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

October 20, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Oct-20 (PDF)

L018 - Thu 20 Oct 2016 / Jeu 20 oct 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 20 October 2016 Jeudi 20 octobre 2016

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Energy policies

Electronic health information

Privatization of public assets

Arts and cultural funding

Health care funding

Aboriginal land claim

Health care funding

Public transit

Senior citizens

Health care

Hydro rates

School transportation

Hydro rates

Notice of dissatisfaction

Correction of record

Members’ Statements

Highway funding

Diwali

Applefest

Small business

Larung Gar

Flu immunization

Christopher Pennington

Energy policies

Children’s Vision Awareness Month

Introduction of Bills

Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act (Councillor Pregnancy and Parental Leave), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux municipalités (congés de maternité et congés parentaux des conseillers municipaux)

Protecting Rewards Points Act (Consumer Protection Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la préservation des points de récompense (modification de la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur)

Peter Kormos Act (Repealing the Safe Streets Act), 2016 / Loi Peter Kormos de 2016 sur l’abrogation de la

Loi sur la sécurité dans les rues

Petitions

Hydro rates

Dog ownership

Hydro rates

Dental care

Highway ramps

Privatization of public assets

School closures

Police ticketing

Agriculture industry

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Private members’ public business

Private Members’ Public Business

Health care

Domestic and Sexual Violence Workplace Leave, Accommodation and Training Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le congé et les mesures d’accommodement pour les employés victimes de violence familiale ou sexuelle et la formation dans le lieu de travail

Bangladeshi Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine bangladais

Health care

Domestic and Sexual Violence Workplace Leave, Accommodation and Training Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le congé et les mesures d’accommodement pour les employés victimes de violence familiale ou sexuelle et la formation dans le lieu de travail

Bangladeshi Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine bangladais

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Patients First Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux patients

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007 and the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, when the bill is next called as a government order the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 27, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 37:

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

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 3 p.m. on Monday, October 24, 2016; and

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

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

—That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, October 27, 2016; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Monday, October 31, 2016; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 3, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., and from 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Thursday, November 3, 2016, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the Committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, November 14, 2016. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

The votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi has moved notice of motion number 2. Mr. Naqvi.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. This piece of legislation is one more example of our government’s commitment to improve student safety and well-being so our children have every opportunity to succeed.

Teachers need to know that if there are allegations made against them, the discipline process will not drag on unnecessarily. It is important for parents to know that the college has taken swift and appropriate action when discipline is required. By passing this piece of legislation, we can increase the already-strong public confidence in the vast majority of teachers who dedicate their lives to helping our students succeed every day.

This proposed legislation, if passed, would strengthen the authority of the Ontario College of Teachers to take action while ensuring the process is open and transparent for everyone involved.

I’m glad that we all agree to support this bill. As we have heard during debate, everyone in this House agrees that student safety and a transparent discipline process are paramount. Passing this bill is an important step in that direction.

This is the third time this piece of legislation is being introduced in the House. We are now acting expeditiously to reintroduce the Protecting Students Act, 2016, which this House has debated for almost seven hours already. It’s important we move forward with Bill 37 and bring it before the committee. It is now time to move this legislation forward in a timely manner. We owe it to our teachers, our students and, of course, their parents. It is time that we end second reading and refer the bill to committee.

In committee, of course, stakeholders will present their views. We’ll be able to hear directly from teachers and parents their thoughts on this very important bill. Committee members will also have an opportunity to move amendments to the bill as well.

I look forward to the support of all members of this House on this very important piece of legislation so that this House can move to substantive debate on other very important matters also.

There are a number of important pieces of legislation that have to be introduced and debated that we would like to have a chance to debate in the House and move through the legislative process, such as: Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act; Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act; Bill 39, the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act; Bill 41, the Patients First Act; and Bill 45, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act. These other important pieces of legislation need to go through the legislative process before the end of the session, and that is why I have moved this motion, Speaker.

I urge all members to support this motion. Bill 37, as I said, is a very important piece of legislation. Protecting the safety of our children and students and maintaining the integrity of the teaching profession is absolutely paramount. If passed, the Protecting Students Act and subsequent regulations will make the Ontario College of Teachers disciplinary processes more efficient, help better protect students and teachers and reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.

Speaker, I end my debate now and urge all members to support this motion.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning. As the official opposition critic for advanced education and skills development, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the Legislature once again to address Bill 37, the Protecting Students Act, starting with the government’s time allocation motion. What’s clear is that Bill 37 is an extremely important piece of legislation affecting the future leaders of our great province and the teachers, like my daughter, who each day play a significant and important role in moulding the minds of young men and young women.

Earlier this week, I stood in the Legislature and discussed the government’s lack of a substantive, coherent and focused agenda. The government will be moving time allocation, as they’ve done, on a bill that they’ve introduced three times here in the Legislature, Speaker—three times. They’re moving time allocation on a bill that they’ve had plenty of time to pass, and demonstrate their commitment to the principles of the proposed legislation as a priority.

And when they finally do bring the bill forward for debate, they limit that debate—they limit the debate—and the amount of time elected representatives of this Legislature have to discuss it. Speaker, the people of Ontario sent us here to do a job. They sent us here to be their voices on legislation that affects their families and their livelihoods.

Speaker, when in opposition, the chief government whip and the member of provincial Parliament for St. Catharines, based on his years of experience, which I greatly respect, summed up the way governments use time allocation by saying, “What you have with this time allocation motion, with this closure motion, is a government that, every day it comes into this House, gets worse in the way it deals with the democratic process”—the democratic process.

I could not agree more with the chief government whip’s opinion—based on his years of experience and sterling career here in the Legislature—because it’s an apt way to describe his government’s approach to the business of this Legislature, and indeed their view of the democratic process.

I think my colleague the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said it best when describing the Premier and her government: “They have long since forgotten and do not care about what is right for the people of Ontario. They have long since tossed that right under the bus.... They don’t care about what is right or good for Ontario anymore. They are in the third quarter of the football game, and they’re trailing. They’re now trying to come up with some kind of a strategy to try to somehow pull this one out of the fire.”

Since the LeSage report was released in 2012, this government has had three different education ministers, and in that period there’s been no movement on this file—until now. Let me repeat: Four years have gone by and the government has done little on this file. Speaker, this government wants you to know that this legislation is a priority for them, but four years have gone by. In fact, it’s such a priority that the Associate Minister of Education, the member of provincial Parliament for Halton, spent a majority of her time during the debate of this bill, earlier this week, talking about the government’s other priorities and not substantively about Bill 37 at all.

The government prorogued the House in a hurry this past September, killing all the legislation before this Legislature, including Bill 37, which was at that time named Bill 200. Why, Speaker? So they could reintroduce all the bills that were sitting on the order paper and start counting again from zero. This government stopped the process of several important bills affecting hard-working Ontario families by proroguing the Legislature to offer Ontarians a too little, too late attempt at changing the conversation from their failed record. Otherwise, this government has reintroduced the old bills that were on the order paper during the last session, and they’ve called it a grand new direction.

Speaker, given the number of times this government moves time allocation, I know they don’t hold the opposition’s opinion in high regard, and by association the thousands of people that the opposition members represent.

Let’s turn back to the content of Bill 37. It’s my understanding that the Ontario College of Teachers welcomes the proposed changes: greater transparency and investigation in disciplinary matters; faster complaint resolution; and making the complaint process more accessible to the public.

The college’s registrar, Michael Salvatori, said, “We are committed to ensuring that our teachers are supporting the success and achievement of our students. And that is why we have been working with the government to strengthen the disciplinary processes at the college. In the rare cases where discipline is required, teachers, parents and students will know that a fair and transparent process will be in place.”

Speaker, I’m sure you would agree that the public needs to know that a process is in place that will create prompt reaction and resolution. They don’t want to be kept in the dark. It’s a reasonable expectation, isn’t it?

Late last month, Speaker, City TV ran a piece on their news channel in which they asked the government what ever became of this legislation, Bill 37, and before that, Bill 200, and whether they had any intention of ever passing it. The Minister of Education, while ignoring the questions of why this bill hasn’t moved anywhere, said that the bill was a priority for them, and then, of course, a week later, brought forward their bill for the third time—for the third time—stating it was a priority for them. They tried to seize a moment with the speech from the throne, but it’s a moment that has already come and gone, Speaker. It has come and gone.

That being said, we are supportive of the proposed legislation that’s reflected in Bill 37, the Protecting Students Act, a bill which I believe is much needed. While it can be improved—and we will take that opportunity, Speaker, to bring forward amendments during its time at committee, and I look forward to being at committee as the official opposition critic for advanced education and skills development—it addresses in large part the outstanding recommendations from the LeSage report released in 2012.

When this bill was first introduced in 2013, as Bill 103, the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus did not feel it went far enough, and we still have that opinion. At that time, my caucus offered support for the bill as a good first step, though we certainly felt there were elements missing from the bill that needed to be entrenched in the legislation.

Now, however, we’re pleased, to a degree, to see that Bill 37 will ensure a teacher’s certificate is automatically revoked if he or she has been found guilty of certain forms of sexual abuse or acts related to child pornography.

Sexual abuse and exploitation of children are unacceptable crimes on one of the most vulnerable populations in our society, and there should be zero tolerance for these types of acts. There’s no place for child exploitation in this province, or in any part of society, for that matter, and we expect all individuals, regardless of profession, who engage in this behaviour to be brought to justice.

I would also like to highlight a few other key provisions within the legislation that help strengthen the current educational system.

The bill will require employers to inform the college, the Ontario teachers college, when they have restricted a teacher’s duties or dismissed him or her for misconduct. Further, it will allow the college to share information with the school board if the subject of the complaint is subject to an interim restriction or suspension because he or she poses an immediate risk to a child or student. These amendments to the current regulations will help make it easier for the Ontario College of Teachers, and school boards, for that matter, to work together to ensure the safety of our children in our schools.

The bill also sets clear rules for dispute resolution and improves timelines for the investigation and consideration of complaints. This is a much-needed update to a process that, at the moment, is confusing and lacks transparency and accountability.

In addition, the bill would improve the investigation and disciplinary processes of the College of Early Childhood Educators by establishing limitations on when and how often a member of the college can apply to have terms, conditions or limitations varied or removed from his or her certificate. These are much-needed steps and legislative directions which we as a caucus in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party support.

That being said, there are still areas where this bill can be improved. My colleague the member for Haldimand–Norfolk, in his speech during debate of this bill, put forward an interesting possible amendment, Speaker, that I’d like to share with the members here in the Legislature, including yourself.

When noting that the original proposed legislation was being amended to require a hearing if an offender wishes to work with children again, the member for Haldimand–Norfolk proposed that the school board that will end up listening and making decisions on these hearings should be made up of subject matter experts on sexual abuse and child pornography, to ensure that these decisions are being taken in a manner that is in the best interests of the students.

A number of members of the Legislature have also pointed out during debate of Bill 37 that we need to make sure that within the proposed legislation, there are safeguards for teachers and early childhood educators who are falsely accused. We need to make sure that this legislation protects all concerned in the process. This aspect is something that we will examine and discuss further when this legislation arrives in the standing committee.

As I said earlier this week, and I believe it bears repeating, I want to stress that the overwhelming majority of teachers are there to excel—including my daughter—to teach our next generation of leaders and to ensure that they’re on the path to success and to succeed.

Teachers are entrusted to shape and mould the minds of tomorrow. They’re called upon to go above and beyond for our children every day, every month, every year. While this legislation embodied in Bill 37 is most certainly aimed at a very small portion of the profession, there’s no doubt in my mind that it’s a necessary piece of legislation in order to ensure that we’re doing what is necessary to protect and mould our next generation.

While the government has once again brought down the guillotine known as time allocation to stifle and limit debate, we will continue our diligence to monitor and evaluate this bill as it moves from the Legislature into standing committee and clause-by-clause, and propose amendments where we feel this bill can be strengthened and help the youth of our province to succeed in the way that they deserve to.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to stand in the House, but today, we’re speaking, once again, about another time allocation motion. The motion is regarding Bill 37, Protecting Students Act. My colleague from Windsor West, in her remarks, will focus more on the act; I plan to focus more, as interim House leader, on the actual reasons why this act in particular did not need to be time-allocated.

We tend here to use parliamentary language and big words and long words, and it all sounds very important. But the way it actually works is, the government won the election, so they get to put forward legislation. They put forward legislation. We have a meeting once a week at House leaders—all three parties—and we try to work out the rules of engagement. That’s basically what House leaders is: You work out the rules of engagement.

The rules of engagement—they put forward a bill and the time slots where they would like to debate it. Usually, the question comes up: “How many speakers would you like to put forward on this bill? How much time would you like to put forward on a bill?”

If there are bills we totally disagree with, we will put up the maximum amount of speakers, to make sure that we hold the government to account. But with this bill—I listened very intently to the debate—we are all in agreement. We all believe it could be made better, and we all have our ideas on how, but about the spirit of the bill, we are all in agreement.

Yet the government never even asked if they could move this bill forward without time allocation. They never bothered to use the true parliamentary process of asking the other parties if they would be willing to make sure that this bill went through as quickly as possible.

It’s not necessary to have to time-allocate a bill that we can all agree on to bring it through the House. I get along very well with the House leader from the Liberal Party and with the Conservative House leader. I think that we could—

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We don’t miss Gilles at all.

Mr. John Vanthof: Just for the record, I very much miss the member from Timmins–James Bay. Hopefully, he’s watching. I will be glad to have him back.

The process wasn’t followed. At no time was I asked, “How many speakers would you like to put up to this bill?” They didn’t know, because they never asked. So we didn’t need to go the route, in my opinion, of time allocation.

Particularly on a bill like this, where due process is crucially important, for the government to not even employ what is traditionally due process and bring the hammer down right away, without even bothering to ask if we could work together on this one, is really concerning.

The government House leader, in his remarks this morning—and I would have to agree with his statement that everyone in this House agrees that student safety is paramount. This is not a bill that lends itself to political one-upmanship, to political wrangling. There is a bit of that in this House. No one is going to deny that. But this bill isn’t one of those, because every member in this House wants to do the right thing for children. Every member in this House respects the teaching profession and respects teachers, and understands the position of trust and responsibility they’re in.

So it’s incredibly troubling to us that at no point did the government even try to say, “How many speakers do you want to put forward?” They never gave us the chance. They never bothered. Why that’s concerning is, is that the trend that this government is going to continue with how this bill goes forward? I don’t think we needed to be time-allocated. I think we could have just let the debate die its natural process. But they never bothered to ask.

They also had in the time allocation motion the amount of time that the public could speak. I think on this bill also the stakeholders—and they’re very well-identified—have their points that they would like to put on the record. This isn’t a bill that would demand months and months of public hearings; I don’t think that’s the case here. This is a bill where, actually, the government could have demonstrated how it could be and should be done; and that they didn’t even bother is the toughest thing to understand.

The parliamentary process has been going for a long time, and we all rail against time allocation and, at times, you know what? From what I understand, we’ve all been guilty of it. But in this case there was absolutely no reason for it. You have to wonder, Speaker, is the government just unable to manage its timetable or unwilling? Or, quite frankly, are they just—and I hope this isn’t the case—either too lazy for the democratic process or just don’t care? I think it’s a question that needs to be put on the record because specifically this bill is the most egregious example I’ve seen.

I’ve only been here five years, Speaker, and I don’t pretend to know all the rules and all the history, but this one, of all the bills, I didn’t hear anyone speak against in the debate. I heard a lot of people talk about how the spirit of this bill has been introduced—or bills like it—the third time. One time it was stopped by the election, the second time by prorogation. But at no time did I hear anyone say that they were going to stop this, no matter what, and employ every tactic possible. No one has said that. There was no reason for time allocation. It’s an egregious—I don’t know how to describe this.

How disappointed we are that the government doesn’t bother to use the democratic tools that it has the power to use. For a government to continue to talk about openness and transparency, yet continue to use the hammer where it’s absolutely not necessary, is truly disappointing. I think it doesn’t bode well for the future.

With many of the other bills that the government House leader brought forward that they want to open up the

schedule for, we may have some serious concerns. We may put up as many speakers as possible. But with this one, that was not the case. We were never asked. They just didn’t bother, Speaker, and that’s a travesty in our democracy.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s a pleasure to stand today to talk about this time allocation motion. I think it’s an important thing for us to move forward on. The protection of young people in our education system is something that I know every single person in this Legislature agrees is an important thing. Madam Speaker, you would know very well, being a former school board trustee—you and I served for many years at the Toronto District School Board as trustees. I know that this type of legislation, if passed, would strengthen our education system by protecting young people here in Ontario.

It’s something that the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, the member from Whitby–Oshawa and many other members in the Legislature have spoken in support of. In fact, I have a couple of quotes from members here. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex says, “Speaker, we obviously have an unequivocal responsibility as a society to protect our children and students.”

The critic from the third party says, “We all, whether MPPs, parents or teachers, recognize that we must have proper oversight and measures in place to ensure crimes are punished and kids are protected.”

It goes on and on. The member from Stoney Creek says, “As far as protection of the kids, there’s no doubt about it. They should be protected 100% from any kind of abuse in their school setting.”

Madam Speaker, I always thought, when I got here to the Legislature, that sometimes the process was a bit slow. At the school board and municipal councils you move forward with motions. You debate the issue. You move forward and there’s a vote taken. Sometimes, in this process, it moves very slowly. We have an agenda, of course, as a government, to continue to make change here in the province of Ontario to support the students, children, youth, families and the people of Ontario.

Think about what is being held up in this Legislature right now if we don’t move forward with this type of legislation, which everyone agrees is a good thing. The Promoting Affordable Housing Act, Bill 7, which was debated yesterday and the day before: We all know this is a great piece of legislation that’s going to be able to build more affordable housing here in the province of Ontario through inclusionary zoning.

Madam Speaker, Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act: This bill, if passed, will remove a lot of red tape when it comes to businesses being successful. It’s interesting, because the opposition is always talking about setting up businesses for success here in the province of Ontario. The fact is, over the last several years, we’ve moved forward to remove a lot of red tape but we want to continue to remove burden for business. You would think that the opposition would want to move forward with that in a way which was quick and speedy.

We have the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act that’s on the table; the Patients First Act; and the Election Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 45, which I believe got a bit of press this morning. It looks at ways to modernize our electoral system here in the province of Ontario by allowing—and this is an interesting thing, since we’re talking about students—it will provide us with an opportunity to have younger people, 16- and 17-year-olds, to register for elections. It will provide us with a better opportunity to engage young people, to get more young people engaged in the democratic process, and allow for them to register early so they can vote in the next election.

We’ve got a lot of items that we want to bring forward as a government, a lot of proposed pieces of legislation that I think would continue to make Ontario the great place that it is. We need to make sure that we can continue moving forward on a pathway that doesn’t allow us to get caught up in the politics of this room, the process in this room, that takes a long time to move along pieces of legislation that we know everyone agrees with.

Every single person in this room thinks that this is a great piece of legislation. It’s something that we need to do. It’s been discussed and debated in this Legislature not only now but in the past many times. It’s something that we know the College of Teachers would embrace. We know that parents would embrace this piece of legislation.

It would protect our young people here in the province of Ontario. As the minister responsible for children and youth here in the province, I think anything we can do to ensure that young people are set up for success—and protection is a huge piece of that—is something that we have an obligation as lawmakers to do.

So I think that we need to come together. We need to support this motion and we need to move forward to discuss other pieces of potential legislation that we may not necessarily agree on but, through the committee process, through the Legislature, we can work towards agreeing with.

I want to just say thank you to the members who spoke earlier. I understand that they have concerns, but there’s no question that they agree with the proposed legislation. I think that as MPPs, as elected members representing our ridings, we have an obligation to move forward with pieces of legislation that are logical, that make sense, and that will support the future of Ontario, Madam Speaker, which is our children and youth.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure to be here this morning with my colleagues to debate an education bill. But unfortunately, I take exception to the comments made by my friend and colleague the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

I think that far too often in this assembly, we rush through important pieces of legislation, only to amend them later on, or repeal them, or make regulatory changes to them because we haven’t put enough effort into the consideration of whether the legislation is good or bad.

The other thing I find very difficult is, I find that when I’m sitting in the chamber and I’m hearing, from my colleagues, talk about the important issues of the day—and certainly education legislation is always very important—it’s also something that when I feel like I have been denied the privilege and the honour to stand in this assembly to talk about that legislation and take

part in the debate, then I think that we have failed in this assembly. I think that we should be encouraging all members to participate in topics that interest them. I know, for example, when I get the sheet that sometimes the government is good enough to provide us, with the information of what we will debate the following week, I’ll look at the

schedule and I’ll think, “Wow, I would really like to talk about that education bill, or the energy rebate bill.” But unfortunately, it’s not my duty day. I might be in committee; I could be meeting with stakeholders. I may not have the opportunity to, and then I find that we’re now moving into time allocation.

I was elected almost 11 years ago, and I can remember sitting in this chamber—and I was way at the back, at the very back. Actually, the only people who were further over were Bill Murdoch and Gerry Martiniuk. Christine Elliott and I sat just behind here. We remember in the early days, when John Tory was our leader and the McGuinty government had just formed a government, that we used to read quotes from people like Jim Bradley and others in this assembly who would be protesting the guillotine motion, as my colleague from Whitby–Oshawa would say. They would be so angry and so adamant that the government was shutting off debate, under Mike Harris.

So what we would do, Speaker—and I’m sure you remember some of those debates—is we would drag them all up, from David Caplan, at the time, Michael Bryant, George Smitherman—you name it. We were bringing up these—

Mr. Robert Bailey: Sandra Pupatello.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Sandra Pupatello was one. They were so adamant. And now I look back and I think, after 13 and a half years, I think these guys—if I actually did a study, I bet you, in 13 years, that the Liberal caucus over there, the Liberal government, has brought in the guillotine motion—time allocation, closure—more than Mike Harris ever did. I’d like to see somebody do that study, and I’d like to also see them compare it to Stephen Harper, who was elected for a decade federally.

The beauty of talking about a time allocation motion is I’m actually allowed to talk about time allocation. I would really like to talk about matters that are important for the day, but I find, increasingly in this assembly, we’re starting to see this rush just to dump the bill and rubber-stamp it and then move on to something else. I think it’s eroding the confidence of this assembly when they do that, and I think it’s unfortunate.

I want to also point out one of the things that I’ve noticed has eroded in the past decade that I have been here. There used to be a lot more collegiality on our committees, and we used to travel the province a lot more, to talk to people about some of the issues that we would have here in the assembly.

But when you look at time allocation measures, it’s not just legislation that is time-allocated in the House. We’re also seeing an increasing number of committees being time-allocated. I find that that’s a problem. It doesn’t create, I don’t think, an ability for members of this House to work together on a common purpose. I think that we all have it in us. I know that this is a very exciting time in Ontario because, in a year and a half, there will be a change in government, and that’s very exciting for all of us on this side of the House. That is for sure.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: You said the same thing in 2014.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I also said it in 2011 and 2007.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, it’s good to see that you’re awake.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. You know the rules of engagement. I respectfully heard the government side, and I want to ask everybody to respect the opposition. It’s her turn.

The member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate you defending me from my colleagues across the way. When they don’t like what they hear, they always try to shout me down. It happens so frequently. It’s a good thing my voice is much louder than theirs, so I can get it through.

Speaker, it’s good to have the chief government whip here and the government House leader here, because I would make this one appeal to them: Give us a bit more time to debate the issues of the day. Have confidence that we will come here representing our constituents’ views, and we’ll actually put some thought into the legislation, talk to the stakeholders and potentially make amendments or suggestions that would improve legislation in the province of Ontario, whether that’s in health care or in education or in transportation or in infrastructure or in energy.

I think that we have a number of people who are very committed on all sides of the House, who want to take part and participate. I would encourage the government to allow us to do that and stop these time allocation, closure, guillotine motions. Free us; let us speak. That would be my one ask of the government.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of Windsor West and also as the NDP education critic to not talk, unfortunately, about Bill 37, but to talk about the fact that the government would like to end the debate on Bill 37.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that this is a very important piece of legislation. Nobody on this side, from my caucus, is disputing that it’s an important piece of legislation. Because it’s so important, it really deserves a fulsome debate to make sure that everyone who has a stake in this legislation—whether it’s a student, a parent, an educator or administration within a school board—has an opportunity to have a say when it comes to the legislation, to make sure we get it right.

This legislation before us will deeply affect the lives of any students who may come in contact with a teacher who exhibits poor decision-making and misconduct. It will also affect educators who may be falsely accused of misconduct. So I think it’s very important that we don’t shut down debate, that we actually encourage the voice of our communities and those affected by this legislation. The only way to do that is to allow the members of this House to get up and actually share the voice of their communities, share the voice of the people who elected them to be here and speak on their behalf.

Before I get too far into the debate around whether or not we should be shutting down debate, I’m going to ask you to indulge me, because we are talking about education, so it is relevant. I did want to mention that this week is Local Government Week in Ontario, and I just want to thank all the municipal sector workers, and more specifically, school board trustees—because we are talking about education—and acknowledge the valuable work that school board trustees do.

By pushing through this legislation—as my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane had mentioned earlier, there’s no need to do a time allocation on this. Nobody is arguing the validity and the necessity to have this legislation. What we’re asking is that we have an opportunity to share the voice of our communities and share the voice of the stakeholders, to give them an opportunity to have input into this very important and serious bill.

Speaker, currently in Windsor, we have support staff that are working for the Catholic school board that are out on strike. They are out on strike because they feel that their democratic right to have a say is not being respected. So they have gone out on strike to say that they want to be heard, that they want to have an opportunity to share their concerns and have debate. Their issue right now is around bargaining and the fact that it’s not happening. They want to engage in discussion. I think that’s relevant to what we’re doing here, and I applaud their efforts to say that they don’t want to be shut down, they want to be heard, and that they’re willing to go out on strike.

We all know that nobody wants to go out on strike. Nobody wants to do that. It’s a financial hit. Many of them experience unpleasant comments when they’re out on the picket line. They also have support; I need to point that out too. Nobody wants to be on a picket line, but they’re willing to do that in order to say that they want their democratic right to have discussion and debate, specifically, in this case, about a collective agreement.

I think that sends a pretty good message to the government side, showing that the stakeholders, the very people we are talking about, want to make sure that their voice is heard when we’re talking about legislation that is going to affect them, their colleagues, the students and the families that they work with.

It’s interesting. On Monday, when I had an hour to actually discuss the bill—and I’d like to point out that I actually did discuss the bill. I stood here for 45 minutes, I believe, of my hour, and it was all dedicated specifically to the bill—what was in the bill and how that would affect teachers, students and families—and the LeSage report that came forward that made 49 recommendations that led to the drafting of the bill. I spent 45 minutes talking in depth about the bill, and 15 minutes kind of expanding on the education system in a broader scope.

But the Minister of Education, the Associate Minister of Education and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education—the Minister of Education is the member from Scarborough–Guildwood, the Associate Minister of Education is the member from Halton, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education is the member from Durham. In their hour, they spent the large majority talking about how wonderful the government is and the incredible things they’re doing for the education system.

They spent the majority of their time, rather than actually explaining to the people of the province what the bill is about and trying to bring a better understanding to the people of Ontario about what this bill is about and what it would mean as far as the rights of students, the rights of families and the rights of educators—rather than doing that, they spent the majority of their time talking about the good work they’re doing and patting themselves on the back.

I think that was a mistake. No, I don’t think it was a mistake; I know it was a mistake for them to not address what’s in the bill, to get that information out to the people of Ontario, because those are the people who, once this goes to committee, may want to come to committee and have their voice heard, share their questions, their concerns about the bill, to get more information about how this particular legislation will relate to them.

I think that was a missed opportunity on the side of the government to do exactly what they say their mandate is and what their goal is, which is to be more open and transparent. In fact, by bringing forward a closure motion, they’re not being open. They’re trying to close debate. They’re trying to close conversation.

I would suggest that this is a wrong move and that, rather than moving to close debate and stifle voices, what they should be doing is taking every opportunity on something that’s as important as this.

I need to be clear: With this legislation before us, we’re talking about possibly, in some cases, criminal charges against an educator. When we’re talking about something as serious as that, we need to make sure that every voice is heard. We don’t want to see anybody’s life adversely affected by potentially a false accusation. We don’t want to see somebody not have fair and due process—which is interesting, when we’re talking about fair and due process, because what we’re seeing today from the government side is actually the exact opposite of fair and due process.

This is something that this bill was hopefully meant to address, giving an educator who was accused of something fair and due process—the right to a fair trial, if you will. Yet the government is saying, “That’s what we want for our educators, but we’re not willing to do that in the Legislature during debate with the other elected officials in the room.” I think it’s interesting. I guess it’s one more example of talking the talk but not really walking the walk.

The push to end the debate so quickly and move it into committee is really unnecessary when you look at the history of the bill that we’re discussing. As the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane pointed out, this is the third time that this type of legislation has come forward. Three times since Justice LeSage made his recommendations, legislation very similar to this has come forward. This is really the only time that we’ve had an opportunity to start debating it.

I’m going to say “start debating” because now that we’ve moved possibly to time allocation, I can’t say that we’ve actually debated it because they’re shutting it down. The government side is shutting down the voice of everybody on this side of the room, so I can’t say we’ve really had a debate when it’s been mostly one-sided.

I have to ask: If it was so important to the government side to get this legislation passed, then when the report came forward from Justice LeSage years ago—I believe it was five years ago—why did they wait for two years to introduce the first bill? Bill 103 was introduced in 2013. Why did they wait if this was so important?

I’m not arguing that it isn’t important but I’m arguing that if it was so important to the government side that we are now to the point where they’re trying shut down debate and push it—ram it—through with little to no discussion, if it’s that important now, why wasn’t it so important in 2011 when Justice LeSage brought his report forward? Why did it take so long for them to even consider acting on it?

And then again in May 2016, so this year, they brought forward Bill 200. Rather than debating the bill, this important piece of legislation, this legislation that they feel is so important that they don’t want to actually talk about it, discuss it and debate it with the people in the House, with the elected officials in the House—why did they prorogue? Why would they prorogue government and put an end to the bill and the opportunity to discuss it?

When they brought it forward in May 2016, we could have had a healthy debate around this bill, and likely by now, after everybody had an opportunity to follow the due process that we have here in the Legislature and everybody had their opportunity to debate as is allowed under the rules, we probably would already have this bill in committee, or it may have already moved through committee and become law.

Had they not prorogued after they introduced Bill 200 in 2016, we probably would have already dealt with this bill. But instead of doing that, they felt it was more important to prorogue and come back and deliver a throne speech that was really nothing new, all full of sunshine and roses and all kinds of promises—which the people on this side of the room and, I think, the people of Ontario don’t really believe, because time and time again we see promises being made and not followed through on, especially when we’re talking about openness and transparency from the government side.

Again, this process of time allocation is not open. It’s not transparent. It means, “We don’t want to hear from you.”

So if it was so important, why would you prorogue and put an end to this piece of legislation? And not just this legislation, actually: The member from Don Valley East, the Minister of Children and Youth Services, talked about many other bills that they’d like to see get passed through. The Attorney General, the member from Ottawa Centre, talked about how there’s other legislation that we have to get through before the end of this session. We could have done that, following proper process, if they had not chosen to prorogue and run their own agenda rather than doing what is best by the people of our province.

The Minister of Children and Youth Services quoted some of my comments from my hour debate on Monday. They were my comments. I’m not arguing that, and I stand by those comments. But what the minister didn’t mention was that in my comments on Monday, I actually referred to the accommodation review process for school closures and how the government has shortened that process. They have drastically reduced the ability for community members to come forward and have a say when it comes to the closure of schools in their communities and their neighbourhoods. We’ve seen that they’ve shortened that process so, again, they are stifling community input by shortening that process.

When I referenced that particular process, I said—it was almost as though I had a crystal ball and I knew this was going to happen. Maybe it’s just because we see it happen over and over and over again. This is kind of the way this Liberal government does business now, so maybe, from history, I knew it was coming. But at the time when I was talking about the accommodation review process and how they have shortened the process and limited community input, I also mentioned that that is a parallel to when the government moves for time allocation on a debate.

Lo and behold, we are here four days later—it took four days, barely four days, for the government to come forward and say, “We’re going to do exactly what you had thought we might do. We are going to move to close down debate.”

I think that for the people of Ontario, that’s an alarming practice. I think they’re going to start to see that this is a business-as-usual kind of direction that this government is going. They want to talk about wanting to hear from the people. They want to talk about how they’re here to listen and how, when it goes to committee, they’re going to sit and listen to the stakeholders. But time and time again, we’re seeing them actually shut down discussion and shut down debate.

Although the government may not think it, the people of Ontario are starting to see that. They want to be able to access the people that they have elected to stand in this place and represent them. They want an opportunity to be able to go to the government and let them know when they do or don’t agree with the direction that the government is going. And they certainly don’t appreciate when the government side says, “We’re really not interested in hearing what you have to say. So we’re going to shut down debate. We’re going to limit the number of people who can come to committee. We’re actually going to make the process of speaking to us more difficult.”

I just found out this morning the

schedule for the committee. So if it goes and when it goes—well, let’s face it: It’s going to go through to committee. They’re going to shut down debate; there’s no doubt. They have a majority government, so they’re going to do whatever they want. That’s the way they do it.

When it goes to committee, their plan is to have witnesses scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis and those presenters, those witnesses, will be given five minutes to present, with nine minutes for questions, divided equally among three parties. So each person is going to have only three minutes to answer questions.

I remember, when I was first elected, that to stand here for three minutes, or to have to carry on a discussion in committee and ask questions and that kind of thing—three minutes seemed like a really long time. Three minutes is not a long time, especially when we’re talking about a piece of legislation that could very drastically affect someone’s life. Three minutes for questions is not nearly enough.

The deadline for a request to appear is Monday, October 24. What’s the date today? It’s October 20, I believe.

Interjection: It’s the 20th.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: So in four days—not to mention we’re going into a weekend. People have four days to put in their request to appear before this committee.

Again, I’m not arguing the importance of this legislation. I cannot make clear enough how important this legislation is. We want all students to be safe, we want all students to know that the educators and the other professionals within the education system are there looking out for their best interests. The vast majority, the large number of educators in our system will never, ever be affected by this legislation. This will never apply to them because they are professionals and their goal is only the best interests of our children and our students.

But four days in order to get your name in, to be able to present; four days for students, for parents, for educators and for other professionals within the education system, anybody who is interested in having a say in this particular bill, this very serious bill—four days is not enough for someone to have to give notice.

Many people will be coming from outside of Toronto—and that’s an important piece to point out as well. The committee is meeting here in Toronto. For people in my community of Windsor, that can be, in some cases, a five-hour drive. And when you’re talking about people who have young children—so they either have to find child care, and we all know how difficult it can be to find affordable child care in this province, thanks to the Liberal government; they have to find child care, or we’re talking about putting young children in cars and travelling with them for a great distance—four days is not reasonable.

We’re talking about families, educators and other interested parties who work, who have to arrange to get the time off work.

To point out—that’s how important the legislation is: that they’re willing to take a day off, likely without pay, to come to speak to the legislation. You’re giving them not even four days because, really, we’re just debating this today, so by the time the information gets out there to the public, you’re probably talking another day or two before they find out that they have to request to appear by Monday, October 24. So you’re talking about very little notice for someone who has to arrange time off work—

Mr. Wayne Gates: Over the weekend.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Over a weekend, yes; that’s an important point—to be able to get here.

It appears that what the government is trying to do is drastically limit who could actually come to committee and share their concerns, which is interesting. I don’t think you will find anybody who is strongly opposed to the legislation before us. They may offer a few suggestions, a few minor amendments, issues that maybe we don’t see, and it’s important that they have the opportunity to do that, but I don’t think you’re going to find anybody who really opposes the legislation. Even if there was, they have the right to come to committee and be heard; and they have the right, as do the educators who we’re talking about with this bill, to fair and due process. They have a right to come.

You’re not giving them enough time to be able to arrange to come. Some of my northern colleagues, their constituents—there’s absolutely no way they would be able to make it, given the guidelines, the timelines. My colleague from Kenora–Rainy River takes almost 15 hours to get here and, bless her heart, she does it with a very young child sometimes. So imagine others who are struggling to do that. There’s no way it would work within these deadlines.

The deadline for written submissions is Thursday, October 27—a week from today people have to put their thoughts down on paper and get them to the committee. Again, it’s not really fair or due process, not really being open and transparent.

I know I’m running out of time, but I just want to drive the point home that the Attorney General, the government House leader, had talked about how there are other important bills to discuss and move through the legislative process before the end of this session, and there are. There is no doubt that there’s other legislation that we can be discussing.

Especially in the case of something like this that could affect somebody’s future, whether that’s a student or whether that’s an educator, I don’t think that it should be, “This legislation is more important than that legislation, so we’re going to push this through as quickly as we can so that we can move on to something that we think is more important.” I don’t believe that that’s the correct way to be looking at this.

Again, I cannot stress enough that this is important legislation. It’s life-altering legislation for anybody who would be affected by it, and I don’t think we should be taking the process lightly. I think it should be a fulsome process. I don’t think the government should be shutting down the opportunity for those of us in the House who aren’t on the government side to share the voice and the concerns of our constituents and our stakeholders.

Frankly, because of the timelines—the unreasonable timelines—that are being set by the government side as far as getting your request in to appear at the committee or your written submission, I think you’ll find that those of us in opposition will get quite a few people contacting us saying, “Well, we want you to be our voice. We can’t come, we can’t meet these deadlines, so we want you to share this on our behalf.”

They’re rushing through the committee. One day of committee, 2 to 6 p.m., is all you’re getting, 2 to 6 p.m. in committee to discuss the bill. I believe they’re shutting down—debates on amendments will stop at 4 o’clock. So it’s not even a full four hours in committee for people to be able to come and present; it’s two hours. So not only is it an unreasonably short deadline for those who want to appear or those who want to submit something in writing, but now you have a very short time frame.

Should you actually make the long trek to Toronto from the southern part of Ontario—the deep south, as I refer to my riding—or from up north, should you be able to manage to get here, they’re only going to give people two hours total, out of all of the people who want to come to discuss this legislation. I think that’s really unfair.

If I could put an exclamation mark on what I’m saying, I think that it is an abuse of power on the government’s part to not only shut down debate in the chamber and stifle the voice of the other elected officials in the room, but it’s an abuse of power to shut out the voice of the people who would be affected by this legislation, and anyone who would like to offer their input. To say, “We have very tight timelines, very unreasonable deadlines, to get your information in to us to come or to come in to present, and then when you get here, we may or may not have time to hear you”—I think that’s, like I said, an abuse of power on the government side, and I think that’s very, very unfortunate.

That’s not what they were elected to do. They were elected to listen to the people of Ontario, to listen to opposition, and to do what’s right by the people of Ontario. The direction they’re moving in today, and then, ultimately, in committee, is an affront to democracy. I think that it’s just really unfortunate that a government would abuse their power in this way.

Ny second now, Speaker, you’re probably going to cut me off, so I will wrap up.

We support the legislation. Absolutely, we support the legislation. What we do not support is the government trying to shut down discussion around it.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome, in the east members’ gallery, two constituents from my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham: Ian Stewart and his daughter Tiffany.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Soon to join us in the members’ east gallery will be Mushtaq and Nasera Khan. Mushtaq Khan is the president of the Jamia Riyadhul Jannah mosque located in Mississauga–Streetsville and a very good friend. Please welcome them.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to welcome Doug DeRabbie from the Ontario Association of Optometrists. I had a great meeting with him this morning, and I’m looking forward to the work that they’re doing around children’s vision.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Today I am pleased to welcome Harmy Mendoza and Carla Neto from the Woman Abuse Council of Toronto, or WomanACT, as well as Alejandro Gonzalez from MCIS Language Solutions, who joined me today for my press conference.

I also want to introduce Leslie Muñoz, who is my OLIP intern. I am delighted to have her in my office.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I want to introduce to the House Ken and Sandra Tully from the great municipality of Trent Hills. Ken is a councillor in the municipality of Trent Hills. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Dr. Mark Poznansky and Dr. Robin Harkness from Ontario Genomics. They are visiting the House today. There’s a genomics reception in the House this afternoon and I invite every colleague in the House to visit.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to introduce a good friend of mine, Mr. Joe MacDonald, who is a professor and program coordinator in the government relations management program at Seneca College, and a few of his students who are here with us: Tanzila Ahmed, Alexander Cerelli, Michael D’Amelio, Mandy Jagt, Mark McCleary, Rachael Neumayer, Ashfaan Purvez, Elvan Tayhani Karatas, Maritza Calle, Wellie Chichaluca, Danielle Gregov, Narmetha Karunanandan, Mary Namara, Michael Perkins and Samir Siddiqui. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Our page from Toronto Centre, Carter Edwards—I introduced his father the other day. Here today is his mother, Marisa Edwards, his brother Declan Edwards, his grandmother Nancy Vander plaats and grandfather John McKean. There’s an enthusiastic family invested in their children.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to introduce some wonderful constituents from my riding of Kingston and the Islands who are joining us in the gallery this morning. Let’s give a warm Queen’s Park welcome to Heather Morrison, Alfred and Louise Morrison—and, from home, Mr. Daniel Couture, this province’s most loyal watcher of the proceedings of this House. Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome two guests with us today from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, known as OUSA: Jamie Cleary, who is not only the president of OUSA, but also vice-president of the Western University Students’ Council; and Amanda Kohler, the director of communications at OUSA. Welcome.

Also, Speaker, we have a very important day to celebrate today, and that is the birthday of Reza Moridi.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Happy birthday.

Further introductions?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m very delighted to welcome to the Legislature today teacher Scott Jones and his grade 10 civics class from Forest Heights Collegiate Institute in my riding of Kitchener Centre. They’re up behind me here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I am pleased to introduce page captain Catherine Pelicano. She has a guest here: Her father, Danny Pelicano, has come to visit. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I know he’s already been introduced, but I want to say a special welcome to a fellow Londoner, Jamie Cleary, who is president of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and vice-president of the Western University Students’ Council, as well as Amanda Kohler, communications director from OUSA. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Just in case nobody else does, I just want to welcome back the Shurmanator, Peter Shurman, to the House.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Close, I was so close. In case you didn’t know, in the west members’ gallery is former MPP Peter Shurman from Thornhill in the 39th and 40th Parliaments. Welcome.

We welcome all of our guests. It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier.

The people of Ontario will pay for this government’s loss of the Windstream lawsuit for years and years to come. The $28-million judgment is just the tip of the iceberg. The tribunal stated that the $5.2-billion contract is still valid and in force. That means the Liberals have two choices: build the project and pay out $5.2 billion, or enter into settlement negotiations to try to convince Windstream to take less. Either way, Ontario is on the hook for billions.

Mr. Speaker, when do the Liberals plan on handing over $5.2 billion to Windstream? Is this gas plant 2.0?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

As I have said, we can confirm that we have been advised of the tribunal’s decision. What’s interesting is that the tribunal dismissed the majority of claims made against Canada and Ontario, Mr. Speaker. The final award was significantly less than the damages being sought by Windstream. Ontario officials are reviewing the decision and we understand that Canada’s doing the same in order to determine next steps.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Gas plant 2.0, 3.0, 4.0.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s interesting, Mr. Speaker, as I hear the heckling from the other side—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I caught it. The member from Renfrew, come to order.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are taking a cautious and a responsible approach to offshore wind to allow for the development of research and coordination—particularly in the area of decommissioning requirements and noise over water. We’re looking for evidence and research in those areas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: Not only will we be on the hook for billions of dollars because this government had to save two Liberal seats, and not only are we going to have to pay $28 million to Windstream already, but there are untold millions of dollars spent fighting the legal cost involved in this case.

We know the Canadian government sent 10 representatives to the tribunal at a cost of $8 million in legal fees. Ontario sent 20 representatives to the tribunal. It’s fair to assume the costs will be significantly more.

My question to the Premier: You may not want to talk about the $5.2 billion, but at least tell the Legislature—tell the people of Ontario—how much you’ve spent in legal costs. How many taxpayer dollars have been spent fighting this Windstream contract that you mistakenly committed Ontario to?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very happy to rise and outline to the Leader of the Opposition what truly is happening right now.

Ontario is carefully reviewing the decision, and we understand that the federal government is doing the same, in order to determine the next steps. It has been less than a week that we’ve been advised—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Not very good. Let’s bring it down, please.

Finish.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ontario has been advised of the tribunal’s decision in the NAFTA

chapter 11 dispute between Windstream and Canada. The tribunal dismissed the majority of claims, with the final $25 million being significantly less than what was originally sought.

But when it comes to dollars and wanting to know the amounts, when they want us to rip up contracts, that’s billions and billions and billions of dollars. I’d like to know what their amount is, Mr. Speaker, because they don’t have a plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m seeking some assistance from members to allow me to hear the complete answer or the complete question. I may have to make a decision to move to areas that you know I don’t like, but I will.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: First, it was the complete botching of the OESP and paying $9 million for consultants instead of helping low-income families pay their hydro bills. Now it’s millions and millions of dollars spent to lose a lawsuit that has cost us $28 million so far, and likely to be significantly more down the road.

Why won’t the Liberals tell us how much they spent? We know the federal government spent $8 million on legal fees. We know Ontario had a much bigger delegation. I couldn’t get the answer from the Minister of Energy.

I’ll ask the Premier again: How much did the Premier’s government spend on legal fees trying to fight this foolish commitment that this Premier has made, once again, on energy?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I think it’s important to let the Leader of the Opposition know that we’re still reviewing the decision. It’s really too early to jump to—

Interjections.

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

I have two others in my mind; if they say it again, we’ll go to you.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: So you know what? We’re going to let it take its course, Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry—and because of that, we’ll move to warnings. Thank you.

As soon as I sit—

Interjection.

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

Anyone else? Thank you.

Finish.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We’re very proud of renewable energy on this side of the House, unlike the pro-coal party on that side. We will continue to ensure that we invest and do the right thing when it comes to renewable energy in this province.

I know the Leader of the Opposition talked about the OESP program and the OEB. The OESP program is actually doing great work. We’re helping 145,000 families with $21 million in benefits so far, and that’s only in 10 months.

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The Auditor General revealed that Ontario overpaid by $9.2 billion for renewable energy contracts. That’s the Auditor General being very specific: an overpayment of $9.2 billion. We also know the Ontario Liberal Party received $1.3 million in donations from 30 companies that received renewable energy contracts.

So my question is straightforward to the Premier—and I realize it may be uncomfortable for her to answer. Why did Ontario overpay by $9.2 billion for renewable energy contracts that every single Ontarian is now paying on their hydro bills?

Interjections.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You’re making America great again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to speak to this question.

We made a decision to complete the shutdown of all of the coal-fired plants in Ontario, and we made a decision to replace that energy with clean electricity. The electricity grid is 90% emissions-free in Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the heckling on the other side is coming from a party that wouldn’t have done that, doesn’t believe in it, doesn’t believe in clean energy and would take us back to coal generation.

We know that having no smog days is in the best interest of every person in this province, but it’s especially in the best interest of kids, who are growing, whose lungs are growing, and who might have asthma. It’s an incredibly important initiative that we have taken.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to remove pollution from the air. We’ve done that—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: I know it’s the Liberal talking points to say this is about coal. It’s not about coal. The Progressive Conservatives announced the phase-out of coal. This is about an overpayment of $9.2 billion. This is about the Liberal Party accepting $1.3 million in donations.

I’m tired of the diversions. I’m tired of the Liberals’ speaking points. People in Ontario are struggling, and they seem oblivious to it.

Mr. Speaker, $12 million to pay for high-priced consultants and ads for the OESP; untold millions of dollars spent fighting the Windstream lawsuit; overpaying $9.2 billion that’s on our bills now—when it comes to Liberal energy policies, my question is this: Why is it always Liberal lawyers, Liberal consultants and friends that get rich while the people of Ontario are stuck with higher and higher hydro bills?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and answer the opposition’s question once again.

You know what? The Leader of the Opposition makes it very clear that they wouldn’t have built any new supply, that they would have continued to leave the system crumbling, to make sure that when we have a blackout like we did in 2003—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford is warned, and the Minister of Transportation is warned. There are a couple of others that are up here.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Back in 2003, we didn’t have enough generation. We didn’t have enough capacity, so when we took over, we had to build that capacity. We made sure that we built that capacity, making—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll play this all day. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We’re very proud that we’ve made a green system. We’ve eliminated coal. We no longer have to send out warnings to families right across the province—telling them that they don’t have to go outside to breathe. That’s something that we should all be proud of. Unfortunately, this government is very proud of it; the opposition is not. We know they’re the pro-coal party because they want to continue to find cheaper ways to make electricity.

We understand that some families are struggling. We’ve got programs to help.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: The Minister of Energy says they’ve got programs that are helping. Well, let’s talk about their programs. There are still 355,000 low-income families in Ontario that have yet to receive the Ontario Electricity Support Program—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. No, sorry, start the clock.

The Deputy Premier is warned. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, to talk about their programs—because they spent so much on consultants rather than helping low-income families, 355,000 low-income families in Ontario that were meant to get this help aren’t getting it. And then there’s the 1.2 million rural families in Ontario that the Liberals have excluded from the rural or remote rate protection. What kind of help is this? The only people that I can see that are being helped by this government’s foolish energy policies are Pennsylvania or Michigan or New York.

My question to the Premier is, when are you going to stop making America great and make Ontario prosperous?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I know the Leader of the Opposition keeps quoting Donald Trump because he believes in Donald Trump’s philosophy, but on this side of the House, we do not. Love trumps hate.

What we’ve done is made sure we’ve invested in programs like the OESP. In 10 months—in 10 months—45,000 families have been helped by the OESP. We don’t believe that’s enough, so we budgeted $225 million to get as many of them as possible onto this program.

This is a great program to ensure that every MPP actually promotes this. I know when I was at AMO, there were opposition party mayors who were coming from their ridings and they said that they didn’t know about the program. So you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to make sure that my ministry sends to every MPP these OESP programs again, so they can ensure that these families get on this program when they need it.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think I’ve made it kind of clear that I want a semblance of respect here. Thank you.

New question.

Electronic health information

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Will the Premier rule out privatizing some or all of Ontario’s eHealth assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been very clear. I’ve been clear, the Deputy Premier has been clear, the Minister of Energy has been clear—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Sorry, the Minister of Health has been clear—he’s been clear, too—that we are not selling eHealth. We are not selling patients’ personal health information. There have been millions of dollars that have been invested in digital medical initiatives in this province through eHealth, and we need to understand the value of that. We need to understand how we can improve service to patients. That’s what this is about. That’s what the Minister of Health has asked Ed Clark to give us advice on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Liberals said they would be valuing our digital health assets, and after valuing, they would be leveraging them. That’s what the Liberals said yesterday in this chamber. It sounds a lot like what the Liberal plan was for Hydro One, which the Premier called “unlocking value” and “leveraging” our assets.

How many private companies has Ed Clark or the government spoken to about being either a private partner in our eHealth services or purchasing our assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party might know that Canada Health Infoway has estimated roughly $1 billion in annual benefits to Ontario as a result of the investments that have been made in eHealth and almost $6 billion in cumulative benefits since 2007. It’s important that we undertake this review so we can better understand the value of the digital assets as we move toward a new vision for digital health in Ontario. The mandate of eHealth expires in 2017.

I’ve mentioned in this House before that Ed Clark also conducted important work to improve the LCBO and the Beer Store to maximize the value of our assets, and that’s what has happened. There has been no sell-off of the LCBO.

I know the leader of the third party will say that that’s very different than eHealth, and it is different; but in terms of an asset that is owned by the people of Ontario, it is the same thing. How do we make sure we understand the value and how do we make sure we maximize the value of that for—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the government wants to improve eHealth, they should improve eHealth. But it’s not what the Premier has said. Nothing Ed Clark has said and nothing the minister has said explains why they need to find out the open market value of our eHealth assets in order to improve it. Nothing the Premier has said, nothing the minister has said and nothing Ed Clark has said tells us why they need to know this open market value, and she continues to not answer that question today.

Has Ed Clark, or anyone else, been given instructions to talk to private companies about private partnerships to provide eHealth services, or the private operation of parts of our eHealth system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we are not selling or privatizing eHealth or Ontarians’ personal health records—full stop, period. We are not selling eHealth.

I can’t understand why the leader of the third party doesn’t realize the value, as Canada Health Infoway has, to actually look at the investments made—

Interjections.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: With a mandate due to end at the end of 2017, with incredible opportunity in the digital health realm, including in this province, looking at the investments that we’ve made, where 80% of family doctors are using electronic medical records—most of our diagnostics are digitized. We have incredible opportunity. It behooves us, quite frankly, to have an expert like Ed Clark look at the assets and look at how we can actually improve upon the system we’ve created.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker. The answers did not make me feel very confident.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. When the Premier decided to privatize Hydro One, Hydro One was given a $2.6-billion tax holiday by the Liberals. A $2.6-billion tax holiday was given to Hydro One when the Liberals privatized it. Hydro One wants to keep the benefit of that tax holiday for its investors. New Democrats think that tax holiday, that $2.6 billion, should benefit Ontarians who are struggling with their hydro costs. Will the Premier ensure that this $2.6-billion tax break goes to Ontario ratepayers and not to private investors?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Finance is going to want to weigh in on this in the supplementary, but let me just say this: The leader of the third party does not support the investments we are making in infrastructure, roads, bridges and transit as a result of the decisions we have made, including the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One. She doesn’t support those investments. She doesn’t support, I suppose, by extension, the economic growth we are seeing in this province as a result of those investments.

Ontario is one of the leaders in the country in terms of economic growth. We’re outstripping other provinces, other states, North American jurisdictions and G7 countries. The growth that we are seeing as a result of the plan that we are implementing, including investment in infrastructure, is not something that the leader of the third party supports, but she should.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Nobody believes what this Premier says at the best of times, and they’re certainly not going to believe that. But what they want to hear is what’s going to happen to the $2.6 billion. That’s what I’m asking this Premier to come clean about with the people of this province.

Hydro One’s annual report says that keeping this $2.6 billion tax gift “will result in ... net cash savings over the next five years due to the reduction of cash taxes payable by Hydro One.” They warn their shareholders in their annual report, in the same report, that the OEB could actually force them to ensure that the benefit of this $2.6 billion goes to ratepayers instead of private, for-profit shareholders.

The question is: Is the Premier going to stand with Hydro One’s private investors, or is she going to stand with the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. The reference is made as to how we were proceeding to facilitate greater value for a corporation owned by the province and the people of Ontario, which we still retain, by the way, at this point, and we will continue to always be the largest shareholder, benefiting from those endeavours. Furthermore, the exemptions that were put in place were in lieu of taxes, which are still then going to be net-benefited to the province.

The member opposite makes reference to the transaction that enabled us to maximize our value. At the same time, the OEB, independently, will continue to foster and look at those rates—which, by the way, was zero increases this time around, recognizing the tremendous opportunities, that Hydro One and others have been able to be more efficient in their systems. Of course, that will also benefit ratepayers in the end, and all of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberal privatization of Hydro One means that Hydro One is definitely getting this $2.6-billion tax break. The Minister of Finance just acknowledged that. The OEB is absolutely going to decide whether that benefits Ontarians or whether that is going to benefit private investors.

The government can issue a directive today—in fact, I’m asking the government straight up today to commit to putting a directive forward to the OEB so that the savings of Hydro One that they’re getting for that tax break, that $2.6 billion, is actually directed to the benefit of Ontario ratepayers and not to the benefit of private investors. Will they make that commitment to the people of Ontario today?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The transaction that ensued as a result of that very exemption—all of it is going to the benefit of infrastructure and investments to be made by the province of Ontario, to build new roads and infrastructure. It’s going directly into the Trillium Trust for the benefit of all Ontarians and the people of Ontario.

The member opposite should know that, and if she doesn’t, she should see how the transaction occurred so that we could reinvest those proceeds in other activities and other projects—again, something that the member opposite and that party have no plan to ensue. We will reinvest those monies, dollar for dollar, for the purposes of making greater assets and greater returns for the province of Ontario.

Arts and cultural funding

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

A so-called “regionalization scheme” to slash the Ontario Trillium Foundation’s catchment areas from 16 to just five continues. Already, Trillium is allowing its 16 grant review teams to wither away.

These volunteers are the program’s heart and soul, who truly understand their communities. The minister should know that her ministry’s memorandum of understanding with Trillium requires those teams to have at least 18 members, but according to the agency’s website, only Toronto now has the minimum. The average of the others is just nine.

Speaker, will the minister tell Trillium to stop downsizing by stealth and uphold its agreement by acting to fill those vacancies?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. The reason I want to thank him is because I know that he knows, as I do, that Trillium remains one of the most important mechanisms in our country for funding the not-for-profit sector and for building capacity in organizations right across our province.

That’s why on this side of the House we’re investing in the Trillium Foundation. We’ve held the funding steady and, in fact, Speaker, I’m proud to say that next year, with our 150th anniversary on the horizon, we’re investing even more in programs and projects across this province.

If the honourable member wants to have a conversation about his ideas on how we can make more robust infrastructure, I’m happy to listen to them. We can have that conversation.

We remain committed to Trillium. We are filling those vacancies apace in our local communities and those local grant teams.

I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister: I raised this with the previous minister, and he was obviously surprised by what was going on. It’s full steam ahead under this minister’s watch.

Grant review teams are being starved of volunteers critical to ensuring that granting decisions have the most local impact. Multiple catchment areas have no local staff to help volunteer groups navigate the application process.

If the minister doesn’t believe me that this is wrong, I ask her to talk to front-line staff. They know that their hands-on work with agencies cannot be replaced by a 1-800 number.

Trillium wants this plan finalized by April, but it can’t happen unless this minister signs off. Speaker, will the minister commit to maintaining Trillium’s local roots by pledging not to sign a new MOU with fewer than 16 catchment areas?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Again, I’m happy to take the member opposite’s question. The only thing that surprises me and people on this side of the House is that the honourable member would ask that kind of question when he knows full well that this government has been committed to the Ontario Trillium Foundation for years and will continue to be. That commitment remains strong, and our local grant teams are critically important, as the honourable member knows. Why? Because they give us the kind of local advice that helps us and helps them make the critical investment decisions that further the work of our not-for-profit sector.

Finally, Speaker, I just want to tell the House that, as a former Trillium-funded organization—and a leader of a not-for-profit organization that benefited from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, I, my ministry and our entire government are committed to seeing those local teams remaining strong and in place so that we can continue to fund a robust not-for-profit sector. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Health care funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre.

Speaker, when you’re waiting in pain for hip or knee surgery, you should be able to look at the official government wait-time-for-surgery website and trust that what is written there is actually accurate. But the good people in London and across southwestern Ontario know that they can’t trust those numbers. They are waiting months longer than the government will admit or publish for the surgeries that they need. In fact, local surgeons say that the real times for hip and knee surgery in London are twice as long as what the ministry-published data online states.

Why does the Premier think that it is right to publish surgical wait times that are not accurate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There are different aspects, obviously, once a decision has been made to refer to a specialist. That individual may or may not require surgery at the end of that visit with the specialist and then there is a separate period of time if the decision by the specialist, by that front-line clinician, is made that surgery is warranted. Then there is a period of time, obviously, that ensues prior to that operation taking place.

It is important for all of us, I think, to recognize that it is largely at the discretion of the front-line clinician and specialist to determine the level of priority for both of those situations.

We are working closely with our front-line providers but we’re also investing incredible amounts of money—$2 billion—only on wait times to bring them down and to be able to provide more hip and knee surgeries and other types of surgeries. In the last decade we’ve invested roughly $2 billion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: I know exactly how wait time is calculated in Ontario and so do the surgeons in London, and what you have on your website is not accurate.

In northern Ontario—or throughout Ontario—people should not have to wait 200, 300, 400 days for the surgery. It just should not be happening. In London, after the surgeon says that, “Yes, you need a hip or knee surgery,” after the clock starts ticking for this website wait time, the government says you will wait seven months. But every surgeon in London knows that it will be at least 11 months before you will get your hip or knee surgery.

Will the Premier stop publishing inaccurate wait times and, even more importantly, make sure that the people get access to surgery in a timely manner?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know the member opposite understands the difference that I described earlier between wait ones and wait twos. It’s critically important that we reduce both of those waiting periods, and we’re doing that. I have to recall from the Fraser Institute—and I think if the Fraser Institute is saying this we not only need to be surprised but I think we can appreciate with confidence what they’re saying. They’ve given us straight As in the Wait Time Alliance Report Card in five key service areas, including hip replacement surgery, knee replacement surgery, cataract procedures, cancer radiation, and coronary artery bypass grafts.

Is there more work to be done? Of course there is. Are we looking at wait times, including their measurement? Yes, we are. I need to remind that party, as well as the PC Party, that neither party measured any waits at all when they were in government. We’re doing it. We’re at the top of the list in terms of the shortest wait times in this country and we’re continuing to improve, Mr. Speaker.

Aboriginal land claim

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. On Tuesday, the minister was in Ottawa for a very important event marking an historic moment for Canada, the province of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario. We’ve heard that, unlike many First Nations, the Algonquins of Ontario never entered into a formal treaty with the crown, with a claim dating back 250 years. The Algonquins’ land claim is one of the largest and most complex in Ontario.

Speaker, could the minister please elaborate on the significance of the event that took place on Tuesday?

Hon. David Zimmer: Yes, it was a truly significant event, the signing of a historic agreement in principle between the federal and provincial governments and the Algonquins of Ontario. It marked the start of a new treaty relationship, working together in the spirit of reconciliation to resolve a very long-standing land claim that covers an area of 36,000 square kilometres in eastern Ontario.

More than a million people share this land with the Algonquins of Ontario. The historic treaty will provide balance for the rights and interests of all concerned and allow long-overdue reconciliation to provide economic opportunities by creating an environment of true partnership with all.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to thank the minister for his response. It’s very encouraging to see that the government has worked very hard in partnership with the Algonquins of Ontario and the federal government to reach this very significant milestone. Might I add that we are pleased now that we have a federal party, a federal partner in Ottawa, that cares about indigenous issues and has actually come to the table.

Land claim and treaty negotiations give us the opportunity to resolve long-standing disputes concerning land in a balanced way that respects the rights of indigenous peoples. It’s a remarkable example of reconciliation in action.

Speaker, could the minister please tell us what Ontarians should expect from this historic agreement in principle?

Hon. David Zimmer: Let me highlight just some of the key components to the Algonquin agreement in principle. The agreement was first shaped by consultation with 10 Algonquins of Ontario communities and other indigenous groups. The agreement sets out the main elements of a settlement, including that the Algonquins of Ontario receive capital funding from Canada and from Ontario and the transfer of provincial crown land to the Algonquins. Importantly, no privately owned land will be taken away from anyone to settle the claim, and no one will lose access to their private property. Very importantly, Algonquin Park will remain a park for the enjoyment of all.

Speaker, and to members of this chamber, I can tell you that the negotiating parties took great, great care to craft this agreement.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Health.

Recently, Mr. Robbie Ross of Collingwood wrote to me to say that he requires knee replacement surgery. Mr. Ross met with his orthopaedic surgeon at the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, who told him recently that the joint surgery budget is used up for this fiscal year. Mr. Ross is now on a waiting list, and the fiscal year for the surgery budget doesn’t start again until April 2017. Mr. Ross has no idea how long he’ll be on that waiting list. Mr. Ross is frustrated and his surgeon is, too.

This type of situation is unacceptable. It signifies how the government’s wasteful spending, mismanagement and scandal has harmed our health care sector. We warned you, Minister and Premier, that this would happen.

Speaker, what does this minister have to say to Mr. Ross and the many other residents in my riding who have similar stories?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. Ross that it’s important that he work with his local primary care provider and with his specialist. There are some specialists who have longer wait times than others. The LHIN is in a position—and often does, with individual patients—to work with them to find perhaps a specialist, a surgeon or a hospital nearby that has a shorter wait time.

It’s also the responsibility of that specialist to prioritize. So those who truly most urgently do require that hip or knee replacement or cataract surgery—it’s completely within the realm of that hospital and completely within the realm of that specialist to actually put that person at the top of the list. We need to make sure that triage is taking place.

We need to, as a province, invest, as we are, $2 billion just to reduce wait times for important procedures. That’s what has got us to the top of the list in Canada for the shortest wait times across the board.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Clearly, the government is going to have to do better. We’re only halfway through the fiscal year, and hospital after hospital and surgeon after surgeon has run out of money.

You blamed us for not voting for your budget. Well, your budget passed and made things worse, so thank God we didn’t vote for it, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Lisa Henderly is a 46-year-old Wasaga Beach resident who needs hip surgery, but, like Mr. Ross, she has been told there’s no money left for her procedure and so she has to wait until at least April 2017. Ms. Henderly says she’s in pain. She says it’s hard for her to work and do physical activities with her children.

Ms. Henderly has a question for the minister, and it’s this: If the minister’s wife or mother needed to have surgery but there was no more funding left for them and they had to wait a year or longer and he saw them in such pain on a daily basis, would the minister find this acceptable?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank God that Ms. Henderly and her family didn’t need that hip surgery 15 years ago when that government was in power because it would have taken her twice as long.

We’ve reduced the length of time to wait for hip surgery by 50% since we came into government. In fact, 86% of Ontarians receive a knee or hip replacement within six months in this province. That’s 7% better than the national average and it’s better than almost every jurisdiction around the world.

They didn’t vote for this budget. They voted against additional investments to further reduce those wait times. When we came into government, they didn’t even measure it. When we started measuring wait times, they left the worst wait times in this country to us to fix. We fixed it. We’re continuing to do the job, no thanks to you.

Interjections.

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

A reminder that you are to speak to the Chair.

New question?

Public transit

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. This week we learned that the Hurontario LRT is going to be run by a private company; it will not be run by any public transit agency. The NDP strongly supports the LRT project but we strongly oppose the government’s aggressive push into privatized transit. Privatized transit is more expensive. Since this government refuses to provide funding for local transit operations, we know that Mississauga riders will pay much higher fares.

Will the Premier keep Mississauga public transit public by removing maintenance and operations from the scope of the Hurontario LRT contract?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I do thank the member opposite for the question and for her interest in this particular project, a project in Peel region that will help transform not only Mississauga and southern Brampton but the entire greater Toronto and Hamilton area as it relates to building the seamless and integrated transit network that we are committed to build.

Speaker, I can tell you that just a couple of days ago I was very proud to be in Mississauga, at Mississauga city hall, alongside my colleague the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville, the minister responsible for seniors; the mayor of Mississauga; members of council and somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple of hundred residents who were there for an open house on this particular project.

This, as most members in the House will know, is a project, this LRT line along Hurontario, that will have 22 stops, including three stops within downtown Mississauga. It will connect into some of our GO corridors and it will connect to and support municipal aspirations.

As per usual on the transit file, the leader of Ontario’s NDP and that particular member and that entire caucus are misguided.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the Premier: The Auditor General found that Ontario’s public-private partnerships cost $8 billion above base costs. This is equivalent to a 30% cost overrun on every single P3 project. Most of this extra money went to Bay Street and the banks.

P3s take longer to build as well. The TTC has a century’s worth of experience with surface rail transit and could get the Hurontario LRT running in four years, but the government will waste an extra two years just to package this into an investment vehicle for private financiers.

Will the Premier save time and hundreds of millions of dollars by keeping this public transit project public?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I don’t think members of this Legislature need to take my word for exactly how transformational the Hurontario LRT will be. In today’s Toronto Star, there is a wonderful

article entitled “15 Years to Mid-rise Manhattan.” It is all about the renaissance that Mississauga is going through.

This

article in today’s Toronto Star highlights specifically that this government’s LRT project along Hurontario will help with a $56-million investment in a brand new Mississauga research and development facility. It will lead to, along the LRT corridor, a planned 166-acre urban farm, including historic farm buildings, and about 33 acres of mid-rise residential development, including street-level cafés, restaurants and boutiques. Speaker, the

article goes on to deliver so much more good news.

Because we’re investing in Mississauga, because we’re investing in this LRT, we’re getting it right. The question is—

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

I would like to remind the member that when I stand, you sit.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I found that inappropriate—dismissive.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: My apologies.

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

New question.

Senior citizens

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors affairs. Minister, many Ontarians who have lived in and contributed to their communities their entire lives are beginning to enter their golden years. Their communities are also growing older, and with that comes a new set of challenges.

A few weeks ago, you told us about the ambitious Seniors Community Grant Program, which is funding programs for seniors’ organizations across Ontario. With our good friend the Minister of Health, you announced free shingles vaccinations for seniors aged 65 to 70, providing peace of mind and financial relief to 850,000 seniors.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister responsible for seniors affairs please inform the House what supports the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat is providing communities in order to meet the needs of their seniors?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to start by thanking the hard-working member from Kingston and the Islands for her question.

Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted to update the House and let them know that since becoming the minister responsible for seniors, I’ve toured the province to learn first-hand how our seniors are benefiting from the programs that this province has created specifically for seniors.

One area that I do want to focus on today is the idea of age-friendly communities. As Ontario ages, the one thing Ontarians are telling us is that they want to live on their own for as long as they can. That is why we are funding 56 communities across Ontario to help them become more age-friendly. Thanks to this program, communities from Arnprior to Wawa will now have the tools and knowledge to make their communities easier places for seniors to live in.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I want to thank the minister for her answer. I am pleased to hear that this government is making investments that help seniors who want to stay in their communities, and I’m proud to be part of a caucus that recognizes the valuable contributions that seniors make to Ontario.

As our population ages, it is vital that we make these investments today in order to accommodate the needs of tomorrow. By sharing experience and guidance with local communities, we eliminate messy or ineffective guesswork.

I am, however, still very interested to hear how the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat helps communities prepare for the future needs of seniors. Can the minister please inform the House about the specific supports that are offered to communities who are working to become age-friendly?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Again, I want to thank the member for her very important question. I’m happy to speak more specifically as to what we are doing around age-friendly communities.

In 2013, as you may know, Mr. Speaker, we released the Age-Friendly Community Planning guide, which offers age-friendly planners a great deal of resources. In 2014, we launched the Age-Friendly Community Planning Grant, which provides $1.5 million to 56 communities across Ontario.

Health care

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Ottawa resident Lisa Garland has three beautiful children and two of them have cancer. If that’s not horrific and stressful enough, Lisa tells me that the injecttions alone cost $3,000 a month and the anti-vomiting drugs cost over $800 a month.

And that’s not all. Special food, taking time off work and parking at the hospital added up for Lisa and her family. They were forced to fundraise, which is why I think Ontario needs a compassionate and catastrophic care plan for our patients in exceptional circumstances, like Lisa Garland’s family.

Minister, a top priority for all Ontarians is health care. I just want you to be part of this plan, and I’m hoping that you agree with me that Lisa’s family shouldn’t be fundraising for her children with cancer.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I do agree with you that there are, regrettably—often it’s too common—families that are facing catastrophic situations, particularly when they involve children. It’s difficult, I think, for all of us to imagine just how challenging that can be for a family to cope with and manage.

As the member opposite knows, we do have a catastrophic drug program in the province that provides support to families, including families with children, for a variety of medical and drug challenges that they might face. It is an important program which has provided, together with other programs offered by the province, a degree of support which is reassuring to a lot of families that do find themselves, regrettably and unfortunately, in that extremely challenging and difficult situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the words from the minister, but I think that we could be doing more because more and more people are maxing out their credit cards, they’re setting up GoFundMe campaigns or they’re doing other fundraising events. Others rely on the generosity of drug companies.

Brian Monty and his wife, Erica, also live near Ottawa. His wife has multiple myeloma, an incurable cancer of the blood plasma. She’s undergone a stem cell transplant and was prescribed Revlimid and it has kept her alive for three years. Private medical insurance covers up to $100,000 a year, but that runs out by September, leaving $36,000; they’re left at the mercy of the drug company for the rest of the year. This year that’s changed and Brian is afraid his wife might die without the drug. That is why Ontario needs a compassionate and catastrophic care plan. She’s only alive at the mercy of a drug company.

Will the minister take the lead on this today and will he support my motion for a compassionate and catastrophic care plan for the province of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the clarification at the end, because this is actually about the member’s private member’s bill or motion this afternoon, which I understand actually goes quite beyond what we’ve been discussing, at least in the first aspect. It talks about creating a fund to fund experimental treatment for individuals.

I think Ontarians appreciate the fact that we do have Trillium, which does provide support for individuals and families that do find themselves in catastrophic or extreme, financially challenging situations. But for 96% of the applicants that come forward—many, many thousands—we do fund treatments and procedures that may not be available in this province.

I know the private member’s bill that the member opposite referenced at the very end actually speaks largely about a different fund, which is to fund experimental treatment. We need to make sure that our funding is focused on evidence, best clinical practice and guided, quite frankly, by the specialists who should be making this decision in the first place.

Hydro rates

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier.

Last month, I began collecting hydro bills from my constituents to show the Premier what the reality is for hydro users in Ontario. Families in my community are at a breaking point and I have got over 100 bills sitting here on my desk to prove it. While dropping their bills off, I’ve heard from families and seniors in Oshawa who set alarms to do their laundry in the middle of the night and lower their food budget just to keep the lights on. This is the reality in my community.

Will the Premier offer real solutions to hydro users in Oshawa or should we just continue living in the dark?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and answer the question from the member of the opposition.

It is important for us as a party to ensure that we do put programs in place to help families like those in Oshawa—like those in all parts of the province—and that’s why yesterday I was so pleased to see that our bill that’s helping families with the 8% reduction passed through this House unanimously. I think that’s very important.

We also have the OESP program, which I know helps families save up to $45 a month and, in some cases—if they qualify, if they have a medical condition that they need to use equipment for—they can get up to $75 a month.

Some other good news that’s going to help families: Yesterday, the Ontario Energy Board has announced that residential and small business electricity prices will not increase for the next six-month period. We’ve got the OEB as a quasi-judicial organization making sure that they’re protecting Ontario ratepayers as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Back to the Premier: Under the Liberal government, hydro bills have nearly quadrupled since 2003, and it’s Ontarians who have been forced to pay for Liberal mismanagement and mistakes.

While dropping a hydro bill off at my office, a constituent named Jeff told me that his plan for the winter is to turn his thermostat down to 62 degrees and rely on a heavy housecoat and warm slippers. Again, this is the reality in my community.

Will the Premier commit to lowering hydro rates in Ontario, or should my constituents just keep turning the thermostat down instead?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thanks for the supplementary question.

I think the important thing that we can tell all of our constituents is that, as of January 1, rates will be going down in this province by 8%, Mr. Speaker. That’s something that I know this government is very proud of because we recognize that some folks are having a difficult time when it comes to paying their electricity bills. We understand that and that’s why we acted.

We had to do all the heavy lifting to ensure that we have a clean, safe, reliable system, and we’ve done that, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve got the OESP—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We’ll ensure that they have the OESP program and the LEAP program in place, and, as I mentioned, we’ve also eliminated the debt retirement charge. We’re also making sure that, come January 1, they will actually have an 8% reduction on their bills, Mr. Speaker. We’re doing a lot to help families right across the province.

School transportation

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

We all know that school buses carry precious cargo. When a parent or a caregiver waves goodbye to a child stepping onto a school bus, they want to know that their child will have a safe ride to and from school.

Ontario is known for the safety of its roads, and I know the minister reminds this House often that our roads are among the safest in Ontario. We all know that when it comes to the safety of our children, Ontarians need an extra sense of security: that safety is our top priority.

Speaker, would the minister please let the members of this House know what our government is doing to ensure the safety of children on school buses, not only today but for years to come?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Ottawa South for the question, of course.

This is something that I, as the Minister of Transportation, do think about year-round, but it is particularly at the forefront of my mind this week as it is School Bus Safety Week.

The member from Ottawa South is absolutely correct: Parents and all caregivers deserve the extra assurance that, at the end of the school day, their child will return home safe and sound. That’s why I am proud to say that school bus transportation is the safest form of transport for schoolchildren in Ontario. According to research by Transport Canada, travelling on a school bus is 16 times safer than travelling in a regular motor vehicle, based on the number of passengers and kilometres travelled.

Speaker, we’ll continue to work diligently on this file because our government is committed to continually improving school bus safety, and we want to assure all families that safety will always be a top priority for our government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I want to thank the minister for the answer to the question.

Our government and indeed everyone in this Legislature is committed to the safety of our children, not only when they are in our schools but also when they’re on the road to get there. Transporting over 800,000 students a day is a huge safety responsibility, and I know that families in my community and communities across Ontario will be reassured by the safety record of school buses in this province.

It is especially critical for all of us to have the opportunity to talk about the importance of public awareness in ensuring the success of safety campaigns like School Bus Safety Week. Mr. Speaker, would the minister be able to please provide members of this House with any additional information on the importance of School Bus Safety Week?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member from Ottawa South for the follow-up question.

I want to start off by saying I’m extremely pleased, as always, to work alongside many of our ongoing safety partners on all aspects of road user safety. These campaigns, the campaigns that our partners are responsible for developing and delivering alongside MTO, are critical drivers with respect to raising public awareness about road safety and issues specifically around school bus safety.

School Bus Safety Week sees such success stories because there are organizations in the province of Ontario that care as much about the safety of our roads as we do. This is another great example of how we can make Ontario stronger by working together.

It’s my privilege to say to the member from Ottawa South and, of course, all of our road safety partners how grateful we at MTO are for their extraordinary work. I look forward to having the chance to work alongside them for many years to come.

Hydro rates

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is for the Premier. Premier, I’ve heard from hundreds of people about the hardships caused by their hydro bills. They’ve told me their stories and wanted me to ask the Premier for her response.

One pensioner said that he has to work two part-time jobs just to make ends meet because of hydro increases. His wife is on disability. He has said that he wants to stay in his own home and not be forced to move at his age, but the price of hydro is making this harder and harder.

The government assistance programs aren’t solving the problem. What does the Premier have to say to this pensioner working two jobs just to pay his hydro bill?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I thank the honourable member for the question.

It is very important for us on this side of the House to ensure that all families, all seniors know the programs that are available. One of the important things that we do have is the OESP program. I know I talk about it often, b