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

March 7, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Mar-07 (PDF)

L146 - Mon 7 Mar 2016 / Lun 7 mar 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 7 March 2016 Lundi 7 mars 2016

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Mental health services

Climate change

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Privatization of public assets

Special-needs students

Ontario budget

Mental health services

Mental health services

Child and youth services

Ring of Fire

Domestic violence

Ontario budget

Public transit

Food safety

Decorum in chamber

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Pharmacists

Animal protection

Member’s newsletter

James Gillies

Camp Eagle Nest

Western Mississauga

Maple syrup

Royal Ottawa Inspiration Awards

GO Transit

Petitions

Family Responsibility Office

Leamington ketchup

Lung health

Hospital funding

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Water fluoridation

Long-term care

Health care funding

Caregivers

Special-needs students

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Health care funding

Orders of the Day

Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Plan d’action contre la violence et le harcèlement sexuels (en soutien aux survivants et en opposition à la violence et au harcèlement sexuels)

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Maybe the member from Sarnia–Lambton will be introducing this gentleman as well, but we have a mutual friend, Lorne Given, here from Sarnia–Lambton.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll allow that; that always happens.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Ajax page captain Bianca Padilla’s family. We only have two of them inside. The rest are coming in. They were waiting outside.

I’m going to ask the two members of the family, the aunt and the brother, to stand—come on, stand right up. Are you standing, Carlo? Oh, that’s not Carlo; he’s outside as well. He’s a former page, and he’s here today. Also here are her aunt Joyce Gutierrez and cousin Ava Aquino. They’re sitting in the members’ gallery today.

At the same time, I’ve got to tell you that the full class from St. Patrick Catholic School are here today, and they will be in the gallery momentarily, and they’ll be here for the photo as well. It’s an honour to welcome them.

Mr. Robert Bailey: That’s a hard act to follow.

I’d like to welcome to the members’ west galley Mr. Lorne Given, a long-time friend and a member of my executive, and also a nephew of one of our long-time Conservative members here, Lorne Henderson.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to welcome once again Cheryl Davies and Borden Craddock, who are the mother and grandmother of page Owen Davies from my riding of London West, and who have joined us today in the public gallery. Welcome.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: This past weekend, the member from Newmarket–Aurora did not get older; he just got better. I’d like us all to wish him a very happy birthday.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Today I’d like to welcome Sami Pritchard from the Walkerton/Hanover area, Scarlett Raczynski from Clinton, and their colleagues Jessica Kearney and James Westman, who are joining us today.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: This weekend—just yesterday, in fact—our colleague the honourable member from Durham celebrated a birthday. Let’s join in wishing him a happy birthday.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Page captain Dhruv Upadhyay’s mother and sister are in the gallery: Nilu and Tanisi.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d hoped they would have joined us right now, but they are on their way in. The head of the provincial building trades in Ontario, Mr. Pat Dillon, and his right-hand person, former OLIP intern Igor Delov, will be joining us today.

M me France Gélinas: She is making her way in. Her name is Darquise Frappier from École secondaire Felix-Ricard. She is one of the Ontario Junior Citizen Award recipients, and she will be receiving her award this afternoon. She’s not quite in, but that was the end of introductions.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’d like to introduce my friend Jeff Mole, who’s in the visitors’ gallery. Jeff is an activist around community energy solutions and community conservation, and a great citizen of Ontario.

Oral Questions

Mental health services

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. I had the privilege—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m very much aware of the happenings in the province, and I’m going to ask that we spend a moment just to reflect on what my job is. I would like to be able to provide all questioners and those giving answers with the appropriate attention that they deserve.

Leader?

Mr. Patrick Brown: I had the privilege of touring the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre this past weekend. I was moved by the work they do. But the truth is that mental health care facilities in Ontario need the government’s help. The geriatric hospital wing at the Royal has a three-month waiting list. Drug addiction services have an even longer waiting list.

I asked the staff and the physicians at the Royal what we could do, what we could raise at Queen’s Park, and they said, “Tell the government, and tell the Minister of Health to stop cutting our mental health facilities.”

Will the government commit to supporting mental health in the province of Ontario?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m hoping, based on that question, that the official opposition will support us in our budget, because, in fact, we are increasing our funding, not just generally in hospitals—an additional $345 million to hospitals—but specifically to our in-patient mental health hospitals across this province.

We have made a substantial new increase this year, and I would hope that the member opposite would recognize that it’s important for these hospitals in the context of the transformations that we’re undergoing. They’re moving with us, in terms of reform to funding models, focusing more on outcomes and what truly benefits patients.

We’re also moving more and more of the patients who we can provide support to into the community, where they can be best cared for. The evidence demonstrates the outcomes are better in the community. So we’re making these reforms with our hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, you want to talk about outcomes? The outcome and the reality is the government’s not doing enough. There is not enough when mental illness affects one in three people during their lifetime. The funding is not enough when one in three hospitalizations is caused by mental illness. We know that 70% of mental health issues emerging are in the teen years. The government needs to make the resources available for our youth, but this government has done the opposite. They have cut mental health.

My question to the Acting Premier or the Minister of Health is, will you commit to stopping the cuts in our mental health facilities?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Once again, we’re increasing our funding to mental health across this province. We’re in the middle of a new expansion program, a new $138 million in our mental health and addiction services in the most recent budget that’s been tabled. We’ve increased, specifically, an allocation wholly dedicated to our mental health hospitals.

The Royal, as well, has benefitted from a substantial new investment in a dedicated CT scan that will benefit patients who are challenged by mental illness. There are many, many things that we’re doing to transform our mental health services across the province, including at the Royal in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: No one believes this government is doing enough on mental health. The reality is, mental health is just as important as physical health, but this Premier and this government don’t recognize how cruel it is that they go out during Bell Let’s Talk month and say, “Come forward. Have the courage to ask for treatment,” and then they cut that treatment. How hypocritical. How wrong. You want to talk—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader will withdraw.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Withdraw.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: The reality is, when you actually go and visit these centres—when I visited Ontario Shores, they said the cuts were too much. They had to fire staff. At the Royal last year, they had to cut 18 staff members who are needed on the front lines dealing with mental health in Ontario; 18 people were cut.

The question is, I appreciate you’ve got your talking points, but every mental health facility is cutting staff.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And if you continue, I’ll have to deal with you.

Now, I’ve already mentioned it once. I’ll mention it a second time, and that will be the end. While I’m trying to speak and I’m standing, giving people instructions, the minute I sit down, I hear heckling. I’m going to go after those individuals.

Number two, would the member please address the Chair.

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s right there in the budget document on page 117, the important investments, the new investments that we’re making in our mental health and addiction services, including in our hospitals.

But I think, Mr. Speaker, it’s important to also recognize that mental health is evolving in the sense that the outcomes—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Carry on.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As the finance minister is reminding me, more than $16 million to mental health services, in addition to $138 million that we’re investing in community care, because I would hope the leader of the official opposition would recognize that we need to follow the evidence and the science and what best outcomes exist for those with mental health challenges. Often, that’s moving them into the community and providing supportive care, like the 1,000 new supportive—

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

Interjection.

Member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

New question?

Climate change

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, since I can’t get a straight answer about why every mental health facility in Ontario has had to cut staff, let’s try something else.

A recent Forum poll had some interesting information. It said that there is strong disapproval for the Liberal version of cap-and-trade. It said nearly 60% of the people in Ontario disapprove of cap-and-trade as a cash grab. If you want to get public buy-in, if you—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Making references to “you” means you’re not speaking to me. I need to be included in this. Please, it helps. As far as I’m concerned, if it continues on this side, I’m doing the same thing.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to get public buy-in for their environmental policies, it can’t simply be a cash grab. It has to be revenue-neutral. Will the government commit to making their cap-and-trade policy revenue-neutral?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do want to start by sincerely congratulating the Leader of the Opposition for his change of heart on the environment. I think all of us were heartened to see your position on that.

The tricky part, though, is this: There have been some flip-flops. Now he’s supporting the environment, but for nine years, as a member of the Harper caucus, he sat on his—

Mr. John Yakabuski: This has got to stop—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No. You do.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: He sat on his hands when—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Huron–Bruce.

Please finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The now-Leader of the Opposition sat on his hands when Harper withdrew from the Kyoto—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is about policy, because Canada’s reputation was harmed—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m not going to debate this: provincial government policy.

Start the clock. Wrap up, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, now the Leader of the Opposition says that he believes that climate change is a major threat to Ontario, but when he ran for leadership not that long ago, he said, “It would not be my plan to bring in a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax.”

Now the PC leader says that we have to do something about climate change, and that something includes putting a price on carbon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question was on revenue neutrality. I wasn’t asking for smears, attacks or insults. This is a serious public policy question.

The reality is this government’s proposal will cause the average family in Ontario to pay $387 more. That’s not right. This plan must include corresponding tax relief for individuals and businesses if you want to have the public’s buy-in.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have to stop making life more expensive for everyone in Ontario. Why won’t this government give families a break? Will you commit that this will not be a Liberal slush fund and that you will give it back to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: So, Speaker, on Saturday we—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When I get the attention, it’s not the moment for you to then start interjecting. It’s actually when you’re supposed to stop.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The PC leader said on Saturday that there was practically universal support in the caucus for carbon pricing, but just last week, the environment critic said that it was PC policy not to support cap-and-trade.

“Premier,” the environment critic said, “will you heed the advice of the PC Party of Ontario and commit to not implementing a carbon tax?” So, Speaker, it’s pretty hard to tell the flips from the flops, but we’re glad that you decided—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: Once again, I did not get an answer on revenue neutrality.

Let me say, our environment critic is a phenomenal MPP, and what she said last week was that we don’t need a cap-and-trade policy that’s simply another Liberal slush fund. So let me say this very clearly: This plan can’t be another Collegate; it can’t be another Metrolinx slush fund. It can’t be like the business grant program that the Auditor General says was completely abused and not transparent. The money can’t go to Liberal pet projects. A revenue-neutral plan must be subject to independent oversight.

Will the government agree here today that it will not be another Liberal slush fund, it will be conditional on oversight, and that the government will actually give it back to the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, there seem to be some big holes in the opposition’s position. The first one is this: As you know, the Financial Accountability Officer reported last week that, by regulation—and I’ll send it by the page over to the member of the official opposition—this is a regulatory fee; this money can only legally be spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would be nice, now that the Leader of the Opposition knows that, if he could be honest.

But I am curious. Did he tell people on Saturday that his tax would be $160 a tonne, 10 times what it would be under a cap-and-trade system? How did that work out with the people that he promised he would never introduce a carbon price tax, because the carbon tax doesn’t have a—

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

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Liberals are nearly doubling drug costs for most seniors. On top of that, on page 180 of the budget, it says that the government is cutting $200 million from the Ontario drug benefit that helps seniors pay for their medication. How much of that $200 million will be coming out of seniors’ pockets?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we’re proud of our drug program that provides nearly 5,000 different medications to Ontarians, including our seniors, but many others of low income that are deserving of those medicines. It is a program which we continue to invest in, about $150 million a year, or a 3% increase in that budget on an annual basis.

We’ve made important changes and measures in this budget so that an additional 170,000 people will go from paying a $100 deductible to paying a zero-dollar deductible. That’s an important measure that’s going to benefit so many Ontarians. It will bring to that category almost 500,000 seniors who will not pay any annual deductible at all. I would hope that that’s something that the third party would appreciate. It provides support to those who truly need it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the minister is not admitting to is that under the Liberals’ plan, more seniors will be paying more for their prescription drugs. On top of nearly doubling what most seniors will pay, the Liberals are cutting $200 million from the seniors’ drug coverage. Why doesn’t this government focus on expanding prescription drug coverage and protecting universal access to health care instead of cutting supports for seniors?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We continue to increase our drug program, including for seniors, year after year after year, and I think it’s important that Ontarians understand that we have the most generous drug program for seniors in the entire country. It’s true that the out-of-pocket expenses, on average, for a senior are approximately $277 in Ontario. The next closest province is approximately $600. That includes provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec, which are more than double the out-of-pocket expenses for seniors. So we have the most generous program.

We need to make some changes in order to ensure the sustainability of the program. I believe Ontarians appreciate that we should direct our greatest effort to those who need the help the most. That’s what we’re intending to do with this budget.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, not only are the Liberals planning to make seniors pay more for medication; their plan is to cut $200 million from the Ontario drug benefit. That means less funding for seniors’ medication.

Why are the Liberals cutting $200 million and forcing seniors to pay more for their prescriptions instead of investing in expanding coverage so that more seniors have access to affordable medications?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: While we are continuing to increase our funding for drug programs, including for our seniors, what we’re doing is we’re shifting somewhat the responsibility for those seniors who can most afford it to help 170,000 more seniors pay no annual deductible.

But that’s not all we’re doing for our seniors. We’re also increasing our funding by $75 million for hospices and palliative and end-of-life care. We’re adding the shingles vaccine, a free vaccine, an estimated $170 saving to each senior. We’re removing the debt retirement charges, which will save our seniors, on average, an additional $70 per year.

We actually reduced the number of prescriptions that a pharmacist is allowed to charge for monthly, from up to 12 down to four. That’s going to save an enormous amount of money in the reduced co-payment costs for our seniors—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —needing to go to pharmacists less.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. It’s been 12 days since the Premier announced her plan to nearly double the cost of medication for seniors in Ontario. It took her five days to realize that that was a mistake. Now she’s giving herself until the end of March, Speaker, to figure out whether a senior making $19,500 a year is affluent.

Has this Liberal government realized that their plan will nearly double medication costs for struggling seniors, or do they need 24 more days to figure out whether or not a senior earning $19,500 a year is actually affluent?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I was a bit taken aback when the deputy leader of the NDP announced that they would proudly vote against this budget.

What that means is that the NDP is voting against free tuition for low-income students and reduced costs for middle-class families. They’re voting against the biggest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history, one that’s going to create 110,000 jobs each year. They’re voting against increasing health care funding by $1 billion, including $345 million for hospital funding. They’re voting against $178 million for affordable housing and homelessness initiatives. They’re voting against lowering hospital parking fees. They’re voting against the shingles vaccine. They’re voting against 170,000 more Ontario seniors getting zero deductible—

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We will proudly be voting against a Liberal plan that will leave seniors paying more for their drug costs. The Premier has given herself more than three weeks to figure out what everyone in Ontario already knows: that struggling seniors cannot afford to pay more for their medication. And on top of making seniors pay more, the Liberals are planning to cut $200 million from the seniors’ drug benefit.

These are things that New Democrats don’t support, Speaker. It should be no surprise to the Liberals that New Democrats actually believe in pharmacare and in more opportunity. Universality is what we believe in. The Liberals have no such belief.

Will this government stop cutting and instead make medication more affordable for more seniors?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It seems to me that the only criticism the third party has of this budget is an item that the Premier has already said we’re going to take another look at. So they’re voting against making the shingles vaccines free for eligible seniors. They’re voting against $100 million to help people reduce their home energy bills. They’re voting against eliminating the Drive Clean $30 fee. They’re voting against reducing auto insurance. They’re voting against 250,000 four- and five-year-olds having access to full-day kindergarten.

They’re voting against supports to an innovative program for high school students to assist with financial literacy. They’re voting against $75 million for hospice and community care. They’re voting against $333 million to support kids with autism.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Acting Premier doesn’t have to worry, Speaker. New Democrats will be talking quite a bit over the next number of days about all of the things in this budget that we have serious problems with.

However, today I’m asking specifically about the fact that seniors have seen their drug costs double. Seniors have also seen wait-lists for long-term care get longer and longer. They’re waiting months on months for home care. If the Acting Premier wants the list, I’ll give it to her. They’ve seen physiotherapy services cut. They’re struggling to pay their heating bills. And now, the Premier is increasing their medication costs and slashing the Ontario drug benefit.

When will Ontario seniors get the respect that they deserve from this Liberal government?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the NDP are saying that they are going to vote against $250 million more to home and community care. The NDP is saying they’re voting against free tuition for the kids in the lowest income—actually, income up to $50,000 a year. This is a life-changing initiative in this budget. The old NDP would have been standing up and cheering this news. The new NDP is just stuck on one issue that we’ve already said we will review.

There are other things in the budget, including GO service to Niagara. Now, I am a bit surprised that the NDP would not be supporting GO service to Niagara, considering that they’ve been big advocates of this. There’s a lot in this budget. It’s an important, progressive budget—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Minister, I have a document here that outlines an RFP issued by the LCBO on February 24, one day before the budget was released. It states that the LCBO is seeking a real estate vendor to sell 250 LCBO store locations right across the province.

Section 3.2.1 states, “The LCBO’s main intention is to sell properties,” and 3.2.3 says the LCBO will consider leasing out properties that are deemed unsaleable or if they can generate high revenue from a tenant.

Speaker, can the minister tell us just how much money he expects this sale to bring in for the province, what will happen to these LCBO locations and how many jobs will be cut or otherwise affected as a result of this sale?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question from the member opposite, who I believe recognizes the tremendous contribution that the LCBO provides our province by way of dividends, recognizing that the expertise of the LCBO is operating a retail organization that has tremendous value. We recognize the work it does as a distributor for the benefit of Ontarians, who then realize on some of those proceeds for hospital investments, for education—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Hon. Charles Sousa: —and for infrastructure investments. That’s their priority, Mr. Speaker. They’re doing a good job and—

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Answer the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Right after I asked the member to come to order, he just kept yelling, so I’m going to say second time to the member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Just wrap up, please. Are you finished? Thank you.

Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, I can take from the fact that we didn’t get an answer about the 250 stores that they’re selling 250 stores across Ontario. That’s plain and simple. It’s curious that the RFP went out before the budget was released, yet none of those details were in the budget: no details on which 250 locations, no details on how many thousands of jobs will be cut, no details on the financial impact this will have on the bottom line.

Speaker, I wonder: Is this more Liberal furniture-burning to heat the home? Is this another part of the Liberal plan to balance their budget? I ask the minister: Why were you keeping details of this sale of LCBO stores secret from the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Well, I think you’re getting close.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Here comes scandal number five.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: There’s no secret that this side of the House supports the LCBO, supports the work that they’re doing. We are continuing to provide all the supports necessary for the LCBO to succeed. It’s why they are the wholesalers of the distribution that’s being advanced to grocery chains, for example.

The member opposite makes reference to secrecy. Well, there may be some market and commercial sensitivities. This I can say, though: LCBO stores and the distribution network will continue with the same complement that it has now because it benefits all of Ontarians. What may occur in respect to a leased premise or an owned premise will be up to the LCBO to determine the best value for taxpayer money and the best value for our returns. The member opposite, as finance critic, should know better.

Special-needs students

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Education. Speaker, students and families in London are contacting my office, concerned about the possible closure of the Robarts School for the Deaf and the Amethyst school in London. Families wonder why the minister has cut off enrolment into provincial and demonstration schools if she is really only just consulting. They wonder why this government capped enrolment at 42 when the program has space for 138 students.

Children in London have been waiting and hoping for months, only to learn that they may never get these specialized services in the schools. The closure of both schools leaves students in southwestern Ontario with nowhere else to turn.

Speaker, why is the minister trying to balance the budget on the backs of some of our most vulnerable students?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to start out by assuring everyone that at the moment we are consulting on the future of the programs to make sure that we serve deaf children in Ontario and children with very severe learning needs in the best way possible. No decisions have been made. I want to emphasize that.

While we’re doing the consultation, we have put a pause on accepting enrolments because we need to figure out the best way to deliver the programs going forward.

I’ve been visiting the demonstration schools, which deal with children with very severe learning disabilities. The demonstration schools have some wonderful programs. The problem is, though, that we have thousands of kids in the province who need support with reading.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Parents are concerned. They’re concerned, they’re contacting my office, and they want us to be the voice so that this minister will listen.

Speaker, back to the minister: Students who want to attend specialized schools like Robarts or Amethyst should have the right to do so. These are some of the most vulnerable kids in our province. They deserve better. Their families deserve better.

Thousands of parents have signed petitions online begging the minister and her government to keep these important schools open. This weekend we heard from Becca Haggit, a student who attends Amethyst and has benefited deeply from it. She is advocating for herself and for the rights of other children with unique needs who need to access these schools. The minister needs to listen to students who are directly impacted by these specialized programs.

Speaker, will the minister guarantee today that neither Amethyst nor Robarts will be closed because of consultations—yes or no?

Hon. Liz Sandals: If I could just talk a little bit about the Amethyst school, which, just to clarify, is for children with severe learning disabilities, many of the children who are at Amethyst are six or even eight grade levels behind, in terms of their reading skills. They’re kids who are intelligent kids, but they just haven’t been able to learn to read.

We know that the kids who are at Amethyst are not the only kids in the province who are struggling with learning to read. We know that there are other kids in the province who haven’t had the opportunity to go to Amethyst who are struggling to learn to read. We need to figure out how we help all the kids who are struggling to learn to read but have average intelligence. There is a bigger group, and we need to think through our programs carefully.

Ontario budget

Mr. John Fraser: Ma question est pour le ministre des Richesses naturelles et des Forêts. Minister, the 2016-17 budget contained many positive measures to grow our economy for Ontarians. Among them was continued support for your Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry oversees industries that Ontarians rely on every day, industries like aggregates and wood products that build our schools, hospitals and homes, and that thousands of Ontarians rely on for jobs. The ministry also works to protect the public, its plants and its wildlife while providing opportunities to experience our natural heritage.

Can the minister share how this government’s budget is supporting the activities of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. As most people will know, certainly most people in northern Ontario will know, the forest industry really felt the downturn of the recession two or three years before the 2008 recession really took hold in the rest of the province. As a result of that, our government came forward with a broad suite of programs, many of which are still in existence, valued at well over $1 billion, which continue to support, and have supported, the forestry industry in Ontario.

Currently, we’re working very hard representing the interests of our industry on the international stage. As many will know, the softwood lumber agreement is currently being renegotiated. We’re doing our best to represent the Ontario industry in that regard. We still have a very significant roads funding program in place to support the industry.

As well, Speaker, I would add that we have created a new program that supports the forest industry here in Ontario. The Forestry Growth Fund is a new program under the Jobs and Prosperity Fund, which will help forestry on a go-forward basis with our capital projects.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the minister for his response.

Minister, there has been some confusion in the media recently with regard to service and licence fees within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. I know that service fees collected by your ministry support activities valuable to many Ontarians. Amongst the most visible and impactful are Ontario’s parks.

Can the minister correct the record in this Legislature around the fees and the activities that such fees support?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Again, I want to thank the member for the question and the opportunity to correct the record. I’ve done this at least once before, Speaker, and further about the things that such fees and the broader budget do support.

First and foremost, recreational fish and wildlife licences are not going up as part of budget 2016. Further existing fees are used exclusively to support the management of fish and wildlife for today and tomorrow.

There’s a planned increase of about 50 cents per car per night for visitors to Ontario parks. These fees, as well as seasonal lot fees, contribute to Ontario parks’ ability to be more than 85% self-funded. I think that’s important to remember.

More than that, the budget also contains new money for important parks infrastructure that will enhance the experience of visitors to Ontario parks. Ontario parks, like Rideau River and Fitzroy, near the member’s riding, are among my ministry’s best contributions to the province and provincial parks piece.

This budget’s investments in parks, along with a balanced approach to service fees, ensure that parks’ operations are sustainable for future generations.

Mental health services

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, the government’s rationing of health care has created a crisis in Ontario. Last week in London, 22 mental health patients were left waiting for beds. They were placed in a classroom because there was no space. Guelph’s emergency room was shut down when 11 mental health patients required in-patient admission but the hospital had nowhere to place them.

Mental health patients deserve the same care as physical health patients. Why are you failing our mentally ill across this province by failing to deal with the crisis in our health care system today? Minister, will you stand up and stop rationing the health care system?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m not exactly sure how a $1-billion new investment in our health care system can be described as anything at all in relationship to what the member opposite is alleging.

I think he was in the Legislature last week when we talked about the situation in London, where I reminded the members of the Legislature of the new investment of more than $1 million in capital, as well as the operating budget, to develop a brand new crisis centre for mental health patients in London and in the Middlesex area.

Mr. Speaker, we’re continuing to make these important investments. I would hope that the member would, again, acknowledge that often it is in the community, with strong community supports, where the best outcomes are achieved. It’s not necessarily in the hospital.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: I was here last week when your government turned your back on everybody suffering from rare diseases.

The situation worsened over the weekend. Pete Verberne, who suffers from Alzheimer’s, spent eight nights sleeping on the Victoria hospital floor while in restraints because there were no beds or enough front-line health care professionals to look after him.

Your government has had many photo ops promoting mental health support, but the government is failing terribly. The health care system is being rationed because of your government’s financial mismanagement. Over $2 billion have been wasted on eHealth, $26.9 million on a diabetes registry and billions more on Ornge. Could you only think of the mental health services we could have in our province if you hadn’t wasted that money?

Minister, will you stop the waste and rationing and look after our most vulnerable, who are slipping through the cracks of your mismanaged health care system?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The billion-dollar increase to our health care system includes many important investments, whether they be in palliative care and hospice care, whether they be in mental health—an additional multi-million-dollar investment in mental health services in this province—or whether they be the capital investments of $12 billion over the next 10 years.

We’ve had an independent study by ICES which has shown that the reforms that we’re making are having a positive impact: a shorter length of stay in hospital, increased numbers of patients treated, minimal impact on re-admission rates, and, importantly, a statistically significant reduction in nurse-sensitive adverse events. That’s important because that’s about the safety of our front-line health care workers. The evidence shows that our reforms, our transformation, and our quality agenda over the past few years are making an important and positive impact.

Mental health services

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Liberal cuts to health care are hurting patients in Hamilton. Hamilton Health Sciences is cutting nearly 100 full-time positions, St. Joe’s is cutting 136 positions, and mental health services are being moved out of my riding and out of east Hamilton. Those services are a lifeline for people in need, but now the whole east side of Hamilton will be without psychiatric care. Patients will be asked to take the bus for an extra hour each way to the remaining facility on Hamilton Mountain. These additional burdens of time and money will only discourage patients from getting the help they need.

Will the minister explain to us why this government is making it harder for people in east Hamilton to get the mental health care they require?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I first want to address the comments made at the beginning of the member’s question with regard to Hamilton Health Sciences generally. We do know that they reviewed 230 different options for finding efficiencies and for staying within their allocation. They decided on a number of those options. Of more than 200, they decided on a handful of them. It does result in some job losses, approximately 90, but almost 50 of those are unfilled positions, so the true number is closer to between 40 and 50.

The Ontario Nurses’ Association says that only a “very small number” of the affected jobs at HHS are in nursing. There are non-union positions which are being removed as a result of this change.

I think we need to recognize that we need to give the tools to our hospitals to make the changes they deem necessary to provide the best-quality patient care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Interesting. RNs, RPNs, social workers, child care workers, technologists and lab staff and many other workers are all threatened by cuts at St. Joseph’s, and they know the impact that this will have on their community. The closure of East Region Mental Health Services is a body blow to my riding, which is the second-poorest in Ontario.

Poverty breeds poor health, including mental health. This clinic exists to provide community-based support. Instead, we’re asking people to travel an hour each way out of their community to get help. Gary Birch from Binbrook contacted my office and pointed out that these patients have reached a mental or financial state such that they can only access a mental health service that is near them. They will not venture very far, yet this government is telling them to hit the road.

This pattern of short-term cuts with long-term costs and consequences is the hallmark of this Liberal government, and it is occurring across our province. How long will patients in Hamilton have to suffer just because the Liberal government can’t get its priorities straight?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: My understanding is that this is one of the changes that St. Joseph’s is contemplating to its mental health system. Of course we know that on the Mountain there is a more than $1-billion investment in the mental health services that provide support to people not just from Hamilton but for the entire region.

We need to also acknowledge the importance of moving those programs, services and supports out into the community. We’ve been doing that through an investment of $20 million over six years in the Medical Psychiatry Alliance, which is going to provide tens of thousands of individuals better access to mental health services.

I’m surprised that the member doesn’t talk about the Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team that’s set up in Hamilton, which has ride-alongs of mental health workers with our police officers so that if there is a mental health crisis involving somebody who otherwise would end up in the justice system, they get involved. They often divert away from hospitals to begin with, to provide the important community supports that also keep that person out of prison.

Child and youth services

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

This budget made significant investments to help children and youth across the province. Many families in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora are glad to hear that we will be providing $333 million in new funding for autism services. I think often of the parents and children with autism who come to see me, and the challenges and struggles they face each day. I’m sure they’ll support this government’s additional investments for children and youth with special needs.

Can the minister please inform the House of the important investments her ministry is making to support Ontario’s children?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for this very excellent question. He’s absolutely right: The new investments that have been mentioned are very, very good news for children, youth and families in Ontario. This year’s budget increases the children and youth budget by 2.1%, and this is very, very good news for families across the province.

As mentioned, we’re investing $330 million in new funds to support children and youth with autism. We’ve worked really hard with the experts to develop a plan for new funding, and we’ll be announcing those details shortly. We’ve also invested an additional $17.8 million for children with special needs, which is just part of the nearly half a billion dollars we provide to support children with special needs and their families across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to thank the minister for her answer.

These investments will certainly make a difference in the lives of my constituents, particularly those caring for children with special needs or autism. The overall increase for the budget of her ministry of 2.1% is impressive and certainly money well spent. I’m happy that I’ll be able to report this good news to my community.

I also imagine that these new investments are being well received more broadly. Can the minister please explain how people are responding to the initiatives she has just mentioned?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member again for the question. He’s absolutely right. I’m very pleased to report that our investments in children and youth are being well received and supported by stakeholders in the sector. For example, Margaret Spoelstra, the executive director of Autism Ontario, said, “Families raising children with autism have been waiting a long time this announcement.... This investment will set the stage for continuous learning for years to come.”

The leader of the official opposition called our investments “appropriate” and well received, and he also recognized that the $17.8 million for special needs is “a step in the right direction.” The NDP member for Kitchener–Waterloo called these investments for autism “a positive step.” Despite all of that, I’m very disappointed that we’ve heard that both opposition parties have indicated they will not be supporting our budget and therefore will not be supporting these very important initiatives.

Ring of Fire

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Whenever it is time for the annual Prospectors and Developers Association convention, this government always seems to rediscover the mining sector. But this year in the budget, the only significant mention of the $60-billion Ring of Fire project was a re-announcement from 2014. The same page in the budget has essentially been copied and pasted for three years. This wouldn’t be so disappointing except for the fact that not a single dollar of these promised infrastructure funds has been used to advance the project.

Will the minister explain his government’s total lack of urgency on developing the Ring of Fire?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the question. The member knows well what a priority not just the Ring of Fire is but the entire mineral development sector is. That’s why the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada’s conference is such an important gathering. Yes, indeed, we are very proud of our continued $1-billion commitment towards the Ring of Fire and we’re going to continue our discussions, certainly with the federal government, with the First Nations and with industry as we move forward.

There are important discussions going on that the member well knows about. They’re going to lead us forward. They’re going to also lead us to other mineral development prospects that we are very, very excited about. The fact that we also have $120 million that is committed to the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program is also crucial. The fact that we have a record-breaking investment in infrastructure development is also crucial for the mining sector.

So while we see continued challenges to the mining sector, if the member was down at PDAC yesterday he would recognize that, indeed, there is a very positive atmosphere about future development in the mining sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines: The minister continues to insist that progress is being made, but where’s the proof? He just admitted that not a nickel has flowed. In fact, over the past three years alone, you’ve missed your own government deadlines in every measurable area of the project. The Auditor General used her 2015 report to single out your ministry for its ineffectiveness and inaction.

Speaker, continued talk by this government won’t develop the Ring of Fire. If that were the case, we’d already have the 5,500 jobs per year that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce estimates will be created by the project.

Why can’t this government get anything right, especially on a project as important as the Ring of Fire?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The mic wasn’t on.

Finish, please.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the member knows full well, we are doing very, very important work with the Matawa First Nations. We have put a regional framework agreement in place that allows us to move forward with important discussions. The fact is we need to have the communities embracing this development. This is an extraordinary resource development project in a remote part of the province that has never seen development before, so there are many considerations at play.

But what we have is positive development moving forward in terms of that regional framework agreement, including discussions about regional infrastructure development, about resource revenue sharing, about socio-economic supports, and that’s again why we are so encouraged by our relationship with the new federal government.

I had an opportunity to see a number of ministers yesterday and a number of federal members yesterday, and there was great eagerness in continuing those discussions. We are going to move forward on this project as we are on so many projects in terms of the mining sector. We’re excited about it. We’re going to stay positive. We sure wish you would as well because, at the end of the day, we are going to see a great development in northern Ontario.

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

Domestic violence

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Attorney General. Tomorrow is International Women’s Day, but in Ontario, instead of moving forward, women have been made more vulnerable by the Liberal government’s decision to cut funding to Partner Assault Response. If this government was serious about ending domestic violence, it would recognize the need to hold abusive partners responsible for changing their violent behaviours.

Last week, a provincial survey revealed that almost half of Ontario men believe that victims are to blame if they stay in an abusive relationship. Does the Liberal government support this view? And if not, why is the Attorney General cutting funding for PAR, the only government program for men who abuse?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This program, PAR, is a very important component of our government’s plan to end violence against women. I wanted to say to the public that this government has increased money into this program. In 2014-15, more than 11,000 offenders were referred to this program. We are committed to collaborating with stakeholders on ways to further improve PAR.

I have listened to stakeholder concerns about the program, and some service providers are concerned with declines in referral rates and the data the government relies on to determine funding allocation. My ministry took these concerns into consideration and has adjusted the funding allocation for 2016-17 in order to minimize the impact on agencies. So we have not reduced—

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The minister knows that overall PAR funding has been cut, as much as 50% for the Windsor PAR Program and 25% in Elgin. These cuts came after the Premier stood in this House on December 2 and declared that there are no cuts to PAR.

Why did the minister ignore the calls of violence-against-women experts and front-line agencies to halt any further changes to PAR? Why did she ignore the Premier, who said there would be no changes to PAR allocations, and instead cut the 2016 allocations for PAR provider agencies?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Our government’s annual investment in the PAR Program has increased by 47%, from $7.2 million in 2004-05 to $10.6 million in 2015-16.

There is a concern about this program. We’ve listened to the concerns. We will be convening a stakeholder meeting on April 20, 2016, with all of our PAR providers, violence-against-women stakeholders and experts to discuss concerns about the program and also hear their ideas for improvement. We’ve always wanted to improve the efficiency of the program, and we will continue to listen to the stakeholders.

Ontario budget

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, as we all know, the number of Ontario seniors aged 65 and over is projected to more than double to over 4.5 million, or 25% of the population, by 2041. With that growth, we know that an increasing number of our parents and grandparents may one day require specialized care provided by one of the province’s long-term-care facilities.

We also know that, as this demand for long-term care increases, organizations like the Ontario Long Term Care Association are telling us that the number of long-term-care residents coming into care with cognitive impairments has increased significantly, with more than 60% of the residents in our long-term-care homes currently having Alzheimer’s or some other form of dementia. As more and more families in my riding are turning their thoughts toward the care their parents and grandparents may need in the future, I would like to reassure them that their loved ones will continue the highest level of care.

Minister, can you please tell this House about the new funding and how it will be used to provide the highest level of care for our loved ones?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Let me begin by thanking the member from Brampton–Springdale for this important question and her ongoing advocacy for seniors in her riding.

The member is absolutely right: Over the last decade, we have seen an increase in the instances of people with dementia entering long-term care exhibiting what are called “responsive” behaviours, such as aggression, wandering and agitation. That’s why long-term care is one of the areas where the Ministry of Health has consistently been increasing funding, and this year is no exception.

In fact, this year we are providing exceptional funding to the long-term-care sector, including a 2% increase across the board to every single long-term-care home in Ontario for the personal care needs of residents, but more importantly, we are also increasing our investment in Behavioural Supports Ontario by $10 million.

I have to say this, Mr. Speaker, if the opposition is really serious about—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you don’t.

Supplementary?

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Minister, that’s wonderful news. The residents of my riding, I’m sure, will be happy to know how important a priority the safety of our loved ones is for you and for your ministry.

But, Minister, I know you’re responsible for the wellness of Ontarians, and I know that making Ontario smoke-free is a goal that you’re quite passionate about. I know smoking prevalence has decreased from 24.5% in 2000 to 17.4% in 2014, representing 408,000 fewer smokers. As a member of this government, I’m proud to say that Ontario has the third-lowest smoking rate in the country.

But, Mr. Speaker, the use of tobacco products remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in Ontario. More than two million Ontarians still smoke, and thousands of youth still take up smoking every year.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House what our government announced in the budget last week to help us continue striving towards the goal of Ontario achieving the lowest smoking rate in the country?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Again, I want to thank the member for the question.

As the minister responsible for health and wellness in Ontario, I’m very proud to continue the legacy of protecting Ontarians, especially young Ontarians, from the harmful effects of tobacco. That’s why, Mr. Speaker, I’m so pleased to announce to this House that we’re going to increase funding for smoking cessation by $5 million if this budget is passed.

Whether it’s long-term care or whether it’s health promotion, this government is increasing funding. This is what I have to say to the opposition: If they’re really serious about supporting our seniors, instead of asking sanctimonious questions in this House, I would ask that they stand up and support this budget. Talk is cheap, but they have the opportunity to really support seniors by standing up for this budget.

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

Public transit

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, why are you allowing Metrolinx to give away millions of taxpayers’ dollars in grants?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member, as I always do, for the question.

It was unfortunate I didn’t hear the last part of the question, Speaker. I understand it was about Metrolinx and the tremendous work that Metrolinx is doing right now to make sure we continue to build the province up and continue to invest in transit.

There are long lists of items, Speaker, since 2003, on which the team at Metrolinx and GO Transit have worked very hard. For example, since 2003, we have built 14 new stations. We have rebuilt four existing GO stations. We have extended our rail network by more than 90 kilometres since 2003. We’ve added more than 31,000 parking spots across the network. We’ve added over 200 new railcars and over 150 new single-level buses, and over 250 double-decker buses will be added over the next five years. This will support communities right across the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, including Kitchener-Waterloo, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, it was only recently that Metrolinx was wrapped up in a scandal, when it made public that they were using taxpayer dollars to sponsor TIFF and Buffalo Bills games in Toronto in a deal where staff were given free tickets.

Today, we’ve learned that Metrolinx has operated outside their mandate once again by giving away millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in grants. Scandal after scandal, and you still haven’t learned your lesson: UP Express has empty trains, there are sheds too small for their electric trains at Union Station, and now we have this slush fund.

Metrolinx’s sole job should be to plan, build and manage transit, and it’s the minister’s job to provide the necessary oversight and transparency.

Speaker, how much more taxpayer money do we have to watch Metrolinx toss away before they finally do something about it?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: From my perspective, I appreciate, again, the member’s follow-up question.

I understand that there were changes that were made by my predecessor more than a couple of years ago, Speaker, with respect to some of the concerns the member opposite is raising with respect to Metrolinx not only having that clear mandate but also, frankly, delivering on that mandate.

There are a couple of other items I didn’t mention earlier. For example, other recent investments include:

—14 new weekday train trips added on the Kitchener GO corridor between the Mount Pleasant GO station and Union Station during off-peak midday hours;

—new and enhanced GO bus service that is being added in the Milton, Highway 407, Barrie, Lakeshore and Stouffville corridors;

—the opening of the West Harbour GO station last June, in time for the Pan and Parapan Am Games; and

—announcing the extension of GO Transit service on the Lakeshore West GO line to a new GO station at Centennial Parkway in Stoney Creek.

The list goes on and on.

This is a government and this is a Premier that are committed to building the province up. I would expect that member to support our—

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

Interjections.

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

Just a comment for those who continue to seek, from the Speaker, advice on whether or not an answer is satisfactory: I don’t have the authority, but I’m going to make it clear to you that I will deal with people who are not dealing with policy. After that, it’s up to them to decide how to answer their questions. Just remember that.

New question.

Food safety

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique.

Speaker, today marks a really, really sad day. It is the first anniversary of the train derailment, the explosion and the oil spill in Gogama in my riding. The residents woke up at about 3 a.m. the morning of March 7 to a wall of flame that turned the sky orange and to the smell of burning oil.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change has been extremely quiet while the people of Gogama are seeing their real estate prices tank and are concerned about their environment, their food and the water quality. The situation is bleak. This is the biggest train derailment in the history of Ontario, yet no amount of troubled suffering seems to trigger a response from this government.

The people of Gogama want to know when the minister will commit to standing up for them and answer a simple question: Are the fish caught in the Makami River safe to eat? Yes or no?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We are very, very concerned about the folks in Gogama who have now seen not one but two train derailments with CN. This is a standard of safety we do not think is acceptable, and I and the Minister of Transportation have raised this issue with the government responsible in Canada—that’s the federal government. As the member knows—I appreciate her leadership and her work on this and the sincerity of her question—we have been trying to get the federal government to do its job in this area. Under the previous government, we got very little progress.

My ministry has done something it hasn’t done before: It has taken the fish and has been testing them themselves. This is not normally what we do in our labs. It’s not a provincial responsibility, but we got so fed up and so frustrated with inaction that we took those actions. I’m hoping that my legislative assistant is hearing me and will rush over those results before the end of question period for me.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Simcoe–Grey on a point of order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, point of order: During question period today, in response to our leader, Patrick Brown, the Minister of the Environment claimed that the PC climate change policy would cost an additional $160 a tonne. Would the minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. First, that is not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m trying to rule here, please.

First, that’s not a point of order. Second, any member has, at any time, the ability—not quite any time if it’s question period—to correct their own record. I thank you for that.

Decorum in chamber

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to take a moment to re-engage the House along with my deputy Speakers. We’ve had this discussion and I want to redirect the idea that you’re speaking to the Chair. Please, if you need some lessons or if you need some guidance, the table is always willing to do that. It does not help the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to finish.

It does not help the debate by moving into finger-pointing at individuals, telling them what they have to do. It actually escalates things. So if you’re going to help in this place, direct your questions and comments to the Chair. The deputies have been advised and they’re going to be working on that. If you need some help, the table has indicated that sometimes it’s very difficult to speak in the third person, so do so by speaking in the first person to the Chair and design your questions and answers around that, please.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1144 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Arriving shortly in the members’ gallery will be Khushali Shah and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Shah. Khushali will be a page in the next session. She is here to tour the House and get familiar with her surroundings. She’s excited to be here in two short weeks.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Doing her homework.

Members’ Statements

Pharmacists

Mr. Jeff Yurek: March is Pharmacist Awareness Month. It’s the perfect time to celebrate the important part pharmacists play in our health care system. This year, the Ontario Pharmacists Association is encouraging everyone to “Know Your Pharmacist.”

Pharmacists are the most accessible health care professionals. The majority provide services and consultations without the need of an appointment.

This government needs to utilize the abilities of pharmacists and expand their current scope of practice. Pharmacists are willing and able to work with this government to find cost savings in the health care system, and this can be derived through an expanded scope of practice. Pharmacists are an integral part of our health care system. We should be using their abilities, knowledge and community connection to create a collaborative, cost-efficient health care system.

For the second budget in a row, this government has announced that they may expand pharmacists’ scope of practice to include travel injections. This government has been big on announcements but very slow on action.

I’ve been a pharmacist for over 20 years, and I’m proud of my profession. It’s a pleasure to stand up here today to recognize the great work of pharmacists across the province. I encourage everyone to take a moment to celebrate and get to know your pharmacist.

Animal protection

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: We’ve seen this before: OSPCA was going to euthanize 100 dogs just because they had ringworm. We fought them; we won. Now they’re going to euthanize 21 dogs that were the victims of a dogfighting ring, despite evidence to the contrary and adoptive families all over the place who are willing to take them in. Michael Vick’s dogs, we remember, were all rehabbed but one. It’s because of this draconian, breed-specific legislation that this government still insists on upholding that that’s coming to pass. Legal challenges abound.

It’s not just dogs, Mr. Speaker; it’s lions. A lion was shot by an owner of a roadside zoo. Why? Because we have absolutely no oversight over roadside zoos. This government, again, has overlooked two private members’ bills—two and counting—about that very fact, and has done nothing. And Kiska the orca is still at Marineland.

From this side of the aisle, all I can say is that somebody has to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves. If that falls to us, then we’re proud to uphold that in the New Democratic Party because, absolutely, there’s a home and a place for every animal. Being euthanized as victims of a dogfighting ring is not the way to go.

Member’s newsletter

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I have the privilege of alerting my own residents in Etobicoke North. I know that my mother is watching right now as well as my youngest son, who is two and a half, so a salute to them. I alert my colleagues, residents, family members and everyone—the great supporters in Etobicoke North—of the impending excellent newsletter that is about to be mailed to 50,000 residents in my riding.

I’d like to, first of all, thank my excellent staff—Peter Murphy, Kosta Chialtas and Palvinder Singh—for their help in compiling the many facts that are embedded in this newsletter, which include highlights from the budget. Particularly of interest to my area is free university and college tuition for families earning income annually of $50,000 or less. This is, by the way, part and parcel of the $90-million infrastructure project that we just authorized and celebrated at Humber College, north campus.

We have many other items. Of course, as you’ll know, Speaker, as part of the $1.2-billion expansion of the Finch LRT, we have eight—count them: eight—new stops coming to the great riding of Etobicoke North. They are Humber College, Highway 27, Westmore, Martin Grove, Albion, Stevenson, Kipling, and Islington. This government is on the move for Etobicoke North, paralleling the member himself.

There are many, many things to talk about, including a $200-million expansion at Etobicoke General Hospital, and more.

James Gillies

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Today, I’d like to recognize Dr. James Gillies, who was born in Teeswater in 1924 to Dr. Midford Gillies and his wife, Gladys. In fact, I use Mr. Gillies’s home as a landmark to help people find the 6th of Culross so they can make their way to our farm.

But back to James: James had an immense impact in the worlds of academia, business and politics. When James was 17, he attended the University of Western Ontario, where he majored in economics until World War II broke out and he joined the RCAF as an air crewman. Afterwards, he returned to finish his degree and would continue his academic career in the United States.

In 1965, after serving as assistant dean at UCLA, he returned to Ontario to work at York University as the founding dean of the faculty of administrative studies, now the Schulich School of Business. Today, the school has grown to more than 27,000 graduates, working in more than 90 countries worldwide and is a testament to the far-reaching and lasting effect Mr. Gillies’s legacy has had 50 years later.

In 1972, Mr. Gillies found himself on the campaign trail and was elected to his first term as the representative for the riding of Don Valley at the federal level. He would go on to serve a second term. He also ran for the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative Party, but ultimately backed Joe Clark in the end.

After serving as senior policy adviser to Prime Minister Joe Clark, he returned to the world of academics and was awarded the Order of Canada for his contributions to education.

But with all his achievements, Mr. Gillies was happiest to be known as just a boy from Teeswater who had a chance to make a difference.

Camp Eagle Nest

M me France Gélinas: Today, I rise to draw attention to Camp Eagle Nest, a First Nation non-profit organization located about two hours north of Sudbury, near the Benny Forest in my riding, in Nickel Belt. Camp Eagle Nest organizes cultural and wilderness skills training camps for young people, mainly aboriginal youth from around the north.

The future was looking bright for Camp Eagle Nest until logging operations were started in the Benny Forest. Unknown to the local residents, the 2010-2020 Spanish Forest phase 2 forest management plan had not taken into account the residents and businesses operating in the area and the area was given up for logging. Camp Eagle Nest was simply overlooked, Speaker.

I understand that sometimes mistakes happen, but it is up to the Ministry of Natural Resources to own up to their mistake.

The area has a strong aboriginal history. Clyde McNichol, a First Nation elder from Camp Eagle Nest, has centuries-long family ties to the area. With his wife, Barbara McNichol, they are trying to protect the trees in the area of his ancestral home and current business from lumbering.

Forestry and related activities in the area have significantly infringed on Mr. McNichol’s right to hunt, fish and gather. They now threaten his ability to use his camp for spiritual and cultural practices, including teaching traditional knowledge to youth.

Mr. Speaker, the government and the MNR should admit the mistake and start trying to fix it.

Western Mississauga

Mr. Bob Delaney: Last summer, Dun and Bradstreet showed us in precise numbers that our western Mississauga neighbourhoods of Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville led the city of Mississauga, the province of Ontario and the country of Canada in business growth and employment growth.

Manufacturing has grown by more than 44% in northwest Mississauga, 15 percentage points higher than the rest of the province and the rest of the country. Employment in Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville is up 21% since 2014; sales are up 13% in the same period. Since the bottom of the recession in 2009, the number of businesses in the riding has grown an astonishing 64%.

Homegrown aerospace manufacturing heavyweight Cyclone Manufacturing is growing at 20% per year. Multinational life sciences businesses Amgen, GSK, Contract Pharmaceuticals, Roche Canada and Patheon are bringing home high-wage, high-skilled, full-time, challenging and interesting career opportunities.

Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville are now a larger population and economic region than the province of PEI or the city of Kingston.

Ontario’s economic plan has worked for us in western Mississauga. Ontario’s 2016-17 budget will do the same for communities all across Ontario.

Maple syrup

Mr. Monte McNaughton: In Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Sarnia–Lambton and across Ontario, the first crop of the year is being harvested. Over $50 million of maple syrup is produced in our province annually, and I’m proud to have many producers in my riding. These are mostly family-owned businesses that contribute not only to the local economy but also to our communities.

Pancake breakfasts in local churches and community centres, tours through sugar bushes and, of course, many maple syrup festivals all bring families and school classes out to enjoy the warm weather and some delicious maple syrup. It is a uniquely Canadian tradition.

I want to congratulate Fort Rose Maple Co., McLachlan Family Maple Syrup, Williamson Farms, the Lumsden Brothers, Eagleson Farms, Rolling Ridge, Ryan’s Sweet Maple, Stanley and Clara Wortner, and Earl and Bill Elgie, all from my riding, in what is shaping up to be another great season.

Kate, Annie and I always look forward to this time of year. I encourage everyone to visit their local sugar bush or maple syrup festival to learn more about this quintessential part of Ontario’s heritage.

Royal Ottawa Inspiration Awards

Mr. John Fraser: On Friday night, I was pleased to attend the Royal Ottawa Inspiration Awards Gala that celebrates the exceptional individuals who have contributed to advancing the cause of mental health in our community and beyond.

At the gala, we honoured and celebrated:

—Gayle Grass, author of Iris the Dragon, a series of children’s books aimed at starting conversations about mental health;

—psychiatrist Dr. Abigail Ortiz, who is researching mood fluctuations in patients suffering from depression and bipolar disorder, with the goal of being able to predict and prevent major manic and depressive episodes;

—men’s health advocate Jean-François Claude, who has campaigned for men’s mental health day as an annual lead-up to Father’s Day;

—peer support worker and educator Tyrone Gamble, who has drawn on his own experience with bipolar disorder and psychosis to help others;

—Ruth Maxwell, a champion advocate and fundraiser for mental health in our community;

—and Jason Fam, a student who uses his own experience with PTSD to educate others.

We also honoured Margaret Trudeau for her efforts to break down the stigma that often surrounds mental health.

All of these individuals display courage and conviction, and I want to thank all of them for inspiring us.

GO Transit

Mr. Granville Anderson: I want to rise today to highlight the importance of page 71 of this year’s budget. The line I most enjoy reads: “Subject to agreement with freight rail partners ... extension of GO rail service to Niagara and Bowmanville.”

Now, while I’m thrilled for the members from St. Catharines and Niagara Falls for this news, I am overjoyed for the residents of Durham and all the wonderful things that it means for our wonderful community. The residents of my riding have been asking for this extension for quite some time, and I am proud that their hard work may pay off now.

I have been working tirelessly to make sure their voices are heard. The Minister of Transportation knows this well. I am glad that we are moving forward with a project that we know will bring access to growth in Courtice and Bowmanville and the Durham region in general.

I look forward to a future agreement with our freight rail partners, and I thank the residents of Durham for bringing me to Queen’s Park to champion this project, which I will continue to do.

Petitions

Family Responsibility Office

Mr. Jeff Yurek: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) is outdated, ineffective and the provincial government needs to conduct a review of the entire system;

“Whereas many families are either paying too much in child support or receiving too little, due to the ineffectiveness of the system;

“Whereas families are forced to become their own caseworkers to investigate information that is required by the Family Responsibility Office before they can enforce action;

“Whereas many of the federal and provincial databases do not link up, causing misinformation which affects the money paid or owed in child support for many families;

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

“We call on the provincial government to strike an all-party supported select committee to conduct a review of the practices of the Family Responsibility Office to improve and streamline the collection of child support in the province of Ontario.”

I agree with this petition and affix my signature.

Leamington ketchup

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to introduce a petition signed by hundreds of Ontarians, entitled “Put Leamington Ketchup on the Table at Queen’s Park.”

Applause.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas supporting the agri-food industry is good economics, good environmental policy and social practice;

“Whereas the Ontario Legislature has a rich history of promoting Ontario products such as craft beer, Ontario wine, fruits and vegetables; and

“Whereas the ketchup being served in the dining room and cafeteria at Queen’s Park is currently not an Ontario product; and

“Whereas French’s ketchup proudly uses tomatoes grown in Leamington, Ontario; and

“Whereas the promotion of French’s ketchup would greatly support local tomato producers, local workers and communities across Essex county;

“Therefore,

be it resolved that the Speaker direct the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, as part of its procurement policy, to direct Dana Hospitality to exclusively serve Leamington French’s ketchup.”

I know there’s an appetite for a petition of this sort here in the chamber. I want to thank all those who signed the petition and I send it to the Clerk’s table.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wish I could comment—but I’m not.

Lung health

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

“Whereas lung disease affects more than 2.4 million people in the province of Ontario, more than 570,000 of whom are children;

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition, affix my name to it and leave it with page Erin.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jim Wilson: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Stevenson Memorial Hospital is challenged to support the growing needs of the community within its existing space as it was built for a mere 7,000” emergency department “visits and experiences in excess of 33,000” ED “visits annually; and

“Whereas the government-implemented Places to Grow Act forecasts massive population growth in New Tecumseth, which along with the aging population will only intensify the need for the redevelopment of the hospital; and

“Whereas all other hospital emergency facilities are more than 45 minutes away with no public transit available between those communities; and

“Whereas Stevenson Memorial Hospital deserves equitable servicing comparable to other Ontario hospitals;

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

“That the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government immediately provide the necessary funding to Stevenson Memorial Hospital for the redevelopment of their emergency department, operating rooms, diagnostic imaging and laboratory to ensure that they can continue to provide stable and ongoing service to residents in our area.”

I agree with the petition and certainly will sign it.

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Mr. John Vanthof: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the provincial government has cancelled the Northlander passenger train which served the residents of northeastern Ontario; and

“Whereas the provincial government has closed bus stations and is cancelling bus routes despite promising enhanced bus services to replace the train; and

“Whereas the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) has been given a mandate that its motor coach division must be self-sustaining; and

“Whereas Metrolinx, the crown corporation that provides train and bus service in the GTA ... is subsidized by more than $100 million annually; and

“Whereas the subsidy to Metrolinx has increased annually for the last seven years;

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

“To direct the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to reverse the decision to cancel bus routes immediately and to treat northerners equitably in decisions regarding public transportation.”

I wholeheartedly agree and will send the petition down with page Delaney.

Water fluoridation

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition sent to me by some of my Mississauga dentists. It’s entitled “Fluoridate All Ontario Drinking Water,” and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m very pleased to sign and support this petition and to send it down with page Suzanne.

Long-term care

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition that was collected by the people in Thunder Bay. It reads as follows:

“Whereas Ontario ranks ninth of 10 provinces in terms of the total per capita funding allocated to long-term care; and

“Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care data shows that there are more than 30,000 Ontarians waiting for long-term-care placements and wait-times have tripled since 2005; and

“Whereas there is a perpetual shortage of staff in long-term-care facilities and residents often wait an unreasonable length of time to receive care, to be attended to for” toileting, feeding etc.;

“Whereas the training of personal support workers is unregulated and insufficient to provide them with the skills and knowledge to assist residents who are being admitted with higher physical, psychological and emotional needs. Currently, training across the province” varies greatly, is inconsistent and unregulated;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“(1) immediately increase the number of paid hours of nursing and personal care per resident ... to 4.0 hours (as promised in 2008);

“(2) develop a plan to phase in future increases so that the number of paid hours per resident per day of nursing and personal care is 5.0 hours by January” of next year;

“(3) establish a licensing body, such as a college, that will develop a process of registration, accreditation and certification for all personal support workers.”

I thank the people of Thunder Bay. I will ask Jessie to bring it to the Clerk.

Health care funding

Miss Monique Taylor: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Ontario’s growing and aging population is putting an increasing strain on our publicly funded health care system; and

“Whereas since February 2015, the Ontario government has made an almost 7% unilateral cut to physician services expenditures which cover all the care doctors provide to patients; and

“Whereas the decisions Ontario makes today will impact patients’ access to quality care in the years to come and these cuts will threaten access to the quality, patient-focused care Ontarians need and expect;

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

“The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care return to the table with Ontario’s doctors and work together through mediation-arbitration to reach a fair deal that protects the quality, patient-focused care Ontario’s families deserve.”

I agree with this, I’m glad to pass on the support, and I’ll give it to page Laura.

Caregivers

Ms. Harinder Malhi: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are over 2.6 million caregivers to a family member, a friend or a neighbour in Ontario;

“Whereas these caregivers work hard to provide care to those that are most in need even though their efforts are often overlooked;

“Whereas one third of informal caregivers are distressed, which is twice as many as four years ago;

“Whereas without these caregivers, the health care system and patients would greatly suffer in Ontario;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support MPP Gélinas’s bill to proclaim the first Tuesday of every April as Family Caregiver Day to increase recognition and awareness of family caregivers in Ontario.”

I am going to sign my name to this petition and give it to page Tristan.

Special-needs students

Mr. Jim McDonell: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas demonstrative schools in Ontario provide incredible necessary support for children with special education needs; and

“Whereas the current review by the government of Ontario of demonstrative schools and other special education programs has placed a freeze on student intake and hiring of teacher staff;

“Whereas children in need of specialized education and their parents require access to demonstrative schools and other essential support services;

“Whereas the freezing of student intake is unacceptable as it leaves the most vulnerable students behind;

“Whereas the situation could result in the closure of many specialized education programs, depriving children with special needs of their best opportunity to learn;

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

“To immediately reinstate funding streams for demonstrative schools and other specialized education services for the duration of the review and to commit to ensuring every student in need is allowed the chance to receive an education and achieve their potential.”

I agree with this and will be passing it off to page Bianca Nicole.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I have a petition here from people across Durham region. Specifically, Sharon Broadbent has put her name to this. It’s a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Privatizing Hydro One: Another Wrong Choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am pleased to affix my name to this and send it with page Julia.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

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

“Whereas it is absolutely crucial that more is done to provide Ontarians retirement financial security which they can rely on;

“Whereas the federal government has refused to partner with our government to ensure that Ontarians have a secure retirement plan;

“Whereas more than three million Ontarians rely on the Canada Pension Plan alone, that currently does not provide enough to support an adequate standard of living;

“Whereas the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan will provide the safe and stable retirement that Ontarians need;

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

“That all members of the Ontario assembly support a plan to move forward with an Ontario-made pension retirement plan that will provide a financially secure retirement for Ontarians.”

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

Health care funding

Ms. Laurie Scott: “Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s growing and aging population is putting an increasing strain on our publicly funded health care system; and

“Whereas since February 2015, the Ontario government has made an almost 7% unilateral cut to physician services expenditures which cover all the care doctors provide to patients; and

“Whereas the decisions Ontario makes today will impact patients’ access to quality care in the years to come and these cuts will threaten access to the quality, patient-focused care Ontarians need and expect;

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

“The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care return to the table with Ontario’s doctors and work together through mediation-arbitration to reach a fair deal that protects the quality, patient-focused care Ontario’s families deserve.”

It’s signed by people from all over my riding: Coboconk, Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls, Burnt River, Oakwood and Omemee. I present it to page Jordan.

Orders of the Day

Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Plan d’action contre la violence et le harcèlement sexuels (en soutien aux survivants et en opposition à la violence et au harcèlement sexuels)

Ms. MacCharles moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 132,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to sexual violence, sexual harassment, domestic violence and related matters / Projet de loi 132, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne la violence sexuelle, le harcèlement sexuel, la violence familiale et des questions connexes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I look to the minister to lead off the debate at third reading.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: This afternoon I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Brampton–Springdale as well as the member for Kitchener Centre.

I am very pleased to rise today to say a few words about the third reading of Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act, 2016. As my contribution to this important debate, I do want to look at the desire of Ontarians to end sexual violence and harassment, and the real progress we are making toward that goal. Since that day in December 2014 when Premier Wynne called for the development of an action plan to end sexual violence and harassment, Ontario has been on a journey of discovery and progress.

Il y avait du bon travail contre la violence et le harcèlement à caractère sexuel, mais on avait besoin d’un nouveau dévouement avec le but d’éliminer la violence contre les femmes.

The Premier’s announcement succeeded in bringing the topic out of the shadows and into the broad light of day. We needed to start that conversation. When we did, it turned out that many Ontarians were unsure about what constitutes sexual violence and harassment, many survivors were unsure about their legal options and supports in the community, and many institutions in our province needed stronger policies to deal with the issue. Our government got to work and the result was our three-year, $41-million Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment, which our government launched one year ago. This plan is called It’s Never Okay.

I can sum up the Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment in a general way by saying that we will be helping to change deep-rooted attitudes and behaviours; we’ll also provide more training for professionals in many sectors to provide better support for survivors; we’ll improve supports for survivors who come forward about abuse and we’ll make workplaces and campuses safer and more responsive to complaints.

Since the action plan was launched last March, the focus has shifted to implementing it’s 13 key recommendations. I am very pleased to report that we’ve made great progress and we are building great momentum. The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is investing more than $1.1 million a year for the next three years in hospital-based sexual assault and domestic violence treatment centres. This investment will enhance specialized counselling services and community outreach for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence.

The Ministry of the Attorney General is providing an additional $1.7 million per year in funding for the province’s 42 sexual assault centres so that they can enhance services for survivors. And to underscore the importance of student safety and learning, the government announced over $2 million in funding to support seven public education projects across Ontario’s education sectors. This funding includes five public education projects that specifically target post-secondary campuses.

One of the goals of our action plan is to engage Ontarians in the discussion about how to stop sexual violence and harassment by encouraging them to undertake initiatives that will help change attitudes and inspire behavioural change. To that end, Ontario has launched a $2.25-million Creative Engagement Fund. Administered by the Ontario Arts Council, the Creative Engagement Fund will partner with artists in provoking dialogue and action on issues such as sexual consent, rape culture and misogyny.

The projects may include all forms of artistic expression, such as performance, writing, music, photography, theatre, videos, online engagement, installation, painting, graffiti arts, murals, visual arts, and indigenous art.

We also launched a $3-million innovation fund to test new approaches to improving supports to survivors of sexual violence and harassment. Funded projects will be announced in the spring, and they will test new or innovative approaches to support survivors of sexual violence and harassment, while building a body of evidence about what works to improve service delivery outcomes. Up to 15% of the fund is available to support indigenous organizations to develop projects.

We know that we cannot stop sexual violence and harassment overnight. We know that it will take a generational shift to end deep-rooted misogynistic attitudes and behaviours.

Speaker, students arriving on campus last fall benefited from a $2-million action plan commitment to provide information about preventing sexual violence and harassment during their first week of classes, during orientation week, and throughout the rest of the academic year. That was important to me personally, too, because my twin children both started post-secondary education this academic year at Carleton University.

Another key part of Ontario’s action plan is an updated health and physical education curriculum. This enhanced curriculum is helping students to gain a deeper understanding of gender equality, healthy relationships and consent.

When a survivor of sexual violence or harassment reaches out for help, service providers need to be ready. The government is also investing more than $1.7 million in training for front-line workers.

Speaker, over the past year, our government announced that the Ontario network of sexual assault and domestic violence treatment centres would receive an additional $1.1 million annually to better support survivors.

Research conducted in 2015 by Ipsos Reid on behalf of the government of Ontario indicates that, months later, two thirds of Ontarians surveyed recalled seeing the campaign. Furthermore, the campaign is still having an impact on attitudes and behaviours.

Speaker, phase 2 of the public education campaign was launched by the Premier at the Summit on Sexual Violence and Harassment in November of last year, once again with a thought-provoking video aimed at young adults aged 18 to 29. This ad campaign aimed to help Ontarians identify sexual violence and harassment when it happens, so that they’re able to step in and help. We commissioned a study by Ipsos Reid which showed that while most Ontarians believe they have an obligation to intervene if they witness sexual violence, many Ontarians are still unsure whether certain behaviours constitute sexual violence or harassment.

It’s apparent that we all have work to do to change long-held misconceptions and attitudes about what constitutes sexual violence and harassment. The Twitter hashtag for the new part of the public education campaign is #ItsNeverOkay, because it is never okay when one in three women will experience violence in her lifetime. It’s never okay that 460,000 sexual assaults take place in Canada each and every year. It’s never okay that for every 1,000 sexual assaults, only 33 are ever reported to the police, only 12 of those result in charges laid, only six are prosecuted and just three lead to a conviction.

All of us here today know that sexual violence is never okay. I’m confident that if the House votes passage of Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act, 2015, Ontario will take another huge step towards stopping sexual violence in the province.

Il y a encore du travail à faire. There’s more work to do, but we are much closer today than we were one year ago towards a vision of an Ontario, often articulated by our Premier, Premier Wynne, where all people can live without fear, in safety and with dignity and respect.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Brampton–Springdale.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I am pleased to rise today to speak at third reading of the proposed Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act. If passed, this legislation would support the right of all Ontarians to feel safe and be safe from sexual violence and harassment in their homes, campuses, workplaces and communities.

Bill 132 is the product of much deliberation and consultation. It was introduced in the House last October and underwent public hearings across the province in the month of January, and finished clause-by-clause review at the Standing Committee on Social Policy on February 29. As a result of the public hearings, several changes were made to Bill 132, which I will reference as I go along today.

The proposed legislation would amend six existing acts, fulfilling commitments made in It’s Never Okay, Ontario’s sexual violence and harassment action plan, as released in March 2015.

Ending sexual violence and harassment is an urgent priority for our society. One out of three women will experience some form of sexual assault in her lifetime. This is not okay; it is never okay.

Our government is working hard to address sexual violence and harassment. We announced a three-year, $41-million action plan almost one year ago. Our plan involves challenging attitudes and raising public awareness, improving supports to survivors and making workplaces and campuses safer and more responsive to complaints about sexual violence and harassment. Over the past 12 months, we have begun implementing our plan.

This bill is an important part of our action plan. The proposed legislation, if passed, would amend six existing acts, putting the strength of the law behind important ways and means of helping to stop sexual violence and harassment in Ontario and improving supports for survivors.

Bill 132 offers better protection in the workplace. If passed, our legislation would make workplaces safer by amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Every Ontarian deserves the right to work in a safe and healthy environment. Currently, the act requires employers to have a workplace harassment policy and program and to provide information to workers about the contents of the policy and the program.

Our proposed changes to the OHSA add a definition of “workplace sexual harassment” to the act, enhance requirements regarding workplace harassment programs and add specific new employer duties to protect workers from harassment in the workplace, including sexual harassment. This includes the duty to ensure that incidents and complaints are appropriately investigated.

At committee, the OHSA

schedule of Bill 132 was strengthened. The committee has passed a motion that requires an employer, in consultation with a joint health and safety committee or a health and safety representative, to develop and maintain a written program to implement the required policy with respect to workplace harassment.

If passed, Bill 132 would also promote safer campuses. It is also a fact that sexual assault victimization rates are five times higher for women under the age of 35. Our proposed legislation would require every publicly assisted college, university and private career college in Ontario to have a policy—developed with student input and reviewed with student input at least once every three years—addressing sexual violence on campuses.

I know that at public hearings, the Standing Committee on Social Policy heard that the original drafting of Bill 132 was too restrictive. Originally, the legislation required colleges and universities to have a policy that “specifically and solely” addressed sexual violence involving students. I’m glad to hear that Bill 132 has also been amended to strike out “specifically and solely,” allowing these institutions the flexibility to determine whether the policy should apply to faculty and staff and others in addition to students.

It is excellent that the committee was able to address this feedback from stakeholders. This solution struck the right balance. It gives colleges and universities the flexibility to expand the scope of their sexual violence and harassment policies to include other members of the campus community, but maintains our deliberate and appropriate focus on students.

As I mentioned, incidents of sexual violence disproportionately affect young women, women of university age. It is important that they are able to point to a piece of legislation like Bill 132 and know that the government is taking steps to protect them.

If Bill 132 passes, colleges, universities and private career colleges would be required to report to the minister and/or a superintendent on instances of sexual violence, as well as on initiatives to address sexual violence and their effectiveness.

Another positive outcome of the clause-by-clause process is that Bill 132 has been amended to give the government the power to require colleges, universities and private career colleges to conduct a campus climate survey to measure the incidence and prevalence of sexual violence among college and university students. The bill was also amended at committee to require that every college or university shall provide its board of governors with an annual report on the prevalence of sexual violence on campus and the effectiveness of the institution’s supports and services for students facing sexual violence and harassment.

Another important element of Bill 132 is the changes it would make, if passed, to the justice system. This bill would remove barriers for victims of sexual assault in accessing the justice system. It would remove the limitation period for all civil proceedings based on sexual assault, and in certain cases sexual misconduct or assault, so that the survivors can bring their civil claims forward whenever they choose to do so.

I know that the committee heard concerns from the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association that Bill 132, as it was originally drafted, did not make it clear enough that there would be no limitation period for civil claims against institutional defendants. I am pleased that the committee passed amendments to make it absolutely clear that there will be no limitation period for civil claims against institutional claimants.

Speaker, time does not heal all wounds, but time does give some survivors the perspective and the distance they need to decide whether or not to confront their perpetrators in civil proceedings. Bill 132, if passed, would eliminate the two-year limitation period for applications based on sexual or domestic violence brought to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Again, we believe that time should be on the side of the survivors, not the perpetrators. Survivors would be able to seek compensation regardless of when the crime occurred.

Bill 132, if passed, would also shorten the time it takes to end a tenancy agreement for people experiencing sexual or domestic violence, to make it easier for survivors to flee abuse. We want to make sure that women in an abusive relationship are able to get away from their abuser more quickly and easily.

I’d like to thank the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, who brought a private member’s bill forward on this subject when he was an MPP. It’s an important element of Bill 132, and he has shown extraordinary leadership on this issue.

Finally, during clause-by-clause, the official opposition brought an excellent amendment to change the definition of “sexual violence” in Bill 132 so that it includes gender identity and gender expression. We are happy to support this change. It reinforces the principle that all Ontarians should be protected against violence related to gender identity or expression.

To conclude, Bill 132 offers safer workplaces, homes and campuses, and a more robust and accessible civil claims process. We need this bill as one of many measures to end sexual violence and harassment. That’s our goal, and Bill 132 can help us reach it and bring us closer to the day when all Ontarians feel safe from sexual violence and harassment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Kitchener Centre.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m pleased to join the discussion on the issue of sexual violence and to add my voice in support of Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act. This is a very important act that will affect many lives in Ontario.

We know that one in three women in Canada will experience sexual assault in their lifetime. You heard my colleague speaking about this. Last year, 7,600 Ontarians reported being sexually assaulted, and we know that 90% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. This is a much bigger issue than police stats tell us.

Bill 132 is a strong step forward to dealing with sexual violence and harassment. The bill is very important to me personally. Last year I had the privilege of chairing the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment. In the fall of 2014, there were a number of high-profile media cases that moved the issue of sexual violence and harassment to the front burner—in fact, it boiled over. While Canadians were talking about this, here in Ontario our government took action with the select committee.

We travelled to nine Ontario communities. We heard from 147 witnesses, survivors, counsellors, those in policing, the judicial system and experts. They shared with us their experiences and their expertise. Based on their feedback, that information served to inform us as we drafted Bill 132.

One critical piece to addressing sexual assault is the role that power plays. The feeling of losing power during and after an assault: This is critically important to addressing the issue of sexual assault. The bill addresses the power dynamics of the workplace by amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act to include important

definitions and increase employer obligations in addressing sexual assault. This support is critical to workers who face harassment by their supervisors or their employer, who feel that there’s nowhere to turn or fear that by speaking out, they might lose their job. This bill is for those people because it’s never okay.

In my early working career as a young reporter in a newsroom that had very few women—it was mainly full of men—I faced harassment, as did the few women who were in that newsroom, on a daily basis. We had to listen to language that was rude and crude and inappropriate. I remember that in one of the edit suites there was a poster of a nude woman. As strange as this may seem, if you wanted to keep your job you had to put up and shut up.

While our select committee was doing its work last year, I heard from so many women in male-dominated fields like policing, the armed forces, and in factories who reached out to me to share similar stories of what they were facing. Bill 132 will now hold employers responsible for ensuring that all workplaces in Ontario are harassment-free.

The bill addresses the power dynamics in housing by amending the Residential Tenancies Act. Those people who are living in situations where they are subjected to sexual assault in their own homes will be granted greater agency to get out of those homes and away from those who are inflicting violence upon them. An estimated 80% of all sexual assaults happen in the home.

This bill also addresses the power issues of students who are out on their own, often for the first time, not knowing where to turn when they are assaulted at their institution, by ensuring that those schools have policies in place to address issues of sexual assault on campuses. These individuals need to see a clear message from their institutions that it’s never okay.

Finally, this bill seeks to improve the power relations with survivors and our legal system by eliminating the limitation period for survivors to report their assaults. This gives survivors the time that they need to come to terms with what has happened to them and to seek justice accordingly. Whether the assault happened last week or last month or last year or last decade, it’s never okay.

I’m proud to see that our government is taking action to address sexual violence and to see support from members from all parties on this. Everyone can see the importance of this bill—that it’s for all Ontarians—and to see support for the fulfillment of our commitment under our It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment. As an Ontario legislator and as the mother of a 22-year-old young woman, I will be supporting Bill 132, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to join in the debate on Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015.

I’m going to also share my time with some of my colleagues: the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, and my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Which may come back in a second rotation around.

Now that the housekeeping is out of the way, I do want to say from the outset, as we said when it was in second reading debate in the Legislature, that this is an important piece of legislation that we will be supporting. It’s very much a long-overdue topic that needs to be addressed legislatively. Bill 132 is a positive step. For far too long, the stigma has made victims and survivors feel embarrassed or ashamed and, worse, guilty.

Some of my colleagues who were with the select committee have spoken and have mentioned the recommendations we have made. That’s even another component to address sexual violence and harassment. Some of the recommendations we made from the select committee are in Bill 132, and we appreciate that. Bill 132 does reflect the Premier’s commitment to an action plan, and this is the formalized legislation that was brought in to do this. I bring that out because we know there’s more that needs to be done and this is certainly a start and a positive step forward. We certainly want an Ontario, and we all need to work together for that Ontario, where we can live free from violence or harassment.

The bill affects six important pieces of legislation that affect our society. We wanted to make some amendments, and some were agreed to by the government, so I do appreciate that and will address that a little later.

We have an article, actually, that came out today, by the Canadian Press, highlighting the crisis that is happening across our country. Many Canadian universities still lack stand-alone sexual assault policies, which are crucial in responding to incidents and supporting victims. Only two dozen of more than 100 universities and colleges have stand-alone policies. Institutions like McGill and the University of British Columbia only began to develop policies after high-profile allegations.

I think we can go back to—I’m losing track of time, but when the Ghomeshi scandal broke and the allegations came, we pushed for the select committee to be brought forward, and it was represented by all parties in the Legislature. We travelled the province, as my colleague has said, and made recommendations. That also pushed the Premier to bring forward some legislation like we see here today. I’m very pleased that a large part of the bill is about colleges and universities and certainly their policies in relation to sexual violence and harassment. We had made some recommendations to effect that.

Nineteen groups actually expressed concern that—this is from our public hearings, where we went to London and Peterborough, and in Toronto. Nineteen groups expressed concern that the bill addressed only sexual violence involving students, leaving out faculty, staff and others on campus who may find themselves seeking support. It was unfortunate, we felt, and we agreed with those stakeholders or those presenters that it should be amended to include not only students but faculty and staff, and should involve local sexual assault centres in the development and implementation of campus sexual violence policy.

As we heard, a campus is not just for students. It’s broad; oftentimes the lines are blurred between staff, faculty and students. I know that members of the third party also brought forward some amendments which I’m sure they’ll speak to, but along similar lines: an increased campus community, not just for students. The government chose just to have the definition for students, but I’m sure there’ll be other opportunities to make better legislation to protect against sexual violence and harassment, both for men and for women.

The fact that society is plagued still with such misogynistic attitudes and really, to some degree, the prevalent rape culture that we have—we have to do more.

In this bill, although we were disappointed that the amendments didn’t make any changes to include the bigger campus community—some of the groups that made presentations were Colleges Ontario, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, WomenatthecentrE, and several of our universities, to make those amendments that were brought forward.

We did get an amendment brought forward when we heard in Peterborough a request to change the definition of sexual violence to actually include “gender identity or gender expression” in the definition, after “targeting a person’s sexuality.” I was very thankful that the government agreed with that presentation that came forward.

We also want to bring forward that I had made many amendments about the

definitions in respect to human trafficking, trying to get it included. The bill is very limited in the sections that affect—I understand; I just want to say this little piece—the compensation for victims. That’s one of the pieces of legislation that is being affected: compensation for victims.

I did bring many motions forward to have a definition of human trafficking included in compensation for victims. That wasn’t accepted by the government. I know that they are looking at bringing forward some strategy against human trafficking in June, so I’ll wait to see that.

I did have a private member’s bill a couple of weeks ago that would allow for compensation for victims of human trafficking as well a