders have their hands all over this. It doesn’t pass the smell test. The government is ignoring the fact that hockey bags full of cash were dragged into the doors of a BC casino. They’re pretending this never happened, that these allegations aren’t out there, but they are.

Once again, given what we’re hearing, will the Minister of Finance do the responsible thing and at least give a pause to this contract?

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the modernization activity that OLG is performing. I very much am supportive of the work that’s being done to provide more investments in our communities, to provide greater revenues for those host communities, and that I do celebrate. That is what I’m talking about.

The member opposite is now manipulating and referencing something that happened in 2012 in a different jurisdiction and somehow associating that with the decisions we’re making with regard to modernizing the OLG for the benefit of Ontarians. The member opposite is trying to now put at risk the very commercial entity that’s enabling us to provide for those communities. Mr. Speaker, we won’t do that. We’ll allow the process to proceed in an open and transparent way.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Heaven forbid Tim Hudak lobbies us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Infrastructure, come to order.

New question.

Hospital services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier and her Liberal government just don’t get it. They do not grasp the severity of the overcrowding and hallway medicine crisis that is inside Ontario’s hospitals. For months, New Democrats have been revealing occupancy rates for dozens of overcrowded hospitals, but until now we have not had a clear picture of the number of patients receiving hallway medicine in this province. Sadly, Speaker, now we do. In just one year, between April 2016 and April 2017, Brampton Civic Hospital was forced to treat 4,352 patients in its hallways. Why did the Premier and the Liberal government allow this crisis in our hospitals to happen?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Last week—and I think it’s important that we put this in perspective—we opened in Ontario the equivalent of six new hospitals. That is historic, Mr. Speaker. And those are six new hospitals in targeted areas where they’re facing capacity challenges. The equivalent of six new hospitals operational in the coming weeks represents more than 1,200 acute in-patient beds.

In addition to that, we announced the opening of approximately 600 transitional care spaces, spaces like at the former Humber River Hospital Finch site, which that party ridiculed, Mr. Speaker, which is providing 150 spaces for reactivation and rehabilitation of people who need that care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, here’s a little bit of perspective for the government: Last week, the Premier offered six—six—new temporary beds to Brampton Civic Hospital, ostensibly to help the hospital deal with its overcrowding. According to the hospital itself, Brampton Civic was forced to treat—and I’m going to say it again—4,352 patients in its hallways last year. Most of those 4,352 patients who were forced to receive medical care in a public hallway spent between 40 and 70 hours being treated in those hallways.

That’s two, three, four days stuck in a hallway, even though that’s not where they should have been. Can the Acting Premier tell us how her six beds are supposed to fix a crisis that’s hurting 4,352 people at Brampton each and every year?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: In addition to the new funding that we’ve provided to Brampton Civic for operations this year, William Osler Health System, which includes the Brampton site, is receiving, immediately, 28 new in-patient beds to deal with the capacity challenges in a part of the province where we all recognize there is rapid growth in population, which is being reflected in both visits to emergency rooms as well as in-patient requirements. We’ve also, in that same LHIN, set aside more than 30 other additional in-patient beds which have yet to be allocated.

We’ll be looking to see where those capacity challenges are, where growth is highest, and will allocate accordingly. But, Mr. Speaker, we are making precisely the types of investments—in addition to nearly 1,000 beds that have been added to the system in the province, 1,000 beds permanently added to the system over the last four years, we’re adding the equivalent of six new hospitals—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Brampton Civic’s emergency room was built to serve 90,000 visits annually. Last year, the ER saw 138,000 visits. That means that last year, on any given day, there were 33 people admitted to the hospital but waiting for a bed. That’s 33 people who were sick, in need of medical care, and who had nowhere else to go.

I’m going to ask the Acting Premier again, how can six temporary beds fix a crisis that’s impacting 4,352 patients in the hallways of Brampton Civic Hospital every year?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Over the last two years alone, we’ve invested an additional $41 million in the William Osler Health System, which includes the Brampton Civic—$10 million this year alone.

But I wonder if her member from Welland agrees with her. Yesterday, I was in Niagara Falls and I announced—because we’ve been fighting and working together, her member from Welland and myself, to keep the Welland hospital open. Yesterday, I announced that that is indeed the case. I made the commitment that it will stay open, and I committed to 24/7 emergency services and a whole host of other services that will be made available at that hospital. I wonder if the member from Welland agrees with that investment or disagrees with that investment.

Hospital services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Brampton Civic reached 114% capacity in its acute care beds this year. Between January and April of this year, code gridlock was called or was declared eight times in that hospital, for a total of 65 days, just between January and April. That’s just for the first four months of 2017, and all of this, of course, is under this Premier’s watch.

When gridlock happens, the hospital says that patients could wait up to four days in the ER for a bed. Clearly, that bed might not even be in a room. Someone could wait four days only to be treated in a hallway when finally admitted.

How can this Premier and her government really think that six temporary beds will fix the hallway medicine crisis that their hospital cuts have caused?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, since 2013, we’ve increased the number of beds in this hospital by just under 5%, with 860 new, permanent in-patient beds across the province.

Last week, we announced the equivalent of six new hospitals, 1,200 beds, across the province specifically directed to those parts of the province, as we see in Brampton, where there’s high growth and that growth in population is reflected in pressures in ERs and pressures in hospitals.

But I wonder if her three members who represent the Windsor area of this province agree with their leader, because we, importantly, have made a massive investment and commitment in this spring’s budget to a brand new state-of-the-art hospital for the Windsor region. I wonder if the member for Niagara Falls, who was with us yesterday for an important announcement for the redevelopment of the Niagara hospital serving that region, a multi-billion-dollar investment—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I wonder if this minister is proud of the deplorable state of health care in Brampton, Ontario. That’s what I wonder. This crisis in our hospitals is the result of years of cuts, underfunding and a stunning lack of leadership by this Premier and the Conservatives before her. In fact, when Brampton Civic Hospital opened 10 years ago, it was built to have 18 operating rooms, but 10 years later, there are still two ORs that have never been used. They’ve been sitting mothballed—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Come to order. Minister of Municipal Affairs, come to order.

Carry on, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Two operating rooms have been sitting mothballed since the day the hospital opened because the hospital was never given enough support by this Liberal government to actually open those two operating rooms.

Will the Premier’s six temporary beds in Brampton Civic finally open those two operating rooms?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I think history is an important lesson. We all remember those five years when the NDP were in power in this province. At that time, when the NDP led this province, that party closed 24% of the acute hospital beds in the province; they closed 13% of the mental health beds in the province for a total of 9,645 bed closures. At the same time, they reduced hospital funding; at the same time, they reduced health care funding.

Since 2013, we’ve added 860 permanent beds and last week announced the creation of the equivalent of six new hospitals targeted specifically where the need is greatest.

That’s quite a record that they’ve got.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, 4,352 patients suffering in hallways every year; hallway patients spending 40 hours to 70 hours getting care without any privacy, without any dignity; 33 people per day waiting in the ER for a bed; 114% capacity and 65 days of gridlock in just four months; two operating rooms sitting closed, waiting for this Premier to figure out what leadership actually means in our health care system: This is just one hospital in Ontario.

The Premier’s offer of a few temporary beds falls very short, far short, of what is actually needed. It shows that they just don’t get it and they just don’t care. After all, what kind of leader could know that 4,352 people are being treated in Brampton’s hospital hallways and do very little, do nothing but offer six beds to try to fix it?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: When we announced the creation of the equivalent of six new hospitals across the province—1,200 in-patient beds, 600 transitional-care beds, 200 spaces for affordable housing for seniors—when we unveiled that plan, that investment of $100 million and an additional $40 million for home care, including in Brampton, Mississauga, Toronto, Windsor, Oshawa, Ottawa, Kingston and throughout this province, we developed that plan in close and, I would say, deep partnership with the Ontario Hospital Association.

They did an inventory of hospitals where the need was greatest, where the beds were available and they came to us with that inventory. We chose from their best advice to make those allocations, and it is having a tremendous impact already—six new hospitals in a single week.

Hospital services

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health. This government’s mismanagement of the Ontario health care system has resulted in a hospital overcrowding crisis. This Liberal government is responsible for Ontario’s hospitals suffering through four years of frozen budgets. This government has continued to cut funding, pushing our hospitals to the breaking point.

The Auditor General warned that hospital beds were unnecessarily being occupied by patients waiting for long-term-care beds or home care, causing delays. Unfortunately, the government didn’t listen to the Auditor General, and now over 4,000 hallway patients at the Brampton Civic Hospital are paying the price.

Speaker, my question to the minister: Given hospitals are at a breaking point, what is the minister doing to end hallway medicine?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The chief government whip will come to order, and whoever it is who’s nervously kicking their desk, I would appreciate it stopped.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m speaking and I’m standing. Minister of Children and Youth Services, second time. Minister of Transportation, come to order. We’re now in warnings.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We’re making investments across the health care system. We’re making investments in the operating budgets of our hospitals—an additional half a billion dollars this year; approximately half a billion dollars last year as well. We’re making the biggest capital investments to deal in the medium and long term with the growth of the population and the aging of the population: a $20-billion investment in our hospital infrastructure over the next decade. That’s unprecedented; that has never happened in this province before.

Last week, the addition of the equivalent of six new hospitals: 1,200 in-patient beds. On top of the nearly 1,000 beds that we’ve added in the last four years, we’re adding an additional 1,200 and an additional 600 transitional beds at places like the Finch site, the former site of the Humber River Hospital, and places like Hillcrest, which is the site of the University Health Network here in Toronto. We’re making investments and doing it in partnership.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: The government is ignoring the 4,110 patients who are sitting in hospitals with nowhere to go. Four thousand, three hundred and fifty-two patients have been admitted in the hallways at Brampton Civic Hospital in only one year. Patients must deal with excessive noise and the lack of privacy; that reduces their quality of care and prolongs recovery time. Instead of investing in patient care in the community and in long-term care, the government continues to invest in their large bureaucracies and huge administrations. With flu season around the corner, we’re going to start seeing more stories like Brampton Civic across the province.

My question to the minister: What work is being done to address the alternative-level-of-care issue in order to end hallway medicine?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The opening of nearly 600 transitional beds like the Reactivation Care Centre at the Finch site of the former Humber River Hospital—there are ALC patients in hospitals that no longer require acute care.

They don’t need to be in hospital, so we’re finding different ways to provide them with the support they need; for example, the additional $40 million this fiscal year invested and announced last weekend in home care, or the transitional spaces like the 150 spaces that will be made available at the Finch site, the spaces available at the Hillcrest site here in Toronto and similar investments being made all around the province to pull those ALC patients out of hospitals where they no longer need to be.

It’s rich coming from the PCs, who closed 10,000 hospital beds, Mr. Speaker.

Labour dispute

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier. Five hundred thousand college students have paid tuition, purchased textbooks and in many cases are paying rent, but with the college strike in week 3 and this Liberal government refusing to act to get the parties to the table, many students fear they will lose their semester and will have to go deeper into debt to complete their programs. Some students are considering class-action lawsuits to get their tuition back, and 120,000 students have signed a petition calling for a tuition refund for each day missed because of the strike.

How is this Liberal government going to compensate students who are being financially penalized because of this strike?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I appreciate the question. I can tell you that my top priority, and the top priority of the Premier, is to get this strike over, to get the two parties back to the table. We are strongly urging, in the strongest possible voice, both sides to get back to the table and resolve this.

I’ve met with several student groups; I’ve discussed with them what the options would be. We are very hopeful that there will not be an issue where students lose their semester, lose their year. That has not happened in the past when we’ve had strikes; there has been a way to get their education back on track once the strike is over. We are exercising every authority we have to get them back so that there is no loss to students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: We all know that the root cause of this strike is the Liberal government’s chronic underfunding of the Ontario college system: the lowest per student funding in Canada. Inaction from this government has allowed the strike to drag on, and students are suffering as a result.

Now we hear that the Premier is not ruling out legislating faculty back to work. Speaker, does this government seriously think that threatening back-to-work legislation is a productive way to get the parties to the table so that a fair negotiated settlement can be reached?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let’s have a little reality check when it comes to college funding. Since 2003, enrolment has increased by about 25% in our colleges. Funding has increased by 82%. So we have increased per student funding by 45%, from $4,600 per student to $6,624.

I welcome advice from both parties on how to resolve this issue. I hear lots of criticism; I would love to hear constructive advice.

Halloween safety

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Today is a very exciting day for many children, not just here in Ontario but right across the world. That’s because today is Halloween, a time to dress up as your favourite TV and movie characters and to stock up on candy for the months to come. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that my two little ones are so excited that they wanted to go trick-or-treating this morning.

When the trick-or-treaters head out tonight, they deserve a safe journey around their neighbourhoods. The scariest part of Halloween should never be someone’s concern for their safety on the roads. I know the minister shares my thoughts on this as well.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could the minister please provide the members of this House with some more information on what our government is doing to protect our most vulnerable road users, both this Halloween and every other day of the year?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for his question and also for his commitment to road safety, not only in Trinity–Spadina but right across the province of Ontario. In fact, I was really happy to have that member join me a number of days ago when we announced new proposals that the government has to introduce strong new measures to protect our most vulnerable road users.

Like the member from Trinity–Spadina, I also have two young kids at home who will be heading out later this evening to trick-or-treat. We owe it not only to our kids but to all of our vulnerable road users to keep up our record of having amongst the safest roads in North America. To date our government has taken strong action through legislation aimed at curbing distracted, impaired and other dangerous driving behaviours. With the ongoing support of over 150 road safety partners, I know that we’ll continue to make important progress.

For tonight, I will specifically remind all drivers: Put down the phone, drive slowly, and pay attention to those trick-or-treaters out there. Make sure your driving is a treat, not a trick.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for his answer. Many of our nearly two million students are celebrating Halloween in schools and communities across Ontario. Many of these students will be dressing up today to look like their favourite superheroes, such as Superwoman or Spider-Man, or witches, warriors, ghastly ghouls or goblins. Some might even dress up like their favourite teacher.

With all the fun and exciting activities happening around school communities this Halloween, such as Harbord Village, Trinity Bellwoods Park, Liberty Village and Grange Park in my riding, we want to ensure the safety of our students while they dress up and trick-or-treat for candy to eat.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what can parents, students and schools do to make sure that our children have a fun, safe and enjoyable Halloween?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to say thank you to the member from Trinity–Spadina for that very timely and spooky question. There’s no question that this is a fun time for students and families across the province. Just take a look at our member from Scarborough–Agincourt and our Deputy Speaker. She’s having a tremendous time with today.

The safety and the well-being of our students is always a top priority, including during fun festivals like Halloween. I want to share some tips for parents and students to support Halloween safety.

Wearing a costume can be a great way to show your support for equity and inclusion, and I know the member from Trinity–Spadina believes that. Trick-or-treaters can walk like zombies or fly on a broom; just remember to do that in groups.

Also, only visit homes that are well lit. Older students should always plan their route and share that with family and friends, and all students should ask their family—

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

New question.

Hydro rates

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, and good morning, Speaker. Yesterday, the minister had the audacity to suggest businesses in northern Ontario had it rosy when it comes to electricity prices. Let me quote directly from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario’s most recent analysis: “Ontario has the highest industrial rates in Canada and one of the highest industrial rates in North America.” The minister can ask North Bay’s Arclin about how their operation had the highest energy cost of all their North American branches. Actually, Speaker, he can’t, because their entire city-block-long factory is now closed. They left Ontario because of skyrocketing hydro.

Speaker, given this minister’s history of saying or doing anything for personal gain, why should anyone believe a word he says?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and talk about what this government is doing for northern Ontario. We continue to do more for northern Ontario than that party ever did, Mr. Speaker. They treated northern Ontario like garbage and never did one iota for our communities in the north.

We can talk about all of the programs that we have brought forward that help the north. I’m going to specifically talk about the northern Ontario industrial electricity rebate program. That’s a $120-million-a-year program that helps these companies in northern Ontario lower their electricity bills significantly. The facts are—and facts do still matter in Ontario—that the northern Ontario industrial electricity rebate program helps these businesses have some of the lowest rates in North America. So when it comes to helping people in the north and making sure that we bring forward programs that help northern businesses, that help northern families, maybe they should do—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary. The member from Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Ross Romano: Well, let’s talk about treating northern Ontario like garbage. The Liberals have run up hydro rates by over 300%. Their answer to the mess that they created was to play a shell game and then call it a plan. This game that you’re playing is costing us $4 billion more than it needs to. The minister refuses to acknowledge that northern Ontario businesses are fighting to keep their doors open because we have some of the most expensive electricity costs in the country. Frank Dottori, owner of White River Forest Products, said, “Most jurisdictions use energy costs to promote economic development, not to kill jobs, which is what we’re doing in Ontario.”

So, Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is this: Why does this minister pretend that northern Ontario rates are competitive? Why do you continue to pretend that wasting $4 billion is a plan, when we all know the truth: that your Liberal hydro disaster is costing us jobs in northern Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Wasn’t it their last leader who couldn’t even find Highway 69 to drive up to it to debate? Right, Mr. Speaker? If you want to talk about a party that doesn’t even know where it is on a map, all you have to do is look right there.

When you want to talk about accomplishments in northern Ontario, I’ve got a list full of them here, and we can start with Sault Ste. Marie. Tenaris Algoma Tubes: NOHFC grant; 450 new jobs that are going into that place, thanks to this government investing in that and making sure that we’re helping in the Soo, in North Bay, in Sudbury, in Timmins.

The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund: $100 million a year to ensure that we’re delivering on the priorities of northerners. The Ring of Fire: a $1-billion commitment that we’re continuing to move forward on, Mr. Speaker, thanks to this government. Expanded broadband: More than 100,000 people in northern Ontario; $32 million invested in that.

I have way more to say, Mr. Speaker. I can’t wait to have a debate with these guys about who does—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Employment standards

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Mary Gellatly, with Parkdale Community Legal Services and the $15 and Fairness campaign, made clear yesterday in committee that the Wynne Liberals have diluted legislation intended to protect workers, stating that a Liberal amendment “directly undermines the intent of the equal pay provisions.”

If the goal, as the Premier stated, is to eliminate the gap between part-time and full-time workers, then that’s what the legislation should do. But once again, Premier Wynne has let us down. If the legislation isn’t changed now before the law is passed, a loophole will exist that employers could exploit to continue to pay part-time, casual and temporary workers less, a move that disproportionately will impact women in this province.

Will the Liberals do the right thing and close this loophole?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you very much to the member for that very important question.

We brought the bill into the House, obviously, for first reading. Then we made the unusual move of taking it out to the people of Ontario after first reading. This, Speaker, comes after two years of consultation, travelling the province of Ontario with the Changing Workplaces Review. We heard from business, we heard from labour and we heard from advocates, like Mary and others who came forward, speaking on behalf of some of the changes that needed to be made to the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act to bring workplaces in line with the realities of a 2017 economy. We’ve heard a variety of opinions. We’ve listened to those opinions. We’ve brought in amendments.

After it went through committee the first time, it came back to this House. It has gone back—this morning, we were hearing further suggestions. We’re still listening. We’re going to get this right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Cindy Forster: The Premier and the labour minister read the paper, the Toronto Star, this morning. They know that the definition that they have put into legislation of seniority will allow employers to continue to pay part-time, casual and temporary workers less, giving employers less reason to actually provide good, stable, full-time jobs. This is not equal pay for equal work, period.

If the idea was to eliminate precarious work, this province needs to do the right thing: It needs to close that loophole while we’re in these committee hearings. Will the Premier and the Liberal government commit to closing the loophole that directly undermines the equal pay legislation?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you very much for that important question from the honourable member. This process has taken a long time and has taken into account a lot of opinions from around—

Interjection.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: And we don’t need to take lessons from the leader of the NDP.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The third party has decided to join this conversation. I welcome that, because in 2013, we launched the Minimum Wage Advisory Panel; the third party did not participate. In 2014, we started the Changing Workplaces Review to take an unprecedented look at the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act; the third party did not participate in that discussion. In fact, they didn’t sign on to raising the minimum wage until we were halfway through the discussion. At that time, the leader of the third party—she has something to say today—said, “Make sure those increases don’t come at too sharp or too steep a rate.”

There are people working, in the province of Ontario, 35 or 40 hours a week who deserve to live a life where they can pay for the basics, they can put food on the table and they can pay rent. That’s what this is about.

Consumer protection

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is to the Attorney General. As you well know, thousands of people from across the province, many from my own riding of Kingston and the Islands, have been denied tickets to their favourite concert or sporting event because scalper bots had already bought them within seconds of their going on sale. We saw this in 2016 when the Tragically Hip were on their final tour and two thirds of the tickets were not made available directly to the public. If this wasn’t enough, the same tickets are resold on websites for prices exponentially higher than the original sale price.

I heard concerns from many of my constituents that the ticket buying and selling process was unfair. That’s why I originally introduced my private member’s bill, Bill 22, the Ticket Speculation Amendment Act, to tackle this challenge.

Can the Attorney General please explain to this chamber the government’s plan to address these ticket bots and ensure an even playing field?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I do want to sincerely thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for this important question, and for her hard work in bringing forward a private member’s bill dealing with exactly the same issue. I want to thank her because she really gave us the foundation upon which we built the legislation that is before this House.

Speaker, our government understands that the ticket industry must become more transparent and provide a fairer way to buy tickets in Ontario. To level the playing field, we have introduced some tough new rules to protect fans. First, we will be capping the resale markup of tickets at 50% above face value. We will be banning, also, the use and sale of ticket bots, while also prohibiting resale of tickets that are not owned or possessed by the seller. Finally, we are helping fans make informed choices about the tickets they purchase by increasing transparency in the ticket reselling industry.

In the supplementary, I’ll talk about some of the enforcement measures as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would also like to thank the Attorney General for his response, and, of course, for his support of my private member’s bill. I know the minister understands very well the concerns of fans in Ontario because I was there when you travelled to Kingston to hear their thoughts for yourself during our consultations.

These proposed measures sound like a great step forward to ensuring that ticket buyers in Ontario are able to purchase tickets for a fair price. But as we have seen, there has been a significant amount of concern regarding the way that we will enforce these changes. Throughout the development of my private member’s bill and the government consultation on the tickets bill, I heard a lot, and I know the member did as well, about how these bots can operate anywhere in the world, making enforcement challenging.

Mr. Speaker, these changes seem well intentioned, but what are our plans to enforce these new measures to ensure that everyone has a fair shot at buying tickets?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m glad that the member asked about enforcement because I think it’s a very important issue. Our strategy to eliminate bots will empower government inspectors, law enforcement and private entities with tools to ensure that the rules are actually followed.

The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, whose minister I would like to thank for introducing this very important piece of legislation, will now have the authority to investigate alleged violations of this proposed law and issue stiff penalties.

We would also now require any business selling tickets in Ontario to be incorporated either in Ontario or Canada, or to maintain an address in Ontario, making these ticket resellers not only Ontario businesses but also accountable to Ontario law.

Finally, we are ensuring that the legislation is technology-neutral, meaning rather than just trying to regulate the technology that allows people to exploit the system today, we are targeting the bad behaviour itself.

We believe that these measures will be able to hold the ticket resellers legally accountable.

Long-term care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, it’s been 14 years since your party took power. You have received numerous reports and hundreds of recommendations to enhance care and protect seniors in long-term care. You promised to implement those but you didn’t follow through.

Speaker, through you, I’m asking the minister: Will you finally take responsibility for protecting seniors in long-term care by testifying before the public inquiry into long-term care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m proud of the investments that we have and are making in long-term care, notwithstanding the fact that that member and his party voted against many, if not most, of those investments.

That included the more than $80 million that was specifically outlined in this year’s budget and such important investments as a $10-million annual increase to Behavioural Supports Ontario to actually go into long-term-care homes with expertise and human resources, with staffing that is specifically trained and capable of working with and supporting the most complex individuals in our long-term-care homes, those who are primarily dealing with dementia, Alzheimer’s, a form of dementia, and other complex conditions.

We’re making those investments. We increased the raw food envelope this year by 6.5%, actually significantly more than what the sector itself was asking us to increase it by. These are the investments we’re making.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the minister: The public inquiry’s purpose is to investigate and ultimately restore confidence and trust in the long-term-care system. You have a direct and significant interest in this, given your responsibility as the regulator of long-term care. In the last inquiry, at Casa Verde, less than 30% of the actual recommendations were implemented by your government.

Ontarians need assurance that you understand the role you play leading up to this inquiry. We want to know: Have you yourself, as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, applied for standing at the inquiry, and if you haven’t done it, when are you going to do it?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I take my responsibility as minister very, very seriously. That’s one of the reasons why we’ve introduced new legislation that is being debated in this Legislature which will provide more tools, including fines and other penalties available to the government and the ability to ensure the absolute safety, security and well-being of residents in our long-term-care homes. We’re making those investments, including an additional $60 million for resident care needs. We’ve redeveloped 13,500 beds. We’ve built 10,000 new beds since coming into office.

We are making those all-important investments, financial ones as well as, as I mentioned, on the inspection, oversight and accountability to ensure that we’re taking an appropriate and responsible holistic approach when it comes to our residents in long-term-care homes to make sure we’re providing them with the highest quality care, as well as the safety and security they deserve.

Hospital services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. On October 10, Hamilton Health Sciences was operating 121 acute care beds completely unfunded by this Premier and her Liberal government, and that shocking number does not include patients who were admitted but had to wait in the ER for a bed—an average of 44 people a day. This means that in October, Hamilton Health Sciences was treating 165 people without the help of the Premier. Her solution for this severe lack of resources in Hamilton’s health system: 30 temporary beds.

Can the Deputy Premier explain to the people of my hometown who are forced to receive their medical care in public hallways how 30 temporary beds is going to help every single one of those 165 people get the care they need?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing together with Hamilton Health Sciences. We’re looking into the medium and long term, as well as the immediate. On the medium and long term, we’ve given them a planning grant so they can look at the hospitals they are responsible for and redevelop them responsibly and appropriately for the changing needs and the increasing population that they’re seeing in that part of the province.

But when it comes specifically to the investment that I made last week, announcing the equivalent of six new hospitals, that complement of beds, 1,200 acute care beds, it is true that Hamilton Health Sciences is part of that allocation: at the Juravinski site on the Mountain, part of Hamilton Health Sciences, 15 new acute in-patient beds; at the general site at McMaster, 15 additional acute in-patient beds. We’re also adding three neonatal intensive care unit beds to the Hamilton General Hospital site. St. Joseph’s in downtown Hamilton, at the Charlton site, is receiving 24 additional beds—

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —and we still haven’t allocated a significant number.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For the past year, Hamilton Health Sciences has been consistently over capacity, registering an average of 105% in its acute care beds. Just to remind the Acting Premier, 85% capacity is considered a safe capacity. The hospital said, and now I’m quoting the hospital, “For six years now, hospital funding has not kept pace with growth in care. During this time, Hamilton Health Sciences has reduced our operational budget by over $120 million, and provided more care every year.” We know that Hamilton Health Sciences has had to make another $20 million in cuts this year. The hospital says their work is being threatened by constant capacity issues.

Does the Acting Premier think 30 temporary beds is going to fix constant capacity issues and a decade of bad Liberal health care policy?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We gave an additional $16.8 million this year alone to Hamilton Health Sciences. I don’t know in what world the leader of the third party lives, but that’s an additional $16.8 million to their budget. I’m not sure what she’s saying about Hamilton Health Sciences, where there are 30 new in-patient beds, three new neonatal intensive care beds, and 24 at St. Joseph’s Healthcare centre. We have 65 additional bed allocations which have not yet been allocated that we will be working together with the local hospitals, with the LHIN, with the Ontario Hospital Association to make sure that we’re allocating them.

In addition to that—and there’s great leadership by Hamilton Health Sciences—we’re also finding transitional and more appropriate spaces outside of hospitals to bring those ALC patients to where they belong.

Autism treatment

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Education. We know that families and students with autism are facing unique challenges, and our government is committed to doing more to strengthen autism services in our schools. I know that the minister is dedicated to supporting the needs of all students, and we are making changes to ensure that our plan for education is responsive to these needs.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What is our government doing to deliver new and high-quality programming to support the success and well-being of students with autism?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to say thank you to the member from Barrie for this question. I know I’ve toured schools with the member and I’ve met students with autism and their EAs.

We’re committed to finding creative ways to make sure that we provide successful outcomes for all students. Our government is moving forward with unprecedented investments in autism services, including our recent historic $500-million investment.

For the past year, we’ve been consulting with parents, experts, teachers, educators as well as members of the Ontario Autism Program Advisory Committee. As a result of this work, we’ve just announced an additional $5 million for a one-year pilot in 18 school boards across the province that will provide dedicated space for external practitioners for applied behaviour analysis to deliver on-site autism services, provide education assistants with access to 40-hour online targeted training and professional learning sessions, and provide funding to hire ABA professionals and board-certified behaviour analyst certification or equivalent qualification to bring clinical expertise to our boards.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I know that our government is making important contributions and investments in our publicly funded education system. Our government remains committed to improving the lives of students, children and youth with autism.

I believe this new pilot program is an important first step towards greater collaboration as we provide services to students with autism. I know that the announcement has received positive support from parents and advocates for autism supports in schools. The new program is being called “a really good start” and “a step in the right direction.”

Minister, can you please tell us more about how this new pilot can improve the learning experiences for all of our students?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member from Barrie. This is definitely an important step towards greater integration of autism supports in schools. The goal of providing dedicated space in school aims to help reduce transitions for students and support a more seamless day.

Instead of leaving the school building, ABA services will now be offered on site, reducing the burden of transportation on families and allowing children more time in the classroom, where they want to be. About 365 EAs will have access to a targeted ABA training, in addition to the 6,300 education assistants our government has already added to schools across the province since 2003. Further, we’re working with the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and other partner ministries, in pursuing the regulation of ABA practitioners.

We are committed to the success and the well-being of all students in our schools, including students with autism.

Air quality

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. People in my riding are concerned that the air they are breathing is making them sick. In 2003, the Ministry of the Environment committed to monitoring air quality in the Beachville area after a report found higher-than-acceptable particulate levels. But over and over, we have had trouble getting the data.

We requested an update on the air quality monitoring from the minister’s office on August 24. We followed up on September 9. On September 27, I wrote the minister directly and asked him for an update. After a month, I received an acknowledgement, promising that someday, I would get a resp