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

October 3, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Oct-03 (PDF)

L011 - Mon 3 Oct 2016 / Lun 3 oct 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 3 October 2016 Lundi 3 octobre 2016

Introduction of Visitors

Time allocation

Member’s birthday

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Special-needs students

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Tabling of public accounts

Minimum wage

Economic development

School closures

Assistance to flood victims

Affordable housing

Water extraction

Disaster relief

Rural infrastructure

Agriculture industry

Hospital funding

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Girls in Government and Leadership

Bereavement leave

United Achievers’ Club

Breast cancer

World Architecture Day

World Architecture Day

Junior Achievement

School closures

Rosh Hashanah

Introduction of Bills

Jonathan’s Law (Employee Leave of Absence When Child Dies), 2016 / Loi Jonathan de 2016 sur le congé des employés en cas de décès d’un enfant

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Privatization of public assets

Employment standards

Ice machines

Dental care

Home inspection industry

Hydro rates

Domestic violence and sexual violence

Sexual violence and harassment

Taxation

Disaster relief

Lung health

Orders of the Day

All Families Are Equal Act (Parentage and Related Registrations Statute Law Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’égalité de toutes les familles (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la filiation et les enregistrements connexes)

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Wayne Gates: It’s a great pleasure to introduce two guests from my riding who are here to spend the day with their favourite MPP—me: Steve and his daughter Sabrina. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Looking forward to the day.

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

The government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, and good morning to you. I hope everyone had a good weekend.

It’s my great pleasure to welcome some guests who are here today as part of the architecture day at Queen’s Park. Please welcome the president of the Ontario Association of Architects, Toon Dreessen, as well as the executive director, Kristi Doyle, who are in the members’ gallery.

We also have a number of representatives from the local architectural societies and architects from throughout the province. Please give them a big round of applause and welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to rise and to recognize today’s page captain, Ryan Betts, from my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood. Today in the gallery, we have his parents, Kathleen and Mike Betts; grandmother Jennifer Sloan; grandmother Diane Betts; grandfather Peter Wilson; and a guest visiting from England, Margaret Banks. Please welcome them.

Ms. Soo Wong: I too want to welcome my friend and colleague Diane Betts to Queen’s Park. I know she’s not a stranger to Queen’s Park, but welcome again. Welcome to both of you.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, I would like to recognize the students from St. Joseph’s Morrow Park Secondary School in Willowdale. They’re having a tour today and watching question period along with one of their teachers. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Last call for introductions.

Time allocation

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker, for that helpful reminder.

I believe you’ll find we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding Bill 13,

An Act in respect of the cost of electricity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? Agreed.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that the order of the House dated Wednesday, September 28, 2016, be amended as follows:

—That in the fourth paragraph, the words “4 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, 2016” be struck out and replaced with “12 noon on Tuesday, October 11, 2016”; and

—That in the fifth paragraph, the words “Wednesday, October 12, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.” be struck out and replaced with “Monday, October 17, 2016, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.”; and

—That in the sixth paragraph, the words “Wednesday, October 12, 2016, at 1 p.m.” be struck out and replaced with “Monday, October 17, 2016, at 4 p.m.”; and

—That in the seventh paragraph, the words “Monday, October 17, 2016” be struck out and replaced with “Tuesday, October 18, 2016.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that an order of the House dated Wednesday, September 28—

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? Dispensed.

We’ve heard the motion. Do we agree? Agreed. Carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Last call for introduction of guests. Seeing none, it is now time for question period.

Sorry, we do have one at the last moment. The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Member’s birthday

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: There’s someone sitting next to me, Mr. Tabuns from Toronto–Danforth, who’s celebrating a significant birthday today.

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

Now it is time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. According to the independent Auditor General, this Liberal government will overpay $9.2 billion for renewable energy contracts. It is the same Liberal government that has received $1.3 million in donations from some 30 renewable energy contracts.

My question is for the Premier. I’m hoping she can be on the record to answer this. Is there any connection between the reckless renewable contracts for hydro we did not need and donations to her Ontario Liberal Party?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, there’s not. I would ask the member opposite, as he goes on his gambit on clean, renewable energy, which we have put in place in this province—a 90% clean electricity grid—if his thought is that we should reopen the coal plants.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m trying to get both sides’ attention. Thank you.

Leader?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The Premier’s assertion on coal-fired generation—it was the PCs that initiated that. Her comment is frankly ridiculous. It is a distraction. It is a diversion because the Premier does not want to talk about the donations for the contracts she shouldn’t have signed.

So my question is—$1.3 million to the Ontario Liberal Party from renewable energy companies. Those 30 companies are part of the $9.2 billion that we overpaid in these contracts, according to the Auditor General. The Auditor General’s numbers are bang-on. A reasonable person would conclude: $1.3 million to the Ontario Liberal Party—a $9.2 billion taxpayer overpayment because of those same companies.

My question is will the Premier stand here today at Queen’s Park and deny those donations had nothing to do with these unacceptable contracts?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been very clear that fundraising and policy decisions are separate. All of the parties in this House have held fundraisers over the years. We have all followed the same rules—

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s all about the cash, Premier.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and we have now moved to make changes to—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Right after I say “Order, please,” you start. That’s not very helpful. The member from Leeds–Grenville will stop.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —make changes to those political fundraising rules.

Again, I will say to the Leader of the Opposition: We took a dirty, unreliable electricity system; we have a 90% emissions-free grid. We made changes that led to a renewable industry that’s created over 42,000 jobs. I say to the Leader of the Opposition again—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time. The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, come to order. The member from Haldimand–Norfolk, come to order. And if I hear what I hear again, I will ask you to withdraw.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I say to the Leader of the Opposition again, is his plan to reopen the coal plants, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: I guess the $1.3 million in donations is just a coincidence.

Since I can’t get an answer on the donations—I just get diversion tactics—I’m going to ask about something along the same lines on hydro. Hydro Ottawa has asked for a new rate structure.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: The new plan would see a higher delivery fee for families that were under Ottawa’s average usage. So if you conserve energy under this Premier’s Ontario, you pay more for delivery—paying more to deliver. Yes, that is absurd.

Will the Premier speak out against this plan? Why should people be punished for conserving energy? How does this make sense? How does this Liberal government condone this?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will say to the Leader of the Opposition that I assume he’s talking about an application to the Ontario Energy Board, where those decisions are made. I’m not going to pre-empt the conversation that happens at the OEB. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the OEB has accepted applications for increases and has rejected applications for increases, so we’ll let that unfold.

Our job is to make sure we have a clean electricity system, to make sure that we put in place programs to support people so that they can pay their bills when there are exorbitant charges and to make sure that we do everything in our power to continue to support people across the province. That’s our role. That’s what we’re doing, Mr. Speaker.

Special-needs students

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Premier. This morning, the leader of the official opposition is headed to Yes I Can Nursery School. I know the Premier knows Yes I Can Nursery School well because it’s in her riding of Don Valley West.

The Premier was a good friend of Yes I Can and she actually helped the nursery get funding for many years. It started as a pilot project and then moved to year-to-year funding, all along indicating that sustainable funding was on its way. But the support disappeared, and this Liberal government has turned their back on Yes I Can Nursery School.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why the Liberals turned their back on Yes I Can? If she answers quickly enough, maybe the Leader of the Opposition can give them an answer when he visits today.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I have been to Yes I Can many times and I have worked with the nursery school to help them to access funding. In fact, every year we provide funding to the city of Toronto, who then funds Yes I Can to the tune of $300,000 a year. So there is provincial money that goes into Yes I Can.

Our intention always with Yes I Can, from the time I was Minister of Education, was to help them to establish a working relationship with the city of Toronto so that they could work with the city because that’s the primary relationship. That’s how other nursery schools function, and it was always our intention that that would be the relationship.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: I guess it begs the question, what happened? The Premier used to regularly visit Yes I Can, where she worked closely with the executive director there, Janet MacDougall.

At the June 2011 graduation, she actually stood up—the Premier did—at Yes I Can and she said, “Yes I Can Nursery School should be the model of early childhood education in the province of Ontario, and we should fund it.” But now, the Minister of Education staff won’t even return a call.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier believes that the program should be funded, then why did it take a visit from the leader of the official opposition today for Yes I Can to finally get an email returned? That’s what has happened: “Mr. Brown is on his way there now,” and all of a sudden, we get an email returned.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have worked with this nursery school and dozens of organizations in my riding over the years. My hope was always that Yes I Can would work with the city of Toronto and would be in a relationship with the city of Toronto that would allow them to access ongoing funding.

It was never the intention that there would be direct funding from the Ministry of Education. I can tell you, I was the minister at the time. I was working with the Ministry of Children and Youth Services at the time, and that was never the intention.

We’re still trying to get Yes I Can to work with the city of Toronto to find a way so that, on top of the $300,000 which they already get funding for, they would work with the city of Toronto and establish a relationship that would allow for that funding. That was always the intention, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Perhaps the Premier was just going around everywhere making promises that she can’t keep.

The one thing is—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Mr. Todd Smith: There are available child care spaces in Toronto and Yes I Can is one of the nursery schools that has space. But Mr. Speaker, they don’t have the funds to support these children. In fact, they’re actually turning away three kids a week. Yes I Can has the space but not the funding.

I read what the Premier said when she was there in 2011. She said the funding would be on the way. The years of Liberal scandal, waste and mismanagement have pushed aside important programs like Yes I Can right here in her own riding.

Mr. Speaker, why should a program like Yes I Can be forced to turn away deserving children who need a space?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a good idea that we look at what is actually happening in child care in this province. We are moving to create 100,000 new child care spaces. We’re working with the sector.

We’re making a $500-million investment in autism, because the thing about Yes I Can is that it’s a blended program. There is an autism component to it and there is a nursery school component to it. As the member opposite notes, I’ve said it’s a very good model. I think it’s a very good model. I think that it’s something that should be looked at by other nursery schools across the province.

But the reality is that all of those nursery schools need to work with the municipalities. They need to have a relationship with the municipality. That’s how it works. We’ve been trying to get Yes I Can into that relationship so that they could have that sustainable funding. I still hope that will happen, Mr. Speaker.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last week, I was in Niagara Falls where I met a couple named Laura and Fran. They were in their house. They had invited me to come and speak to them about their hydro bill. Laura and Fran have seen their hydro bill increase over the last two years by more than $300. But as it happened, I arrived at their home at the very same time as the mail carrier, who happened to have their new hydro bill with him at the time. The bill was more than $600—

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: And as much as the government wants to jeer, the fact of the matter is that that put Laura into tears that morning because they were already struggling to be able to make their bills.

Laura and Fran can’t afford a privatized hydro system where the bills keep going up. Hydro costs are going up because of the privatization of Hydro One and everyone knows it. Will this Liberal government stop any further privatization of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On this side of the House we are very concerned that people have the support to be able to pay for the things in their lives that they need and that are necessary to their quality of life, obviously including electricity.

That’s exactly why we put in place the Ontario Electricity Support Program. It’s exactly why we took the debt retirement charge off people’s bills and it’s why we’re doing more. It’s why we’re taking the provincial portion of the HST off of people’s bills, which I would remind the leader of the third party is something that she thought was a good idea. Along with other people around the province, she thought that was a good idea. We are doing that. We are also increasing support for people in rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, we’re acutely aware of needing to support people in their lives every single day, and that’s why we’ve put these programs in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, later that day, I was in Hamilton and I met a woman named Hannah. Hannah is a single mom. She’s got two kids and, like every other mom, she wants her kids to have every opportunity.

A few years ago her hydro bill was around a hundred bucks. Her last bill was $324. Her bills are so high that this single mom has had to stop putting money into her sons’ RESPs. That means a tougher future for her sons.

Hannah and her sons can’t afford privatization and higher bills. Will this Premier stop the privatization of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the leader of the third party wants to make this false connection that she continues to make about Hydro One, and the changes that we’ve made at Hydro One, and electricity prices. The reality is that we have made significant investments in our electricity system. We inherited a dirty, unreliable system. We have built more than 10,000 kilometres of transmission line. We have moved to a renewable system, a 90% emissions-free electricity grid—all things that I would have thought the NDP would have supported.

At the same time, we know we need to invest in infrastructure. We need to invest in transportation infrastructure. That’s what the expansion of the ownership of Hydro One is about, not the linkage that the leader of the third party is making.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is that consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments have been privatizing our electricity system, and that’s why the rates are out of control. That’s the reality.

The next day, I met another woman named Kristin. She was in Kitchener. She had just finished university. She’s got two kids and she’s paying $1,300 a month for child care. She has $40,000 in student loans. Her most recent hydro bill was three times higher than at the same time as last year. She doesn’t know what to do. The government isn’t making child care any more affordable, but they’re profiting off of her student loans, and they’re planning to privatize even more of Hydro One.

Kristin and her husband are on the edge. Like 80% of Ontarians, they don’t want hydro to be sold off. They want to give their kids a great life, but it’s getting harder and harder, not easier. Will this Premier stop any further sell-off of Hydro One?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I actually don’t know where it’s coming from, but I have been hearing some whistling and it will stop. It’s not appropriate in the House.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the people that the leader of the third party, Kristin and Hannah and Fran—I think I’ve missed a name, but I have enormous sympathy for them.

I hope that the leader of the third party, in her conversations with them, talked about the programs that are in place. I hope she talked about the Ontario Electricity Support Program. I hope she talked about the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit. I hope she let people know—

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hope she let them know that there were options.

Also, the leader of the third party has mentioned post-secondary education a couple of times in terms of costs. We are moving to make tuition free for low- and lower-middle-income families. I appreciate that the leader of the third party doesn’t want to acknowledge that, but that is just one of the things that we’re doing to help people in their lives every single day.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my next question is also for the Premier. The 2015 budget created a brand new tax giveaway to encourage cities to sell their local hydro utilities, and there could be more handouts coming. To quote one media report last week: “Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government will be all ears if Mayor John Tory asks for tax concessions to expedite the sale of Toronto Hydro.” To quote another: “The province believes that privatizing Toronto Hydro ... is a good idea and Queen’s Park is interested in helping make it happen.”

Now, I think Ontarians deserve to know whether these media reports are in fact true. Is this Premier going to give new tax breaks for the privatization of hydro utilities while, at the same time, families continue to pay more and more every day?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Finance is going to want to speak to the tax issue.

What I will say, as I’ve said before, is that it is entirely up to the city of Toronto, their council and their mayor to decide what they want to do with Toronto Hydro. That is where the decision lies. It is up to them to have the discussion. It is up to them to make a decision, and then to move forward. It is not up to us at the provincial level to make that decision; it is up to the city council.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everybody knows that this Premier is primed to sweeten the pot for the local utilities to be sold off, and that’s the matter I am trying to get at in this question.

The Liberal government is already encouraging the privatization of local utilities like Toronto Hydro through major tax giveaways that they have already announced. Liberal insiders are suggesting that the Premier wants to sweeten the pot, sweeten the deal even more to further facilitate the sell-off of these local distribution companies.

People in Ontario cannot afford any more privatization in our electricity system. Will this Premier stop pushing the privatization of local distribution companies?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Ultimately, as mentioned already by the Premier, the decision is up to the mayor and the council of the city of Toronto, as it was for the city of Hamilton when Horizon and other LDCs decided to merge. In fact, they’re in the midst right now of looking at Brampton hydro to enable greater cost savings and enable better delivery for their consumers. Consequently, Toronto Hydro is making their decisions, not the province of Ontario.

We have of course indicated that transfer tax reductions occurred in the last budget, from 33% to 22%, but Toronto will have to pay that tax, as will any other municipality, should they decide to go to a private investor. Should they decide to merge with other municipalities, they’ll get the benefits thereof, as did Hamilton. All we want to make certain is that the consumers of this province have the best delivery of service by their hydroelectric service.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: How a finance minister can imagine that putting private profits ahead of decent rates is going to benefit the public is beyond me, Speaker, because that’s what privatization does: It puts the profits into the pockets of the shareholders instead of into the interests of the people.

People are having a hard time making ends meet. Laura, Fran, Hannah and Kristin are all barely hanging on. Something has to change, and it has to change now. Ontarians cannot afford a privatized Hydro One and they certainly can’t afford a local hydro utility to become a private for-profit company.

The Premier would like us to believe she’s just an innocent bystander in all this, but she’s actually making things worse with her tax giveaways. So will this Premier commit to stopping any further sell-off of Hydro One and to not incentivize any sell-off of local distribution companies?

Hon. Charles Sousa: There are a number of things the member opposite has mentioned.

One, we are not encouraging any other municipality to privatize. We are encouraging LDCs to find savings. If they merge or if they decide to do other things, they’ll have to pay their taxes accordingly.

Furthermore, the member opposite doesn’t talk about the benefits of broadening its ownership so that we can reinvest in the things that matter—in Hamilton, for example, with the LRT and other investments that are going to create even greater value in return.

Of course, the province of Ontario will be the major holder of Hydro One. We will not allow any more than 10% from any other investor, again, to safeguard some of those conditions.

The member opposite makes reference to a number of other programs that she’s obviously not telling her constituents are available to them to further alleviate some of those cost pressures for their benefit. I hope the member opposite does explain to her constituents those benefits. If she’s not, then she’s not doing her job.

Tabling of public accounts

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board.

Last week, you informed the House that the public accounts would be delayed. They were not tabled on September 30 as they were supposed to be. I understand that the Liberal government is challenging the Auditor General’s accounting methods.

A Liberal told us last Friday that the Treasury Board has proposed to hire outside consultants to review the books, and the Liberals want their results to stand. To me, it simply sounds like the Liberals are once again questioning the credibility of the Auditor General.

Mr. Speaker, how many accounting firms is the Liberal government prepared to hire during this dispute with the Auditor General, and how much money is this expected to cost with all of these extra consultants?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As you know, Speaker, I did announce to the House last week that we would be delayed in tabling the public accounts this year, which are actually due on the 27th, 180 days after the end of the last fiscal year. Clearly, we have not met that target.

We are continuing to work with the Auditor General to finalize the statements. In fact, Minister Sousa and I did meet with the Auditor General. There is one rather complex accounting issue that remains outstanding. We are working to resolve that with the Auditor General.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I guess the question remains: What is the Liberal government hiding in these public accounts, and how many consultants are they prepared to hire and at what cost in order to undermine the credibility of the Auditor General?

On Friday, three senior Treasury Board bureaucrats accused the Auditor General of being politically motivated. They said that they have been doing this the same way for 13 years and she’s trying to change it.

My question, Mr. Speaker: Were these senior bureaucrats speaking on behalf of the Treasury Board, and does the Treasury Board minister actually hold their point of view?

Hon. Liz Sandals: What I can tell you, and what I told you last week, is that there is absolutely nothing to hide. In fact, what I can tell you is that not only will we meet this year’s deficit target; we’ll exceed this year’s deficit target. So I’m actually very pleased.

In fact, I’m anxious to get the public accounts into the public venue because I don’t want the public to be concerned that there is some sort of a mystery here. We want to share the good news of our accounting because it actually means that we’re on track not just to meet this year’s deficit targets, but to balance our budget next year.

Minimum wage

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Thousands of people rallied here at Queen’s Park over the weekend for decent jobs, for decent futures for their families, for schedules you can plan a life around and for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, thousands like Erendira Bravo, who works in construction as a contract worker when she really should be a full-time employee; thousands who want to be able to afford their bills and pay their rent, who want to put food on the table and maybe even plan for their future.

Speaker, will the Premier act on the evidence, follow the lead of Alberta and elsewhere and increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Minister of Children and Youth Services, come to order, please.

Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Speaker, I was aware of the people that came down to Queen’s Park over the weekend. They’re asking for us to take another look at the changing workplaces and what’s happening out there in the world of work. We know that the nature of the work in the province of Ontario is changing. It’s changed since the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act were last looked at in the 1990s and 2000s.

That’s why we’ve taken the positive step of putting in a Changing Workplaces Review. We’ve had two advisors who have been travelling the province now for some time. They’ve been talking to organized labour. They’ve been talking to people about the impact that work is having on ordinary people’s lives in the province of Ontario. They have an interim report out where they brought back the findings. They bought back some of the options that would deal with those findings. The Changing Workplaces Review is designed to address exactly the issues that the member is talking about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Over the weekend, thousands of hard-working Ontarians who want to provide futures for their children, yet are finding it harder than ever to get ahead, don’t think that a living wage should be impossible. The New Democrats don’t think a living wage should be impossible either.

Will the Premier listen to Ontarians, to the workers who gathered here over the weekend, and increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you once again to the member for that question.

Speaker, if you go back and remember, between 1996 and 2000, this province had one of the lowest minimum wages in the country. It was frozen for that entire period of time. It was frozen at $6.85. We knew we could do better, and what we wanted to do was put a process in place that allowed for regular increases to the minimum wage. For the last few years, we’ve been leading the country when it comes to the provinces and the minimum wage; Alberta has moved ahead a little bit at this point in time.

What we have is stability. We’ve got predictability. What we’ll be doing in 2019 is reviewing the minimum wage again. It’s got a five-year review. People in this province can rely on regular increases that are based on CPI. That’s something neither party was able to do in the past.

Economic development

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Growth. Innovation is incredibly important to the future of Ontario’s economy. We are making investments for our future. Just two weeks ago, in my riding of Trinity–Spadina, IBM officially opened an innovation hub to give some of the best start-up companies access to super-computing technology to help them scale up. I understand the Ontario government is a partner in this new venture.

I have heard from many constituents about the importance of innovation activities and investments in order to help our businesses in Ontario propel into the global marketplace. Minister, can you please tell us more about the IBM innovation hub and what our government is doing to help businesses stay competitive and innovative in this global economy?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for Trinity–Spadina for that question and for joining me a couple of weeks ago at that very important launch.

The fact is that we’re very committed to homegrown innovation. That’s why we invested $22.75 million from our Jobs and Prosperity Fund to help the IBM innovation hub get going.

There’s a reason we invest in companies that drive disruptive technologies. I was at that launch together with the member a couple of weeks ago. Dino Trevisani, the president of IBM Canada, said this, and I thought it was a really important thing to say: Our job is to support businesses that “out-think the limit of possibilities.”

I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why this government continues to invest in disruptive technology and continues to ensure that our smaller companies have the capability of scaling up. This new hub is an exciting new hub that’s going to help us do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: Thank you, Minister. This is wonderful news and it shows that Ontario is definitely focusing on helping businesses become a part of the fiercely competitive global race. I know IBM could have gone to other jurisdictions, but it chose to be in Ontario to take advantage of our positive business climate and our talented people.

Investments like these mean a lot to many start-ups and entrepreneurs in my riding, as well as others across the province. Can you please tell us more about this innovation hub, specifically how it will support these start-ups of businesses and entrepreneurs in my riding?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Here in Ontario, we’re second in North America, to California, when it comes to ICT companies. That’s a really important place to be. That didn’t happen by accident; that’s a result of the investments we’ve made in our education system. It’s part of the investments we’ve made in nurturing our talent.

The IBM innovation hub is one example that really demonstrates our commitment to innovation, to creating jobs and building a strong economy. This help will provide entrepreneurs and start-ups with the support and the advanced technologies they need to scale up and compete globally, which is so important. It will help them rapidly move their business plans from research to commercialization, and provide the expertise and mentoring they need to compete on a global scale.

This new investment in the IBM innovation hub helps to ensure that Ontario is at the forefront in leading technological disruption and innovation. We’re really proud that companies like IBM are making these investments in this province and of what we’re creating in terms of building that new economy.

School closures

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Minister of Education: Last week, communities across eastern Ontario were shocked to learn that their community rural schools might close, after forming an integral part of community life for generations.

Although the board has scheduled community consultation sessions on the issue, the government cut the consultation period and removed consideration for the value of schools to the community and the local economy for the pupil accommodation review guidelines. Families are left feeling their opinions won’t matter.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier challenges her agri-food industry to grow the over $30 billion it contributes to the Ontario economy. So why is the minister ignoring the basis of rural economic development?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for this very important question. Mr. Speaker, we know that decisions around school closures are some of the hardest decisions that our local school boards have to make. This is why our government requires school boards to consult with communities, to consult with parents, to consult with those who are directly impacted by this very difficult decision.

This is not just about school buildings. This is about ensuring that we have enough students in schools, so that boards can make a decision about what is in the best interests of students’ learning and the programming options that are available to students in the best possible facility.

We have helped school boards to pursue these kinds of projects through a $750-million school consolidation fund. We know that these are difficult decisions for boards, and that’s why we’re supporting them with an appropriate process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Speaker, back to the minister: This is hardly the first time the government has deprived communities of a meaningful say in decisions affecting their future. The Green Energy Act took away their right to prevent industrial wind farms and solar development if they are an unwilling host. Just over two years ago, they closed the Kemptville agricultural college without local consultation. It is a trend where cabinet thinks it knows better.

Ontarians deserve not only to have a say, but to be heard and listened to when it comes to their future. Rural communities rely on local schooling in order to thrive. Pupils spend less time on buses and can maximize their learning, extracurricular and family time. Clearly, local schools are of value to the community and support local jobs.

Will this minister commit to ensuring that this government finally listens to the economic and community needs of rural Ontario?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, our government has clearly shown that it’s committed to ensuring that students in rural schools have an equal opportunity to excel at schools. Not only are we providing additional funding to reflect the issues that are impacting our rural communities, but we’re also in fact providing support for community hubs, because that’s an opportunity for school space that is available to be used more broadly for needs in the community that have been identified. We have provided the additional supports that school boards need in order to do so.

Unlike the party opposite when they were in power: They actually cut and consolidated without consultation and without input from the communities.

We’re not taking any lessons from the opposition. We’re working together to ensure that our schools have the supports that they need to provide the best possible learning environment for all of our students here in Ontario.

Assistance to flood victims

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Good morning, Percy.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: As you know, the mayors of Windsor and Tecumseh declared a state of emergency last Thursday. More than an average month of rain fell in less than five hours. We had two months of rain in 15 hours. The storm water system didn’t fail, but it was overwhelmed by the amount of water in such a short period of time. Thousands of homes had flooded basements.

Speaker, will the Premier commit to providing provincial funding to assist some of homeowners hardest hit with flood damage and with little or no insurance?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say, I know that all of us in the Legislature were thinking about the people in Windsor over the weekend, and I made sure that our minister was going there. He’s on-site today, Mr. Speaker, to have a tour and to see what has happened. It’s a terrible situation and I know people will be very worried.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite knows that there are programs in place. We’ve worked to make those programs more responsive to people on the ground. One of the concerns that I have had is that often the money doesn’t flow in a timely way. The minister is there, he’s working with the mayors and we are right there to support the residents. There always are assessments that have to happen in terms of the municipal infrastructure and the private damage, so that’s the conversation that the minister is having with the mayors today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, some of the homeowners were told by their insurance companies that they now have a cap of $5,000 on any claims. This news was totally unexpected. They had never been told that before.

As we know, unprecedented storms are causing catastrophic damage across Ontario. Will the Premier do everything in her power to help homeowners and municipal leaders in these situations?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, we absolutely will. The member opposite will know that the province does assist with damage to eligible private property. The discussion is just on what’s eligible, what’s not, what’s municipal, what’s private. That’s the conversation that is happening now. We absolutely will do everything in our power to support people in this time of great need, and we wish them all the very best. It’s in these early days after flooding that there are real emergency needs, and the minister is on the ground to assess those.

Affordable housing

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: This question is for the Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for the poverty reduction strategy.

Mr. Speaker, stable and affordable housing is one of the most important determinants of a healthy life filled with opportunity. The research is increasingly clear that access to affordable housing is vital to progress across sectors, from health and education to our economy and safe neighbourhoods. It’s essential to increase investments in innovations, products and programs that tackle critical housing issues.

Minister, as Ontario continues to grow, we must ensure that all of our communities, including my riding of Barrie, remain affordable and accessible to people of all income levels.

Speaker, would the minister inform the House of what recent investments Ontario is making in affordable housing?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member from Barrie for that question and for her ongoing commitment to helping vulnerable members of society.

Speaker, our government’s vision is that every person has an affordable home to provide the foundation to secure employment, raise a family and build strong communities. That’s why I was pleased to announce, during the summer, together with my federal counterpart, that more than $640 million in new funding will be jointly invested by the federal and provincial governments over the next two years to support the housing needs of Ontarians. We’ve also committed to spending $168 million in provincial funding to help build, renovate and provide affordable housing across the province.

Through our renewed partnership with the federal government and joint investments in affordable housing across Ontario, we’re working to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are not left behind.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad to hear of the new investments our government is making in affordable housing. It’s needed all across this province.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the few developed nations that does not have a national housing strategy. I’m glad to see that the new federal government is working with the provinces and the territories to change this. I know Ontario welcomes our new federal partner and the opportunity to engage in this strategy, as we have long called for. We are pleased to share the same values, have common priorities and agree that all Canadians deserve housing that is safe and affordable.

Speaker, would the minister tell the House how the government is ensuring that Ontario’s affordable housing interests will be included in the national housing strategy?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thanks again to the member for that question.

Mr. Speaker, over the summer session, I had the pleasure of meeting with federal, provincial and territorial housing ministers in Victoria to begin work on a national housing strategy. During the meeting, I highlighted Ontario’s priorities for a national housing strategy. This government believes that the strategy must address long-term funding, the full continuum of housing and how to align with the goals of Ontario’s Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy update, and it must focus on outcomes for people rather than specific program approaches.

As part of this work, I’ve also hosted round tables all across Ontario to hear what housing and municipal planners would like to see in a national housing strategy. I look forward to bringing what I’ve heard from these consultations to the next national meeting in November and continuing to discuss Ontario’s priorities.

Water extraction

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier. The Premier has given the Minister of the Environment a mandate to “report back in fall 2016 on options to reform the regulatory process for permits to take water for water bottling purposes” and “work with the Minister of Finance on pricing options for water takings for bottled water in Ontario.”

Will the Premier inform the House how this will unfold? Will there be public consultations? Will interested groups and individuals be invited to make comments? Will municipalities be included? Will they release the recommendations before the cabinet makes final decisions? How will the minister be able to do all this before December? And does the government plan to use this issue as a cash grab to pay for its out-of-control spending?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is going to want to comment, but I just want to reiterate what I said this morning when I was asked by the media, which is this: I believe that it is very important to have consultations. So on the question of consultations, absolutely, we need to have input from people around the province on our most precious natural resource, which is water.

Because Ontario has such an enormous gift of clean water, we need to be impeccable stewards of that water, so we do need to have a consultation. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, there are some pressing issues around permits that have been extended, permits that need to be dealt with, and so we need to take some actions in the immediate term. But does there need to be a broader conversation? Absolutely.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: The mayor of the township of Centre Wellington is seeking a meeting with the Minister of the Environment to discuss their current situation regarding the Middlebrook property and Nestlé Waters’s interest in it. I hope the Premier will direct the minister to meet with Mayor Kelly Linton.

We continue to maintain that our groundwater is essential to the future of our communities and it must be protected. We need to continue to take a science-based approach to whether or not permits are granted, taking into account the long-term growth plans of communities. Three weeks ago, on September 12, I tabled a private member’s resolution stating my position that any increase in provincial taxes or fees for water-bottling companies must be substantially shared with the municipalities in which they’re located.

Will the Premier commit to this House that municipalities will receive a fair share of any increases charged to the water-bottling companies?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Wellington–Halton Hills for the supplementary. Particularly with this past summer, with drought conditions experienced by many of our farmers across Ontario, we do know that water is a precious resource and we must balance the needs of all Ontarians, including consumers and farmers, with requests from businesses. Achieving this balance, Mr. Speaker, coupled with taking climate change events into consideration, of course, is this government’s goal.

This is an important issue for Ontarians from every part of this province. We want to make sure that we address it by taking a rational, evidence-based approach that responds to community concerns. We are looking at this more closely from a provincial-wide perspective and will be making an announcement soon on next steps. Mr. Speaker, I heard this from many of the participants that were at the International Plowing Match in the county of Wellington a few short weeks ago.

Disaster relief

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. I wish to inform the Premier that the good people of Gogama and Mattagami First Nation have reached a tipping point. On Monday, October 10, they will be holding a protest on Highway 144. That’s the road between Sudbury and Timmins.

Why, Speaker? Well, because this government won’t order CN to clean up the mess, to clean up the oil out of the Makami River from the train derailment. On Monday, Highway 144 will be a busy road, with the usual truck traffic and people coming back home or from school after celebrating Thanksgiving. And it is hunting season, after all, so add to this hundreds of hunters.

Do the right thing right now, Premier, and order CN to clean up this ongoing environmental disaster.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Obviously, everyone on this side of the House appreciates the question from the member from Nickel Belt. She would know at this point that a number of us—myself included, and the current Minister of Energy, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and a number of MPPs on this side of the House—have, literally since the day the derailment took place a number of months ago, paid especially close attention to what’s taking place. I know that I had the opportunity, days after the derailment, to be in Gogama myself to meet with people from that community, to meet with CN and others.

We on this side of the House take rail safety at all times in an extremely important way. I have personally had conversations with my federal counterpart about the importance of making sure that whether we’re talking about northern Ontario or other parts of this province or country, rail safety remains a priority.

We’ll continue to work with the residents in this area and with CN to make sure that we get it right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: The Premier just said that we have to be “impeccable stewards” of our gift of water. Yet since the ice came off of the water this spring, I’ve asked this government dozens of times to come and help, but they won’t. I don’t get it. It won’t cost a cent for the province to order CN to clean up their mess. There are companies on the ground, on-site in Gogama, that are ready to do the work.

Will the Premier do the right thing for our water today and for our water for generations to come and order CN to clean up the mess?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to emphasize again to the member from Nickel Belt that this is an issue that we on this side of the House take very, very seriously. I mentioned in the earlier answer that a number of us have had the chance to be in Gogama since the derailment. We understand how important it is to make sure we get this right, and of course we understand how critical it is that people living in Gogama or in the areas around Gogama or anywhere else in the province of Ontario have access to safe water. That’s a fundamental principle, and we understand that.

We will, on this side of the House, continue to work with the residents and with CN. I know that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and others on this side of the House understand how important it is that we make sure that we get it right. I would emphasize again that from transportation’s perspective in particular, we will continue to push the message of rail safety at all times with our federal counterparts.

Rural infrastructure

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, our government has made a historic commitment to investing in infrastructure across this province. Through the Moving Ontario Forward plan, we are committing $31.5 billion to improve transportation and transit from Cornwall to Windsor. In fact, $16 billion of that funding will go to communities outside the greater Toronto-Hamilton area, like the eight municipalities in my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West.

The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund—or, as we call it, OCIF—has helped small and rural municipalities invest in critical infrastructure like roads and water mains. Across northeastern Ontario, 116 communities will receive a total of $58 million over the next three years to support their upgrades to critical local infrastructure. Our government recently announced that it’s providing Kapuskasing with $2.8 million in funding for infrastructure upgrades.

Minister, can you please tell this House how OCIF is benefiting communities across rural and northern Ontario?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for his question this morning. We do know that before the member entered this House in 2003, he was the most distinguished mayor from Brighton, Ontario.

I recall that the member, of course, was a leader with AMO and ROMA. Just recently, I had the opportunity to reread some of his old speeches that he made to those organizations. What has been very consistent about his message back then, of course, was the need to continue to invest in rural infrastructure in the province of Ontario.

Just to give a little historical context: In late 1990s, there was a committee called the Who Does What committee, and I remember that they made the recommendations. I was part of, in those days—the Who Does What became the “who got done in” committee. That was municipalities, because they provided no funding for infrastructure in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It’s good to hear from the minister about infrastructure in rural and northern communities to build a future that’s bright for young Ontarians.

I know that members opposite like to claim that we’re only investing in transit in Toronto, and it’s nice to see that our government is committed to helping rural communities meet their infrastructure needs.

There is always more that we can do, and I know our rural municipal partners had feedback for improving the OCIF during consultations and through forums like the Rural Ontario Municipal Association’s annual conference. In particular, they requested that more of the OCIF be dedicated to formula-based funding so that they had a predictable source of infrastructure money.

Can the minister please explain whether rural municipalities will be receiving more formula-based funding under the OCIF, as they requested?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the honourable member for his supplementary.

I talked about his previous speeches; now I can quote one from his latest speech. He said just recently that over the next three years, we’ll be investing $670 million—that’s right, $670 million—in the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund.

As the member mentioned, our municipal friends asked for more of that funding to be formula-based, and I’m extremely proud that we listened. We’re providing more than $420 million in formula-based funding, delivered to our rural municipal partners over that period.

Just a couple of weeks ago, our government announced that, through the OCIF, Hastings county, the city of Belleville and Prince Edward county will receive more than $12 million in formula funding over the next three years. That’s a record by anybody’s measurement.

After last week’s announcement, Prince Edward county Mayor Robert Quaiff stated this: “I’m glad to see the province devoting funds to help us revitalize our roads,” bridges and other important infrastructure. “It’s a very necessary and welcome investment.”

The mayor of Kapuskasing said—

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

Agriculture industry

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Premier. On September 19, my Liberal colleague from Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, was quoted in the Peterborough Examiner as saying that while he works hard “trying to promote the interests of agriculture—getting others in the Ontario Liberal government to listen is a challenge.”

My question is, why is the Premier not supporting her own Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay, you’ve had your fun.

Minister?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for the question. It’s a little like getting a fastball right down the middle of the plate.

I want to tell the honourable member what we’re doing. This government has provided unprecedented support for the agricultural community in the province of Ontario—a sector that generates $36.6 billion to Ontario’s GDP each and every year. You don’t achieve those kinds of results without getting the support from the Premier, every member of this cabinet and every member of this caucus to make sure that happens each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, at 5:30 a.m. this morning, 790,000 Ontarians got up to get to their jobs in this important sector—something we support every day.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, I thank the minister for the curveball, but really, the comment in the Peterborough Examiner simply confirms the disregard that this government has for our farmers and for rural Ontario.

Hard-working rural Ontarians and workers in our agriculture sector are facing difficult conditions, including the crippling cost of hydro, the overburden of unnecessary regulations and outright government intrusions into the way they do their business. But their pleas for relief and support from this government are going unanswered.

Will the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs name the members of caucus who do not support?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for the supplementary. Not only do I hit fastballs, curveballs and cutters, I can hit them all at any time when they throw them at me.

Let me put this in context. You want to talk about support for farmers? A number of years ago, my predecessor Carol Mitchell brought forward a plan to provide $100 million for a risk management program for farmers in the province of Ontario. That party and that party never supported it.

When you talk about supporting them, we have a track record. We’re supporting agriculture each and every day, and we’ll continue to support agriculture.

Hospital funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. When people in Ontario need surgery, they should be able to get it regardless of where they live in the province. But people in my community are waiting as long as 449 days for hip or knee replacement. One of my constituents, Louise West, has been told that she will have to wait 27 months—more than two years—for knee replacement surgery, all the while paying for pain relief out of her own pocket.

We are at a critical moment, Speaker. If we don’t cut wait times in London, more and more people will continue to suffer. When will the Premier take action to increase funding for surgeries in the London area so that people in my community are no longer forced to wait longer than anyone else in Ontario for the surgeries they need?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member for the question. We recognize that more work needs to be done when it comes to wait times across this province, but I’m proud of the success that we’ve had, including in London, where in the last decade we’ve reduced the wait time for hip surgery by 15%. At the same time, we’ve reduced that 90th percentile, which is how we measure it, by 32% over the last decade, for knee replacement.

In fact, the budget that the member opposite voted against earlier this year invested an additional $50 million, including half a million dollars going specifically to the South West LHIN for wait times to continue to provide and offer those services.

Mr. Speaker, we do recognize that from time to time—and wait-lists and wait times are based on a whole set of factors, including the prioritization that our clinicians themselves make. I’m happy to address it more and the success that we’ve seen in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, wait times have gotten worse under this Liberal government, not better. People who need surgeries cannot wait months on end to be able to walk again, stand again or live without constant pain.

The wait time for knee replacement at London Health Sciences Centre is 108 days longer than this government’s target wait time. People in London are suffering, and this Premier isn’t doing anything to help. When will the Premier put people first for a change and cut wait times for surgery in London?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we are working with the South West LHIN. I know the South West LHIN is looking at the particular situation in London as well.

I resent the implication that somehow we’re focusing all our attention on other parts of the province. When you actually look at hip and knee replacement around the province today, the shortest wait time in the province for a hip replacement is not in Toronto, as the member I’m sure would suggest, but it’s actually at North Bay General Hospital, followed by Bluewater Health in Sarnia, Sault Area Hospital and then Cambridge Memorial Hospital.

In fact, we have the best wait times in Canada. We have wait times that are better than the UK and better than Canada. In fact, when you look at knee replacement surgery, we’re approximately half of the average in the entire OECD. For a hip, it’s also below the OECD average and the best in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce Vince and Espy Leitao, who are here today for the reintroduction of Jonathan’s Law. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Members’ Statements

Girls in Government and Leadership

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Last year, I decided to adopt a program called Girls in Government and Leadership for grades 5 through 8 students in Nepean–Carleton. I was able to hold a one-day program at my own daughter’s school—Victoria’s—at Manordale Public School. We talked about advocacy and how girls and women can have the ability to make change.

I was amazed to see the impact it had on so many young girls, including my daughter’s best friend, Jaden Croucher. She’s 11 years old—just had her birthday last week. She spent Friday evening with my family and she decided that she wanted to advocate on an issue that recently came up across the province. I know that her class is watching right now.

She wrote to the local media and to myself. I’ll read you part of her letter: “My name is Jaden. I’m here to protest the 10 months of suspension for Dr. Mahavir Singh Rekhi.... I think Dr. Mahavir should at least get his licence removed forever” due to his abuse of animals. “Just because animals don’t have a voice doesn’t mean they can be abused.... Animals don’t have a voice, so who will speak for them?” Jaden concludes her letter: “I’m hoping my concern will make the court rethink their decision. And everyone can write an email to their MPP.”

Jaden is brave, and she’s also very sweet. She’s willing to be interviewed and talk about the issue for the next generation.

I stand in this House to say that I’m extremely proud of Jaden and all the girls at Manordale Public School who have taken a stand for what they believe in.

Bereavement leave

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Today I will be reintroducing Jonathan’s Law. Jonathan’s Law will make it possible for an employee whose child has died to have an unpaid leave of absence for up to 52 weeks.

Currently, parents are entitled to a leave while a child is critically ill or if a child dies as a result of a crime. But when a child dies as a result of illness or accident, the parents are supposed to be ready to go back to work after 10 days. Speaker, that does not work.

The bill is named Jonathan’s Law in tribute to Jonathan Leitao, who died of cancer in 2014. He was 16. Jonathan’s father, Vince Leitao, and his mother, Espy Leitao, are with us today. They spearheaded the work to pull together this bill.

I want to thank Jonathan Miles and Meighan Ferris-Miles, also bereaved parents of their young son, who worked on this bill, and Carolyn Baltaz, who is the chair of Bereaved Families of Ontario.

I thank all of them for the work they did on background, the work they did to pull together the law, and the courage they’ve shown when presenting this issue to the public.

United Achievers’ Club

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Two weeks ago, as I do each year, I had the pleasure of attending the 32nd annual United Achievers’ Club Scholarship and Recognition Awards dinner. On September 17, 15 recipients were recognized with scholarships in Brampton, with approximately 200 guests in attendance.

The keynote address was delivered by Miss Tanya Walker, a Law Society of Upper Canada bencher and lawyer.

The United Achievers’ Club was established in Brampton in 1980 and gave its first scholarship in 1985. This year’s scholarship recipients recognized at the dinner were Shontia Anderson, Kymani Carter, Kiana Crawford-Matthews, Vashti Darko, Jordan Gray, Sydney Hussett, Raenelle Manning, Jalesa Martin, Benjamin McDonald, Justin McKenzie, Akachukwu Nwakoby, Caitlin Peart, Dené Pellington, Sanjay Persad and Katerah Phillips.

Recognized for outstanding service to the community were the Free for All Foundation, the United Achievers’ Seniors Group, and John Cockburn, a past president of the Kiwanis Club of Brampton and an active member for more than 50 years.

Breast cancer

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m pleased to rise today to acknowledge Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer amongst Canadian women and is the second leading cause of death. It is estimated that in 2015, 25,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Among those 25,000 cancer diagnoses, 5,000 women died as a result of this disease. Breast cancer occurs most frequently in women between the ages of 50 and 69, although it can occur at any age. Breast cancer is not gender-specific. In 2015, 220 men were diagnosed with the disease, and 60 died as a result.

It’s important to be mindful of the signs and symptoms of breast cancer, which include a lump in the breast or armpit, changes in the breast’s shape or size, or skin changes. Some risk factors may include family history, exposure to ionizing radiation, oral contraceptives, alcohol, or high socio-economic status. Breast cancer screenings are available and recommended for women between the ages of 50 to 69, and it’s also recommended that women within this age range receive a mammogram every two years.

I would like to acknowledge and thank John Baines and his daughter Kelly, from my riding. Each year, they organize Bowling for Boobs in St. Thomas. For years, they have been fundraising and raising awareness around breast cancer.

The Canadian Cancer Society has also created a wonderful support program and funding initiative called the Women to Women Movement. It creates ambassadors and empowers women to educate other women about screenings while raising funds at the same time.

As October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I encourage all Ontarians to get involved in their community to raise awareness regarding this terrible disease.

World Architecture Day

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Today is World Architecture Day. I want to thank the Ontario Association of Architects for hosting a breakfast this morning in the legislative dining room.

World Architecture Day was founded to remind the world of the importance of architects in building cities of the future. It’s important to acknowledge that, moving forward, there are certain principles that we will need to rely on architects for to ensure that our cities are more sustainable, are built in a way that is environmentally friendly and are built in ways that work with the environments that they are built in. There’s also an ever-increasing importance of ensuring that architects continue to build more affordable housing as well as create density in effective ways.

I myself am working with an architect on a project that is near and dear to me, which is my home. In the members’ gallery: I would like to introduce Oliver Dang, who is my architect—thank you very much—and a special shout-out to Qanuk’s designers Sarah and Lindsay, who are the design team.

It’s extremely important for us to acknowledge the great work of the many people in our society who make our societies better. But I think it’s particularly important, given the direction we’re headed in this society, to acknowledge the work of architects: to do what they are tasked to do under the Architects Act, “to promote public appreciation of architecture and the allied arts and sciences,” and to ensure that we build cities that are based on building and houses that are sustainable and that lead the way.

World Architecture Day

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Indeed, today is World Architecture Day. The first Monday of October of each year has been deemed to be this very important day where we consider the contributions made to our communities, to our cities and to our daily lives by architects.

Mr. Speaker, what drew me to study architecture and to that profession was the ability to help improve our community and improve my neighbours’ lives. Architects throughout this province are collaborators, artists and ultimately problem solvers, solving the problems of how to make our communities and cities more livable and how to make our grand places and our more humble places viable, pleasant to live in and pleasant to work in.

World Architecture Day is important because it focuses everyone’s attention on what are some core human needs: shelter, community, and space that is livable, is inspiring and helps us achieve those things we aspire to.

Today, we’re very grateful to the Ontario Association of Architects and its president, Toon Dreesen, who’s here to inform about these issues. Today, Mr. Speaker, it’s important that all MPPs recognize that architecture matters.

Junior Achievement

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m here to recognize the great work done by Junior Achievement in my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex and right across Ontario. Junior Achievement is the largest youth business education organization in Canada. For over 60 years, they have been preparing young people to succeed.

I was fortunate enough to participate in Junior Achievement when I was in high school, so I can personally appreciate the impact of their work and how they can inspire young entrepreneurs. Today, thousands of dedicated volunteers continue to deliver financial literacy, work readiness and entrepreneurship programs that give students the knowledge and confidence to meet the personal and professional challenges of their future.

The Ontario PC caucus recognizes that financial literacy is critical. We applaud Junior Achievement’s work to give the development of these vital real-life skills, such as budgeting and investing, a greater presence in our public education system. With the recent revelation that half of Ontario’s grade 6 students are failing to meet the provincial standards for math and the news that household and government debt have reached all-time highs in our province, financial literacy is clearly more important than ever.

Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all students and parents to explore the opportunities offered by Junior Achievement, as well as to commend the businesses and thousands of volunteers who make these educational opportunities possible.

School closures

M me France Gélinas: Rainbow District School Board announced that a significant decline in provincial funding has triggered accommodation reviews for many of their schools. What does that mean for my riding?

In the valley, they will move kids from grades 7 and 8 from one school to a school further away, and the other ones, the juniors to 5, will be moved into another school.

What does that mean for the people in Chelmsford? Well, the Chelmsford high school would be closed. The kids would be bused either to Val Caron or to a school in Sudbury. Then, the kids from Chelmsford, from Dowling, from Onaping and from Levack would all be bused to the empty secondary school in Chelmsford. For little kids, age 4 and 5, who go from Geneva Lake in my riding to Chelmsford, that means they will spend more time on the bus than in the classroom.

In the west end of my riding, the news is no better. They are planning to close the Lively high school. All of the kids from Lively will be bused—you guessed it—to schools in Sudbury, and the 7s and 8s would be moved into the already-tight-for-space Walden Public School.

I have seen this movie before, Speaker, and it always works the same way: Kids in rural schools in Nickel Belt get bused to big urban schools in Sudbury. Do you know what that means? That means that the school is there to teach the kids—but it’s there to build healthy communities, and we’re losing all of that.

Rosh Hashanah

Mr. Mike Colle: Today I’m honoured to commemorate Rosh Hashanah, a very important High Holy Day for members of the Jewish community all over Ontario and in my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence and all over the world.

As members of the Jewish faith come together to celebrate Rosh Hashanah—marking a time of year in their lives to reflect on the year ahead. This past Sunday evening marked the first day of Rosh Hashanah, translated as the “head of the year.” It also means the Jewish New Year. It is one of the High Holy Day holidays. On this day, Jews are called to examine their lives, focus on repentance, and plan for the new year.

Some of the observances during Rosh Hashanah include blowing the shofar, a hollowed-out ram’s horn. The blowing of the shofar is meant to wake up the soul and motivate repentance during Rosh Hashanah. Eating sweet foods, like apple dipped in honey, pomegranates, challah, symbolizing the hope for a sweet new year—and a special prayer is recited thereafter: “May it be thy will, O Lord, our God, to grant us a year that is good and sweet.”

I want to wish all of the Jews in my community a sweet and happy and healthy new year, and especially to my good friend Mel Korn, who had a bicycle accident yesterday and was taken to Humber River Hospital but is doing fine. I want to wish Shana Tova Umetukah to all my friends and my community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their statements.

Introduction of Bills

Jonathan’s Law (Employee Leave of Absence When Child Dies), 2016 / Loi Jonathan de 2016 sur le congé des employés en cas de décès d’un enfant

Mr. Tabuns moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 to entitle an employee whose child has died to a leave of absence / Projet de loi 31, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi pour donner aux employés dont l’enfant est décédé le droit à un congé.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, any parent who has to deal with the death of a child is dealing with profound emotions, dealing with a situation that is extraordinarily difficult. All those parents deserve some leave. This bill will provide that.

Motions

Private members’ public business

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members’ public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Minister?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 98(b), the following changes be made to the ballot list: Mr. Potts and Mr. Anderson exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Potts assumes ballot item number 13 and Mr. Anderson assumes ballot item number 62; and Mr. Qaadri and Mr. Sergio exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Qaadri assumes ballot item number 9 and Mr. Sergio assumes ballot item number 21; and that, notwithstanding standing order 98(g), notice for ballot items 7, 9, 13, 14 and 21 be waived.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister has moved that, notwithstanding order 98(b), the following changes be made to the ballot list—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? Dispensed.

On the motion, do we agree? Agreed. Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the current government under Premier Kathleen Wynne is calling for the sale of up to 60% of Hydro One shares into private ownership; and

“Whereas the decision to sell the public utility was made without any public input and the deal will continue to be done in complete secrecy; and

“Whereas the loss of majority ownership in Hydro One will force ratepayers to accept whatever changes the new owners decide, such as higher rates; and

“Whereas electricity rates are already sky-high and hurting family budgets as well as businesses; and

“Whereas ratepayers will never again have independent investigations of consumer complaints, such as the Ontario Ombudsman’s damning report on failed billing; and

“Whereas the people of Ontario are the true owners of Hydro One and they do not believe the fire sale of Hydro One is in their best interest;

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

“To protect Ontario ratepayers by stopping the sale of Hydro One.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my name and send it with page Ryan.

Employment standards

Mr. Paul Miller: “Whereas a growing number of Ontarians are concerned about the growth in low-wage, part-time, casual, temporary and insecure employment; and

“Whereas too many workers are not protected by the minimum standards outlined in existing employment and labour laws; and

“Whereas the Ontario government is currently reviewing employment and labour laws in the province;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change employment and labour laws to accomplish the following:

“—ensure that part-time, temporary, casual and contract workers receive the same pay and benefits as their full-time permanent counterparts;

“—promote full-time, permanent work with adequate hours for all those who choose it;

“—offer fair scheduling with proper advance notice;

“—provide at least seven (7) days of paid sick leave each year;

“—prevent employers from downloading their responsibilities for minimum standards onto temporary agencies, subcontractors or workers themselves;

“—end the practice of contract flipping, support wage protection and job security for workers when companies change ownership or contracts expire;

“—extend minimum protections to all workers by eliminating exemptions to the laws;

“—protect workers who stand up for their rights;

“—offer proactive enforcement of the laws through adequate public staffing and meaningful penalties for employers who violate the laws;

“—make it easier for workers to join unions; and

“—all workers must be paid at least $15 an hour, regardless of their age, student status, job or sector of employment.”

I agree fully with these petitions. There are hundreds here just from one area.

Ice machines

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

“Whereas ice machines are found everywhere throughout the health care system, including long-term-care facilities and hospitals; and

“Whereas numerous bacteria and viruses are known to contaminate ice cubes, including cholera, typhoid fever, salmonella, legionella, E. coli, shigella, hepatitis A and norovirus; and

“Whereas the lack of regulation increases the probability of consuming ice from ice machines with unhygienic levels of bacteria and/or viruses, putting public safety at risk; and

“Whereas individuals consuming ice from a contaminated ice machine in a hospital or long-term-care facility are at a greater risk due to potentially weakened immune systems; and

“Whereas the inherent risk and rate at which both bacteria and biofilm grow inside ice machines have caused other countries to mandate the cleaning of ice machines; and

“Whereas there are currently no mandates or guidelines on the frequency or thoroughness of cleaning for institutional ice machines in hospitals, long-term-care or other health care facilities;

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

“That the province of Ontario establish and enforce cleaning and hygiene standards for all institutional ice machines in provincially funded and/or operated facilities.”

I certainly agree with this petition and will leave it with Sophia.

Dental care

Mr. Jeff Yurek: “Whereas lack of access to dental care affects overall health and well-being, and poor oral health is linked to diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory disease, and Alzheimer’s disease; and

“Whereas it is estimated that two to three million people in Ontario have not seen a dentist in the past year, mainly due to the cost of private dental services; and

“Whereas approximately every nine minutes a person in Ontario arrives at a hospital emergency room with a dental problem but can only get painkillers and antibiotics, and this costs the health care system at least $31 million annually with no treatment of the problem;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to invest in public oral health programs for low-income adults and seniors....”

I agree with this petition and affix my signature.

M me France Gélinas: Ça me fait plaisir de présenter cette pétition.

« Étant donné que plusieurs écoles anglaises du “quartier” sont occupées à moins de 50 %;

« Étant donné que le ministère de l’Éducation reconnaît que tous les citoyens sont gagnants lorsque les écoles sont utilisées de manière optimale ... ;

« Étant donné que les conseils propriétaires ne mettent pas d’école ou de terrain en disponibilité dans “le quartier” ... ; »

Ils demandent à l’Assemblée législative :

« Que la ministre de l’Éducation intervienne pour rendre disponible une école de qualité dans les circonscriptions Toronto–Danforth ou Beaches–East York qui ... accueillera nos enfants, accordant ainsi à nos enfants le même droit qu’aux enfants anglophones. »

J’appuie cette pétition, je vais y affixer mon nom, et je demande à Ryan de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

Home inspection industry

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

“Whereas the home inspector industry remains largely unregulated; and

“Whereas homeowners are increasingly reliant on home inspectors to make an educated home purchase; and

“Whereas the unregulated industry poses a risk to consumers;

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

“To protect consumers by regulating the home inspection industry and licensing home inspectors.”

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

Hydro rates

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas household electricity bills have skyrocketed by 56% and electricity rates have tripled as a result of the Liberal government’s mismanagement of the energy sector;

“Whereas the billion-dollar gas plants cancellation, wasteful and unaccountable spending at Ontario Power Generation and the unaffordable subsidies in the Green Energy Act will result in” hydro “bills climbing by another 35% by 2017 and 45% by 2020; and

“Whereas the Liberal government wasted $2 billion on the flawed smart meter program; and

“Whereas the recent announcement to implement the Ontario Electricity Support Program will see average household hydro bills increase an additional $137 per year starting in 2016; and

“Whereas the soaring cost of electricity is straining family budgets, and hurting the ability of manufacturers and small businesses in the province to compete and create new jobs; and

“Whereas home heating and electricity are a necessity for families in Ontario who cannot afford to continue footing the bill for the government’s mismanagement of the energy sector;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately implement policies ensuring Ontario’s power consumers, including families, farmers and employers, have affordable and reliable electricity.

I agree with this petition and I send it down with page Cameron.

Domestic violence and sexual violence

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The bill number referred to in this petition changed with prorogation, but I’m still going to read it because it’s still relevant.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Support Survivors of Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence.

“Whereas half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, and approximately every six days a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner; and

“Whereas a 2014 national survey showed that Canadian workers who experience domestic violence often disclose the violence to a co-worker, and that the violence frequently follows the worker to work; and

“Whereas the experience of domestic violence and sexual violence can cause significant physical, mental, emotional and financial hardship for survivors, their families, and society as a whole; and

“Whereas Canadian employers lose $78 million annually due to domestic violence, and $18 million due to sexual violence, because of direct and indirect impacts that include distraction, decreased productivity, and absenteeism; and

“Whereas workers who experience domestic violence or sexual violence should not have to jeopardize their employment in order to seek medical attention, access counselling, relocate, or deal with police, lawyers or the courts; and

“Whereas the final report of the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment recommended that the Ontario government make education about domestic or intimate partner violence in the workplace mandatory for managers, supervisors, and workers;

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

“That the Legislative Assembly pass Bill 177 to provide employees who have experienced domestic violence or sexual violence (or whose children have experienced domestic violence or sexual violence) with up to 10 days of paid leave, reasonable unpaid leave, and options for flexible work arrangements, and to require employers to provide mandatory workplace training about domestic violence and sexual violence.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my name to it and give it to page Tegan to take to the table.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Daiene Vernile: This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas one in three women will experience some form of sexual assault in her lifetime.

“When public education about sexual violence and harassment is not prioritized, myths and attitudes informed by misogyny become prevalent. This promotes rape culture.

“Less than 10% of sexual violence cases are reported to police. For every 33 that are reported, only three result in a conviction.

“Sexual violence and harassment survivors too often feel revictimized by the systems set in place to support them. The voices of survivors, in all their diversity, need to be amplified....

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

“Support the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment’s final report, highlighting the need for inclusive and open dialogue to address misogyny and rape culture; educate about sexual violence and harassment to promote social change ... and address attrition rates within our justice system, including examining ‘unfounded’ cases, developing enhanced prosecution models and providing free legal advice for survivors.”

Speaker, I agree with this petition, will put my name to it and hand it to page Nicole.

Taxation

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government has indicated they plan on introducing a new carbon tax in 2015; and

“Whereas Ontario taxpayers have already been burdened with a health tax of $300 to $900 per person that doesn’t necessarily go into health care, a $2-billion smart meter program that failed to conserve energy, and households are paying almost $700 more annually for unaffordable subsidies under the Green Energy Act;

“Whereas a carbon tax scheme would increase the cost of everyday goods including gasoline and home heating;

“Whereas the government continues to run unaffordable deficits without a plan to reduce spending while collecting $30 billion more annually in tax revenues than 11 years ago; and

“Whereas the aforementioned points lead to the conclusion that the government is seeking justification to raise taxes to pay for their excessive spending, without accomplishing any concrete targets;

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

“To abandon the idea of introducing yet another unaffordable and ineffective tax on Ontario families and businesses.”

I support it and will send it with page Om.

Disaster relief

M me France Gélinas: I would like to thank Madame Monique Laurin from Gogama for this petition. It reads as follows:

“Whereas at 2 a.m. on March 7, 2015, a Canadian National train derailed just outside of Gogama;

“Whereas this derailment caused numerous tank cars carrying crude oil to explode, catch fire and spill over one million litres of oil into the Makami River; and

“Whereas residents continue to plainly observe an oil sheen and find dead fish on the Makami River as well as Lake Minisinakwa, despite the fact that the Ministry of the Environment has declared the cleanup complete;

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

“That the Ministry of the Environment require CN to continue the cleanup of Gogama’s soil and waterways until the residents are assured of clean and safe access to water for drinking and recreation.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask Brendan to bring it to the Clerk.

Lung health

Ms. Daiene Vernile: This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

“Once debated at committee, to expedite Bill 41, Lung Health Act, 2014, through the committee stage and back to the Legislature for third and final reading.”

I agree with this petition, will put my name to it and hand it to page Tegan.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Unfortunately, that concludes the time we have available for petitions this afternoon.

Orders of the Day

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Attorney General and government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of Bill 28,

An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Vital Statistics Act and various other Acts respecting parentage and related registrations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Unfortunately, I have to remind the Attorney General that we have to call the order first before you move second reading of the bill.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker: government order G28.

All Families Are Equal Act (Parentage and Related Registrations Statute Law Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’égalité de toutes les familles (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la filiation et les enregistrements connexes)

Mr. Naqvi moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 28,

An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Vital Statistics Act and various other Acts respecting parentage and related registrations / Projet de loi 28, Loi modifiant la Loi portant réforme du droit de l’enfance, la

Loi sur les statistiques de l’état civil et diverses autres lois en ce qui concerne la filiation et les enregistrements connexes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Mr. Naqvi has moved second reading of Bill 28. I assume the minister would like to lead off the debate.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me to speak on a very important bill. As you can tell, I’m very excited to speak to the bill and, therefore, moved one step earlier in the process for the debate.

Speaker, it’s really my true honour to rise today to speak on the proposed All Families Are Equal Act, 2016. I will say with utmost sincerity that I am very proud of this bill. I believe in the principle that everyone in our province should be treated equally, no matter their race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. Ontarians value diversity and they value equality, and supporting those core values are what this bill is all about.

I also believe this bill responds to a key priority of our government, and that is to make everyday life easier for Ontarians and to remove unnecessary burdens and costs on our families.

Ontarians know that family structures are as diverse and unique as the people who make up this great province of ours. There is no one way to start and raise a family. In the year 2016, this is something we, as a government, and as a society more broadly, have not only come to accept but embrace. Today we expect that members of the LGBTQ2+ community enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual neighbours: the right to love and marry the person of their choosing, and the right to start and raise a family.

It may come as a surprise to many to learn that not every family is being treated the same under the current law in the province of Ontario when it comes to who is considered a legal parent. Right now, under the current law, some parents have to go to court to be declared as their child’s parent. Imagine having to spend extra time and money to be legally recognized as parents. For example, if a lesbian couple uses a sperm donor to help them conceive a child, under the current law today the birth mother and the sperm donor would be the child’s parents, even if that donor had no intention of raising the child.

Meanwhile, the birth mother’s partner would have to go to the court to be declared a legal parent; in other words, they’re adopting their own child.

As I have been working on this bill, Speaker, I often cite the following as an example when I try to explain to people what we’re trying to do: When my wife, Christine, and I had our second baby, Elliana, most recently—

Interjection.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you. Elliana was born on a Friday afternoon. By Sunday afternoon, I was sitting in the hospital, in Christine’s bed, and we had my iPad and we logged on to the ServiceOntario website, put in my name, put in Christine’s name, put in Elliana’s name, all that information, and, boom, we were registered. Our daughter was registered as our child. By Wednesday or Thursday, in the mail came her birth certificate and her social insurance number. I know at ServiceOntario, they guarantee you, very fast. All that stuff came in and we just had to pay a simple fee. That’s easy. That’s how parents do it.

But that option is not available to two mothers having their daughter. They don’t have that option of just going online today and to be able to register both parents and register their child. No, in that instance, the other parent has to go to the court and adopt their own daughter to be recognized as a parent. That’s the inequality.

That is the difference we are solving through this legislation—to ensure that all parents in Ontario and all children in Ontario are treated alike, are treated equally, and everybody has the same opportunity, if they can, to just sit on their home bed or their hospital bed with their iPad or whatever device they want to use, go online and register their child by paying a simple fee.

Speaker, as I said, the proposed legislation would, if passed, ensure that both moms—that is, the birth parent and the birth parent’s partner—are legally recognized as their child’s parents from the moment the child is born, without a court declaration, without a court order and all the associated costs that come with it.

This doesn’t just apply to the LGBTQ2+ community. With this bill, we’re working to create a future where all couples who conceive children using assisted reproduction do not have to go through unnecessary steps to be recognized as their child’s parents. The reality is that some couples just can’t have a baby on their own and must rely on donors to conceive, or find a surrogate to carry the child. Right now, couples who use a surrogate need a court order to be recognized as their child’s parents.

Our proposed legislation would allow those couples to be legally recognized as parents sooner, provided that they have a written agreement with the surrogate before conception, the surrogate obtained independent legal advice before entering into the agreement, and she confirms her consent to give up her parental rights after the baby is born.

Likewise, the updated law would also mean that other people who agreed to parent a child together won’t have to go to court to be recognized as parents of the child, provided there is an agreement before the baby is conceived.

Our government believes that the best thing for a child is for there to be certainty about who their parents are at the earliest possible time. Of course, for parents, what all parents do when a baby is born or comes into our lives is to pay attention to the child, to provide all the important necessities of life to the child and to give them the love they need. Parents, when a baby comes into our lives, should be more focused on diapers and naptime, not on getting lawyers to get court declarations to be recognized as parents. That, I think, is a very important step.

The other very important aspect in this bill, through the Vital Statistics Act, is that we’re ensuring that our forms reflect the reality of our families today. For that, it is extremely important that we use gender-neutral language in our forms. You will see, in Bill 28, references to using language such as “parents” as opposed to just “mother” and “father,” to ensure that all our forms are understanding of all families and all parents in our province.

Our plan is to update these forms in the manual form they exist in, in the paper form they exist in, and, of course, to change these forms online, so that the ease of convenience is available to all parents in the province.

I also just wanted to take a few moments to acknowledge the many people who have helped with the creation of this bill. First, I want to recognize Rachel Epstein, and Jennifer and Kirsti Mathers McHenry and their children, Cy and Ruby. They are with us today. Thank you very much for your incredible advocacy—and a big thanks to Kirsti and Jennifer for lending their children’s names to the bill that the member from Parkdale–High Park brought forward. My understanding is that it says “Cy and Ruby,” but Ruby is older than Cy. So it should have been “Ruby and Cy,” but somehow it happened to be “Cy and Ruby.” I’m sure Kirsti and Jennifer are working that out at home.

They have been incredible partners during this entire journey by sharing their own personal story—which is difficult, at times, for anybody to do—with the entire province, but also compelling us, the legislators and the government, to take that important step as well.

I noticed that Joanna Radbord is also in the House. Thank you, Joanna, for being here. Joanna’s son Cameron is a page, who I did not acknowledge last time—I don’t know if Cameron is in the House right now or if he’s in his math class; I think he’s probably in his math class if he’s not here. but thank you, Joanna, for your legal expertise in this very important issue as well.

Clearly, this has been a team effort, and I do want to take a bit of time to recognize the member from Parkdale–High Park for introducing a private member’s bill on this matter. I have had the great honour and opportunity to work with the member from Parkdale–High Park now on a few occasions, on some very important bills. She has been—to me, personally—a leader in a lot of these important issues and an education for me. It has always been an honour to work with you, honourable member.

Over the summer we worked closely with the member from Parkdale–High Park, and I believe that the legislation we have introduced achieves the same overall goals as her private member’s bill. I would like to thank the member for her advocacy on this important issue and for her leadership.

In developing this bill, Speaker, my ministry also met with a number of other key stakeholders’ groups, including lawyers, fertility experts and members of the LGBTQ2+ community, to get their input on our proposed bill. We also drew on the work already undertaken by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, including the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, and the experiences of BC and Alberta.

I want to sincerely thank everyone who participated for their time and valuable contribution to the process. I also would like to thank the very hardworking members of my staff, and Susan Kushneryk, here in the chamber, for spending her entire summer working on this important bill, and staff from the Ministry of the Attorney General. There is an entire team of very dedicated people who worked extremely hard throughout the summer, meeting with our stakeholders, learning from them, discussing ideas, drafts being exchanged, to make sure that we have a bill that really ensures quality in our province.

Speaker, the proposed All Families Are Equal Act will seek to end the legal uncertainty faced by parents who conceive their children using assisted reproduction. Our bill would update Ontario’s parentage laws so parents who have children with the assistance of a known donor won’t need to spend money on lawyers. They also won’t need to take time off work to go to court just so they can be legally recognized as their child’s parents.

This is about ensuring that all kids conceived with or without assistance are treated equally by recognizing the legal status of their parents, whether they are LGBTQ2+ or straight. This is about ensuring that all families in Ontario are treated equally.

Speaker, at this time our government will not be putting forth any more speakers towards the debate of this bill, so that it is passed as quickly as possible. We are really hopeful that we can move this bill sooner than later to the committee and to third reading, so that it can be passed into law and we can move forward with making important changes in our entire system in terms of all the forms to be updated, so that families can have the opportunity to access a system that accords equality.

As we can all imagine, as we speak children are being born in this province of LGBT parents or straight. We want to make sure we have a regime in place that ensures equality for everyone. We do hope that the opposition parties would agree, as well, that this bill should be passed promptly. I have full confidence in all the honourable members, that they will take this matter seriously and will help in the prompt passage of this bill.

Today, Speaker, I urge all members to stand together in support of equality by supporting this proposed Bill 128. Thank you very much for your time and, once again, thank you to all our great partners who are here in this room. Thank you for your advocacy and being here.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Congratulations to Minister Naqvi—I want to call him Yasir here; I hope you’ll indulge that, Mr. Speaker, when it’s a friendly thing—on the birth of their second child, and to his wife Christina and her little guy, I forget his name—

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Rafi.

Mr. Bill Walker: Rafi. Thank you very much.

I want to commend him as well—I mean, that’s pretty impressive, the birth certificate in four days; you’re doing it in the hospital and you’re doing it online—but I do want to bring up that one of my colleagues last week, I think it was the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, was talking about how people lose their licence and it takes forever to get it back. I’m not blaming ServiceOntario staff, because it’s obviously something that is more at the higher level of a directive.

So I hope that the minister will take that back and try to address that one, because people in a rural area like ours not having access to a driver’s licence truly impacts their ability for all kinds of things across the spectrum.

My understanding of reading this briefly—and I know we’re going to debate a little more this afternoon—is that you’re actually going to add more terminology, but you are going to maintain “mother” and “father.” That’s something, certainly in my riding, I’ve heard—I haven’t heard a lot about this piece of legislation; it’s relatively new. It was on before we left the House, and then, of course, with the prorogation, it has to be reintroduced. But I think what people want is some of that traditional ability to still use the terms “mother” and “father,” “mum” and “dad.” Certainly, that’s what I am most calm with.

I think what the minister is doing is bringing some legislation—to bring some modernization to it. There are different terms being used, obviously, in today’s world.

What I also want to talk about—I believe my colleague from Lennox and Addington—there are two more in there.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Frontenac and Lanark.

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you—is the backlog in the courts and a lot of this type of thing, where people are trying to go through the courts to be able to do things. I’ve heard more talk, frankly, from parents in my riding about adoption and their ability to actually get there, to actually adopt children and be able to have the family that they want so much. So, Minister, I would like to appeal that we can try to address that issue so that more people can actually enjoy the family life that many of us have the privilege to do.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure for me to rise today, on behalf of the constituents I represent in London West, to speak to the legislation that is before us this afternoon, the All Families Are Equal Act.

I appreciate the Attorney General acknowledging the incredible advocacy that has been shown by my colleague the member for Parkdale–High Park in bringing this issue forward and in not letting up on making these changes that people in this province have a right to expect.

The Attorney General commented that when you are dealing with the birth of a child, when you are juggling all of the myriad responsibilities that go along with that, you shouldn’t have to worry about what would happen if one of the partners died in childbirth or experienced some kind of tragedy. Heterosexual couples in our province don’t have to be asked for legal recognition as parents, and queer parents shouldn’t have to have that responsibility either.

Ontario courts have recognized that other Canadian jurisdictions already allow equal access to birth registration, and it’s high time for this province to follow suit. Not to move forward on this inequality perpetuates a historical discrimination against LGBTQ families. It is unconstitutional, and it needs to be corrected.

Certainly, members of my caucus are fully in favour of moving this legislation forward to pass these changes as soon as possible.

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

I go back to the Attorney General for a response.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the members from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and London West for their feedback on the comments I made. I will say to both of them, and I think I heard from both of them, that this is a matter of equality. That’s what this bill is all about; hence the name the All Families Are Equal Act. I think we would all agree that we want all families in our province to have the same opportunities, that we want all children in our province to be treated equally.

At the end of the day, the work we do in this Legislature, despite our differences, has only one end, and that is to ensure that there’s prosperity for future generations; that all children in our province, regardless of what background they come from—whether they live in big cities, small towns, north or south, indigenous communities—have the same opportunities.

We know that inequality exists in our laws as it relates to recognition of children. We are, through this bill, rectifying that and we’re making sure that all families, in whatever form they come, have the same opportunities to succeed and thrive, and that those parents who have brought a beautiful new life into this world, into this province, are able to focus on doing what parents do: give love to their children. That’s the essence of this bill.

We call all this debate—that’s the technical term—but I don’t think there’s any debate about this issue. We are talking about something that is innate to us as human beings. We have to pass laws to accomplish that, but so be it. That is our job. For me, this is one of the proudest moments, that I’m standing here and debating on this kind of equality in our province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I do hope that the Attorney General does remain for the debate. I did listen to his portion, but there remain some things that I’m unaware of that weren’t covered in his debate. I’m hoping that the questions that I raise this afternoon are heard and also considered, and possibly even responded to, by the government side during the debate on Bill 28.

I think I want to start off with two things. One of the elements that you see clearly in this bill is a reference to the best interests of the child. That’s made reference to many times in the bill. The second part that I want to explore during this discussion and debate is that we’ve often heard in the past from the government, from the Liberal Party, that they want to make laws and provide legislation based on scientific evidence and facts. I think those two elements need to be—I have some concerns overall.

I don’t have a concern, of course, with equality. I don’t have any hesitation. There are parts of this bill that I think are very much needed, but there are some concerns that remain, some doubts that remain, on how this will all come into play.

So just briefly, we know that under this bill, a child up until the age of one may have upwards of four parents recognized by this legislation. I see the member from High Park shaking her head. Not only is that what I read in the bill, but it is also in the technical briefing provided to myself from the Attorney General—up to four parents up until age one. But after age one, then, there are no prescribed limits in the legislation at the present.

We know a lot of this bill has to do with advances in reproductive technology, which we also know will continue to advance. How far reproductive technologies will advance is anybody’s guess. We would be foolish to believe that further advances won’t happen. That’s an element that I didn’t hear from the Attorney General about this “up to four parents.”

Here’s my question to the Attorney General: We know our Family Courts and our children’s court are significantly burdened with significant delays, wait times and costs. I don’t know if the Attorney General—well, I know I didn’t hear it, but I don’t know if the Attorney General has explored what will be the ramifications on our Family Courts with this bill. Will it exacerbate those already significant delays, costs and burdens? I’m not sure. But neither do I see any evidence provided by the government that they’ve explored this part of the bill. What will be the consequences of that?

We know that with two parents, Family Courts—with a marital breakdown, it is a timely, costly and very messy situation when two parents have a family breakdown. What happens now with four parents in a marital breakdown? I’m not sure. I don’t know if anybody can answer that question. I don’t know if anybody has asked the question or explored how that will impact.

I can say—and I think every member of this House will recognize—each of our constituency offices, each member in this House, already has a significant workload assisting and helping constituents with the Family Responsibility Office, every one of us. There have been all kinds of reports from the Ombudsman, from the Auditor General and all kinds of media reports on just how dysfunctional our Family Responsibility Office is and its inability to find remedies for those families that have broken down in many, many cases.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I apologize to the member for interrupting.

Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order to let the House know that the Treasury Board has tabled Ontario’s annual financial statements for 2015-16 with the assembly, and members have also been emailed a copy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Technically not a point of order, but we appreciate the information, I guess.

I return to the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The Family Responsibility Office is in many cases and for many of our constituents a dysfunctional and broken remedy. It doesn’t provide remedy. I’m wondering how this new piece of legislation will impact the Family Responsibility Office. Heaven knows the difficulties and the problems that they have in tracking down a spouse who is delinquent in payments. How are they going to track down three spouses who are delinquent—or up to three or maybe more—afterwards? I didn’t hear anything from the Attorney General that they have explored these consequences. What are they doing?

There’s nothing in the bill that provides greater abilities to the Family Responsibility Office to address this expanded—I guess that is the best word—scope of jurisdictions that they’ll have to deal with.

I heard the Attorney General say that the Liberal government will not be putting up any more speakers on this bill. I think that’s the wrong way to go.

I think this bill needs to be fleshed out so that we can fully comprehend what we’re asking our administrators, what we’re asking our courts to accomplish and also to be fair to the people in this province; to show the people in this province that these things, this piece of legislation, is very, very important and that we ought not to take it lightly or to dismiss it—that we don’t have to examine it and we don’t have to examine the consequences of this legislation, both positive and negative, because, as I said at the beginning, there are parts of this bill that I think are, indeed, positive.

Maybe all of it is positive. But we just don’t have the information for us to come to that conclusion at the present time. Indeed, I would say that we don’t have nearly enough information to make that judgment or come to that conclusion.

This bill often references the courts to make decisions that are in the best interests of the children. We’re asking the courts to examine all those details—whether it be with three parents or two parents or four parents or whatever—and make your decisions about custody, make your decisions about child support and make your decisions about parenting direction, based on the best interests of the child. Of course, nobody’s going to disagree with that. But I think it’s also important that we, in this House, do the same: that we examine this legislation on the basis of what is in the best interests of the children.

To me, it’s not good enough for us to introduce a piece of legislation that says, “Somebody else will make decisions based on the best interests of the children,” if we do not uphold ourselves to the same level of responsibility.

So I beg to differ with the Attorney General. I do hope that the government does put up some more speakers so that some of my concerns and some other concerns that may be raised during debate can be answered and can be fleshed out, again, not solely for our benefit here in this Legislature but also for the benefit of the people we represent, so that they have a better and full understanding of what this bill entails. We can’t expect the people we represent to have a full and complete understanding of this legislation if we fail to put any debate and examination into it ourselves.

I also want to raise this with the government and with the Attorney General: Far too often, we see legislation advanced in this assembly where debate is either cut off short procedurally through time allocation motions or programming motions or what have you, and where committees are prevented from further comprehensive examination of the legislation.

There’s one right at the moment—Bill 13—that passed second reading due to a time allocation motion last Thursday. It was referred directly to a committee. The people of Ontario had until 3 p.m. Friday afternoon to indicate they had an interest in speakin