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

May 11, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-May-11 (PDF)

L172 - Wed 11 May 2016 / Mer 11 mai 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 May 2016 Mercredi 11 mai 2016

Orders of the Day

Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois concernant les services financiers de rechange

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Oral Questions

Climate change

Climate change

Nurses

Hospital funding

Autism treatment

Child care

International trade

Public transit

Fertility services

Construction industry

Employment standards

Correctional services

Fire safety

Northern health services

Correction of record

Correction of record

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Prince of Wales Public School

Ontario Trillium Foundation

National Nursing Week

Dutch-Canadian Friendship Tulip Garden

Special-needs children

University of Ottawa Heart Institute

Women’s World Floorball Championships

Maplefest

Pregnancy and infant loss summit

Petitions

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Transports en commun

Special-needs students

Services for the developmentally disabled

Employment standards

Government services

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Child care

Home care

Health care funding

Apraxia

Prix de l’essence

Visitors

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, given that today is the birthday of the member from Ottawa–Orléans, I ask that you please give her a day off.

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

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now get to work.

Orders of the Day

Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois concernant les services financiers de rechange

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 5, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 156,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to financial services / Projet de loi 156, Loi modifiant diverses lois concernant les services financiers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this bill, the member from London–Fanshawe had the floor. The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s my privilege to rise on behalf of my constituents of London–Fanshawe to once again speak on Bill 156 and address the threat posed by targeted predatory lending practices. Deep cycles of debt threaten solvency, standards of living and social stability within vulnerable communities, and lending practices that allow these cycles to continue need to be addressed immediately.

Not only does Bill 156 fail to address certain concerns that it should address—concerns that have been around for years now—it actually has the potential to allow for some abuses to slip under the radar. In particular, some of the amendments imposed by Bill 156 on the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act appear to reduce government regulation over certain individuals and institutions. Bill 156 redefines the term “collection agencies” to include persons who purchase debts in arrears and collect them, but this broad definition will not likely have any significant impact, as it merely captures entities already traditionally thought of as collection agencies.

Further to the limited effectiveness of this provision, the bill introduces new exemptions under this act. The amendment weakens oversight on businesses that are not primarily engaged in debt collection but nonetheless do engage in debt collection. This creates space for these companies to ignore regulations with a drastically reduced risk of facing any kind of consequences.

While claiming to broaden the scope of this act, the bill in fact diminishes it. Bill 156 removes the requirement that a person who acts as a collector must be registered by the registrar, placing the onus instead on the associated collection agencies to ensure that the collector complies with the act and its regulations.

The bill also removes the requirement that collectors must be registered under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act before a collection agency employs or authorizes them to act on its behalf.

These appear to be missteps, reducing government regulations and accountability measures in an industry that requires more oversight, not less.

The way in which debts are collected, especially from people who, quite frankly, are already in vulnerable situations, is very important to the well-being of people, and should be a concern for this government. Legislation intended, at least in theory, to reduce the harm caused by predatory lending practices should certainly not widen the margin for potential abuses. The reductions in oversight and accountability brought on by amendments to the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act appear to do just that.

Ontario’s New Democrats generally support action that provides consumers with real protection and relief, but Bill 156 does not deliver any real action. While this bill is a good sign that the government has finally recognized some of these important issues, it is simply a framework without any concrete amendments. This government began its review process back in 2013, but, as of now, Ontarians will still have to wait until 2017 to see if any action is actually taken.

We did have some wonderful suggestions from our critic that weren’t taken into this bill, except one. Those recommendations—the other three recommendations I spoke about earlier in my debate—would certainly have improved protections for consumers, and this government ignored them.

I just want to conclude by thanking the Speaker for allowing me the time to debate this bill.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill once again and to respond to the member from London–Fanshawe.

The government is trying to protect consumers through this bill, and that includes protecting Ontarians from a cycle of debt. I think that’s very important. This bill is an important step in addressing the needs of consumers who are in need of alternative financial services.

The last time I spoke about this bill, I mentioned, for example, that in my riding there are payday lenders that are opening up more and more frequently. They try to take advantage of people who are most disadvantaged in life, and I think it’s very important that we try, through this bill, to protect consumers with a review of the maximum total cost of borrowing for payday loans. We need to work with stakeholders and with communities to come up with various solutions.

For example, in my area, the local councillor has put forward a motion at city hall, which passed unanimously, trying to determine a certain distance between payday lenders, because there are too many in certain areas and they’re always concentrating in the same neighbourhoods. We’re working together with ACORN, who hosted a fair banking forum in my riding. That is very important. We also heard from the postal workers’ union, which is trying to re-establish the return of postal banking. That’s very important.

There are various solutions that we have to find, but the aim and focus is to protect consumers.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s always a pleasure to listen to the member for London–Fanshawe. She points out many key failures in this bill. I look at, really, the underlying issues. The payday system is a system that people like to shoot stones at, I guess, but I think we should look at whether this bill is doing anything to help the system out. Are we doing anything to reduce the number of people who have to rely on the system? We don’t see that in the bill. We could be working with the banks, certainly, to make low-cost bank accounts more readily available. We’re not seeing that.

We have a government here that has driven up the percentage of residents who are at minimum wage to the highest in the country. Ontario has always been the province of prosperity, but we’re not seeing that anymore, and the policies in this bill really don’t do anything for it. Yes, they try to make it harder for people to be able to access payday loans, but are they really doing that? You can cross the street, if you’re in Toronto, or go down two buildings, in some cases—sometimes next door—and get another loan. There’s really nothing in here. It’s put out there to look good.

But really, should we not be looking at the reasons why people are using these loans, and helping them out? There’s nothing better than a good job. We’re not seeing any policies here that are encouraging or helping with employment and helping with the level of salaries. You can increase the minimum wage, but you’re not really doing anything. What we need is more competition for employment in this province. Thank you, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Can we keep it down over there?

The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. Again, it’s always a pleasure and a privilege getting up and spreading the voice of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

I think that our critic the member from London–Fanshawe highlighted some very big concerns about this bill. Our critic was quite eloquent in regard to the proposed framework actually being a step in the right direction. It’s a good sign that the government is actually finally acknowledging that there is a problem, and a recognition that individuals across this province are just barely keeping their heads above water when it comes to financial situations. What we really do need is some real consumer protection and relief for those consumers.

Some of the amendments in Bill 156, the Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016, exempt businesses that are not primarily engaged in debt collection from the act. This weakens oversight, Mr. Speaker. It weakens it on behalf of the companies. Another amendment removes the collector licensing regime. Instead, the onus is placed on the associated collection agency to ensure that the collector complies with the act and its regulations.

It also introduces an administrative monetary penalty regime for those who contravene this act, the details of which are still going to be determined under regulations. Then it allows the minister to make regulations under the information that “a collection agency or collector is required to provide ... when attempting to collect payment ... from the debtor.” This provision doesn’t require the minister to act.

Essentially what we have is that nothing within this bill is bad, but there is really a lack of substance in this bill as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It is a great pleasure to have a chance to comment on the remarks on this bill by the member from London–Fanshawe and critic on this issue for the third party. I appreciate very much that we hear from the critic. There is support for the direction the bill is going—the bill recognizing that there is a problem. I would take from her almost end remarks about how there is so little in the bill—I know that she recognizes this is a framework bill.

It’s a bill that sets in motion the opportunity that through the consultation process and through regulations, we will have the flexibility to address the concerns, and changing concerns, of consumers, particularly those consumers who rely far too frequently on payday loans.

We know this comes as a great hardship. The cost associated with a payday loan, sometimes $21 on a $100 loan—we understand how usurious that is. But, when people are faced with a question of whether they can eat or feed their family before their cheque clears their bank, we appreciate that they have these pressures in their lives, and we want very much to be able to regulate this in a way that would be far fairer and protect people from using this all too frequently and all too often.

What I’m hearing from the member of the third party is that we want to move this forward; we want to get this in to committee. If there are some amendments and changes to the framework agreement that would allow us to have the flexibility through regulations, we need to have that and hear from people at the committee stage.

I would note that, at this stage, we’ve probably had over 11 hours of debate on this particular second reading, so maybe it is time that we get this bill to committee and allow other people—those who are using the service and those who are providing the service—to come before committee and give us a better sense of where they think we are with this bill. If we need to make some small changes, at least we can now start developing the regulations to move forward with it. Speaker, I do hope we’ll have widespread agreement to move forward on this as soon as possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from London–Fanshawe has two minutes.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: You know, this bill didn’t address reforms actually proposed in a consultation paper in 2015. The bill doesn’t introduce new requirements regarding money transfers, which was extremely important. It doesn’t address a new licensing regime. It doesn’t address price caps or uniform disclosure requirements affecting alternative financial services as a whole. Those were some very important things that came out of the consultation paper.

I understand the parliamentary assistant’s explanation: Yes, the bill is a framework, as I mentioned; some regs are going to be determined to help with the flexibility of the bill. But there were some very poignant recommendations that could have been addressed already in the bill, which were extremely important to consumers. As I mentioned, our critic talked about those, and only one of those recommendations, extending the grace period when a loan could be repaid, was implemented. So that’s one item in there that we can say is hopeful.

We also suggested capping lending fees. We asked for a $15 lending fee cap on $100 borrowed. That’s still an extremely high interest rate. That wasn’t considered. We asked, of course, for the creation of a database to enforce the ban on rollover loans, Speaker, because you know that if you roll over a loan onto another loan, it just becomes a money pit, and you can never escape that. People get into these precarious financial situations, and it’s an awful scenario. That would have been a very important one as well.

I understand that, yes, when there are some contributions and presentations, things will change, but it is disappointing to see some things that were really important to consumers left out of the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me to speak on Bill 156,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to financial services; in other words, a bill dealing with regulating the payday loan sector or industry. This is an issue that has been of big concern to me, on behalf of my community and my constituents of Ottawa Centre. I’ve had the opportunity to speak about this type of practice for some time, and was very glad, some years ago, when the government brought forward the Payday Loans Act to start regulating this particular sector and start putting caps around the kind of interest that could be charged.

I think that many of you have been to my community of Ottawa Centre, given that it’s a downtown community and, of course, invites and welcomes people at all times in various capacities, personally and professionally. If you’re aware of my community and have been in some of the key areas in my community, such as Bank Street right downtown, running from Wellington Street, where Parliament Hill is located, all the way, I would say, to the Queensway going south—

Mr. Todd Smith: Beautiful city.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Beautiful city. Thank you to the member from Hastings for recognizing how beautiful my community is.

If you look at Bank Street, right from Wellington to the Queensway, and look at the businesses, it’s a beautiful main street with a lot of small businesses—all kinds of businesses. It continues to transform, Speaker, but one of the things that will strike you is the enormously large number of payday loan types of businesses that are located on that stretch of Bank Street. I’m surprised and shocked every single time I walk down Bank Street in my riding.

Similarly, if you look at Bronson Avenue, which is parallel, just west of Bank Street, it’s a little less a business type of street, but nonetheless, there are a lot of businesses. Mostly, you’ll find small convenience stores, small shawarma stores and other takeout places. But what you’re starting to see more and more, again, is payday loan types of businesses.

Then there are other parts of my riding, such as Bank Street in the Glebe, where you will hardly see a payday loan type of store, or Richmond Road in Westboro, where I don’t think a single payday loan storefront or business exists.

So you wonder why—and I have asked this question—certain areas, certain neighbourhoods in my riding, have more of these businesses than not. What it really comes down to, Speaker, is the kind of income background, if I can say that, of people who live in those areas. If you look around Bank Street the way I’m describing it to you, from Wellington to the Queensway, you will notice on that stretch of Bank Street—it’s right in the downtown core, and you’ve got mostly multi-unit residential buildings, fairly tall buildings. You’ve got a lot of Ottawa community housing—social and affordable housing—within those areas.

You have a fair bit of what I would say is a transitory population in that area. Similarly, around Bronson, you will see a lot of low-income housing in those types of neighbourhoods: very vibrant neighbourhoods, very vibrant communities—a lot of community activity goes on—but there is an income threshold.

That’s where you are seeing these businesses getting set up and being located, because they’re targeting certain kinds of people. They’re not targeting people living in the Glebe, who have far higher incomes. They’re not targeting people living in Westboro, in my community of Ottawa Centre, where people have higher incomes; they’re middle-class and above. They are setting themselves up where people with certain financial challenges may live.

That, to me, is something predatory in nature and something we must address. That’s why I’m quite happy to see Bill 156 and the kind of restrictions and regulations it’s putting in, in order to protect the consumer—in order to protect my constituents who have no option but to use those types of services—to ensure that they have other options available, and if they are going to use these businesses, they can do so in a manner that protects them.

Speaker, as has been said before, Bill 156 amends three pieces of legislation. It amends the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, it amends the Consumer Protection Act and it amends the Payday Loans Act.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Continue.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: What this proposed legislation does is strengthen consumer protection in the area of payday lending and other alternative financial services and debt collection by protecting consumers who borrow from payday lenders, protecting consumers from unexpected costs of alternative financial services and protecting consumers with debt collector rules that apply broadly.

Speaker, the proposed bill would also protect consumers in several important ways, and I think that is an important facet of this bill. Consumers with debts in collection would benefit from debt collection rules that apply more broadly, including applying them to debt purchasers. Consumers cashing government cheques at alternative financial service providers would have more information and may benefit from a cap on the rate of cheque-cashing services. I think that’s a very important feature in this bill. And consumers using rent-to-own services would benefit from a grace period for late payment and a right to reinstate the agreement under certain circumstances.

In addition, Speaker, the bill ensures that consumers using instalment loans would benefit from cost control of certain fees, such as optional insurance, and consumers of payday loans would have to wait a grace period between payday loans, giving them more time to consider their options. Also, those who borrow repeatedly would have a longer repayment period in certain circumstances.

I mentioned that the bill also amends the Payday Loans Act by requiring payday lenders to take into account certain factors about a borrower before entering into a payday loan agreement by restricting high-frequency borrowing, and by improving payday loan borrower awareness of credit counselling services.

Further, I mentioned that it amends the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act to:

—expand debtor protections by broadening the category of debts to which the debt collection rules apply, including applying them to certain debt purchasers;

—reduce the regulatory burden on collection agencies by eliminating the requirement to register individual collectors while maintaining the agencies’ accountability for the conduct of their collectors;

—provide authority to refine the application of exemptions through regulations;

—provide more authority to govern the information to be disclosed to debtors in the collection process; and

—enable administrative monetary penalties under the act.

There is a lot in this bill, and rightly so. This bill is the result of extensive consultations. My community of Ottawa Centre was part of those consultations. I have city councillors like Mathieu Fleury who have been active advocates on this particular file. My understanding is that councillors like himself and others on Ottawa city council are very supportive of these changes for exactly the reason I was talking about: the level of concentration that we are seeing of payday loan businesses that are developing in certain kinds of neighbourhoods. My riding, my community, being a downtown community, is definitely seeing that expanded role.

I would want to find better ways to encourage people to use credit unions and banks. I think an important question that we need to explore is how we can ensure that people who have limited financial means, who are working multiple jobs, who want to have access to the money they earn, instead of using these types of businesses like the payday loan companies, that charge enormous amounts of fees and interest etc., can actually use a credit union or a bank just like you and I do. I think that’s the direction we want to go in.

I’m very emboldened by this piece of legislation. It’s a step in the right direction, bringing significant protection for the consumers, and therefore I support it.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: A pleasure to respond to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services on his speech today on Bill 156.

I listened to him talk about his beloved Bank Street in Ottawa. I know a lot of people in Ottawa. In fact, I lived there for four years. I wasn’t forcibly asked to leave or anything like that.

But there were no payday loans on Bank Street back in the day when I was there, which was in the last part of the 1970s. There were places where you could borrow money, but they were in the backroom of a building, and the interest rates were high and the consequences of not paying were serious.

However, to my point that I really want to make, and that is financial literacy, if we want to reduce the need or the occurrences of people going to a payday loan facility or institution, I say to the minister we need to start, in our school system, teaching the children today.

It has never been more complicated, financing. The costs of homes and everything else, and the acceptance of living with debt, have never been greater. I think what we need to do is make sure, for our children going through the school system, that we make it obligatory that they have some kind of financial literacy as part of our curriculum in school today. They need to be learning about that continuously through school, so that when they are out in the workforce, they will have made the kinds of choices that will make these decisions of going to a payday loan less likely in the circumstances they’re in.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Are we—

Interjections.

Hon. Bill Mauro: All right. We’ve corrected the record, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, I appreciate that. Are you finished yelling across the floor?

Hon. Bill Mauro: We were just having a conversation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, don’t have one. You go through me. You can smile all you like, but that’s the way it is.

Questions? The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. You’re being challenged today. It’s kind of like this bill; it’s a bit of a challenge as well. This Liberal government feels it’s going to help consumers, and in some ways it will, but there are challenges to the bill, as you are challenging the Chair this morning. Some of those challenges in this bill are quite clear. In Bill 156, under the Collections and Debt Settlement Services Act, they actually appear to reduce government regulation over certain individuals and institutions.

Bill 156 redefines the term “collection agencies” to include “a person who purchases debts in arrears and collects them,” but it doesn’t broaden the definition and it likely won’t have any impact. It’s not really capturing that particular portion of oversight when it comes to those collection agencies and that, I think, is an important issue when you’re talking about oversight and regulation of the agencies that lend money to people, as the minister said, in very vulnerable situations.

He mentioned that these payday loan agencies pop up in the neighbourhoods of people who are economically challenged. We don’t dispute that—we certainly agree with it—but not just people with economic challenges use payday loans. Many people find themselves struggling today. Seniors, for example: I know it’s on the rise that they’re using payday loans. Everyday life is becoming extremely unaffordable for seniors. They tell that to me all the time. They have struggles with hydro bills and they have struggles with medication. Lucky for us, we were able to put a pause—only—on the Ontario drug benefits for seniors.

We’ll be watching this government to find out if they’re going to lift that pause after their consultations.

There is a problem with oversight in this bill with regards to those collection agencies, Speaker.

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

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m very glad, actually, to rise this morning and follow the conversation and debate from my colleague from Ottawa Centre, sharing a little bit about the status of some of our most vulnerable people in Ontario. But like we were saying, it’s not only those individuals who are vulnerable. What we’re trying to do is protect Ontarians and ensure that we have regulation, that we have the right approach towards how to deal with this new market emerging.

I was very happy when, on December 9, 2015, our government introduced Bill 156, and certainly, if passed, it will help protect Ontarians.

We were talking about financial literacy. Coming from a former business person—I owned a retirement residence at one point in my life—I certainly understand that not everyone has the same information. As legislators, it’s important to educate. I’m happy to say that in our new curriculum we are introducing financial literacy because we realize how important it is that our young minds are educated. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we do have to protect those who maybe did not benefit from the same advantages. That’s why this bill is so important.

Some of you may also ask why we’re not just banning them or stopping them. I was looking at some of the notes here, and actually, throughout the consultation process, community agencies and poverty advocates that we engaged with said that we shouldn’t eliminate them.

I’m happy that this bill will be passing, hopefully.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. It’s a beautiful morning out there and I’m sure it’s a lovely morning in downtown Ottawa as well today. The tulips are probably popping out of the ground and I’m sure the ice is finally gone on the Rideau Canal. It’s going to be a beautiful summer in the nation’s capital.

The member opposite, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and government House leader, was talking about the fact that these payday loan stores are popping up all around town, and he referred to that as being a predatory practice. I think the thing we have to remember is that these are businesses and they are legitimate businesses in Ontario right now. They’re making the business case that if Bank Street is the best—and maybe we should change the name of “Bank Street” to “Payday Loan Street” if they’re popping up all over the place, but the need is there in that part of the community. That’s why these businesses are locating there.

To call it predatory—I’m not exactly sure if that’s the way I would describe it. However, that’s where the people need these types of services, so that’s why they’re locating there. I can say the same thing about North Front Street in Belleville. I’ve seen different restaurants go out of business. The next thing you know, there’s a cash money store there, a payday loan store that’s locating. Wimpy’s was a great place to go for breakfast; now the only thing you can do there is cash your government cheque at the payday loan store.

But there is a need in these communities. As the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke was talking about, I think we have to look at the root cause for this need and the fact that, obviously, people aren’t bringing home the same amount of money as they were—they’re paying more of that money to the government—or they don’t understand how to manage their finances properly. That’s why there’s the need for education when it comes to financial literacy. We have to be doing more in our elementary schools to teach financial literacy. They have to learn at an earlier age what it means to balance the books, to not go into deep, deep debt.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The government House leader has two minutes.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the honourable members from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, London–Fanshawe, Ottawa–Orléans and Prince Edward–Hastings. I thank them for their thoughtful comments on the comments that I made earlier on. I don’t think I disagree with any of the comments that were made. They were all very enlightened comments.

I do to want clarify myself, to the comment that the member from Prince Edward–Hastings made. I wasn’t calling these businesses predatory, I was talking to some of the practices being predatory, and I think we all agree. That’s why there is a need for legislation.

I do wholeheartedly agree with the points made that were about financial literacy. I think a lot is being done in our education system, but more can be done, absolutely. That’s why we’re here. It’s a constant evolution, and things can be done better.

I think the conversation that all of us collectively need to engage in, and I really sincerely mean this—this conversation around payday loans and why this type of business or model exists, why it is thriving—is a conversation around why people are not able to use credit unions and banks as more legitimate financial services. You and I are able to use banks and credit unions at all times to meet our financial needs, whether it is to receive loans or a line of credit, or just to engage in normal transactions around cashing a cheque or depositing a cheque. Why is it that there is a certain population in our communities where that option is not available?

I think that’s a root cause that we need to engage in a broader, more holistic conversation around, because ideally, what I would like to see is everybody, regardless of their means, being able to have access to a credit union or a bank and able to engage in those types of practices that are properly and well regulated.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to join the debate here this morning on Bill 156. There’s been a lot of discussion already on this bill, and I understand the government’s need to bring in some legislation in this area, but from what I can tell from Bill 156 and my examination of it, the bill is more about micromanaging, actually, than creating a safer and more informed consumer environment when it comes to this sector.

This is a reaction to the fact that we’ve got some bad apples; there are some bad apples out there in this business, Mr. Speaker. Not all of them are bad apples, but you know what happens: You get a few bad apples, and suddenly the whole sector is painted with that same brush. There are some bad actors out there that have taken advantage of customers over the years, and we do feel the need for greater consumer protection. That’s an entirely reasonable impulse for us to have as legislators here.

However, examining the tone and tenor of some of the debate that we’ve had here in the Legislature, there seems to be a general misunderstanding on what this particular financial product does for people in Ontario. It’s not supposed to be a line of credit or a long-term loan.

In his remarks earlier, the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, who’s actually the critic for the third party—and to his credit, he has been a long advocate for reform in this sector; it’s something that he has been talking about virtually since he was elected here in 2011—has paid special attention to the loans themselves and the interest rates that are attached to some of these loans.

He drew the comparison, although it took him a while to speak to the legality of it—and the fact that 21% per $100 over a two-week period, he then applied that to an entire year. It would be well over 500%. But these types of loans are short-term loans. They’re not meant to be mortgages. They’re not meant to be long-term loans. If we were talking about a 500% interest rate, it would be a reasonable point for him to make, but we’re actually talking about these loans intended to be over a timeline of a year or two years. Obviously, it would be outrageous. That’s not what’s happening in these loans.

The loans are designed to get people through until their next paycheque. The loans are designed to be a short-term financial product for customers with low or no credit, who can’t get a lower interest rate from a bank.

The minister was talking about the fact that, wouldn’t it be great if the banks and the credit unions were available to these types of customers? The banks don’t want to be a part of this business. That’s why we have the payday loans popping up. If this was something the banks wanted to get involved with, we would see them getting involved in it because they have the resources. They’ve made a decision to stay out of this type of product, to stay out of these emergency loan situations.

There are some bad actors and that’s why we need to regulate them and we need to regulate them strictly. We need to crack down on the abuses when they occur. We should do that. Some amendments to existing legislation are necessary. I actually do want to vote for some type of reform in this sector, as I think many people in the Legislature do.

It’s really important to understand what these products actually are. The default rate on these loans is 10%. That’s why the banks don’t want to get involved in this. The default rate is 10%, which means these companies are in the business of providing loans to consumers who are more likely to default. Just like any other product, whether it’s insurance or credit, the more likely you are to default or make a claim, the higher the cost of entry is going to be. Again, I just want to stress that the banks don’t want to be in this business.

We’re never going to regulate this out of business and we never should regulate this out of business because it’s obviously a service that’s needed in our communities for a lot of different reasons.

What has happened over the last decade is that we’ve had a lot of people supplementing lower than expected wage growth with credit. When you have more and more people relying on credit like it’s income instead of as a measure to improve equity, then you’re going to increase the default rate. People who’ve experienced defaults and bankruptcies end up taking a hit on their credit score. When that happens, payday loans and the institutions that offer them become a last resort for these consumers.

I’ve met nobody who actually wants to sign up for a payday loan. They do it because they have to, because no other avenue is available to them other than maybe going to see the loan shark down the street. There are still loan sharks in business. Those loan sharks will have a bigger business if we put payday loan stores out of business.

We’re also starting to see a lot of online payday loans and that’s another situation.

So we have to put in strong regulation. We can’t regulate these guys out of business. If we make the loans harder to achieve, these customers won’t cease to exist, and no bank is getting into the business where it can afford to write off one loan in 10 at an annual interest rate of 21%.

It could be argued that the financial circumstances of these customers actually merit further protection. That’s a reasonable point for us to make. I think we’re all making that point. But if that regulation makes it harder for them to receive any loans at all, it doesn’t actually help them. Their need doesn’t go away. We need reform. I believe these customers need protection, and even that we need to raise industry standards to keep predatory and bad actors out of it.

I want to see amendments to this legislation. The problem with framework legislation—and we’ve seen a lot of framework legislation over the last while—is that it leaves too much to regulation. There’s a lot of vagueness that’s in a lot of the government bills when they deal with a framework. It leaves too much to be decided in meetings that happen in a minister’s office or in a bureaucrat’s office.

Too often, we’ve seen regulations that are drafted by these bureaucrats that, when they’re implemented and they actually become the law of the land, have long-term consequences that were unanticipated by the ministry when the regulation was drafted in the first place or when the intent of the regulation was included in the framework.

In the financial services industry, we need legislation. We need prescribed rules. They need to be drafted and voted on here in the House or in committee, where we have members of the Legislature that are able to comment, and those who use these types of products and those who are in this business are able to comment, so that we actually have regulations that result in the type of legislation we need to govern this sector, which does have a number of bad apples in it.

We have to ensure that if these regulations are being drafted by a bureaucrat somewhere, or in a minister’s office, they can’t be arbitrarily changed. These have to be regulations that we’re voting on in a committee, that we all understand what we’re voting for and that they are going to have an impact in getting us to the end result that we want here.

The government may argue that needing to amend the legislation every time you want to increase enforcement in the industry is unnecessarily cumbersome, but it’s clear that it’s being done in other provinces in Canada to establish clear rules in the sector that ensure everyone knows what they’re getting into when they either take out a payday loan or set up a business in the sector.

As I’ve said several times, we do need reform in this sector. These payday loan stores are popping up in our communities. Now, I’m told that the number of payday loan stores is actually decreasing across Ontario. That’s not what I’m seeing, but I’m told that they are actually decreasing.

I can tell you that in Belleville, we recently had a sod-turning on a new casino in town. You’ll remember when the government killed the horse racing industry in Ontario and they decided to put up a casino in every town? Well, Belleville is one of those cities that’s getting a casino. It’s been greeted mostly favourably by the municipality, but there is a lot of concern out there in the community as well because of the social impacts that a casino will have on our community. Let’s face it, Belleville isn’t exactly the Glebe, as the minister pointed out earlier.

There are a lot of people struggling in Belleville to make ends meet, for a lot of different reasons, but it almost seems ironic that when the decision was made to open the casino, we saw some Cash Stores and payday loan stores opening up.

I’ll have more to say in my two minutes.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Once again, it’s a privilege to stand on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. I just want to let the people know who are viewing this morning: I am the member from Algoma–Manitoulin and I’m not the member from Prince Edward–Hastings. We’re often confused, one for the other. Today, I’m in the beige suit with the brown tie and he’s wearing the blue suit with the purple tie. People have a hard time sometimes.

Mr. Todd Smith: Where’s Waldo?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Yes.

There was a common theme in his comments that he was bringing up this morning. The common theme was that there are bad apples. There are bad apples that we need to deal with. I use the phrase the “white paint brush syndrome”: Sometimes we paint the entire industry with one stroke of paint, judging everyone the same way. And he’s right: There are some of these organizations that are out there looking out for individuals. There are some responsible individuals who are out there trying to make ends meet.

But here’s the reality: He talked about individuals using this service—and it is a service—as a line of credit and sometimes as a long-term loan. The reality is that people have to do that. At the end of the month, when payments are due, when your hydro bill comes in, when the rent is due, when you need food in your cupboards, you don’t have that choice. You have to provide for your children. That’s where some of these predatory organizations actually prey on individuals and attract them.

I come from an area where there are many seniors, and one of the biggest concerns that I have is their vulnerability and the easy access on the Internet, where individuals are now putting out what I refer to as a bait and switch: “Give us a call, and we’ll help you out,” but at the end of the day, you take the bait and you lose your funds.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: And the minister for women’s issues. Thank you.

Speaker, I’m pleased to speak for a couple of minutes to this bill. This consultation process started back in 2013, when I was the Minister of Consumer Services, so I’m very pleased to see Bill 156 moving forward. I think there has been a lot of discussion about what’s coming forward and some amendments that are being proposed.

I do want to touch on the question that was asked when I was the minister responsible for this file and that keeps coming up: Why don’t we just ban payday loans altogether? Some of the members have talked a bit about that this morning. Things that have been mentioned include the fact that these are legal and, I’d say, mostly legitimate businesses. However, the Consumer Protection Act has provisions to take action against any business that is violating that act, and this government has taken strong action against the, as people say, bad actors in this field.

In the consultation period, it’s important to note that the majority of community agencies and poverty advocates we heard from did not support eliminating payday lending in the absence of other short-term, small-dollar credit options. Consumers raised similar concerns. That really ties back to the earlier discussion about what space the banks and credit unions are in or not in. That’s the feedback that has been obtained.

I think it is very important to know that consumers are protected under the Consumer Protection Act and that the government will continue to take strong action when needed. I look forward to the continued discussion about this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you to the Minister of Children and Youth Services and women’s issues.

The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, Speaker. I’m pleased to add my thoughts to this debate.

We’ve heard here this morning that these payday loan places are popping up everywhere. I can tell you that in North Bay, my hometown, that is indeed the case. It’s amazing that they’re located where once-viable businesses were located. That’s a big part of the story. The businesses are no longer there.

It’s interesting; they’re in some of the best locations of the city, and I’ve been asking the landlords in North Bay why. “Why would you want to attract that payday loan place into your corner building?” It’s because it brings huge traffic to the rest of their building. They’ve become that popular. Why they’ve become that popular is because, as the member from Manitoulin mentioned, the payments are due, the bills come in, you need that money, and in many instances, a well-paying job is not to be had.

I think that’s the sadder tale about what has happened in Ontario over the last decade. Because we have the highest energy rates in North America and we have the highest payroll taxes in Canada, as Sergio Marchionne, the CEO of Fiat Chrysler, told us, we’ve become the most expensive jurisdiction in Canada in which to do business. That’s a very sad tale.

Last year, some 2,700 businesses closed in the province of Ontario. That’s why we have these empty buildings, that’s why the payday loan places have a place to go, and that’s why they have the need in Ontario: because they have been let down by this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and comment on the remarks made by the member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

First, I have to say that clearly he’s a good-looking member if he’s mistaken for the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. It just goes without saying. I think he should take that credit right there and enjoy it.

The member talked about the problem of there being some bad apples in the payday loan system. Some have further alleged that members may look like apples in a particular lighting.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, just the bad part.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Just the bad part. But I don’t think this is a question of a few bad apples. It’s a business model for an industry that takes advantage of people who are financially desperate. To say that we should not be regulating these operations very tightly because there are “a few bad apples” completely misses the reality of these organizations.

My hope is that the bill that the Liberals have introduced will be substantially tightened in the debate and the committee work that’s to come, because this bill doesn’t address many of the significant reforms that actually are required, reforms that were raised in a paper put out in a 2015 consultation on this sector. The bill doesn’t introduce any new requirements regarding money transfer services, clearly something that needs to be regulated. It doesn’t introduce price caps, a new licensing regime or uniform disclosure requirements affecting alternative financial services as a whole.

I’ll agree with the member from North Bay that there is a more profound problem of a dropping standard of living and lack of work. But this company preys on those who are dealing with that issue. It doesn’t help them; it preys on them. They need to be tightly regulated.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings has two minutes.

Mr. Todd Smith: I would like to thank the very handsome member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his input, and also the minister and the member from Nipissing, who spoke on the need in our community to have some better policy other than this one to help grow the economy in Ontario again, and also the member from Toronto–Danforth for his comments this morning.

We’ve been talking a lot about apples. There are some legitimate apples out there, and those legitimate apples in the payday loan business want tighter regulation. They actually do want tighter regulation. They understand there is a need to get these bad apples out of the game. The only way we can do that is if we actually have regulation that we’re talking about here in the Legislature when it comes to the bills so that we all know where we’re headed with this piece of legislation.

This bill so far seems like it’s more about micromanaging the sector than it is about bringing in a safer and more informed consumer environment for those who clearly need this type of service because of the reasons we’ve heard from the members who have spoken so far: because we do have the most expensive electricity in North America and our jobs are leaving at an incredible rate for other, lower-cost jurisdictions. There are people who are finding it more expensive to live in Liberal Ontario and they are leaving for other jurisdictions. That’s why there’s the need for these types of businesses out there.

There’s nowhere else for them to go. They don’t have the job. The bills are coming in faster than they can imagine. Life is getting harder under these Liberals in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s my privilege to speak on behalf of the people of Hamilton Mountain in the House today as we debate Bill 156, the Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act.

A few weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of meeting with Sally Palmer and the Ontario Association of Social Workers; Myrtle Greve of the Hamilton university women’s club; Elizabeth McGuire, chair of the Campaign for Adequate Welfare and Disability Benefits; Alana Baltzer of Hamilton Organizing for Poverty Elimination, or HOPE; and Rev. Carol Wood, chaplain of McMaster University.

They came to my constituency office to talk about the increasing levels of poverty they were seeing and the depressingly inadequate levels of social assistance in Ontario. For example, they pointed out that the shelter allowance that is paid falls well below what it costs to rent an apartment—not the average apartment rent, just any apartment rent. We talked about the various challenges faced by people living in poverty, which go well beyond just having less money than most people.

One of those I met with, Alana, was one of the subjects of an

article in the Hamilton Spectator a couple of weeks ago called “Putting a ‘Human Face’ on Poverty....” Here’s her story as the Spec told it:

When she was a child, “she drank cough syrup because there was no food to be found at home. She left for school, where she collapsed.” At school, they gave her food—cereal—and called the children’s aid society.

She lived in poverty all of her life. “She was held back in school a few years and has a laundry list of disabilities including scoliosis, type 2 bipolar disorder and anxiety.”

The high school diploma and the college community service worker diploma she holds, she says, are thanks to the support that she received from her teachers at high school and college. Still out of work, Alana wants to upgrade her education but needs the money to do that.

The constant struggle to find money made her fall into the trap of payday loans. She now “pays $250 of her $691 monthly disability cheque to service that debt.” She has tough choices to make every day. Does she buy food? Does she pay the rent? Does she pay for laundry?

Here’s how Alana closes her short story: “It’s a struggle just to get through the day, but I like challenges.” That’s one strong woman, Speaker. I marvel at her ability to be positive in the face of such adversity.

Alana is just one example of people who get caught in the trap of payday loans, one of an estimated 16,000 Hamiltonians who borrow about $15 million in payday loans every year. That’s about an average of $3,125 borrowed, and you can add that to the fees and interest associated with these loans.

The Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton along with the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction produced an excellent report last year on the prevalence and inequity in the payday loan business in my home city. I want to talk a little bit about what that report says.

First, they mentioned the deceptive advertising. Payday loan companies don’t generally talk in terms of the percentage of interest you will pay; they are more likely to put a dollar figure to it. To use an example that was part of a study done by the Vancity credit union, they will say that a $100 loan will cost you $23. What the Vancity study found was that most people believed that a $23 fee on a $100 loan for two weeks means a 23% interest rate, similar to a credit card. In fact, the $23 fee translates into a whopping 598% annual interest rate.

Tom Cooper of the poverty round table points out that a $300 loan can accumulate up to $1,638 in interest in the equalling year, and an interest rate of 546%.

The Criminal Code of Canada has set a criminal interest rate at 60%. It’s a crime in Canada to charge more than 60% interest. How can that be, you ask, Speaker? Why aren’t these people in jail? Quite simply, that part of the Criminal Code does not apply to payday loans in this province. So there’s no Criminal Code legislation in Ontario today that covers the same as the Criminal Code of Canada. Yes, Ontario’s Payday Loans Act companies circumvent the Criminal Code of Canada. It’s hard to believe, but it’s real.

In 1995, there were no payday loan outlets in Hamilton; now, there are 34. Interestingly, during the same time period, there has been a significant drop in the number of bank branches. It might come as no surprise, but it is important to point out that payday loan outlets are mostly located in low-income neighbourhoods. They know who their potential customers are. They know where to find the most desperate, who will pay over the odds for a loan just so they can put food on the table. That is not a society we should be living in: a society that allows companies to rip off those who can least afford it.

Repeatedly, it’s the same people over and over and over again. It’s a nasty cycle that drives people further and further into ever-deepening poverty. It’s a phenomenon that’s been around for as long as we’ve been using money. It’s mostly been done in dark alleys, shady characters flanked by a couple of henchmen. Now we have it in broad daylight, with glowing neon signs offering reprieve from financial pressures, and those who are desperate will easily succumb, all in full sight and above the law. That’s the Ontario we live in today.

The industry likes to present itself as a stopgap and an opportunity for people to get relief from a temporary difficult situation. But the Hamilton report talked about the nature of repeat customers for payday loan companies. For every new customer a payday loan company has, there are 15 repeat customers.

What is particularly disheartening is that this is not an accident. This is part of their business model. Ernst and Young did a study for the payday loan industry in which they explained that their highest operating costs mean that it can only be profitable if they turn the vast majority of customers into repeat borrowers. Here’s what Ernst and Young’s study said: “Until a steady customer base is developed, these operators will be facing higher costs associated with signing up and processing first-time customers. Clearly, the long-run survival of a payday loan operator will depend on achieving a steady repeat customer business.”

I want to move ahead to talk about the work that has been done by a city councillor in Hamilton by the name of Matthew Green. I initiated some work that was to be done, and I want to make sure that I get it in before my time is up.

In Hamilton, which I believe is the first to bring forward rules and regulations for payday loans, it was moved by council that they will be required to pay an annual licensing fee of $750. They will be required to post signage, designed by the city, showing the annualized interest rate they’re charging. They will have to hand out material, also designed by the city, informing their customers of debt counselling.

These are good steps, but there’s only so much a municipality can do. For example, municipalities have no authority to limit the number of payday loan business licences as they do with taxicabs or adult entertainment, nor can they regulate the rates the businesses charge. That’s why it’s so important that the provincial government step up to the plate and fulfill its responsibilities to the people of Ontario.

These are important changes that need to be happening in the province of Ontario. I think it’s unfortunate that the bill doesn’t go far enough to ensure that we are protecting our most vulnerable citizens in society. I will look forward to having a few moments after the roundup.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t think we’ll get the questions and comments in. It’s 10 after. The House is now recessed till 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

M me Gila Martow: Je suis heureuse d’accueillir de nombreux membres de communautés francophones qui viennent de partout de la province et qui sont ici avec nous aujourd’hui pour célébrer la journée de la Francophonie avec les membres du caucus PC.

On a Denis Labelle, Louise Pinet, Anne Gerson, Thierry Lasserre, Rita Giroux-Patience, Diane Chaperon-Lor, Léonie Tchatat, Sylvie Ross, Jacinthe Desaulniers, Lise Marie Baudry, Suzette Hafner, Carol Jolin, Pierre Leonard, Jean-Gilles Pelletier, Denis Vaillancourt, Denis Laframboise, Pierre Tessier, Annie Dell, Alex Black de FESFO, j’espère, est ici; Michel Tremblay, Carole Nkoa, Sébastien Skrobos, Myriam Vigneault, Louise Gauvreau, et mon ami Alain Beaudoin, qui a reçu l’Ordre de la Pléiade.

Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome today, from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, Carolyn Ferns, along with Carolyn Frank and Caleb Gaynor. I didn’t hear his name mentioned by the previous member: also Stewart Kiff from my riding. Welcome.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m delighted to introduce Elizabeth Beattie and Michael Kelly to the House. They are two interns who started working in my office for the summer. Welcome. Thank you for being here.

M. Lorne Coe: C’est un plaisir pour moi de vous présenter des membres de la communauté francophone à travers la province qui sont ici aujourd’hui pour la journée francophone avec les membres du Parti PC de l’Ontario : Sylvie Landry, Stewart Kiff, Leo Regimbal, Christophe Plantiveau, Alexandre Herau, Donald Ipperciel, Jean Lemay, Cathy Thilavanh, Paul Le Vay, Yvette Plentai et Alain Perron.

Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome the representatives who are with us today from Prompt Payment Ontario. I’d like to welcome Sandra Skivsky, Brandon Pagneau and Sean McFarling from Prompt Payment, who I’ll have the chance to meet with later today.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the Legislature a family friend who’s visiting, David Munro.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s my pleasure to introduce the delegates from Prompt Payment Ontario. They’re here today to talk about the crucial need for prompt payment legislation in our province and we welcome all of Queen’s Park to join them this evening at their reception in the legislative dining room, which runs from 5:30 till 7:30.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature a group of nurses from Hamilton representing ONA. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Bienvenue à tous nos amis francophones aujourd’hui.

I’d also like to welcome the family of Claire Atkins to Queen’s Park this morning. Claire is the new page for my riding of Don Valley West, who I had the pleasure of meeting with yesterday. Joining us in the public gallery is Claire’s family: her mother, Faye; her father, Peter; her brother, Neil; her grandmother Anna Ruth; her uncle Mark; and cousins Maddie and Connor. I want to just make a special welcome back to both Peter, who was a page in 1977, and Mark, who was a page in 1983. I hope you’ve passed on all your secrets. Welcome.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome the representatives of Prompt Payment Ontario I met with this morning—Francesca Palleschi, Anantha Narayanan and Sandra Skivsky—here to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome the family of page captain Aadil Rehan: his mother, Nazish Rehan Malik; his father, Rehan Malik; and his sister, Eesha Rehan. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to welcome Craig Baker, the director of Ontario public sector sales, enterprise business unit, from Rogers Communications. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome David Bain and my sister Shannon McDonell to the Legislature today.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to welcome my childhood friend, who is here on behalf of the Northeastern Ontario Construction Association, Denis Shank. I’m looking forward to talking to you about prompt payment.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m delighted to recognize that we are joined today by three summer students who are working with me for the summer. Irina Samborski, Natalie Cordiano and Sarah El-Tohamy are here in the gallery.

I also want to extend my welcome to those who are visiting Queen’s Park today on behalf of the prompt payment movement.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I am honoured to introduce a good friend of mine who’s visiting from Grand Bend today, Paul Gunning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M. Michael Mantha: Ça me fait grand plaisir de recevoir nos amis, spécialement M. Jolin, qui est ici avec nos amis de la francophonie. Bonjour.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’m pleased to introduce the grandparents of page Isabela Rittinger, being Isabelle and Glen Rittinger from my constituency of Ajax–Pickering. They will be in the public gallery this morning.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park, from my riding of Burlington, Briar Emond and her daughter Sterling Haskins in the members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m happy to introduce Peter Henderson—he’s in the east gallery—with Ideovation, working on urban agricultural projects; and my good friend Stewart Kiff. I’m happy to have him in the House as he witnesses his member usurp my private member’s initiative on daycare wait-list fees.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It is with great pleasure that I would like to introduce, from the Christian Labour Association of Canada, Kevin Gates, Hank Beekhuis and Mohammad Kasraee. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before we move into question period, there are two quick comments. One comment is about what was just said in an introduction. Introductions are intended to introduce our guests to the House and nothing else, as we do with petitions: just petitions. No editorial comments on either. You have plenty of time to debate issues in other circumstances. This is the moment for introducing guests, and it’s the moment, in petitions, to present petitions.

I appreciate all of your co-operation. I don’t want to hear it again.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to correct my record on two points. First of all, I wanted to make sure that I included Maddie and Connor, who are page Claire’s cousins. Secondly, in my remarks last night at the late show, I referenced the member for Niagara Falls. I of course intended to say the former member for Niagara Falls.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. That’s an appropriate point of order and a correction of the record, with no other debate.

It is time for question period.

Oral Questions

Climate change

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The government could be fighting climate change by investing in Ontario. Instead, I’ve learned the Liberals think the best way to fight climate change is by sending hundreds of millions of dollars to California.

In fact, according to industry experts, by 2020, Ontario will be spending nearly $300 million a year to buy emissions credits from California in order to meet their emissions targets under the Western Climate Initiative. Where is that money coming from? It’s being paid by Ontario businesses and families.

Instead of fighting climate change in Ontario, why does the Premier insist on sending $300 million to California?

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It just gets worse every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to be jumping on any time in which I’m standing, and if it starts when I sit, I’m going to get you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Last time I checked, Ontario was part of the globe. Ontario is part of a world that is facing the greatest threat to humanity that we have ever faced.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to deny that we face that challenge, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to suggest that somehow, we just say, “Oh, well, climate change is a problem,” and then do nothing about it, Mr. Speaker, he could not be more wrong.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is our responsibility to tackle this threat. It is our responsibility to put in place a system that is going to advance innovation, and reinvest—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —in companies that are going to develop innovation and develop technology. That’s why we’re linking our markets to California and Quebec, because we understand that—

Mr. Todd Smith: “Make America Great Again.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —this is a global threat and we each have to do our part.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier hasn’t denied her plan to help California’s economic development, so I’ll be a bit more specific.

To the Premier: The people of this province deserve a climate change strategy that reduces emissions, creates jobs and saves people money in Ontario. Instead of fighting climate change in Ontario, the Liberals plan on sending $300 million a year to subsidize the wealthiest in Beverly Hills. People in Milton and Orangeville will be sending millions of dollars to Malibu and Orange county.

Mr. Speaker, on the Premier’s last junket to California, did the governor thank her for her $300 million that she will be subsidizing California with?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m so glad that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned Orangeville. My grandchildren live in Orangeville and I have to tell you that there are nieces and nephews and children and grandchildren who are going to benefit from the plan that we’re putting in place because we’re going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re going to invest in companies that are developing technology that, yes, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions here in Ontario, but will also provide solutions around the globe.

That’s our responsibility. We have one of the most highly educated populations in the world. It is our responsibility to tackle this challenge and do it in partnership with jurisdictions around the world. I’m sorry the Leader of the Opposition does not get that.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Sending $300 million to California will do nothing to reduce emissions in Ontario. And that money is just the beginning. It actually gets worse. Experts suggest—

Hon. Steven Del Duca: What’s your plan?

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: —by 2030, Ontario companies will be paying almost $3 billion a year to buy credits from California—$3 billion that companies could be spending right here in Ontario to fight climate change and create jobs.

There are different approaches. You look at British Columbia, where the money collected from carbon pricing is spent in their province, in British Columbia.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Trinity–Spadina, come to order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: In British Columbia they’re not sending money to California, like this Premier wants to do. Instead, our Premier wants to send $3 billion to San Diego and Santa Cruz.

Mr. Speaker, it’s bad enough that this government has been killing jobs for 13 years. Why is this government subsidizing California?

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: In Santa Cruz, she’ll be known as Santa Claus.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time. I’m desperately close to warnings, and that’s my signal to you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This is a market that we are entering with Quebec and California. There’s an exchange of credits. The revenue to Ontario will be $1.9 billion. That money will be reinvested in green technology, in retrofitting businesses and homes.

The difference between this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions is our greenhouse gas emissions are going down. That is a point of the cap-and-trade system.

I am so committed to working in conjunction with other jurisdictions. The weather here is the weather all over the globe. We don’t live in a state that’s separate from the rest of the globe. We can’t cut ourselves off from the rest of the planet. That may be the kind of—

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Do you live in a glass bubble?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re not helping.

Wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That may be the kind of isolation that the Leader of the Opposition thinks is possible here, but it’s not reality. We live in the real world and we have to tackle climate change.

Climate change

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Obviously the government made a miscalculation: They didn’t realize they’d be sending $3 billion to California. In BC, BC dollars stay in BC to fight climate change, which is appropriate. Under this government’s plan, they are subsidizing California. The right thing to do is to acknowledge they made a mistake and to correct course.

In fact, the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity revealed “there is no guarantee that” under the Ontario plan, “emissions will be reduced within Ontario’s borders,” and that Ontario won’t meet its reduction targets. While this government is unlikely to meet their emission targets, they’re actually going to be helping put convertibles on the road in California.

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: It’s still not clear why the Premier believes it’s appropriate to help California, to subsidize California to create jobs and fight climate change, and why she doesn’t want to do it here in Ontario.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he could not be more wrong. We met our 2014 reduction targets. We’re on track to meet our 2020 reduction targets. I will just say that is with no help from the former government, of which this member was a part, that denied climate change, that was not interested in taking

part in the global fight against climate change.

It was a privilege for me to be able to attend the Paris summit with Prime Minister Trudeau and to work with the other provinces to make sure that we meet those targets. The work that we’ve done so far has been without the support of the former government. We are on track to reduce our targets by 2020.

This is humanity’s challenge. This is humanity’s challenge across the globe. If the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in joining us, we’ll go it alone without him.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier—

Hon. Charles Sousa: Sit on your hands like you always do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Finance, second time.

Mr. Patrick Brown: There was no denial by the government that they are sending $3 billion by 2030 to California. Ontario deserves a climate change strategy that reduces emissions in Ontario, a plan that actually creates jobs and saves people money.

Today, the environment minister’s plan will be before the Liberal caucus. Will the energy minister vote against a plan that will drive hydro prices even higher? Will the economic development minister vote against a plan that kills thousands of auto jobs? Or will they instead vote for a plan that will send almost $300 million a year to subsidize the wealthiest in Beverly Hills?

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is, why does she think it’s appropriate for Ontario to be subsidizing Beverly Hills?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it’s appropriate to fight climate change.

Mr. Patrick Brown: In Ontario.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it’s appropriate to join a market with Quebec and with California. You know, the Leader of the Opposition says, “In Ontario.” Mr. Speaker, you can’t fight climate change in Ontario without fighting it around the globe. It’s a global challenge. If the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand that, then he doesn’t have to join us. But we’re going to join that market. There will be money that flows back and forth. We will reinvest—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Are you going to fix China?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will come to order, and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There will be money in that market that will flow back and forth. We will reinvest the $1.9 billion in Ontario businesses and Ontario residents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary. The member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the Premier: Not only is this government continuing to dodge the truth that $3 billion of taxpayers’ money will go to California every year, but yesterday, we received a letter from the Financial Accountability Officer. Mr. LeClair said that the Liberals twisted his committee testimony in which he detailed the serious lack of transparency with the government’s cap-and-trade scheme.

I was shocked to hear that the member for Beaches–East York twisted the words of the Financial Accountability Officer and claimed that he consulted with Mr. LeClair, but in reality, no consultations ever took place.

Speaker, why is this Premier allowing the member from Beaches–East York to misrepresent the testimony of—

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Withdraw.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Why is this Premier allowing the member from Beaches–East York to twist the testimony of an independent officer of this Legislature?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thanks very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t risk one more comment for a warning.

Minister.

Applause.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the support from the party opposite. It’s too bad they’re not so enthusiastic about climate change.

The investments that we make with the proceeds here create pools of capital that attract capital. As you may know, California and Ontario are the two leading jurisdictions in foreign direct investment. When you see the action plan, you’ll have a sense of the private and public partnerships in pooling capital.

Yes, there will be money that flows back and forth—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Huron–Bruce, come to order. You asked the question.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: But without a linked market, the price of carbon per tonne would skyrocket to exorbitant and unaffordable levels, which is what they’re suggesting—

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

New question.

Nurses

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Today we’re joined by nurses from Hamilton. Last year, St. Joseph’s was forced to cut 52 nurses. This year, they’re scheduled to cut a further 61 nurses. They’re being cut in the recovery room, the operating room, the kidney program, cardiology, acute mental health, complex care, respirology, pre-surgery assessment, dialysis, day surgery, medicine, medical rehab and geriatric outreach.

Will the Premier agree to stop the cuts to health care services in Hamilton?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve answered this question a number of times. The leader of the third party is simply wrong: There are more nurses working in Ontario this year than there were last year. We’re making a $1-billion investment in health care as a result of our budget, and of that, $345 million is for hospitals. We have increased the number of nurses year over year. We continue to invest in the health care system.

But what is really critical to understand is that if we do not transform our health care system, if we do not work to change the health care system so that it delivers health care where people need it, when people need it, understanding the demographics, then our health care system will not be able to respond to the realities of our population.

That transformation is under way. There are hospitals being built around the province. There are hospitals being renovated. And there are more nurses this year than there were last year in the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It doesn’t help when the Premier doesn’t talk about the realities of people in this province and in Hamilton. It’s not just St. Joseph’s. Hamilton Health Sciences was forced to cut 25 nurses. These are real cuts. This is going to impact cancer patients, adults with mental health, people with heart disease, kidney issues, people going for surgeries. These are all the people who are going to feel these cuts.

Will the Premier stop the cuts to Hamilton’s health care services?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I want to thank the member opposite for the question and the opportunity to clear up the misconceptions that are being presented.

My ministry, as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, is in constant communication with St. Joseph’s health system in Hamilton during and through these staffing changes. I’m happy to announce that vacancy and early retirement absorb all nurse staffing changes. No nurse who wished to continue working faced a job loss or labour disruption. I think that shows the difference between how our government is managing the system—and, quite frankly, St. Joseph’s in Hamilton is one of the leaders in that transformation of care, moving more care out into the community through an integrated model. But it demonstrates the difference that we’re taking, compared to both the parties opposite.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Speaker, I don’t know how the Premier and her minister have stood up in this House and said that hospital services are not being cut. Ask any of the nurses here, ask the patients who are being treated in hallways or in hospital conference rooms; these cuts are real and people are facing them.

Will the Premier really look people in the eye and deny that health care cuts and hospital cuts are actually happening?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the nurses who are with us here this morning.

There won’t be changes or cuts to services being provided as a result of these changes. We’re increasing the budget of St. Joseph’s Healthcare by $3 million this year, almost a 50% increase since 2003.

I want to remind the third party of their record in Hamilton when they were in power. They cut $8 million from what was known as the Hamilton Civic Hospital, the General hospital and the Juravinski Hospital. They cut $5 million from St. Joseph’s Healthcare in 1994, when they came into power. In Burlington, of course, at Joseph Brant, they cut $2 million. There were layoffs, as well. Some 115 RNs received layoff notices at Chedoke-McMaster. They laid off 61 RNs at the Hamilton Civic Hospital. They closed 124 beds and had 71 layoffs at St. Joe’s.

So we’re not going to take lessons from their record. We’re doing it in a much more responsible way.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This question, again, is to the Premier. Hospital funding should keep up with inflation. Hospital funding should also keep up with population growth. The Liberal government likes to talk a lot about hospital funding increases.

Will the Premier answer this simple question: Will she commit to ensuring that funding for hospital care keeps up with population growth and with inflation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have increased funding for health care year over year—this year, $1 billion for health care and $345 million for hospitals alone.

We understand that there have to be changes in the health care system. The member opposite does not seem to understand that there has to be a transformation of the way we deliver services in health care. People demand it. People want a different delivery of service. They want health care where they are living. They want it in their homes and in the community. That’s the change that we’re undergoing right now as we continue to increase the funding for health care year over year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the minister see health care as a PR exercise. Announcing funding that doesn’t keep up with population growth or inflation may make a great headline for the Liberal Party and the Liberal government, but it certainly doesn’t help patients.

So the question is this: Will the Premier make health care about the patients in Ontario and not about the government’s PR machine?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I just wish the third party would talk about the whole picture and not just the gross layoffs that they are drawn to, that they would admit that we’re increasing the line item for hospital operating funding by more than 2%. They keep insisting that it’s 1%. We are increasing base funding by 1%, but there’s an additional 1.1% for other operating costs.

We’re investing $12 billion over the next decade in capital investments, to add to the 35 major projects that are currently under way: the capital investments, new hospitals, renovations and expansions that are taking place all over the province.

We’re investing in our nurse practitioners, with an additional $85 million for recruitment and retention.

We’re investing 75 million new dollars in palliative care.

So that’s a total investment of an additional $1 billion into our health care budget.

Hon. Michael Coteau: And you voted against it.

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

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This is the reality: Nurses are being fired at a rate of three a day, or 90 a month. Beds are closing, and people are being treated in hallways.

The Liberals want to talk about objective measures. Let’s tell you about those objective measures: Per capita hospital spending has decreased in the last three years. Listen, the last time this happened was under Mike Harris. This is cold, hard evidence that hospital spending is not keeping up with population growth or inflation.

Will the Premier do the right thing and commit today to ensuring that hospital funding keeps up with population growth and inflation?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think it’s important, because nurses are here, that we talk about the changes in the nursing complement in this province. I’m actually going to quote from what’s readily and publicly available from the College of Nurses of Ontario. In the past year alone there were 2,800 net new nursing positions for nurses in this province. In fact, in the last five years we’ve increased, just in the hospital sector, the net—not the gross, because I know you love to talk about the gross numbers.

The net new nursing positions in the hospital sector in the last five years, the majority of them filled by RNs, were 7,625 net new positions, an increase in the complement of nurses working in our hospitals.

That’s the kind of commitment we have. That’s the kind of investment that we’re making in this province.

Autism treatment

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Yesterday, Ontario’s Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth released his report entitled We Have Something to Say, which outlines the challenges facing young people in our province with special needs. We heard in the report from Cliff McIntosh.

I want to read an excerpt from Cliff’s mom: “I think we spent between $50,000 and $70,000 on private therapy and we were literally on the verge of selling our house. When we were in the process of listing our house, we got the call that Cliff’s number had come up and that we would start receiving government-funded intensive behavioural therapy. We held onto the house with our fingernails.”

Now that you have removed for kids over the age of five access to IBI, kids like Cliff are out of luck. Minister, when will you stop forcing families to sell everything and take out loans just to give their kids IBI therapy?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I really appreciate this question being asked this week because yesterday our provincial advocate did release the report titled We Have Something to Say. Many youth with special needs were directly involved in developing and writing that report. I was very honoured to join them yesterday in the listening circle to hear from the youth who contributed to that report and talked about the issues and challenges that children with special needs across the spectrum face, whether that is before school, during school life and beyond.

We heard incredible stories about how they are focusing on their abilities and recognizing that their environment needs to be there to adequately support them, whether that’s gaining access to services or whether it’s getting a diagnosis. I was very impressed with the work yesterday and I’m very appreciative that the advocate invited me to the meeting. I’ll talk more in the supplementary about—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain.

Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m glad that the minister heard the report. I just want her to act.

The provincial advocate has called your new autism strategy “a mug’s game.” To quote the provincial advocate, “Don’t pretend this is about the child and providing them with what they need. It isn’t.” That is an independent officer of this assembly.

The minister has said she is open to suggestions. Well, here’s ours: Stop removing kids over the age of five from receiving IBI therapy until we have a coordinated provincial autism strategy that covers all ministries and everyone in Ontario regardless of their age or developmental stage, because we understand that autism doesn’t end at five.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I think it’s important to acknowledge that we do have a special-needs strategy in Ontario. Autism is part of that, of course. We have made significant investments, hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, in three key areas, which are identifying kids needing connections and assessments early; coordinating service planning for children with multiple or complex needs; and making the delivery of rehab services more seamless. That’s what our special needs strategy is all about.

Yes, there were some voices there yesterday as well in terms of autism. I’m continuing to engage in discussions with youth facing autism and their families, as well as associations and stakeholder groups that are helping guide us and want to be part of the implementation of the new autism strategy going forward. I welcome their suggestions. I welcome their feedback. We’ll work with everyone to make sure we support—

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

New question.

Child care

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. As stakeholders have pointed out, the 2016 Ontario budget again squandered any chance to make child care a priority in this province. We know families in Ontario are paying the highest child care fees in the country. They’re on the longest waiting lists. We know some parents, particularly women, are being forced to delay getting back into the workforce because they can’t find a spot for their child.

To make matters worse, parents are being forced to pay fees just to get on these overwhelmingly long wait-lists. Will the Premier immediately ensure that parents are no longer forced to pay fees just to get on a wait-list for their child care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question from the member. I know that he’s introducing a private member’s bill. I also want to acknowledge the member for Beaches–East York, who raised this issue with us. It’s an issue that crosses party boundaries. We understand that.

We’re committed to modernizing child care in Ontario. We’ve doubled the funding for child care, a 90% increase since 2003. We continue to provide more monies to municipalities, an overall increase of funding of $16.3 million over last year. We’ve listened to parents. We’re committed to eliminating the child care wait-list fees in Ontario, and we’ll work with providers to get that regulation posted very soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Child care is a smart investment. For every $1 spent, the province can see a $1.50 return. I just—

Mr. Arthur Potts: Peter, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Beaches–East York is warned.

Please finish.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Why, thank you, Speaker. I just want to make it clear to the Premier: Introducing regulations that child care experts and stakeholders strongly disagree with is not a child care policy. Allowing wait-lists for subsidized spaces to grow and grow is also not a child care policy. Forcing parents, particularly women, to stay home because they can’t find a child care space is also not a child care policy.

Ontarians deserve a comprehensive, evidence-based, long-term plan for universal, high-quality child care in this province. Will the Premier take the first step? Will she ensure that families are not forced to pay fees just to sit on waiting lists?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This is an example of you can’t take yes for an answer. I’ve already said that, Mr. Speaker. I’ve already said that, yes, the issue has been raised by the member for Toronto–Danforth. The issue was raised by the member for Beaches–East York. We have already said that we listened to parents. We’re committed to eliminating child care wait-list fees in Ontario. We’ll continue to work with parents and child care providers to move forward on our commitment very, very soon.

So yes, we are going to do that. At the same time, we’re going to continue to work with municipalities to increase funding in child care. The Child Care and Early Years Act provides a new legislative framework to increase access and oversight in Ontario’s child care sector. That, put together, is a child care strategy, and that’s what we’ve implemented.

International trade

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. International markets play a critical role in the growth of Ontario’s economy. Trade missions are the best way for us to connect Ontario businesses with the international market. They’re also part of the government’s plan to boost Ontario’s economy by attracting new investments, facilitating innovative partnerships and helping the province’s businesses export globally.

There is a company called Meridian Lightweight Technologies. They have a plant in Strathroy, Ontario. On your recent trade mission to China, you toured the headquarters of Wanfeng, the parent company of Meridian, to learn about the investments and potential opportunities for expansion. Speaker, could the minister please outline and provide more information on agreements that were made during this trade mission?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the member from Brampton–Springdale for asking the question. The Deputy Premier and I had a very wonderful, 10-day, productive trade mission in China and Hong Kong. Yes, we toured the headquarters of Wanfeng to learn more about its investment in Ontario and their potential plan for expansion, creating even more jobs.

We signed a significant MOU between Ontario and China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Corp. to build new trade and investment opportunities with this leading supplier of agri-products, diversified foodstuffs and food services.

While in China, we also renewed the Ontario-Henan friendship agreement to strengthen ties between the two provinces and encourage economic co-operation, investment and trade.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Harinder Malhi: According to the Conference Board of Canada, every $100-million increase in exports creates approximately 1,000 new jobs. China is a priority market for Ontario. Over the course of the 2015 business mission to China, Ontario delegates signed more than 100 agreements, with an estimated value of $2.5 billion, and deals that may create as many as 1,700 jobs.

In 2014, Ontario’s total agri-food sales to China, including its exports to Hong Kong, reached $832 million, representing Ontario’s second-largest export market for agri-food products. Speaker, will the minister tell us about the results of business missions to China?

Hon. Michael Chan: In China, we had a meeting with the China Federation of Overseas Chinese Entrepreneurs to bring a delegation of 80 entrepreneurs to Ontario. We promoted the Toronto Business Investment Forum that will be held in 2017 as part of Ontario 150 celebrations. Overall, we brought $220 million worth of investments to the province.

Speaker, let me share with you how powerful trade missions can be. During our mission in 2014, we met a company called Perfect (China), encouraging the company to send its award-winning employees to Ontario. I’m happy to report that, starting today, 5,000—yes, 5,000—visitors from Perfect (China) will spend the next few days in Ontario.

Trade missions create relationships. Trade missions create jobs.

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: C’est très important d’avoir cette conversation, parce que je suis fière de notre travail avec la communauté francophone afin d’établir des programmes pour les étudiants postsecondaires dans l’Université d’Ottawa et Glendon College à Toronto. Mais c’est très important de continuer ce travail pour établir si nous avons assez de programmes pour les étudiants francophones pour tous leurs besoins postsecondaires. C’est une conversation dans laquelle nous sommes très engagés.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Question?

M. Patrick Brown: Encore à la première ministre. Elle a peut-être écouté une différente question, parce que ma question est : quand est-ce que le gouvernement va rendre public ce rapport?

Le gouvernement a dit qu’il appuie une université francophone. Mais la question est : est-ce que vous commencez ce processus cette année, ou est-ce que c’est une autre fausse promesse?

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Jamais dit.

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Je n’ai jamais dit que ça doit être un édifice, mais ça doit être des programmes. Nous avons travaillé avec l’Université d’Ottawa et avec Glendon College pour assurer des programmes.

Mais nous avons beaucoup de travail à faire. Je veux travailler avec la francophonie pour assurer l’accès à des programmes. Merci, monsieur le Président.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci.

A reminder: to the Chair, please, when you speak.

New question.

Public transit

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday, we learned that Metrolinx is trying to jack up the fees it charges OC Transpo for the privilege of using Presto. Metrolinx currently charges 2% of the fare revenue. Now it wants to charge 10%.

The first version of Presto was obsolete upon delivery and full of bugs. Then Metrolinx gave a costly sole-source contract to the same company that built the first one. Now, as cost overruns have piled up, the Auditor General says, “By the time it is fully developed, Presto will be among the more expensive fare-card systems in the world....”

Why is Metrolinx forcing the Ottawa transit riders to pay for its own costly mistakes?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: This is a question from the member from Niagara Falls that’s eerily reminiscent of the questions that he asked at estimates committee. In fact, the questions that I’ve now heard from that member over the last couple of days have been, on a number of occasions, without any particular merit. I think, in this particular case, he’s deriving a great deal of his information from a media report that may have appeared over the last day or two.

What I know is that Metrolinx and the team at Presto are working very closely with the city of Ottawa and with all of our 905 municipal service providers. We are engaged in a renegotiation with respect to the Presto contract.

At the end of it all, making sure that we have a fare card system or platform that works effectively for Ottawa, and for all of the transit systems in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, is an important companion piece to the unprecedented transit investments that this government is making in Ottawa, in the GTHA and across the province of Ontario.

I would have thought that member would support making transit more—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: It was a non-answer.

This is back to the minister: Negotiations with Metrolinx are always one-sided. Metrolinx and the government can force transit agencies to take whatever deal they want.

In 2010, the Premier, who was then the Minister of Transportation, told the TTC to stop shopping around for a better smart card. She said the TTC had better take Presto or else she would cancel funding for Transit City. She eventually killed Transit City anyway, but only after the TTC had been bent to her will and agreed to take Presto.

Metrolinx currently charges the TTC 5% of fare revenue for Presto. When that agreement runs out, will Metrolinx also demand 10% of the TTC fare revenue?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, there are so many inaccuracies in that question that it’s hard for me to know exactly where to start. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, considering that the NDP traditionally never presents a clear plan for transit investments here in the province of Ontario—certainly not in their last election platform or the one before that.

Having said that—because this question deals more specifically with Toronto and a future potential renegotiation of a contract that has not yet expired—I know, as every member on this side of the House knows, that having a fare card system in place is a key component of making sure that we deliver on fare integration for this region. That will mean that transit becomes a more popular, more viable, more affordable and more enviable option for people to leave their cars at home.

Traditionally, I would have thought that that would be something that Ontario’s NDP would support. But, alas, I was wrong.

Fertility services

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We know that infertility is an issue with which one in six Canadian families struggle. Mr. Speaker, I have a close family member who knows this struggle all too well.

With private in-vitro fertilization services costing as much as $10,000 per cycle, fertility services would be out of reach for many people who dream of growing a family. That’s why it’s encouraging to see that Ontario is making fertility treatments more accessible by contributing to the cost of one in vitro fertilization cycle. The province is also ensuring that fertility services are accessible to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender or family status.

Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care share with this House how his plan is improving access to fertility services?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Kitchener Centre for this important question. We know that access to fertility services was not equitable in the past, and our government has taken action. That’s why today over 50 different clinics across this province now offer government-funded fertility treatments. It’s why our government is investing 50 million new dollars each year to expand access to IVF treatments in addition to the $20 million a year we’ve already invested in the past. I’m happy to say that we’re providing this expanded access for Ontarians regardless of sexual orientation, gender or family status.

In addition, in budget 2016, Ontario committed to investing $1 million in new funding to support those women and their families whose pregnancies unfortunately end in miscarriage or stillbirth.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer, and for giving hope to so many families in Ontario. It’s important to note that this new program to expand access to fertility services is going to help over 5,000 Ontarians each year who are trying to start and grow a family. I know that the ministry is working with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to ensure that patients do get the highest quality fertility services.

Next week is Canadian Infertility Awareness Week. It really is an ideal opportunity to raise awareness about infertility. It reminds us of why it is so important to undertake high-quality research on infertility and pregnancy loss.

Can the minister please provide an update to this House on how Ontario compares to the rest of Canada when it comes to accessing these kinds of services?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again to the member for this supplementary question. As a family doctor, I’ve worked with many families, couples and individuals struggling with infertility. I believe that every person should have an equal opportunity to grow their family. Income should never be a barrier.

On the occasion of Canadian infertility week next week, Conceivable Dreams, an organization dedicated to achieving equitable access to funding for in vitro fertilization, conducted a ranking of Canada’s provinces based on access and support to those struggling with infertility. I’m proud to report that Ontario is the leader in fertility care amongst all the provinces right across Canada. Our government is committed to ensuring that all Ontarians have equal access to high-quality health care services, regardless of income, geography or any other factor.

Construction industry

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is to the Premier. In March 2014, after flip-flopping on the important private member’s bill from the MPP from Vaughan, your government announced an independent review of the Construction Lien Act. The former Bill 69 clearly identified a need to close gaps in Ontario’s construction laws in order to better protect workers and job creators in Ontario’s vital construction sector.

This review was announced over two years ago. I understand your Attorney General now has the final copy. How many small and medium-sized companies have to go out of business before this overdue report is brought forward and acted upon? Or will the government be burying it like the report of the expert panel examining Ontario’s business support programs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks to the member for that excellent question. I think it’s an issue we’re all engaged in in this House. I think that when you look at the experience of the province of Ontario when it comes to labour peace, when you look to productivity, when you look at the way we work together with government and business on projects, we understand that one of the things that keeps business going, obviously, is the need to get paid in a timely manner. We understand that.

The background work has been done on this issue. It’s been done in what I think is a very professional manner. It’s going to give this House and all members of this House the information they deserve to have in order to make the sort of decision that is so important to the future of Ontario construction companies.

I know on this side of the House we’re committed to this. The Premier has spoken publicly on this issue. We’re prepared to move ahead on this very important issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: The review was first announced in March 2014 and, after many announcements, re-announcements and delays, I’m told that the government now has a final copy of the report, nearly 26 months later. When it takes the government 26 months and several announcements just to get their own report, it’s no wonder Ontario’s construction workers can’t count on getting paid on time.

There are over 400,000 workers in Ontario’s construction industry. Every one of these people and their families are directly impacted by late and delayed payments. Prompt Payment Ontario is here today with the clear message that contractors, suppliers, workers and their families are being put at risk and need action today.

The Attorney General has the report. How many more people have to lose their jobs before this Liberal government will take any action on prompt payment?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to take a moment to thank the member opposite for the question and also to thank the Minister of Labour for his first answer.

As was mentioned in the first question, before becoming Minister of Transportation I was very proud to bring forward Bill 69 regarding the prompt payment issue. I know that the MPP for Brant also, prior to Bill 69, brought forward private member’s legislation on the same topic. It’s important for us to recognize that there has been a very, very genuine effort on the part of our government to deal with both the Construction Lien Act and the prompt payment question.

Certainly, with my own experience in the sector prior to becoming an MPP, and, frankly, representing a community for which the construction industry is so crucial by way of employment, we want to make sure at all times that we get this right. It’s why the review is being conducted; it’s why this government, under the leadership of the Premier, has taken the issue back.

We will get it right. We’ll continue to make sure that the construction industry in Ontario flourishes and that payment flows appropriately.

Employment standards

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Today, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority holds its annual meeting. In 2015, airport employees handled more than 41 million passengers. It’s the largest transportation hub in Canada and one of Canada’s largest workplaces, with over 4,000 employees, many of whom are from my riding and from the Peel region.

While most believe that employees all work directly for the airport, they actually don’t. In fact, it’s a complicated system of contractors and subcontractors that run the airport. This means that for thousands of employees, there is no job security, no sick days, no guarantees in scheduling and, what’s worse, a wage that’s very difficult to live on.

To make matters even more difficult, the current system of contract flipping, where contracts for services are turned over to the lowest bidders every couple of years, makes matters even worse and makes it precarious employment.

Will the Premier call for an end to contract flipping in the Greater Toronto Airports Authority?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Since forming government, this government has realized that the workplace that a lot of people are entering today, and particularly the young people in this province, simply isn’t the workplace it was many years ago. We haven’t looked at the Employment Standards Act since the mid-1990s; we haven’t looked at the Labour Relations Act since around 2000. We understand that the workplace is changing. We understand that there’s global competition that is driving an awful lot of that.

In response to that, what we’ve done is we’ve implemented the Changing Workplaces Review. Two very esteemed individuals, one associated with the business community and one associated with the labour community, have spent the last year travelling the province of Ontario hearing from experts in this regard. They’re preparing a report that will be out very, very shortly which will outline some of the changes and address some of the concerns that are being addressed by the member opposite.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Airport workers screen passengers for safety, they handle our bags and they refuel our planes. Their work brings in billions of dollars in revenue into the GTA every year—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, second time.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —yet employees struggle to make ends meet. They deserve at least a $15 minimum wage.

This is my question to the Premier: Does the Premier support the call from Toronto airport workers for at least a $15 minimum wage? Does the Premier support this call?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The province of Ontario, as I understand it, has the highest minimum wage in the country, if not the continent, and continues to lead in that regard. We’ve put in a system that the business community and the labour community have praised us for, in that these changes take place to the minimum wage in a very predictable and fair way. It’s indexed to the consumer price index. It’s announced in April and it’s implemented in October of that year. That allows businesses to prepare for those increases.

The member seems to be dwelling on issues that fall primarily within the federal domain. I’d like to refer to—

Hon. Jeff Leal: He’s heading to Ottawa.

Correctional services

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, every day correctional officers across Ontario work hard to keep our communities safe, and for that we are all very grateful. Theirs is a difficult job, and we thank them for their tireless efforts and dedication. That’s why I was proud to bring forward my private member’s bill to establish an annual Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week, so that every Ontarian can recognize the hard work and dedication of correctional staff in our province.

But as we pay tribute to those who keep our communities safe, it is important that we also work hard to keep our institutions safe. Mr. Speaker, my riding of Halton is home to the Maplehurst Correctional Complex and the Vanier Centre for Women. I often hear from my community members about the need to improve safety at these institutions and others across the province. Would the minister please update this Legislature on what he is doing to make our institutions safer?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member from Halton for that important question and for introducing Bill 116, the Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week Act. Our government very much supports the bill and hopes that it passes soon.

We are working hard to transform corrections to create a system that truly enhances rehabilitation and reintegration programs, strengthens inmate mental health supports, promotes diversion and community programs, and enhances staffing levels and institutional safety.

Last week, I was joined by the member from Halton, along with Monte Vieselmeyer and Tammy Carson from OPSEU, when I made an important announcement that would enhance staff and institutional safety by investing $9.5 million to install full-body X-ray scanners in all of our correctional facilities over two years. It is expected that a body X-ray scanner will be installed at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in 2016-17 and in the Vanier Centre for Women in 2017-18.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the minister for his great work. I was pleased to join the minister last week to announce the new X-ray body scanners that will help keep our institutions safe. I am glad that the minister will be taking the next step to transform our correctional system and help build stronger and safer communities across our province. I know that many of Ontario’s correctional officers have been calling for these devices, and I know the minister worked closely with them on this important safety improvement.

But, Mr. Speaker, Ontarians know that installing X-ray body scanners in all of our correctional institutions is only one part of the transformation of our correctional system in Ontario. To make our communities safer, we need to hire more correctional officers and offer more training, more mental health supports and better rehabilitation for inmates. Mr. Speaker, through you: Will the minister please explain what he is doing to implement these important changes?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The member from Halton is absolutely right: X-ray body scanners are a key pillar of our transformation of corrections. But we are also hard at work on a number of other elements to transform our correctional system and make our communities safer.

Recently, we announced the training of 24 new correctional officers for institutions in the north to further increase staffing levels in the province’s northern correctional facilities, which is part of our plan to hire 2,000 new correctional officers over the next three years.

We have also worked closely with the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health to develop additional mental health training for those who work in our institutions, and have added 32 new mental health nurses to our facility and are continuing to hire more. We will also be bringing forward more programming to enhance rehabilitation and reintegration.

These are all transformative changes and they will not happen overnight, but we are committed to working with our partners to transform corrections to build stronger and safer communities across Ontario. I welcome ideas from all members in this House to make that work happen.

Fire safety

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. On January 14 of this year, the Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council announced a $1.5-million fund for educational materials on fire safety for local fire departments. The Helping Ontario Municipalities Educate—or HOME—offer would provide credits to fire departments to obtain free public fire safety education materials from the council’s education centre.

Speaker, why did the fire marshal’s council abruptly cancel the HOME offer just two months later, on March 24?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for asking the question. Our government is very much committed to supporting public education around fire safety in Ontario.

The member is right: In January, the Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council established a $1.5-million fund for the Ontario fire service to educate the public about fire safety. However, concerns were communicated to the fire marshal about the structure of the program. The fire marshal heard those concerns and is restructuring the program and will be announcing those changes in the near future. The fire marshal further advised that the Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council would be exploring other options to provide public education materials for fire services in Ontario.

Speaker, let me be absolutely clear: This money will still be provided for public education about fire prevention. We’re just restructuring the program to make sure that we get it right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the minister: Last month, the coroner’s inquest was completed into the tragic fire deaths of three young people in Whitby, and four members of the same family in East Gwillimbury. The jury in the inquest recommended that both the fire marshal’s office and the fire marshal’s council continue to develop public education programs and materials on fire safety.

The jury was pretty clear that more needs to be done to teach fire safety. Mr. Speaker, no one does that better than our local fire departments. When the coroner’s office says that more needs to be done, why is the minister eliminating this much-needed fire safety education program?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I think the member and I are coming from the same place. I absolutely agree with the member that fire safety and fire prevention training are absolutely essential. I am cognizant of the recommendations that were made as well. Hopefully, he will be satisfied with my answer that the program is not being cancelled. It’s just being restructured because of the concerns that the fire marshal heard from municipalities.

I think it’s very prudent of the fire marshal to pay attention to those concerns and to take the fund back, to make sure th